Historical and Archaeological Resources Report

Historical and Archaeological Resources Report
PHASE I HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESOURCES STUDY
LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT
MASON AND OTTAWA COUNTIES, MICHIGAN
DECEMBER 2015
(PUBLIC DRAFT VERSION)
PREPARED FOR:
CONSUMERS ENERGY
330 CHESTNUT ST.
CADILLAC, MI
Results of a Phase I Historical and Archaeological Resources Study of the Ludington Pumped Storage Project,
Including the Ludington Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Facility in Pere Marquette and Summit Townships, Mason
County, and the Pigeon Lake North Pier in Port Sheldon Township, Ottawa County, Michigan
Submitted by:
Dr. Robert C. Chidester, RPA
Project Manager / Principal Investigator
Prepared by:
Robert C. Chidester, Ph.D.
Maura Johnson, M.A.
Phillip R. Bauschard, B.A.
Daniel Hershberger, B.A.
Kate J. Hayfield, B.S.
The Mannik & Smith Group, Inc.
1800 Indian Wood Circle
Maumee, OH 43537
Submitted to:
Consumers Energy
330 Chestnut St.
Cadillac, Michigan 49601
Lead Federal Agency:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
December 2015
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In May 2015, Consumers Energy (Consumers) contracted The Mannik & Smith Group, Inc. (MSG) to perform a
cultural resources survey for the Ludington Pumped Storage Project (LPSP). The LPSP includes the approximately
1,500-acre hydroelectric facility in Mason County, and a 1.8-acre satellite recreation site in Ottawa County. 1 The LPS
facility (LPSF) was constructed between 1969 and 1972 and is jointly owned and operated by Consumers and Detroit
Edison (DTE). Its current operating license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) expires on June
30, 2019. The project Owners (Consumers and DTE) are using FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) to
prepare a re-licensing application. The Owners have already filed the Pre-Application Document and Notice of Intent
to see a new license for the facility, as well as a Revised Study Plan for Cultural Resources. FERC issued a Study
Plan Determination for the Project on December 1, 2014. Consumers expects to file the final application for the new
license in June 2017.
Due to FERC’s involvement, the re-licensing process is considered a federal undertaking subject to review under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The primary object of the current
LPS project is to complete all cultural resource studies and consultation activities needed to satisfy the current
requirements of FERC’s Study Plan Determination and ILP. Essential components of the LPSP include defining the
project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) and identifying historical and archaeological resources within the APE that
are listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The project is being conducted as part of
the consultation process between FERC, DTE, Consumers, and the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office
(MISHPO).
For the current LPSP, the undertaking is the FERC license renewal. No change in operation or addition of facilities is
proposed as part of the re-licensing, nor is there any change in the capacity of the facility. Likewise, no impacts from
continued hydroelectric pumped storage operations are anticipated as a result of the relicensing, and no physical,
visual or auditory effects will result outside the permit boundaries. Because the effects of the current proposed project
will be confined exclusively to the LPSF, the recommended APE therefore corresponds to the current property
boundaries of the licensed project, which includes both the LPSF and the Pigeon Lake North Pier (PLNP) site.
In July 2015, MSG completed a literature review within a 2.0-km (1.2-mi) study area around the LPSF. Using the
MISHPO’s data system, we determined there are no cultural resources within the study area that are listed in or
eligible for the NRHP or the Michigan State Register of Historic Places. Seventeen previously recorded
archaeological sites are located in the study area, including 13 prehistoric sites and 4 historic-period sites. Of these,
six sites have been determined not eligible for the NRHP, while the remaining sites have not been formally evaluated.
Two of the prehistoric archaeological sites, 20MN48 and 20MN49, are located directly within the LPSF project
boundary. However, both were destroyed during the initial construction of the facility from 1969-1972 and are among
those determined not eligible for the NRHP. A literature review encompassing a 2.0-km (1.2-mi) buffer around the
Pigeon Lake North Pier project area similarly revealed that no known archaeological sites are located within this
study area.
The historic resources survey was completed from August 10-11, 2015. Field reconnaissance included all
aboveground properties within the project APE, including those previously surveyed. Our goal was to document the
current condition and integrity of those resources. The survey included the upper reservoir, penstocks, powerhouse
and ancillary structures at the LPSF (including a guardhouse and four recreational sites), as well as the PLNP site.
All but two of these properties were previously recorded by CCRG in 2011. Based on survey results and analysis, the
LPSF retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association and is
recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, C, D and Criteria Consideration D. The
The recreation site was established as part of a Settlement Agreement approved by Commission Order on January 23, 1996
(74 FERC Part 61,055).
1
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
ES-1
recommended boundary for the eligible property include only the 1,500-acre facility in Mason County, as the
property most directly associated with construction, operation and maintenance of the hydroelectric project. It does
not include the PLNP site, which is a mitigation site that has no individual significance and no direct association with
the history or development of the LPSF. Given the scale and nature of the proposed project, it is the opinion of MSG
that the effects of the re-licensing do not meet the Criteria of Adverse Effect (36 CFR Part 800.5[a][1]) and the project
will have no adverse effect on the LPSF, which is eligible for NRHP listing.
The archaeological survey was completed from August 10-21, 2015. Survey methods included a combination of
visual inspection of areas that were likely disturbed during the construction of the LPSF from 1969-1972, and shovel
testing of undisturbed areas at 15-meter (50-foot) intervals. The survey confirmed the destruction of previously
recorded sites 20MN48 and 20MN49. The survey resulted in the identification of 15 previously unrecorded
archaeological sites, which have been assigned state trinomial site numbers 20MN324-20MN338. Site types include
four lithic isolates, one small lithic scatter, nine historic homestead / farmstead sites, and one historic site related to
the construction of the LPSF. All five of the prehistoric archaeological sites appear to represent ephemeral uses of
the landscape at undetermined times during prehistory, and are recommended not eligible for the NRHP due to a
lack of research potential (criterion D). Eight of the ten historic archaeological sites have been heavily disturbed
and/or represent ephemeral fragments of 20th-century activity and are also not recommended eligible for the NRHP.
Two of the historic-period sites, however, are recommended as potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for
an ability to yield significant information relevant to important research questions in regional farmstead archaeology.
These are sites 20MN324 and 20MN329, both located in Section 11 of Summit Township. However, as no changes
in the operation of the LPSF are currently planned and no new construction is under consideration, these two sites
are not in imminent danger of disturbance or destruction. Therefore, no additional investigation of these sites is
recommended at this time. Should new construction or changes in plant operations be considered in the future,
formal evaluation of these two sites in the form of Phase II archaeological testing will be necessary.
In addition to the archaeological sites identified during the archaeological survey, the LPSF Project Area contains
both eroding bluff faces and stabilized dune formations that may have the potential for deeply buried prehistoric
archaeological sites. Typical Phase I survey methods such as shovel testing are not designed to identify such deeply
buried sites. Therefore, any future development or changes in plant operations will require an evaluation of the
potential for deeply buried archaeological resources that may be affected.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
ES-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION:
PAGE NO.:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... ES-1
1.0
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ............................................................................................................. 1
1.3
REPORT AND PROJECT PERSONNEL .................................................................................................... 2
2.0
BACKGROUND RESEARCH .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXTS ............................................................................................................... 7
2.2
PREHISTORIC CONTEXTS ................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.1 PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (CA. 12,000-10,000 B.P.) .................................................................. 13
2.2.2 ARCHAIC PERIOD (CA. 10,000-3,000 B.P.) .......................................................................... 13
2.2.3 WOODLAND PERIOD (CA. 3,000-350 B.P.) ........................................................................... 14
2.3
HISTORIC CONTEXTS ......................................................................................................................... 17
2.3.1 MASON COUNTY ................................................................................................................. 17
2.4
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 25
2.4.1 LPSF STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................. 28
2.4.2 PIGEON LAKE NORTH PIER STUDY AREA ............................................................................. 33
3.0
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY ........................................................................................................................ 36
3.1
RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................................................................... 36
3.2
SURVEY METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 36
3.3
SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 36
3.3.1 UPPER RESERVOIR ............................................................................................................. 37
3.3.2 PENSTOCKS........................................................................................................................ 37
3.3.3 POWERHOUSE .................................................................................................................... 37
3.3.4 ANCILLARY STRUCTURES..................................................................................................... 38
3.3.5 PIGEON LAKE NORTH PIER (PLNP) ..................................................................................... 39
4.0
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY .............................................................................................................................. 40
4.1
RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................................................................... 40
4.2
METHODS ......................................................................................................................................... 40
4.2.1 FIELD METHODS ................................................................................................................. 40
4.2.2 LABORATORY METHODS ...................................................................................................... 41
4.2.3 ARTIFACT CURATION ........................................................................................................... 47
4.3
SURVEY RESULTS – LPSF PROJECT AREA ........................................................................................ 47
4.3.2 SURVEY AREA A ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.3 SURVEY AREA B ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.4 SURVEY AREA C ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.5 SURVEY AREA D ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.6 SURVEY AREA E ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.7 SURVEY AREA F ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.8 SURVEY AREA G ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.9 SURVEY AREA H ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.10 SURVEY AREA I.................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.11 SURVEY AREA J ................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.12 SURVEY AREA K ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.13 SURVEY AREA L................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.14 SURVEY AREA M................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.15 SURVEY AREA N ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.16 SURVEY AREA O ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION:
4.4
PAGE NO.:
4.3.17 SURVEY AREA P ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.18 SURVEY AREA Q ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.3.19 SURVEY AREA R ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
SURVEY RESULTS – PIGEON LAKE NORTH PIER PROJECT AREA ........ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
5.0
NRHP EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ........................................................................................ 49
5.1
HISTORIC/ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 49
5.2
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 50
5.2.2 PREHISTORIC LITHIC ISOLATES ............................................................................................ 51
5.2.3 PREHISTORIC LITHIC SCATTERS .......................................................................................... 52
5.2.4 FARM/ORCHARD-ASSOCIATED HISTORIC ARTIFACT SCATTERS ............................................. 52
5.2.5 FARMSTEAD/ORCHARD SITES .............................................................................................. 54
5.2.6 LPSF-ASSOCIATED ARTIFACT SCATTERS ............................................................................ 57
6.0
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 58
7.0
REFERENCES CITED ......................................................................................................................................... 60
FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1
FIGURE 1.2
FIGURE 1.3
FIGURE 1.4
FIGURE 2.1
FIGURE 2.2
FIGURE 2.3
FIGURE 2.4
FIGURE 4.2
FIGURE 4.3
FIGURE 4.4
FIGURE 4.6
FIGURE 4.7
FIGURE 4.8
FIGURE 4.9
FIGURE 4.11
FIGURE 4.12
FIGURE 4.13
FIGURE 4.14
FIGURE 4.15
FIGURE 4.16
FIGURE 4.17
FIGURE 4.18
FIGURE 4.19
FIGURE 4.20
FIGURE 4.21
FIGURE 4.22
FIGURE 4.23
FIGURE 4.24
FIGURE 4.25
FIGURE 4.26
FIGURE 4.27
PROJECT LOCATION, LPSF PROJECT AREA ......................................................................................... 3
PROJECT LOCATION, PIGEON LAKE NORTH PIER PROJECT AREA .......................................................... 4
PROJECT BOUNDARY AND APE, LPSF PROJECT AREA......................................................................... 5
PROJECT BOUNDARY AND APE, PIGEON LAKE NORTH PIER PROJECT AREA ......................................... 6
SOIL TYPES WITHIN THE LPSF PROJECT AREA ................................................................................... 11
SOIL TYPES WITHIN THE PIGEON LAKE NORTH PIER PROJECT AREA ................................................... 12
LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS, LPSF PROJECT AREA ....................................................................... 26
LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS, PIGEON LAKE NORTH PIER PROJECT AREA ........................................ 27
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES FOUND ...................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA A ..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
20MN324 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA B ..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA C ..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
FIELD SITE C1 SITE SKETCH MAP ..................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA D ..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
20MN327 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA E ..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
20MN328 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
20MN329 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA F ..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA G..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
20MN330 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA H ..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
20MN331 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
20MN332 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA I ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
FIELD SITE I1 SITE SKETCH MAP....................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
20MN333 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
20MN334 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA J...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
20MN335 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA K ..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION:
PAGE NO.:
FIGURE 4.28
FIGURE 4.29
FIGURE 4.30
FIGURE 4.31
FIGURE 4.32
FIGURE 4.33
FIGURE 4.34
FIGURE 4.35
FIGURE 4.36
FIGURE 4.37
FIGURE 4.38
20MN336 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
20MN337 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA L ..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
FIELD SITE L1 SITE SKETCH MAP...................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA M .................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA N ..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA O..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA P ..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
20MN338 SITE SKETCH MAP ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA Q..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS, SURVEY AREA R ..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
TABLES
TABLE 2.1
TABLE 2.2
TABLE 4.1
TABLE 4.2
TABLE 4.3
TABLE 4.4
TABLE 4.5
TABLE 4.6
TABLE 4.7
TABLE 4.8
TABLE 4.9
TABLE 4.10
TABLE 4.11
TABLE 4.12
TABLE 4.13
TABLE 4.14
TABLE 4.15
TABLE 4.16
TABLE 5.1
SOIL TYPES WITHIN THE LPSF PROJECT AREA ..................................................................................... 9
SOIL TYPES WITHIN THE PIGEON LAKE NORTH PIER PROJECT AREA ................................................... 10
FEATURES RECORDED WITHIN 20MN324 .......................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN324 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
FUNCTIONAL PATTERNING OF ARTIFACTS BY FIELD SITE, 20MN324 .. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN325 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN326 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN327 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN328 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN329 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN331 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN332 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN333 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN334 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN335 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN336 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN337 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY PROVENIENCE, 20MN338 ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
NRHP ELIGIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ......................................... 51
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
HISTORIC MAPS AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY PHOTOGRAPH LOG
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY PHOTOGRAPH LOG
PIGEON LAKE NORTH PIER PHOTOGRAPH LOG
ARTIFACT CATALOG
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In May 2015, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) contracted The Mannik & Smith Group, Inc. (MSG) to
conduct a Phase I archaeological and historical resources survey of the Ludington Pumped Storage Facility (LPSF)
in Pere Marquette and Summit townships, Mason County, Michigan. The LPSF was constructed from 1969-1972 and
is jointly owned and operated by Consumers and Detroit Edison (DTE). It is currently operating on a 50-year license
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This license will expire in 2019; therefore, Consumers and
DTE are engaged in a five-year re-licensing application process. Due to FERC’s involvement, the re-licensing
process is considered a federal undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The archaeological and historical resources survey is being conducted as part of
the consultation process between FERC, DTE, Consumers, and the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office
(MISHPO). The purpose of the survey is to identify cultural resources located within the project area that are or may
be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The current report describes the results of both the
historical and archaeological resource surveys.
1.1
Project Description
The LPSF is located on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, approximately 4 miles (6.4 km) south of the
City of Ludington in Pere Marquette and Summit townships, Mason County, Michigan. The plant was
constructed between 1969 and 1973 and is jointly owned by Consumers and DTE. At the time of its
construction the facility was the largest pumped storage hydroelectric generating plant in the world. It is now
the world’s third largest pumped storage facility (in terms of generating capacity), and the only one of its kind
in Michigan.
The LPSF is composed of two primary features – the upper reservoir and the powerhouse – connected by
the penstocks. The area within the tailrace and breakwall in Lake Michigan serve as the lower reservoir. A
guardhouse is located at the facility entrance on Lakeshore Drive, and there are four recreational sites
within the 1,500-acre LPS project boundary. Also under the FERC license is an off-site facility in Ottawa
County, approximately 70 miles south of the LPSF. Pigeon Lake North Pier (PLNP), a 1.8 acre satellite
recreation site, was created by Consumers/DTE as a condition of an environmental damage settlement in
1996. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 show the location of these sites.
1.2
Area of Potential Effects
In 2011, Consumers contracted with Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc. (CCRG) to perform a
historic assessment of the approximately 1,630-acre LPSF. The survey area encompassed the entire
project boundary, which is defined by FERC as “a complete unit of improvement or development” that
consists of all dams, reservoirs, other engineered structures, as well as property rights in lands and waters
that are necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a project. The survey did not include
the PLNP site. As a result of their investigations, CCRG recommended that the LPS facility is eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A, C and D, and Criteria
Consideration G. In a letter dated February 21, 2012, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
concurred with CCRG’s recommendation of eligibility. The area surveyed by CCRG in 2011 is shown in
Figure 1.3 (identified as “historic project boundary”).
Under a license amendment filed by Consumers, approximately 130 acres of land have since been removed
from the licensed project boundary by FERC, including one 35-acre parcel at the northwest corner of the
property and one 95-acre parcel at the southeast corner of the property. Preliminary design plans indicated
that the parcels may be needed for staging or construction activities; in fact, neither parcel has been used
for any project purpose. As part of the amendment process, field investigations and research within those
tracts were conducted (Dunham 2103; Dunham and Espenshade 2013) to determine if historic properties
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
1
are present within those boundaries. The surveys identified no archaeological sites or aboveground
resources that are eligible for or listed in the NRHP, and no significant functional or historical association
with the LPS’s operations. The application to remove the 35-acre parcel was approved by FERC in October
2013; the larger parcel was removed in May 2015. The current LPSF boundary is shown in Figure 1.3, with
the two removed parcels notated as such.
According to 36 CFR 800.16(d), the area of potential effects (APE) is defined as the geographic area within
which an undertaking may alter the character or use of historic properties, if present. The APE is influenced
by the scale and nature of the undertaking, and may be different for different kinds of effects that may result
from it. In defining the APE, the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to historic properties should
be considered, in terms of the aspects of integrity from which the property derives its significance. Under
FERC regulations, the APE specifically includes “the lands enclosed by the project’s boundary and lands or
properties outside of the project’s boundary where project construction and operation or project-related
recreational development or other enhancements may cause changes in the character or use of historic
properties, if any historic properties exist.”
For the current LPSP, the undertaking is the FERC license renewal. Project activities are entirely limited to
the LPSP boundaries. No change in operation or addition of facilities is proposed as part of the re-licensing
at the LPSP, nor is there any change in the capacity of the facility. Likewise, no impacts from continued
hydroelectric pumped storage operations are anticipated as a result of the relicensing, and no physical,
visual or auditory effects will result outside the permit boundaries. Because the effects of the current
proposed project will be confined exclusively to the LPSF, the recommended APE therefore corresponds to
the current boundaries of the licensed project, which includes both the LPSF and the PLNP site. Figures 1.3
and 1.4 show the current project APE.
1.3
Report and Project Personnel
This report contains sections detailing the results of background research on the environmental, prehistoric
and historic contexts of the project areas; the research designs, methods and results of the historical
resources survey; the research design, methods and results of the archaeological survey; NRHP eligibility
evaluations of all historical and archaeological resources identified during the survey, including
determinations of effect; and recommendations regarding cultural resource management planning measures
that Consumers and DTE may choose to implement as environmental commitments for the FERC relicensure process.
Numerous key personnel contributed to the completion of the historical and archaeological surveys as well
as this report. Dr. Robert Chidester, RPA, served as MSG’s Project Manager as well as the Principal
Investigator and Field Director for the archaeological survey. Dr. Chidester was assisted during the
archaeological survey by Crew Chief Phillip Bauschard and archaeological technicians Jay Baril, Lars Boyd,
C. Lorin Brace VI, Samuel Burns, Adam Darkow, Elizabeth Hickle, Douglas Lewis, Michael Millman, Katrina
Newburn, Kathryn Peliska, Kaitlyn Roberts, Emily Powell, and Hannelore Willeck. Mr. Bauschard completed
laboratory processing of artifacts recovered during the survey as well as identification, cataloging, and
analysis of prehistoric artifacts; Dr. Chidester completed the identification, cataloging, and analysis of
historic artifacts. Maura Johnson, M.A., served as the Principal Investigator for the historical resources
survey. She conducted background research on local historic contexts as well as the history of the LPSF,
and she conducted the survey of historic properties in and around the project areas. She was assisted in
these tasks by Mr. Daniel Hershberger. Dr. Chidester and Ms. Johnson are the primary authors of this
report, with assistance from Mr. Bauschard and Mr. Hershberger. Bryan Agosti, M.S., served as MSG’s GIS
specialist and created a GIS database for this project. Mr. Agosti, Kate Hayfield, B.A., and Mr. Bauschard
created the graphics for this report. William Rutter, M.A., M.S., served as MSG’s senior Quality Assurance /
Quality Control reviewer for the project. Report formatting and production were completed by Ms. Victoria
Rodriguez.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
2
Figure 1.1
Project Location, LPSF Project Area
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
3
Figure 1.2
Project Location, Pigeon Lake North Pier Project Area
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
4
Figure 1.3
Project Boundary and APE, LPSF Project Area
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
5
Figure 1.4
Project Boundary and APE, Pigeon Lake North Pier Project Area
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
6
2.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH
2.1
Environmental Contexts
Before proceeding to a discussion of cultural contexts and the literature review of previously recorded
archaeological and historic sites in the vicinity of the project areas, this section will discuss the
environmental contexts of Mason and Ottawa counties. This discussion includes physiography and glacial
geology, climate, biotic zones, and soil types located within the project areas.
At its fullest extent, the Laurentide Ice Sheet of the Wisconsin Glaciation covered all of Michigan and the
Great Lakes Area (Dorr and Eschman 1970; Farrand and Eschman 1974; Flint 1971:477-478). The glacier
finally retreated from Michigan around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago (Flint 1971:492). As the glaciers
retreated, melting runoff water formed outwash and till plains as well as Tundra and Park Tundra biotic
zones. Spruce forest eventually replaced the Tundra and then ultimately yielded to coniferous and
hardwood forests (Fitting 1975; Flint 1971). With the return of animals such as barren-ground caribou and
mammoth to the grasslands at the boundary of the glacier, Paleo-Indians began to enter the region from the
south to exploit the migrating herds (Kapp 1999; Shott and Wright 1999).
The Lake Michigan lobe of the Wisconsin glacial ice sheet is responsible for much of the modern
physiography of Mason County. Five primary land features are present – moraines, till plains, outwash
plains, lake plains, and drainageways. The rolling to steep Lake Border morainic system begins in the
southwestern corner of the county and runs northeast, and is bordered by gently rolling till plains. Sandy
lake plains dominate the western part of the county, where winds coming off of Lake Michigan have resulted
in numerous rolling dune formations. The east-central portion of the county, in contrast, is characterized by
nearly level to gently rolling outwash plains. Numerous streams have dissected the landscape throughout
the county, resulting in steep ravines in some places. Today, Mason County is characterized by a moderate
climate with localized variations due to the proximity of Lake Michigan and changes in topography. The
average temperature in winter is 24.2 ºF, while in the summer it is 68.5 ºF. Total annual precipitation
averages 31.86 inches, with the majority (17.52 inches) falling between April and September. The average
winter snowfall is 82.8 inches (Johnson 1995:2-3, 252).
Similar to Mason County, the modern physiography of Ottawa County is primarily the result of the
Wisconsinan glaciation. A layer of glacial drift that ranges from less than 100 feet to over 300 feet in
thickness covers the entire county. Three primary topographic divisions are present: a low-lying sandy plain
that occupies the western half of the county (representing the bed of glacial Lake Chicago), gently sloping to
hilly upland in the southeastern quarter of the county, and gently sloping to rolling upland plain in the
northeastern quarter of the county. Today, Ottawa County is characterized by a moderate climate that is
heavily influenced by Lake Michigan. Extreme temperatures are rare. Spring often comes late due to a
chilling effect on the air caused by the cold lake water, and at the same time, the warming of the lake during
the summer results in a later on-set of cold weather in the fall. Average temperatures range from 19.5 ºF –
31.6 ºF in January to 61.2 ºF – 80.1 ºF in July. More than half (57%) of annual precipitation falls from April –
September, with total annual precipitation averaging 31.58 inches. The average annual snowfall is 66
inches, although this number varies widely from year to year (Pregitzer 1972:135-136).
The current project areas are located in the transition zone between the Carolinian and Canadian biotic
provinces. Mammalian populations native to the Carolinian province at the time of European contact
included opossum, raccoon, striped skunk, gray fox, bobcat, gray squirrel, southern flying squirrel, pine
mole, cottontail rabbit, and white-tailed deer (Mason 1981). Avian groups native to the Carolinian biotic
province included the wild turkey, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, vulture, redheaded woodpecker,
passenger pigeon, woodthrush, and cardinal (Cleland 1966). The Carolinian biotic province is also
characterized by mixed deciduous forest, including oak, hickory, basswood, walnut, ash and similar species
(Shane 1994).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
7
Mammalian species common in the Canadian biotic province include the star-nosed mole, multiple species
of shrew, multiple bat species, black bear, raccoon, marten, fisher, mink, short- and long-tailed weasels,
wolverine, otter, striped skunk, red fox, timber wolf, Canada lynx, woodchuck, chipmunk, chickaree, flying
squirrel, beaver, deer-mouse, bog-lemming, two species of vole, two species of jumping mouse, muskrat,
porcupine, snowshoe hare, white-tailed deer, and moose. Many of these species that range over the entire
Canadian biotic province also range into the Hudsonian biotic province to the north and/or the Carolinian
biotic province to the south; however, the particular assemblage of mammalian species in the Canadian
biotic province is distinct from the Hudsonian and Carolinian mammalian assemblages. A northern
hardwood climax characterizes the vegetation of the Canadian biotic province, with common tree species
including the sugar maple, yellow birch, eastern white pine, eastern hemlock, and beech (Dice 1938).
The project areas are characterized by a variety of soils with differing compositions, textures, and drainage
properties (Figures 2.1-2.2; Tables 2.1-2.2). These properties can generally be correlated with the likely
presence of archaeological resources. Poorly drained soils, for instance, generally retain a low probability
for archaeological resources since they are frequently inundated with water and are otherwise
uninhabitable. Well-drained soils generally retain a higher probability for archaeological resources since they
would have proffered a relatively dry habitation space. Different combinations of soil types within an area
can also be useful for predicting the likely existence of archaeological resources. Well-drained hummocks,
for instance, often contain archaeological resources when in proximity to poorly-drained soils, and may have
been preferred locations for prehistoric hunter-gatherers due to the diversity in faunal and floral taxa that are
characteristic of wetland or estuarine environments.
One environmental aspect of the LPSF Project Area bears particular mention. The eastern shoreline of Lake
Michigan is well known for its sand dune formations, and indeed some particularly impressive dunes are
located In Ludington State Park, approximately 11 km (7 mi) north of the LPSF. Both eroding bluff faces and
stabilized dune formations are present within the LPSF project boundary. Typical of dune landscapes south
of the so-called isostatic “hinge line,” dunes within the project area appear primarily as closely spaced,
overlapping ridges. Natural processes associated with dune formation have the ability to bury archaeological
sites quite deeply within dunes. The likelihood that buried archaeological strata are present within any given
dune formation, however, is dependent on a number of interrelated factors, including fluctuations in the
water level in Lake Michigan, concomitant changes in resource variability and abundance, post-formation
processes that contribute to dune erosion and/or deflation (e.g., post-glacial isostatic rebound), etc. The first
major period of dune formation in the Lake Michigan basin began ca. 3500 B.P., meaning that buried
archaeological sites are most likely to date to the Woodland period (see Section 2.2 below). One recent
study identified just one buried dune site older than the Late Woodland in the entire region from Petoskey in
the north to Muskegon in the south. This same study suggested that south of Petosky, “Rather than being
buried and stratified by sheet sand deposition, [archaeological sites] are found either as constrained pockets
in swales behind foredunes … or as remnants on the slip faces or backslopes of larger dunes at highly
variable elevations” (Lovis et al. 2012:109).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
8
Table 2.1
Soil Name
Map Symbol
Soil Types within the LPSF Project Area
Slope (%)
Drainage
Landform(s)
Broad, flat
areas adjacent
to Lake
Michigan
Escarpments or
Lake Bluffs
adjacent to
Lake Michigan
Acres
% of Project
Area
24.08
1.54%
7.39
0.47%
Beaches
1
0-3
Poorly to
Moderately
Well Drained
Udorthents and
Udipsamments
5F
Very steep
N/A
16B
1-6
Well Drained
Moraines
0.95
0.06%
16C
6-12
Well Drained
Moraines
13.59
0.87%
16D
12-18
Well Drained
Moraines
4.38
0.28%
31C
6-12
Well Drained
Outwash Plains,
Moraines
3.65
0.23%
38C
6-12
Well Drained
Moraines
14.69
0.94%
Outwash Plains,
Moraines
4.04
0.26%
Outwash Plains,
Moraines
55.30
3.54%
Outwash Plains,
Moraines
41.85
2.68%
Moraines
28.82
1.85%
Moraines
12.70
0.81%
Dunes
0.03
0.00%
Remus fine
sandy loam
Remus fine
sandy loam
Remus fine
sandy loam
Boyer loamy
sand
Remus-Spinks
complex
Well to
Excessively
Drained
Well to
Excessively
Drained
Well to
Excessively
Drained
Well to
Excessively
Drained
Excessively
Drained
Excessively
Drained
Spinks-Coloma
sands
47B
0-6
Spinks-Coloma
sands
47C
6-12
Spinks-Coloma
sands
47D
12-18
Spinks-Coloma
sands
47E
18-40
Grattan sand
57E
18-35
62D
3-18
88B
0-6
Excessively
Drained
Lake Plains,
Outwash Plains
3.55
0.23%
89D
0-18
Somewhat
Poorly to Well
Drained
Till Plains
151.83
9.73%
89F
35-50
Well Drained
Manmade
Escarpments
414.00
26.54%
W
N/A
N/A
N/A
779.20
49.95%
Nordhouse fine
sand
Udipsamments,
nearly level
and gently
sloping
Udorthents,
loamy, nearly
level to rolling
Udorthents,
loamy, very
steep
Water
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
9
Table 2.2
Soil Name
Soil Types within the Pigeon Lake North Pier Project Area
Map Symbol
Slope (%)
Drainage
Blown-out
land
BoF
6-50
N/A
Deer Park
sand
DpF
18-45
Well Drained
Kalkaska
sand
KaC
0-12
Well Drained
Lake beaches
Lb
N/A
N/A
Water
W
N/A
N/A
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
Landform(s)
Open Sandy
Areas, Sand
Dunes
adjacent to
Lake
Michigan
Dunes, Beach
Ridges
Outwash
Plains, Lake
Plains
Adjacent to
Lake
Michigan,
Inland Bodies
of Water
N/A
Acres
% of Project
Area
0.42
28.21%
0.39
26.44%
0.01
0.93%
0.64
43.49%
0.01
0.94%
10
Figure 2.1
Soil Types within the LPSF Project Area
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
11
Figure 2.2
Soil Types within the Pigeon Lake North Pier Project Area
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
12
2.2
Prehistoric Contexts
The prehistoric occupation of Michigan is generally divided into three broad periods: Paleo-Indian, Archaic
and Woodland. The Paleo-Indian period encompasses the cultural remains of the earliest recorded
occupations of the region, after about 12,000 B. P., during early postglacial times. The Archaic is identified
by archaeologists as the period where more localized seasonal settlement and subsistence patterns
replaced the broad seasonal migration patterns of the Paleo-Indian period. The innovation of ceramic
technology and the emergence of cultigens generally identify the transition to the Woodland time period.
2.2.1
Paleoindian Period (ca. 12,000-10,000 B.P.)
Early occupants of the region would have encountered a boreal grassland/spruce parkland
environment that harbored migratory barren-ground caribou and bison as well as larger
Pleistocene mega-fauna species such as mastodon, mammoth and musk oxen (Fitting 1975;
Ogden 1977). These early human inhabitants, referred to as Paleo-Indians, were nomadic groups
comprised of small kin-based bands that primarily practiced a focalized subsistence strategy.
Current research suggests that these Paleo-Indian bands repetitively moved within a circumscribed
geographic range to intercept large herd animals during their migratory cycles (Gramly 1988;
Stothers 1996). Over time, the focus likely shifted from large-scale hunting expeditions to a more
regular procurement of game accompanied by a decrease in the overall size of territory exploited
by these groups (Shott and Wright 1999).
Paleo-Indian sites are most easily recognized in the archaeological record by the presence of
fluted spear-points. Five types of Paleo-Indian fluted biface have been identified in Michigan:
Enterline, Gainey, Barnes, Crowfield, and Holcombe (Shott and Wright 1999).
2.2.2
Archaic Period (ca. 10,000-3,000 B.P.)
Environmental changes marked the beginning of the Archaic period. The Great Lakes began to
retreat and approach modern day levels and the mega-fauna population was continuing to
decrease. In response, populations developed new subsistence regimens in order to adapt to the
changing environments created by the shifting lake levels. The wide seasonal migration routes of
Paleo-Indian ‘founder’ populations were gradually replaced by an increasingly more localized
seasonal subsistence strategy during the Archaic time period (Stothers 1996; Fitting 1975). The
Archaic time period is roughly placed between 10,000 B.P. and 3,000 B.P. (Fitting 1975:61; Shott
1999:72). The Archaic is further divided into the Early Archaic (10,000-8000 B.P.), Middle Archaic
(8000-5000 B.P.), and Late Archaic (5000-3000 B.P.).
The Early Archaic time period (10,000-8000 B.P.) is often identified in the archaeological record by
the transformation from large, lanceolate bifaces of Paleo-Indian assemblages to smaller, notched
and bifurcated bifaces. These bifaces are temporally distinctive and have consequently been
interpreted in terms of various biface style-horizons. In the northern lower peninsula, the Early
Archaic is divided into the Plano Horizon and the Kirk Horizon.
The Plano Horizon (10,000-9500 B.P.) is represented by two biface types, Agate Basin and EdenScottsbluff (Shott 1989). While only a few Agate Basin sites are known in Michigan, the Samels
Field site located on Skegemog Point (Cleland and Ruggles 1996) near Traverse City has yielded
Agate Basin bifaces among other Early Archaic biface types. The Kirk Horizon (10,000 to 8000
B.P.) is represented by several stemmed and notched biface types, including Kirk Corner Notched,
Kirk Stemmed, St. Albans, Le Croy and Kanawha (Shott 1999).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
13
This transformation in tool technology (lanceolate to stemmed/notched) has been interpreted as an
adaptive response in subsistence strategies, which had been altered as a result of the extinction of
most megafauna. Populations were still highly mobile, but were exploiting a greater number of
resources such as small animals, nuts and fish (Munson 1988; Neusius 1986). A great deal
remains unknown about the Early Archaic period in Michigan. Certainly, the changing environment
played an important role in both the settlement and subsistence systems of the inhabitants.
Although few Early Archaic sites have been investigated in Michigan, this is likely due to the fact
that lake levels were lower at that time than they are today. Therefore, it is probable that many
Early Archaic sites exist on the old shorelines, but are currently underneath the Great Lakes (Shott
1999).
Like the Early Archaic, the Middle Archaic period (8000-5000 B.P.) in Michigan is not well defined
(Lovis 1999). However, this period is generally considered to have been characterized by
intensified procurement of seasonally available resources, visible in the archaeological record by a
variety of ground and polished stone tools and artifacts suited to harvesting resources. Settlements
also appear to have been more focused toward the exploitation of seasonal resources such as
nuts, wild grains, fish and deer (Ellis et al. 1990; Stothers et al. 2001). In the Great Lakes region,
the Middle Archaic time period is represented by several side-notched variants of Matanzas,
Raddatz and Otter Creek projectile points (Robertson 1989).
The Late Archaic period (5000-3000 B.P.) represents the first period during which populations
relied on modern vegetative communities in Michigan (Roberston et al. 1999). Although the
increased number of Late Archaic sites over previous periods has been interpreted as a substantial
population increase, it is likely that the high levels of the Great Lakes may be partially responsible
for the disparity. During the Early and Middle Archaic, lake levels were low compared to presentday levels, and therefore, it is likely that these sites are now submerged. During the Late Archaic,
lake levels were higher than current levels and therefore the sites are not submerged. The Late
Archaic is also characterized as the initial period of intensive interaction and trade with widespread
regions of North America. The settlement system indicates larger and more permanent
occupations, at which exploitation of resources used in earlier times was supplemented by the
emergance of the first cultigens (Ford 1977). The Late Archaic settlement patterns also included
large seasonal band aggregation for activities such as harvesting the spring fish runs. This
seasonal aggregation also facilitated group ceremonial and mortuary activities for Late Archaic and
Early Woodland populations.
2.2.3
Woodland Period (ca. 3,000-350 B.P.)
The Woodland period in Michigan prehistory is noteworthy for the cultural efflorescence that
occurred. It was during the Woodland period that Native Americans in this region made the shifts
from a seasonal aggregation-dispersal mode of settlement and a foraging mode of subsistence to a
sedentary, agricultural lifeway. Cultural complexity exploded, as illustrated by the appearance of
the Hopewellian and Mississippian cultures (both migrating from the south) as well as the further
development of local cultural traditions. Technology also changed considerably, as the first ceramic
technology was developed and stemmed (rather than notched) projectile points appeared. By the
end of the Woodland Period, Michigan was home to a mosaic of cultural traditions.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
14
The Early Woodland period in Michigan dates to approximately 3000-2000 B.P. Archaeologists
have generally identified the division between Late Archaic and Early Woodland material culture by
the advent of distinctive, cordmarked ceramics. Some theories suggest that the initial purpose of
pottery was to boil and process nuts, thus altering the basic subsistence regimen of the Late
Archaic period even further (Ozker 1977). However, it is important to note that the introduction of
ceramics into Michigan did not occur simultaneously in all areas. Ceramics appear in southern
Michigan earlier than in the northern part of the state. Certain stemmed and side-notched projectile
point styles also carry over from the Late Archaic. Research suggests that innovations that are
typically associated with the Archaic/Woodland transition do not appear simultaneously across
Michigan, nor are they derived from a single source (Garland and Beld 1999). Although a transition
between periods cannot simply be defined by one attribute characteristic, ceramic vessels remain a
useful marker for the Early Woodland period.
The settlement pattern during the Early Woodland period appears to have been a seasonal pattern
of aggregation during the warmer months with dispersal to small camps in the colder months.
Other aspects of material culture include stemmed projectile points, chert scrapers and drills, bone
harpoons, and various copper implements reminiscent of the “Old Copper Culture.” Early
Woodland pottery has been discovered at sites in central and western Michigan, including types
such as Marion Thick (Helman 1950) and Schultz Thick (Fischer 1972).
The Middle Woodland period (2000-1600 B.P.) in Michigan is dynamic in that groups associated
with the Hopewellian cultural system existed alongside various “non-Hopewellian” groups.
Research suggests that the development of the Norton Tradition of west-central Michigan was due
to an influx of Hopewellian peoples into the area. Evidence suggesting a gradual shift from Early
Woodland to Hopewellian attributes is limited. Kingsley (1999) argues that Middle Woodland
Hopewell appears abruptly and fully developed at 10 B.C. at the Norton Mounds Site. This is
contrary to the Saginaw Tradition in the eastern part of the state, where Hopewellian attributes tend
to appear inconsistently and incompletely, reflecting a diffusion of Hopewellian ideas rather than a
migration of Hopewellian peoples.
Although the distribution of sites and population of the Norton Tradition groups is not entirely clear,
some patterns are evident. There appear to be relatively few Middle Woodland Hopewell sites in
Michigan. When present, Norton Tradition sites tend to focus around riverine environments.
Population numbers also appear to be lower when compared to Illinois Hopewell. Kingsley (1981)
argues that the relative lack of sites suggests a settlement pattern focused on reoccupation of the
same sites over a long period of time. This may be supported by the fact that while Hopewell
mound groups are more rare in Michigan, they tend to be more extensive than Hopewell mound
groups in Illinois (Kingsley 1999). Also, the scarcity of Norton Tradition sites in Michigan may be
explained by the nature of resource availability along the western Michigan river valleys. When
compared to the more extensive, mature drainage systems of Illinois, resource availability along
the Muskegon River valley is irregularly distributed (Kingsley 1999).
Norton Tradition mortuary practices reflect typical Hopewellian characteristics. Burial mounds were
built, and the individuals were typically buried with various types of grave goods. Prestige goods
such as decorated Hopewell pottery, copper goods, beads and turtle carapace bowls and utilitarian
materials such as bone awls and chipped stone are some example of these funerary items. The
presence of prestige goods in funerary contexts suggests some level of social organization and
status; however, evidence for a complex ranking system is not present (Kingsley 1999).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
15
In contrast with the Middle Woodland Hopewellian groups in this part of Michigan, archaeologists
understand relatively little about the non-Hopewellian groups. Although the non-Hopewellian
Western Basin Tradition of southeastern Michigan has been subject to study (Stothers 1975),
archaeologists understand less about non-Hopewellian groups in the northern half of the Lower
Peninsula. Generally, many of these groups are described as living an as yet unrecognized lifestyle
that is essentially a continuation of the Late Archaic-Early Woodland (Kingsley 1999).
The Late Woodland period (1600-350 B.P.) in Michigan was characterized by substantial cultural
change. In western Michigan, the Late Woodland is characterized by the Spring Creek Tradition.
The local ceramic tradition during this period is known as Spring Creek Ware, which was made in
the Muskegon and Grand River Valleys. Similarities between this ware and other southern lower
peninsula wares (i.e., Allegan Ware in the Kalamazoo Valley and Western Basin Tradition
ceramics of southeastern Michigan) indicate that populations interacted with each other in these
areas (Holman and Brashler 1999).
The Late Woodland in the extreme northeastern Lower Peninsula reflects variation in ceramic
traditions. In the Straits of Mackinac archaeologists have recorded sequential regional ceramic
sequences such as Mackinac Phase (1150-950 B.P.), Bois Blanc Phase (950-650 B.P.), and
Juntunen Phase (650-350 B.P.) (Fitting 1975; McPherron 1967). The Upper Buff Creek Site
(20AA128) in Alcona County reflects evidence for groups from Saginaw Valley in this part of the
state (Holman and Brashler 1999).
Mortuary treatment at this time generally lacked the elaborate grave goods that were the hallmark
of the Late Archaic through Middle Woodland periods. The construction of conical mounds and
extensive ossuary pits are still evident, however, at some sites in the northern portion of the lower
peninsula. One example of this elaborate mortuary practice is the Juntunen site, which exhibited
five ossuary pits with several examples of dismemberment and skull plaque removal (McPherron
1967).
Late Woodland groups tended to utilize a broad spectrum food procurement strategy, relying on
foods such as fish, deer, mussels, turtles, berries and other riverine resources. Previous research
suggests that Spring Creek Tradition peoples participated in a seasonal round which involved
summer encampments at the mouth of the Muskegon River and hunting camps in the interior
headwater regions during the winter season (Hambacher and Holman 1995). The summer
aggregation was used to exchange goods and to maintain social relationships to secure against
times of scarce resources. This exchange was represented in the trade of Norwood and Bayport
cherts (Brashler et al. 2000; Holman and Brashler 1999). Another aspect of this seasonal round in
west-central Michigan was the use of subterranean cache pits. Assuming an analog with recorded
early historic Native American use of such features, these pits were likely used to store surplus
foodstuffs, hides, and equipment. Cache pits are sometimes found in association with seasonal
residential sites, but are often located independently along seasonal travel routes, in areas where
seasonal resources were abundant and faunal and floral habitat zones overlapped. Some cache pit
sites have been recorded that contain dozens of emptied pits (Holman and Krist 2001).
In the later part of the Late Woodland period (after A. D. 1000) a greater heterogeneity of ceramic
styles indicates that intergroup interaction decreased. There is also little evidence for the exchange
of Norwood and Bayport chert types (Holman and Brashler 1999). It has been suggested that the
Late Woodland sequence along the Muskegon River was disturbed either ca. A.D. 1200 by groups
from the east or later, ca. A.D. 1400, by Upper Mississippian peoples from the southwest (Brashler
et al. 2000). This disturbance is supported by the appearance of “Iroquois-like” pottery attributes in
the ceramic assemblage (Holman and Brashler 1999).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
16
2.3
Historic Contexts
Since formal archaeological survey was not conducted within the Pigeon Lake North Pier project area in
Ottawa County, the discussion below focuses exclusively on historic contexts relevant to the LPSF project
area in Mason County.
2.3.1
Mason County
The area of western Michigan was originally ceded to the newly independent United States by the
British after their defeat in the Revolutionary War. The area was considered part of the larger
Northwest Territories until it became part of the Indiana Territory in 1800. Five years later, the
Michigan Territory was formed. In 1837, when Michigan became the nation’s 26th state, the lands to
the north of Grand Haven were collectively called Ottawa County, owing to the native population
(Dunbar and May 1995).
Prior to the establishment of the Territories, the area around present-day Ludington was known as
Nin-de-be-ka-tun-ning, an Ottawa name meaning the “place of skulls,” and the Pere Marquette
River was named Not-a-pe-ka-gon, which translates to, “the river with head on sticks.” The origin of
these names can be traced back to an Indian battle in which a band of Pottawatomies traveling up
the eastern shore of Lake Michigan came upon an encampment of Ottawas. In the battle that
ensued, the Ottawas were wiped out. To commemorate their victory, the invading Pottawatomies
placed the severed heads of their victims on poles which were then stuck in the sand along the
river banks and lake shore (Strohpaul n.d.).
These descriptive but gruesome names would be used until replaced by ones with a more positive
association to Father Jacques Marquette (also known as James Marquette and Père Marquette).
Marquette, a French Jesuit missionary, was sent to the New World in 1666. In 1668, he built a
church at Sault Ste. Marie, thus establishing the first permanent European settlement in the lands
that would eventually become the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. By 1671 he had established a
mission in St. Ignace, on the southern shores of the same peninsula (Biography.com Editors 2015).
In 1673, Marquette embarked on an expedition to explore the great trading route the natives called
Messipi, or “the Great Water.” While the expedition’s main purpose was to further trade for New
France (now Canada), Marquette’s purpose was one of “a voyage of discovery” to spread the word
of God among the native peoples (Mason County Business Guide [MCBG] 1933). Within the first
year the expedition made it to and traveled down the Mississippi River as far as the mouth of the
Arkansas River (Biography.com Editors 2015).
Upon returning to Lake Michigan via the Illinois, Des Plaines and Chicago rivers, Marquette
travelled up the western shore to stay at Green Bay in an effort to restore his health, which had
been significantly compromised during the expedition. By the fall of the following year, Marquette
began a trek south again, intending to reach the Kaskasia Indian settlement located along the
banks of the Illinois River near present-day Utica, Illinois. This journey was cut short due to his
poor health, and he and two other Frenchmen rode out a severe winter in a cabin on the banks of
the Chicago River. In the spring of 1675, Marquette finally reached the Kaskasia, where he would
deliver what was to be his final sermon (Sawyers 1989).
As his health was continuing to deteriorate and he wished to see his mission at St. Ignace one last
time, Marquette set out on a journey to return to his home in northern Michigan. En route, his
illness grew and as the party reached the area where Not-a-pe-ka-gon (the river with heads on
sticks) flowed into Lake Michigan, Marquette asked to go ashore. After a day or two there, he
passed away on May 18, 1675, and was buried on the bank of the river. The following year, a
group of Ottawa Indians moved the remains to finally be buried at the mission in St. Ignace (MCBG
1933).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
17
An important historical figure and a beloved missionary, Père Marquette has been memorialized
throughout the region. Many towns and parks have been named Marquette in his honor, and a
Jesuit university in Milwaukee bears his name. Perhaps one of the more significant memorials,
though, was the renaming of the river which empties into Lake Michigan where he died. In addition
to the river, there is still a lake and township called Pere Marquette in the immediate area. The
settlement that would eventually become the city of Ludington was also originally called Père
Marquette, but it was renamed after the successful 19th-century industrialist James Ludington, who
was instrumental in developing the city itself as well as the early lumber industry in the area
(MCBG 1933).
The first appearance of white settlers in Mason County dates to 1840, when Joseph L. Wheeler
entered a portion of the lakefront of Pere Marquette Lake. In 1844, John H. Harris entered a 37acre tract in the area of Free Soil Mills. Three years later, Joseph Boyden entered another tract on
Pere Marquette Lake, this one comprised of 72 acres. Also in 1847, Charles Mears established
ownership of land in the area that would become known as Lincoln, located north of the lake (Page
1882:7).
While various white men had visited the Pere Marquette area to hunt, fish and trade with the
Indians, and there was one mill established for a brief period of time at Free Soil Mills, the first
permanent white settlement was established in Mason County in 1847. Burr Caswell first traveled
to the area from Illinois in 1845 to engage in fishing and trapping. Two years later, he and his
family of a wife and two boys and two girls settled in the Pere Marquette area and in 1849, Caswell
constructed the first frame house in the county on his farm. Caswell lived on the farm until the
death of his wife in 1870. He then moved into Pere Marquette, where he supervised a shingle mill
for a time and eventually was the lighthouse keeper at Big Sable Point from 1874-1882 (Page
1882:9).
The area’s primary attraction was the abundance of white pine timber standing in northern
Michigan and the economic potential it represented. As forests in the eastern states were
becoming depleted, lumbermen turned their attention to this region. Charles Mears investigated
possible mill sites along the shores of Lake Michigan as early as 1838. George Farnsworth did the
same in 1844, and in the same year Lt. John W. Gunnison conducted an official shoreline survey in
the area. Sawmills were soon established in the area. On the northern end of Pere Marquette
Lake, a new sawmill was constructed by the firm of Baird and Bean in 1849. George Farnsworth
acquired Baird’s interest in the enterprise in 1851 and in 1854 the mill was owned by George W.
Ford. Funds to purchase the mill were loaned to Ford by Milwaukee businessman and
entrepreneur James Ludington. When Ford defaulted on the loan in 1859, Ludington took over the
mill’s operation. Thus began his development of the town that would eventually bear his name.
Additionally, mills were constructed by Charles Mears at Little Sable in 1851 and Big Sable in
1854. These two settlements were renamed Lincoln and Hamlin in 1861, a patriotic gesture in
honor of the newly elected President and Vice President of the United States. As the timber was so
plentiful, the lumber trade continued to develop. By 1873, when the city of Ludington was
incorporated, there were seven mills in operation (Cabot 2005).
Mason County was organized by an act of the Michigan Legislature in 1855. On April 2 of that year,
the first county election was held. Mason County’s first judge was also its first settler, as Burr
Caswell was elected Judge of Probate and Fish Inspector. The first board of supervisors met in
October, 1855 at Little Sable and a decision was made to locate the county seat on the “northwest
quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 27, Town 18, north of Range 18 west.” This location
was on the Caswell farm, and a frame building there served as the courthouse (Page 1882:10).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
18
The county was originally organized with just three townships: Freesoil, Au Sauble (or Lincoln) and
Pere Marquette. In the ensuing years spanning from 1859 to 1909, thirteen additional townships
were organized in the county. As previously noted, the County Seat was located at the Caswell
farm from 1855-1861. It was then moved to Lincoln Village, a move precipitated by the power of
the voting block formed by the men who worked at Charles Mears’ sawmill there. This arrangement
proved to be unsatisfactory and in 1873 the Mason County Seat was finally established at
Ludington (Mason County Historical Society [MCHS] 1978-1979).
As Mason County was formed, its primary industries were lumbering, fishing and farming. The
competitive nature of the lumbering industry in Mason County, particularly around Pere Marquette,
set the stage for a “clash of the titans” in the 1860s. Eber Brock Ward, then considered the richest
man in Michigan, had vast industrial holdings throughout Michigan, northern Ohio and in some
western states, including interests in mining, steel mills, timberland and shipbuilding. He also
owned 70,000 acres of timberland adjacent to the Pere Marquette River. As president of the Flint
and Pere Marquette Railroad, in 1868 he opened negotiations to acquire property for a rail terminal
with frontage on Pere Marquette Lake. James Ludington, suspecting that Ward would also use a
portion of the property to construct a sawmill in competition with Ludington’s own mill, refused to
sell any property to Ward. Ludington’s refusal also cloaked a tactic to force Ward to sell off some of
his timber, as he had no easy way to ship it out of the area. Ward also refused to sell any property
to Ludington (Cabot 2005:16).
The following year, Ward received word that his rival, Ludington, had illegally cut pine from portions
of his timberland near Pere Marquette. Ward took no immediate action, instead waiting to have
Ludington arrested once he had traveled to Detroit on other business. The charges were timber
theft and trespassing, and the surprised Ludington landed in the Wayne County jail. In the
subsequent hearing, Ward won a court judgement of $650,000 against Ludington, who then
suffered a stroke. Later that year, Ward was able to reach an amicable settlement with the Pere
Marquette Lumber Company, Ludington’s successor in the business (Cabot 2005:17).
Even though James Ludington experienced this apparent lapse of judgement and suffered major
consequences, both monetary and health-related, his legacy lives on in the city which bears his
name. After George W. Ford defaulted on the loan, James Ludington took over the mill whose
purchase he had financed in 1859 and assumed a leading role in the development of the village of
Pere Marquette. The first post office for the village was established in 1864 within the store at the
sawmill. In 1866, in order to provide housing for the growing workforce at the mill, the Filer House
was constructed. The following year, Ludington constructed a large commercial building to house
his general store, called “The Big Store,” supplying a variety of goods to his mill hands and other
village residents. One of the first newspapers in the area, the Mason County Record, was founded
by Ludington in 1867. Also in 1867, Ludington platted the village of Pere Marquette (MCHS 1980).
The original sawmill operation which brought James Ludington to Pere Marquette developed into
the Pere Marquette Lumber Company. In 1869, around the same time as his legal struggle with E.
B. Ward, Ludington sold his Pere Marquette properties (including 25,000 acres of pine forest,
unsold village lots, and the mills) to the company for a total sum of $ 500,000, making him a very
wealthy man. While it appeared that he may have been finished with the lumbering industry in Pere
Marquette, he was not finished with his work on behalf of the village. James Ludington continued to
contribute a portion of his wealth to the development of the village. He brought in a railroad and
funded road and bridge building projects, and proved to be instrumental in securing government
support for improvements to the harbor. James Street and Ludington Avenue were named for him,
while many other streets have been named for his sisters and other family members, though
Ludington himself never married. In 1873, the village of Pere Marquette became the incorporated
City of Ludington (Advantage Marketing & Publications [AMP] 2014).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
19
In the 1870s, the city of Ludington continued to see mill construction, only to witness their closures
by the last years of the 19th century. The first mill constructed on Pere Marquette Lake (in 1849)
passed into the hands of the Pere Marquette Lumber Company as James Ludington sold his area
properties. That mill burned in 1874, to be replaced by a larger operation which was in operation
until 1897. The second mill constructed within Ludington was built in 1869-1870 by Danaher and
Melendy, with James Ludington as a silent partner. That enterprise closed in 1902. E.B. Ward,
though originally blocked by the tactics of James Ludington, finally was able to extend his industrial
empire into the Ludington area in the 1870s. In 1870, Ward constructed his North Mill, which would
come to be Ludington’s last operating mill when it closed in 1917. In 1872 he constructed his South
Mill, which fell victim to the economic depression of 1893. The mill was about to be dismantled in
1895 when it was destroyed by fire (Cabot 2005:22-23).
Industrial development continued, with several other mills being constructed. In 1872 the firm of
George W. Roby and Company constructed a new mill near the Danaher and Melandy site, with
the mill operation built well out into the lake using deposits of sawdust and other scrap to fill the
area between the mill and the banks of the lake. The south side of the lake also saw new
construction as two more mills were established there in 1872. Additionally, shingle mills were
established around the lake, and The Pere Marquette Boom Company was formed to facilitate
moving the cut logs from the river to the various mills (Page 1882:52). As the supply of standing
lumber nearer the mills and the waterways was depleted, logging railroads were soon established
(Cabot 2005:31).
In addition to lumbering interests and operations, the Ludington area would also see the related
industry of useful objects made of wood established in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The
Ludington Woodenware Company made everything from wooden bowls to clothespins to butter
molds; The Pierce Manufacturing Company produced wood-handled brooms and brushes; and the
firm of Cartier, Chapman, and Company originally manufactured wagons and sleighs, later
producing wood lawn and porch furniture (Cabot 2005:25-27). As an adjunct to the lumber industry,
the Ludington area also saw the development of the salt manufacturing industry. In 1881, oil drillers
working in Manistee County, located immediately north of Mason County, failed to locate oil but
instead discovered a substantial underground salt bed (Schaetzl and McWain n.d.). Eventually
other brine (saltwater) wells were drilled in the region and salt manufacture became a byproduct of
the lumber industry in Ludington. In fact, many of the larger lumber concerns also engaged in the
manufacture of salt. The Pere Marquette Lumber Company erected its own salt manufacturing
plant (sometimes commonly known as a “salt block”) in 1885, the city’s first (Cabot 2005:22). The
main reason the manufacture of salt was tied directly to the lumber industry is that the early
process of kettle evaporation used the waste products of the sawmills; the sawdust, edgings and
other scrap were the cheap and plentiful fuel used to provide the heat to evaporate the water,
leaving only the salt behind (Schaetzl and McWain n.d.).
Owing to its location on Lake Michigan, Ludington also developed as a major Great Lakes shipping
and transportation center. As the lumber industry grew in the second half of the 19th century, the
means to get the product to market also developed. In December 1874, the Flint and Pere
Marquette Railroad finally was completed into Ludington. Founded in 1857, over the next seven
years, the line was extended section by section across central Michigan. Under the direction of its
president, E.B. Ward, the Ludington terminal was completed, even though initial negotiations
between Ward and James Ludington broke down in 1868, followed by legal entanglements in 1869
(see above). Unfortunately, Ward only oversaw the operation of the Ludington terminal for about
one month, as he suddenly died on January 2, 1875 (Ivey 1919).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
20
The Flint and Pere Marquette Railroad would then be led by Jesse Hoyt of New York, who had
extensive lumber and salt holdings on the eastern side of Michigan. By May 1875, the Great Lakes
shipping extension of the railroad began with a leased sidewheel steamer running from the docks
at Ludington to Sheboygan, Wisconsin. The route was then shifted to Milwaukee, and was run
under contract with the Goodrich Transportation Company. That contract ended in 1883, as the
Flint and Pere Marquette Railroad began operating their own ships from Ludington to Milwaukee in
1882, to Manistee in 1884, and later to Manitowoc, Wisconsin in 1890. Even with the decline of
lumbering in the region in the late 19th century and the subsequent decline in the rail shipment of
logs, the shipping operations’ earnings continued to grow, as the ships transported wood products,
flour and grain (Ivey 1919).
In 1897, the Flint and Pere Marquette Railroad established their Great Lakes railway car ferry line
running from Ludington to Manitowoc. The world’s first all-steel car ferry, the Pere Marquette,
allowed fully loaded railcars to be brought into the ship’s hold, using tracks running up to the edge
of the dock and meeting up with tracks permanently installed on the ship (Ivey 1919). The success
of this car ferry led to the creation of a fleet of ferries, essentially establishing a continuous rail line
across the lake. Eventually, the ferries would carry passengers, cars and trucks; Ludington grew to
be the largest car ferry port in the world by the mid-1950s. As transportation patterns changed, the
highway system improved, and freight movement shifted from railroads to over-the-road trucks,
however, the fleet dwindled. Today, the last remnant of this historic line is still operating a vehicle
and passenger service using the SS Badger, a coal-fired ferry listed on the National Register of
Historic Places in 2009 (AMP 2015a).
As the lumbering era boom years wound down in the first decades of the 20th century, agriculture
would gain prominence in Mason County. In particular, the Mason County area became known for
its fruit production. A 1918 publication, Western Michigan – “The Land of Fruit and Fortune,” in its
“Statistical View of Western Michigan” noted that Mason County possessed 315,526.87 acres, of
which 171,295 acres of land were in farms. It went on to say, “All kinds of farming are carried on
successfully. In several townships some of the best fruit farms in the state are to be found.”
Elsewhere in the publication, a photograph depicted an orchard in Summit Township with towering
peach trees, the caption noting that the trees were 20 years old (thus planted in 1898) (Western
Michigan Development Bureau [WMDB] 1918:30-36).
The favorable conditions for agriculture, especially fruit trees, are tied to the county’s proximity to
Lake Michigan. The lake offers protection from harsh winter blizzards and moderates the
temperature a few degrees warmer than the areas across the lake in Wisconsin. Additionally, a
heavy blanket of snow (offering an insulating layer to growing crops and young fruit trees) arrives
early in December and stays until late March, when the danger of a hard frost has passed. The
cold water of Lake Michigan also protects the crops from any early April warm-up and spring
budding (WMDB 1918:28).
Mason County’s growth in the 20th century can also be attributed to its location along major
corridors of transportation. As noted earlier, the Flint and Pere Market Railroad’s western terminus
was in Mason County, at the docks in Ludington. That line was extended across Lake Michigan by
the car ferries operated by the railroad. A major north-south trunk line highway also ran through the
county, as the West Michigan Pike (which was also a branch of the Dixie Highway) hugged the
shoreline (WMDB 1918:11). A later highway development, U.S. Route 31, is now the major northsouth corridor in the region, following roughly the same route but further inland. Another major
highway, U.S. Route 10 (designated in 1926), connects Ludington to the state’s largest city,
Detroit. In fact, U.S. Route 10 does not end in Ludington; the route continues on to Manitowoc,
Wisconsin using the car ferry as a designated route/link across Lake Michigan (Bessert 2015).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
21
The Ludington Harbor continues to be a viable and very active shipping link on the Great Lakes.
First established under the authority of the Federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1867, it is still a
significant receiving port for such commodities as limestone, sand, gravel, slag and salts,
averaging 567,792 tons of cargo per year in the period 2004-2008 (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
n.d.). It also serves as the home port of the S.S. Badger (NRHP 2009), and the Ludington Station
of the United States Coast Guard is found within the harbor. Mason County is also in relative
proximity to several major Midwestern population centers: 240 miles to Chicago; 251 miles to
Detroit; 325 miles to Indianapolis; and 396 miles to Cleveland. Access to these markets, along with
a developed transportation network, contributed to the growth of the area in the 19th and 20th
centuries.
All these factors led to the transformation of Mason County from its 19th-century origins as a lumber
capital, to an agricultural region and shipping center in the 20th century, to popular recreation area
in the decades following the 1980s. Where there were once numerous sawmills surrounding Pere
Marquette Lake, there are now upscale condominium developments, the city’s municipal marina,
another private marina, and a waterfront park complete with playground equipment, a picnic
pavilion, and an amphitheater. The marinas attract numerous pleasure craft boaters throughout the
season and one of the condominium complexes operates its own marina for its residents. Yearround recreational opportunities abound throughout the county, including hunting, fishing and
camping. While Mason County still has a strong agricultural component, especially in the
townships, a significant portion of its economic activity is now tied to tourism (AMP 2015b).
2.3.1.1 Pere Marquette Township
One of the three original townships when Mason County was organized in 1855, Pere
Marquette possesses a majority of the early, important historic sites of the county. It was
on the banks of the Pere Marquette River, which runs through the northern portion of the
township, where the beloved missionary Father Père Marquette died and was first buried.
The first permanent white settlement was made by Burr Caswell on the lands immediately
south of the Pere Marquette Lake and River. The first county seat was on the Caswell
farm. It was in this township that the first farms of Mason County were located (Page
1882:70).
Early residents included Richard Hatfield, who first arrived at Pere Marquette in 1850,
working the winter at the mill. In 1854 he married Mary Caswell, daughter of the original
settler. Hatfield had boarded at the Caswell homestead and worked on that farm until he
purchased his own land, totaling 80 acres, in 1855. The land was originally covered with
an Indian “sugar bush.” In October of 1855 he constructed a log house on the property,
which in turn would be replaced by a frame structure, completed in 1872. He continued to
develop his farm, planting fruit trees. Soon he was known for both the quality and quantity
of fruit he produced and his farm was considered to be one of the best in the entire county
(Page 1882:70).
Some of the earliest burial grounds in the area are located within the boundaries of Pere
Marquette Township. In addition to the Indian burial grounds that were located within the
township, the Phillips Cemetery was established in 1866 along South Lakeshore Drive, on
a portion of land that was part of the original Jerimiah Phillips farm. Phillips was one of the
area’s earliest settlers, coming in 1849. Even though the cemetery had not been used for
a number of years, the last burial took place when Dora (Phillips) Hull was laid to rest in
1935. Dora, daughter of Jerimiah, was a nine year old child when the Phillips family
settled in the township, and it was at her special request that she was buried in the
pioneer cemetery (MCHS 1982:9).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
22
Originally, the channel which allowed the waters of Pere Marquette Lake to flow into Lake
Michigan was located in the southern portion of the peninsula that separates the two
bodies of water. In 1860, Charles Mears and his men relocated the channel to the
northern end of the peninsula. It was reported that 18 feet of sunken timbers had to be
removed to make the channel deep enough to be a navigable waterway (MCHS
1980:336). South Lakeshore Drive, which now extends the length of the peninsula, is an
extension of the oldest road in Mason County. Early maps show a plank road running
south from the location of the old channel through the area first settled in the county,
leading to this span of road being called The Historic Mile by some. Other roads in the
area also follow historic paths; Iris Road, which today connects South Lakeshore Drive
with the U.S. 31 Business Route, was originally an Indian Trail (MCHS 1978-79).
In the vicinity of the original channel, four small villages were established: Seatonville,
Taylorsville, Finn Town and Buttersville, this last being the most substantial. Founded by
Horace Butters in 1884, it had about 1,000 inhabitants at its peak and approximately 50
houses lined its two streets (MCHS 1980:336-337). A review of the 1904 township map
clearly shows the village of Buttersville along with two tracts south of it, one owned by the
Butters Lumber Company and the other the property of Horace Butters. On the peninsula
to the north of the village, except for an intermediate tract which was owned by the Pere
Marquette Lumber Company, the rest was shown as belonging to the Butters Salt and
Lumber Company (Geo. A. Ogle & Co. 1904). The complex included a sawmill, shingle
mill, cooper shop and a salt block (MCHS 1980:337). While the village no longer exists,
the name lives on as there is a Buttersville Park and Campground located in the area. In
addition, the Butters family owned and operated the Mason and Oceana Railroad, a
relatively short (35 miles), narrow-gauge line running from the peninsula through the two
counties out to Walkerville, where they ran a lumber camp. According to the 1904 map,
the areas north of Pere Marquette Lake and River were serviced primarily by the Pere
Marquette Railroad, while the Mason and Oceana line ran from the Butters property on
the peninsula on into the township south of the river, then turning southeast into the
neighboring county (Geo. A. Ogle & Co. 1904).
Ultimately, the importance of farming in this area would become overshadowed by the
lumber industry built up in and around Ludington. As the abundant pine forests were
depleted in the area, there would be a shift in the industry to hardwood production. Even
so, as the lumber industry dominated the latter half of the 19th century, it would experience
a sharp decline as the 20th century began and once again farming gained importance. In
the 20th century, West Michigan became widely known for its agricultural products,
particularly its fruit production (WMDB 1918).
In more recent years, Pere Marquette Township, like Mason County, has become a yearround recreational area offering hunting, fishing, boating, and camping among its
numerous inland lakes, its two main rivers (the Pere Marquette River in the southern
portion of the township and the Lincoln River, which serves as the northern border of the
township), as well as many smaller creeks and tributaries found throughout the township.
At the western edge of the township is the Lake Michigan shoreline, also an area of great
recreational opportunities. Today, along with its agricultural production and a small
industrial base, Pere Marquette Township counts tourism as one of its primary industries
(AMP 2015b).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
23
2.3.1.2 Summit Township
Summit Township is the southernmost township of Mason County. Erected in 1859, it was
the first township after the original three to be organized in Mason County. Primarily an
agricultural area from its inception, its earliest pioneers could develop their farms and
orchards during the growing season, but could find work in the lumber mills to the north
during the winters (MCHS 1978-79). The township possessed good soil and a number of
small streams provided fresh water to the farms (Page 1882:71).
Early settlers included William Quevillon, Washington Weldon, and Peter LaBelle along
the west shore of the township. Another early farmer was W.H. Foster, who recorded a
very large 500-acre tract. Foster was the first farmer in the county to use a reaper and
mower. The first settlement that occurred in Summit Township was at LaBelle’s Landing
which was located at the southern end of the very first Mason County Road, South
Lakeshore Drive, in an area known today as Summit Park (Summit Township 2013).
Originally founded by Theodore LaBelle (who came to the area in 1858), it later became
known as Bortell’s Landing. The Bortell family was engaged in commercial fishing as early
as 1898, and today, the sixth generation of the family still operates a fish market and
eatery along South Lakeshore Drive (TripAdvisor LLC 2015).
Another early pioneer who was successful in fruit production was Jerimiah Phillips.
Although the Phillips name is later associated with Pere Marquette Township, the Phillips
farmstead was originally located in Summit Township. Due to a boundary change in which
a one-mile strip of the original Summit Township was returned to the township to the
north, the Phillips land (and thus the Phillips cemetery and school) appear on Pere
Marquette Township maps. Phillips first came to the area in 1849 and quickly established
himself a successful fruit producer. It has been noted that when giving fruit to his
neighbors, he would say, “Eat the fruit, but plant the pits and seeds” (MCHS 1978-79).
Along with farming, Summit Township also witnessed some early lumbering operations,
primarily in hardwood production. The first lumber camps were established at LaBelle’s
Landing and on Bass Lake. In 1867, a steam driven sawmill was operated by Charles
Sawyer at LaBelle’s Landing. Jacob Meisenheimer and Francis Shapee also established
a saw mill and basket factory, and another sawmill at Kistler’s Corners was owned and
operated by Jacob Houk and Sons. Another small settlement in the township was
Meisenheimerville. While not a fully developed village, it was a small collection of
buildings at a crossroads anchored by a store operated by Jacob Meisenheimer, who
arrived in the area in 1852. There was also a church, a blacksmith shop operated by
Gilbert Broder, and the fine residence of a local physician, Dr. Abott (MCHS 1980:462).
Today, Summit Township is still home to numerous fruit orchards and other farming
operations. When the Consumers Power Ludington Pumped Storage Project was
constructed in the late 1960s, approximately 750 acres of township farmland was taken,
including the closing of three rural east-west roads (Demeter 2011:4-1). U.S. Route 31,
now a modern limited-access highway, bisects the township and occupies the strip of land
that separates Hopkins Lake and the Pumped Storage Project’s reservoir at the
township’s northern border.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
24
2.3.1.3 History and Development of the LPSF
A full history of the construction and subsequent development is contained in Demeter
2011, and only a summary will be offered here.
Consumers Power Co. began land acquisitions for the planned LPSF in the early 1960s.
Approximately 1,500 acres of farmland and orchards were cleared from March-October
1969; construction began in July of that year. This first stage of construction included
excavation for the penstocks, construction of the powerhouse access road, and
construction of the unloading dock in Ludington Harbor and a 3.5-mile long haul road from
the harbor to the LPSF. In January 1970 construction of the cofferdam began, and the
powerhouse was begun in June of that year. The first section of the reservoir
embankment was completed in May 1971, and major electrical construction began in
June. The tailrace was flooded for the first time during the summer of 1972. The facility’s
six power generating units were gradually placed online over the course of 1973, and the
plant was fully operational by the end of September. Restoration of the area impacted by
construction was completed by the summer of 1974 (Demeter 2011:4-1 – 4-3).
Since the completion of the LPSF in 1973, only incremental changes have been made to
the facility. One of the most important was the installation of a barrier net in Lake Michigan
around the cofferdam/jetties and breakwall in 1996. The barrier net was installed as a
result of a settlement agreement necessitated by environmental groups’ concern that the
LPSF was causing harm to local fish populations (Demeter 2011:4-21). In addition,
Consumers facilitated the creation of several recreational facilities on Consumers-owned
land, including a park and disc golf course on the northwest side of the LPSF reservoir, a
remote-control model airplane flying field (Hull Field) and an RV campground on the north
side of the reservoir, scenic overlooks that provide views of the LPSF reservoir and Lake
Michigan, and the Pigeon Lake North Pier trail in Ottawa County.
2.4
Literature Review
For the purposes of the cultural resources literature review, two study areas were utilized – one for the
LPSF Project Area and one for the PLNP Project Area. In both cases, the study area was defined as a 2.0km (1.2-mi) buffer around the project area. The literature and data review were directed toward identifying
previously recorded cultural resources and general information about the historic development of the project
areas in Mason and Ottawa counties. Research was conducted at the MISHPO offices and the Library of
Michigan in Lansing; at local libraries and archives in Mason County; at the Bentley Historical Library at the
University of Michigan; and online. The following sources were consulted:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) files
Michigan State Register of Historic Sites (SRHS) files
State Archaeological Site files
Hinsdale’s (1931) Archaeological Atlas of Michigan and the W.B. Hinsdale Papers
Cultural Resource Management reports
County atlases
Historic high-altitude aerial photographs
Results of the literature review for the two study areas are described separately below and are presented
graphically in Figures 2.3 and 2.4. Details about previously recorded cultural resources within the study
areas are presented in tabular form in Appendix B.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
25
Figure 2.3
Literature Review Results, LPSF Project Area
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
26
Figure 2.4
Literature Review Results, Pigeon Lake North Pier Project Area
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
27
2.4.1
LPSF Study Area
National Register of Historic Places
According to the MISHPO files, no individual properties or districts listed on or eligible for the
NRHP are present within the LPSF study area. However, Consumers contracted with CCRG to
perform a historic assessment of the LPSF (Demeter: 2011). As a result of their investigations,
CCRG recommended that the LPS facility is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) under Criteria A, C and D, and Criteria Consideration G. In a letter dated February
21, 2012, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with CCRG’s recommendation
of eligibility. These documents were provided to MSG by Consumers at the project outset.
Michigan State Register of Historic Sites
No properties listed on the Michigan SRHS are present within the LPSF study area.
State Archaeological Site Files
A total of 17 archaeological sites have been recorded within the LPSF study area. These include
13 prehistoric sites (including short-term camp and habitation sites, cache pits sites, a burial
mound, a village, and several sites of unknown function) and four historic-period sites (including a
historic Native American site of unknown function and three sites associated with Euro-American
farmsteads / homesteads). Among the prehistoric sites, Late Archaic and Woodland components
have been identified but the majority of the sites are undated. Six of the 17 total sites have been
determined by the MISHPO to be ineligible for the NRHP; the remaining 11 sites have not been
formally evaluated for eligibility.
Of particular interest are two sites (20MN48 [a prehistoric camp] and 20MN49 [a prehistoric
habitation]) that are shown in the MISHPO records to be located within the current LPSF survey
area. These sites are depicted adjacent to each other within the area now occupied by the
penstocks, and the state site files note that both sites are ineligible for the NRHP because they
have been destroyed (see Appendix D, Photo 70). The site files also note that the site locations are
based on the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA) site files (both sites) and
the Hinsdale (1931) atlas (20MN49 only). As discussed below, the recorded locations of these two
sites may be erroneous.
Hinsdale’s (1931) Archaeological Atlas of Michigan
Hinsdale’s (1931) Archaeological Atlas of Michigan represents a compilation of sites throughout
Michigan which had been, or currently are, associated with prehistoric mounds, earthwork
enclosures, petroglyphs, burials, or villages. The atlas only references location, however, and does
not provide much detail about the archaeological components themselves. Furthermore, these
sites were largely reported by local informants and most have never been field-verified by
professional archaeologists, and therefore their exact locations are often unknown.
The Hinsdale atlas does not depict any sites within the LPSF study area (Appendix A, Figure A1).
The nearest site shown on the map for Mason County is a mound located at the intersection of
modern-day Pere Marquette Highway and Iris Road, nearly 2 km to the north. However, as
mentioned above, the state archaeological site record for 20MN49 indicates that the recorded
location of this site (within the penstock area of the LPSF facility) is based on the Hinsdale atlas. In
an attempt to figure out why this erroneous reference is listed on the site record, the Principal
Investigator contacted Dr. John O’Shea, Curator of the Great Lakes Range at the UMMA, to ask if
the UMMA had any records of either 20MN48 or 20MN49. His response was that the UMMA’s site
files also referenced Hinsdale’s atlas, with no further elaboration on either site (O’Shea, pers. com.
2015).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
28
A further attempt to solve this mystery was made by viewing the W.B. Hinsdale Papers, curated at
the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Several references to
Mason County were located in these files. The first consists of an entry in a handwritten, undated
notebook in which Hinsdale briefly recorded that Mr. F. B. Olney of Ludington had showed him the
sand bluffs at Buttersville. The subsequent entry in the notebook discusses several possible
mounds, although the ambiguous notes appear to refer to sites in Eden Township (“Archaeology
Notebooks – Undated,” Box 4, W. B. Hinsdale Papers [WBHP], Bentley Historical Library [BHL],
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor [UM]). The second reference consists of a typed letter from
Hinsdale to Mr. C. E. Kistler of Ludington dated October 14, 1926. In this letter, Hinsdale
mentioned having visited Ludington a few months prior (most likely the visit mentioned in the
undated notebook) and thanking Kistler for his assistance. Hinsdale then requested that Kistler
mark up a county map that Hinsdale had sent him with site locations, “because we are about to
commence mapping that section of the state for our archaecological (sic) reports” (“Topical Files:
Michigan – Sites, 1924-31 and Undated,” Box 4, WBHP, BHL, UM). A third reference consists of a
series of typed letters dated during the late spring and summer of 1927, between Hinsdale and
Mason County Probate Judge Clark Jagger. The original topic had been Hinsdale’s questionnaire
to county officials requesting information about the modern Native American population in each of
Michigan’s counties. However, in his response Jagger mentioned that he was a close friend of
Clarence Kistler’s and hoped that Hinsdale would visit Mason County again that summer. Although
several letters between the two men discuss their plans for the visit, no documentation of the visit
itself could be found in Hinsdale’s papers (“Writing: Distribution of the Aboriginal Population in
Michigan – Questionnaire Responses, 1927-1935,” Box 2-A, WBHP, BHL, UM).
Finally, Hinsdale’s original site “forms” for Mason County – typed on 3” x 5” note cards – were
examined. Hinsdale recorded a total of 10 sites in Mason County in this way, including one
enclosure, four habitation sites, and five mounds/cemeteries. One site was originally recorded as
being located in Summit Township, although this location is marked out in pencil and replaced by
Riverton Township. One site is recorded in Section 25 of Summit Township, and is specifically
noted as being located at the northern tip of Bass Lake. The remaining sites are recorded in
Custer, Eden, Hamlin, Pere Marquette, and Riverton townships (“Michigan Site Files – Mason
County,” Box 5, WBHP, BHL, UM). All 10 site cards contain specific locational information that rule
out the possibility that a later UMMA employee misinterpreted the locations of these sites, instead
placing them in the locations of 20MN48 and 20MN49.
Given the lack of information on 20MN48 and 20MN49 despite extensive research, these sites
must be considered “ghost” sites. It is certainly possible that Hinsdale had additional site cards for
Mason County that failed to be preserved, and it is likewise possible (although seemingly unlikely)
that two of the ten sites whose original records have been preserved were accidentally mapped in
the wrong location, either by a UMMA staffer or by the former Office of the State Archaeologist.
Regardless, if these sites did exist in the currently mapped locations, they were obliterated by the
construction of the LPSF from 1969-1972.
Cultural Resource Management Reports
Six previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within the LPSF study area.
These include five Phase I archaeological surveys and one Phase II archaeological site evaluation.
These surveys are summarized here in annotated form.
•
Andrews, Wesley. 2006. Phase I Archaeological Investigations of Verizon Wireless Site
No. 731/Pentwater North, 5211 Meisenheimer Road, Summit Township, Mason County.
Report submitted to TES Consultants, P.C. by Andrews Cultural Resources.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
29
In 2006 Wesley Andrews of Andrews Cultural Resources submitted to TES Consultants,
P.C., a Phase I archaeological investigation on behalf of Verizon Wireless for the
proposed placement of a cellular tower at 5211 Meisenheimer Road, Summit Township,
Mason County, Michigan. The 100-ft by 100-ft tower pad location was shovel tested at 10m intervals and yielded one historic ceramic sherd. This isolated artifact was not
designated as a site.
•
Day, Grant L. 2014. Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 0.19 Acres, for New
Cabin Sites in the Mason County Campground Located within the Ludington Pumped
Storage Plant Area, Pere Marquette Township, Mason County, Michigan. Report
submitted to Consumers Energy Company by Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group,
Inc.
In 2014 Grant Day of CCRG submitted to Consumers Energy the results of a Phase I
archaeological investigation of a proposed cabin development area within the Mason
County Campground, located in the NW ¼ NE ¼ SW ¼ SE ¼ of Section 35 in Township
18N, Range 18W, Pere Marquette Township, Mason County, Michigan. The literature
review did not identify any cultural resources previously reported within the project area,
and the survey failed to identify any archaeological sites. No further work was
recommended as a result of the investigation.
•
Dunham, Sean B. 2013. Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 35 Acres,
Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, Pere Marquette Township, Mason County, Michigan.
Report submitted to Consumers Energy Company by Commonwealth Cultural Resources
Group, Inc.
In 2013 Sean B. Dunham of CCRG submitted to Consumers Energy the results of a
Phase I investigation of a 35-acre area slated to be removed from the Ludington Pumped
Storage Plant federally-permitted project area. The area, located within the SW ¼ SW ¼
of Section 35 in Township 18N, Range 18W, Pere Marquette Township, Mason County,
Michigan, was found to have no previously reported cultural resources within it. The
Phase I investigation did not identify any new cultural resources within the project area.
No further work was recommended as a result of the investigation.
•
Dunham, Sean B. and Christopher T. Espenshade. 2013. Phase I Archaeological Survey
of Approximately 95 Acres, Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, Summit Township, Mason
County, Michigan. Report submitted to Consumers Energy Company by Commonwealth
Cultural Resources Group, Inc.
In 2013, Sean B. Dunham and Christopher T. Espenshade submitted to Consumers
Energy the results of a Phase I archaeological investigation of a 95-acre area within the
boundaries of the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant federally permitted project area. The
95-acre parcel was slated to be removed from the federally-permitted project area. The
project area is located within the NW ¼ SW ¼ SW ¼ NW ¼ and the NW ¼ NW ¼ of
Section 13 as well as the SE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 14 of Township 17N, Range 18W in
Summit Township, Mason County, Michigan. The survey resulted in the identification of
two archaeological sites, namely 20MN308 and 20MN309. Site 20MN308 was identified
within [text removed] consists of a roughly 30-ft by 30-ft foundation and two associated
small depressions as well as a small surface scatter of historic materials. The authors
suggest that this foundation was of a structure likely utilitarian in nature, and is most likely
associated with 20MN98. The site appears to be associated with the Marshall family and
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
30
dates between 1900 and the 1920s. Because the site no longer retains the associated
residential structure, is poorly preserved, and the scatter of associated cultural materials
is sparse, the site was found to be ineligible for the NRHP and therefore no further work
was recommended by the investigators. Site 20MN309 consists of two depressions [text
removed] It was determined that it was unlikely that these depressions represent
residential structures. Their location proximal to an apple orchard lead the investigators to
believe that the presumed structures were used for storage associated with orchard
farming. However, the site could not be linked to a specific residential or agricultural
structure(s) and was therefore found not to be eligible for the NRHP. For both cultural
resource sites identified in this study, the authors recommended no further work.
•
Flanders, Richard E. and William Szten. 1981. Phase II Site Examination of 20MN98 in
Summit Township (T17N R18W), Mason County, Michigan. Report submitted to the
Michigan Department of Transportation by Grand Valley State Colleges.
In 1981 Richard E. Flanders and William Szten conducted a Phase II investigation of a
historic site in Summit Township of Mason County, Michigan, located within Township
17N, Range 18W [text removed]. The site was originally recorded by MSU during a survey
of the then-proposed U.S. Highway 31. The site is visible in aerial photography as a
rectangular depression located in an apple orchard. The depression itself measured 40 ft
by 25 ft in dimension and was reported as 5 ft deep at its center. Shovel testing revealed
patches of decaying concrete. Artifacts recovered from these tests included a section of a
stove pipe and canning supplies. There was no evidence reported for structural debris or
outbuildings in the vicinity of the depression. The site is reported to have a date following
1930 and may have been used as a storage building associated with the apple orchard or
nearby gravel operations. The investigators recommended no further investigation of the
site.
•
Lovis, William A. 1978. An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed US-31 Freeway,
Mason County, Michigan: Washington Road to US-10. Michigan State University Museum
Archaeological Survey Report No. 29. Report submitted to the Michigan State Highway
Commission by the Michigan State University Museum.
In 1978 William A. Lovis of Michigan State University conducted an archaeological survey
of the then-proposed U.S. Route 31 highway for the Michigan State Highway
Commission. The survey was conducted within the proposed right-of-way of what would
be U.S. Highway 31 from the Mason County line northward to the then-existing U.S.
Highway 10. No previous archaeological finds were reported within the right-of-way.
However, seven isolated finds and two areas of potential cultural sensitivity were identified
within and adjacent to the right-of-way as a result of Lovis’s survey. The author reports
that six of the seven isolated find locations were pre-contact lithic debitage finds that were
determined not to warrant additional investigation or protection. The seventh isolated find
was determined to date to the early 20th century and was also deemed ineligible for the
NRHP. Of the two sensitive zones, the first could not be relocated and the second area
was recommended for avoidance, although the specific locations of these zones were not
provided in the report.
County Atlases and Historic Topographic Maps
City and county atlases, plat maps, local histories, and historic topographic maps were examined
during the literature and records review. Such documents disclose early patterns of land use for a
given area, helping to shed light on previous geographical distributions of farmsteads, industries,
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
31
cemeteries, and other structural elements of human occupation. These documents are key to
understanding the historical landscape of the survey area and, to some degree, allow for the
prediction of the locations of archaeological or historical remains within it.
The 1904 (Geo. A. Ogle & Co.) atlas maps of Pere Marquette and Summit townships (Appendix A,
Figures A2-A3) depict a largely rural landscape, with the exception of the town of Ludington and
several resort communities around the Lake Michigan shoreline and inland lakes. Outside of these
areas, most rural parcels ranged from 30-80 acres in size, with a few larger parcels (up to 280
acres) scattered throughout. The modern road grid had already been established, and several rail
lines ran into Ludington from the east and north. Structures (primarily farm houses and schools)
were located along the major thoroughfares. Few changes are visible on the 1915 (Standard Map
Co.) atlas maps (Appendix A, Figures A4-A5). Several modern paved roads had been constructed,
and the largest parcels had been subdivided, but otherwise the area retained its rural character.
The trend toward the subdivision of land continued continues to be evident on the 1930 plat maps
of Pere Marquette and Summit townships (Hixson 1930a), as few parcels then exceeded 40 acres
in size (Appendix A, Figures A6-A7).
By 1961 numerous areas immediately surrounding Ludington, along the Lake Michigan shoreline,
and around Bass Lake in southern Summit Township had been platted into small tracts (Rockford
Map Publishers 1961). The 1966 plat maps of the townships show that large tracts of land had
already been purchased by Consumers Power Company (the predecessor to Consumers Energy)
in the area that would become the LPSF (Rockford Map Publishers 1966). The plat maps from
1961 and 1966 as well as plat maps from 1969 and 1975 (Rockford Map Publishers 1969, 1975)
depict continuing subdivision of rural parcels and the growth of areas platted into small tracts, as
large-scale agriculture ceded some of its dominance to other economic activities (Appendix A,
Figures A9-A16).
Aerial Photographs
Similar to historic maps, high-altitude aerial photographs (which are generally available for periods
after ca. 1935) can provide valuable information on more recent landscape changes and modern
disturbances within a given area. For this project, aerial photographs dating from 1953, 1977,
1984, 1993, 1998, 2005, 2009, and 2014 (HIG 2015a) were examined (Appendix A, Figures A17A24).
The aerial photograph from 1953 shows numerous large, cultivated tracts of land throughout the
vicinity of the LPSF project area, interspersed with sizable woodlots. Small orchards are visible
primarily between the LPSF reservoir and Hopkins Lake to the east, as well as in the Summit
Township portion of the current project area. The next oldest aerial photograph that could be
obtained is from 1977, by which time the LPSF had been constructed. The cultivated fields had
largely disappeared by this time, although orchard agriculture appears to have increased slightly
around the margins of the LPSF. The construction of U.S. Highway 31 between the LPSF reservoir
and Hopkins Lake in the 1980s also significantly impacted the local landscape (HIG 2015a).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
32
2.4.2
Pigeon Lake North Pier Study Area
National Register of Historic Places
No individual properties or districts listed in or eligible for the NRHP are present within the Pigeon
Lake North Pier study area.
Michigan State Register of Historic Sites
No properties listed on the Michigan SRHS are present within the Pigeon Lake North Pier study
area.
State Archaeological Site Files
No archaeological sites have been recorded within the Pigeon Lake North Pier study area.
Hinsdale’s (1931) Archaeological Atlas of Michigan
The Hinsdale atlas does not depict any sites within the Pigeon Lake North Pier study area
(Appendix A, Figure A25).
Cultural Resource Management Reports
Three previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within the Pigeon Lake North
Pier study area, all of them being Phase I archaeological surveys. These surveys are summarized
here in annotated form.
•
Stillwell, Larry N. 2005. An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of a Proposed Cellular
Phone Tower (Project #050661) in Port Sheldon, Ottawa County, Michigan. Report
submitted to G2 Consulting Group by Archaeological Consultants of Ossian.
In 2005 Larry N. Stillwell of Archaeological Consultants of Ossian submitted to G2
Consulting Group an archaeological field reconnaissance of a proposed cellular tower to
be located in Port Sheldon, Ottawa County, Michigan. The survey covered a total of .06
acres, which included the 50-ft by 50-ft tower pad. No cultural resources were identified as
a result of this survey.
•
Weir, Donald J., Wesley L. Andrews, C. Stephan Demeter, and Mary L. Jeakle. 1993.
Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Campbell Ash Pond Expansion and 345
kV Line Relocation, Holland, Michigan. Report submitted to Consumers Power Company
by Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc.
In 1993 Donald J. Weir, Wesley L. Andrews, C. Stephan Demeter, and Mary L. Jeakle
submitted to Consumers Energy a Phase I archaeological survey of the proposed
Campbell Ash Pond Expansion, located in [text removed], Ottawa County, Michigan. No
previously recorded sites were identified in initial research for this study. A single site, a
prehistoric lithic scatter, was identified during the survey, and therefore rerouting of the
project’s powerline was recommended. A second site, originally recorded by
Commonwealth Cultural Resources in 1980, was located within the project area but could
not be relocated during the 1993 investigation.
•
Weir, Donald J., C. Stephan Demeter, and Curtis E. Larsen. 1980. Cultural Resource
Management Assessment Study of Eight Candidate Power Plant Sites. Commonwealth
Cultural Resources Group, Inc.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
33
In 1980, Donald J. Weir, C. Stephan Demeter, and Curtis E. Larson conducted a cultural
resource management assessment study of multiple potential power plant sites in
Michigan. The Campbell plant site study produced only one site, a sparse scatter of
blocky lithic debris.
County Atlases and Historic Topographic Maps
City and county atlases, plat maps, local histories, and historic topographic maps were examined
during the literature and records review. Such documents disclose early patterns of land use for a
given area, helping to shed light on previous geographical distributions of farmsteads, industries,
cemeteries, and other structural elements of human occupation. These documents are key to
understanding the historical landscape of the survey area and, to some degree, allow for the
prediction of the locations of archaeological or historical remains within it.
Prior to 1924, the area that is now Port Sheldon Township was a part of Olive Township (Port
Sheldon Township 2015). The 1864 (Gross) atlas map of Olive Township (Appendix A, Figure A26)
indicates that the area was sparsely settled at that time, with large, apparently empty areas. A road
passing northwest-southeast through township sections 4, 10, 15, 22, 26 and 35 is visible; this road
does not correspond to any modern roads. The 1876 (H. Belden & Co.) township atlas depicts a
modern road grid along with increased population. Agricultural parcels ranging from 40 to 320
acres in size were common, with numerous quarter-section parcels still uninhabited. Structures
(farm houses and schools) were primarily located along major thoroughfares (Appendix A, Figure
A27). By 1912 (Geo. A. Ogle & Co.) the township had filled in considerably and a noticeable trend
toward land subdivision had begun. No unclaimed parcels remained, and the majority of parcels
ranged from 40-80 acres in size. Numerous smaller parcels lined the Lake Michigan shoreline,
including small platted tracts around the western end of Pigeon Lake (Appendix A, Figure A28).
The 1930 plat map, the first published after Port Sheldon Township’s separation from Olive
Township, depicts a landscape similar to that of 1912 (Hixson 1930b; Appendix A, Figure A29).
By 1955 two major changes were apparent in Port Sheldon Township. First, Lakeshore Drive and
Butternut Drive had been incorporated into the state highway system, and second, a reverse trend
of land consolidation is visible as numerous parcels are shown as belonging to the federal
government (Rockford Map Publishers 1955). By 1976 (Rockford Map Publishers) these parcels
had been sold off to various entities, including the Kiwanis Club, Ottawa County, and Consumers
Power Company. In addition, many of the former 40- and 80-acre parcels in Port Sheldon
Township had been further subdivided into 20-30-acre parcels (Appendix A, Figure A31).
Aerial Photographs
Similar to historic maps, high-altitude aerial photographs (which are generally available for periods
after ca. 1935) can provide valuable information on more recent landscape changes and modern
disturbances within a given area. For this project, aerial photographs dating from 1956, 1969,
1992, 1997, 2005, 2009, and 2014 (HIG 2015b) were examined (Appendix A, Figures A32-A38).
The 1956 aerial photograph depicts a lightly developed area, with lakefront cottages to the north of
the PLNP Project Area and dense woods surrounding Pigeon Lake. By 1969, marina development
had begun along the southern shore of Pigeon Lake and Consumers Power Company had begun
construction of its J.H. Campbell Generating Complex, including the north and south piers
extending far out into Lake Michigan. Extensive residential development along the Lake Michigan
shoreline and marina development around the Pigeon Lake shoreline was visible by 1992,
including the Pigeon Lake North Pier boardwalk and trail (HIG 2015b).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
34
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
35
3.0 HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY
This section of the report describes the research design and methodology used to identify historic/architectural
resources within the recommended project APE, and the results of the survey. All work was performed by a
professionally qualified architectural historian (36 CFR Part 61) according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716-44740) and related professional standards.
3.1
Research Design
The background research and historic context prepared by MSG provided a general framework for
understanding what types of cultural resources might be present in the study area. Consumers also
provided us with copies of all correspondence associated with the current LPSP, previous determinations of
NRHP eligibility, and reports on previous surveys in the project area. For historic/architectural investigations,
the most relevant of these was an historic assessment of the LPSF that was prepared by CCRG in June
2011 (Demeter 2011) as part of a proposed license amendment for equipment upgrades to the LPSP.
CCRG’s report was submitted to the MISHPO in August 2011, with a recommendation for eligibility under
Criteria A, C, D and Criteria Consideration G. In February 2012, the Michigan SHPO concurred with
CCRG’s recommendation of eligibility, which constitutes a formal determination at the state level.
3.2
Survey Methods
The field survey was conducted by Maura Johnson and Daniel Hershberger on August 10-11, 2015. Field
reconnaissance included all aboveground properties within the project APE, including those previously
surveyed. David McIntosh, Senior Licensing Engineer for Consumers, provided the survey team access to
secure areas within the facility. The focus of these investigations was primarily structural; no mechanical,
electrical or generating equipment/controls were included in the survey. With that exception, all buildings
and structures in or adjoining the APE were photographed, clearly depicting the appearance and
distinguishing attributes of the resource, along with views of the surrounding area sufficient to provide a
visual context. Photos were located on field maps and relevant attributes of the survey properties were
recorded.
The recommended APE shown in Figures 1.3 and 1.4 was used as the basis for historic/architectural
investigations. The APE encompasses the entire project boundary, which is defined by FERC as “a
complete unit of improvement or development” that consists of all dams, reservoirs, other engineered
structures, as well as property rights in lands and waters that are necessary for the construction, operation,
and maintenance of a project. In this case, the project boundary includes the 1,500-acre LPSF property as
well as the 1.8-acre Pigeon Lake North Pier site, which are both part of the LPSP re-licensing.
3.3
Survey Results
The history/architecture survey documented all aboveground properties within the project APE. All but two
of those properties – the Mason County Campground (including Hull Airfield) and Pigeon Lake North Pier –
were included in the 2011 CCRG report. Rather than duplicate the extensive historical and descriptive data
about previously recorded features/sites that was presented in that report, our goal was to document the
current condition and integrity of those features/sites, and to document any other historic/architectural
resources not previously recorded that may be affected by the current LPSP. Photographs of the survey
properties are included in Appendix C and E, and a brief description of each feature is presented below. For
purposes of comparison, the descriptions follow the sequence used in Section 4.2 (Physical Plant
Description) of the CCRG report.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
36
3.3.1
Upper reservoir
The upper reservoir has a surface area of 842 acres, and is contained within clay lined earthen
walls that are an average height of 109 feet above the original ground level. The embankment
measures approximately 5.7 miles in perimeter and is topped by a 20-foot-wide paved road.
Materials for the embankment foundation were taken from the penstock excavation, which began in
July 1969. To eliminate seepage, the clay and asphalt liners in the reservoir have been routinely
and substantially repaired. These repairs are not visible above water level, and do not negatively
impact any aspect of the structure’s historic integrity.
At the northwest end of the reservoir is a six-bay concrete intake structure, topped by intake gate
hoist buildings (for dewatering), two mechanical/electrical buildings, a gantry crane, and a metal
through-truss bridge, which provides access from the perimeter walls to the intake structure.
Construction of the intake bridge structure began September 1972. All work necessary for the initial
pumping into the reservoir was completed by October 1972 (Demeter 2011:4-3). Aside from the
addition and replacement of monitoring equipment (not observable), the intake structure appears to
be otherwise unaltered since 2011, according to facility records.
3.3.2
Penstocks
Between the upper reservoir and powerhouse are six steel penstocks. The penstocks are enclosed
pipes whose function is to carry water to and from the reservoir. The penstocks are encased in
concrete beneath the reservoir embankment. Excavation for the penstocks began in July 1969 and
by September 1972 they were in partial operation. The penstocks are enclosed structures and
were therefore not directly observed for this survey. According to Consumer records, no major
alterations to the penstocks have occurred since 2011.
3.3.3
Powerhouse
At the base of the embankment along the Lake Michigan shoreline is the powerhouse and pumpgenerating equipment. The powerhouse is a six-bay concrete structure that is 105 feet tall at
maximum height, standing about 20 feet above water level. Construction of the powerhouse began
in October 1970, after cofferdams were constructed at the lakefront and unwatering was
completed. No major alterations to the powerhouse have occurred since 2011.
From the west face of the powerhouse, the tailrace apron extends 193 feet into the lake, with
concrete and riprap cofferdam/jetties on the north and south sides of the apron. A 1,700-foot rubble
breakwall parallels the powerhouse face to the west. Completed in 1972, the tailrace area is
enclosed by a 2.5-mile long seasonal barrier net that is anchored to the lake bottom, one of the
largest of its kind in the world. The barrier net is required as a condition of a 1996 settlement
agreement for fish protection purposes. For this survey, the tailrace features were observed at a
distance, from the powerhouse yard or Vista Point. Since 2011, metal pilings were added to the
seawalls and an existing boat dock at the base of the southern jetty was rebuilt to facilitate barge
landing to receive the new runners and stator parts for the starter motors (scheduled for
refurbishing). In 2012 the MISHPO determined that the boat dock alterations – one of 19 work
items itemized under a Project Plan for upgrades to the LPSF – would have no adverse effect on
the NRHP-eligible hydroelectric facility.
On the downstream side of the powerhouse there are three levels below grade, including the
operating floor (which contains the control room), the cooling water gallery, and the compressor
gallery. On the upstream side is the electrical gallery. Six pump-turbine/motor-generator units in the
powerhouse operate in three modes, and are controlled semi-automatically. Testing of the first
generating unit started in October 1972 (Demeter 2011:4-2). Commercial operation of the last unit
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
37
began in October 1973. Each unit has been overhauled once since construction (between 1987
and 1996); all are scheduled for upgrade by 2019.
On the powerhouse yard are several buildings/structures: three reinforced concrete structures
along the west edge containing HVAC equipment and elevator/stair access to the galleries below;
two gantry cranes; three transformers; a diesel generator; a poured concrete service
(administration) building; a steel-framed erection bay building; two large steel fabrication shops; a
two-bay garage; and a variety of temporary trailers, including an office/conference building
adjacent to the service building. Since 2011, the 360-ton station gantry crane recorded by CCRG
has been replaced with two new 410-ton gantry cranes; the original crane was used during
construction to hoist and install generating equipment. With this change, the gantry crane rails
have been extended north to meet the face of a new fabrication shop. This north fabrication shop
was constructed on the site of a warehouse and two-bay garage, which dated to the initial
construction of the facility. At the south end of the yard a second fabrication shop has also been
added since 2011. In February 2012 the MISHPO determined that these proposed changes – the
new cranes, crane rail extension, and new fabrication buildings -- would not adversely affect the
integrity of the LPS plant, which appears to meet the NRHP criteria.
3.3.4
Ancillary structures
There are several non-operational ancillary structures within the project boundary. Plans for these
facilities were developed by MacKenzie, Knuth, and Klein Architects, Inc. of Flint, Michigan
(Demeter 2011:4-32). Elzinga & Volkers was the contractor (Demeter 2011:4-39). A modular,
metal-sided guardhouse is located at the LPSF entrance on Lakeshore Drive. This building was
constructed in 2011 to replace the original guardhouse, which was documented by CCRG in
October 2010 and subsequently demolished. The original guardhouse was a flat-roofed brick
building. Along with the new guard house, the traffic pattern in this location was changed from a
single-lane entrance/exit to a double-lane entrance/exit. In 2012 the MISHPO determined that
upgrading the plant entrance and guardhouse would have no adverse effect on historic properties.
Four recreational areas also fall within the project APE. On the west side of Lakeshore Drive is
Vista Point, which was established during the early project construction phase to provide a safe
vantage point for public viewing. A four-panel covered display is located at this site. The viewing
area is surrounding by chain link fencing and is accessed via an overpass from the east side of the
road, where parking is available. Also accessible from the parking lot is a Scenic Overlook on the
northwest lip of the reservoir. This Japanese-inspired building has a raised poured concrete
foundation and a wood frame viewing level that offers a panoramic view of the reservoir and Lake
Michigan through unglazed shoji-like window frames (Demeter 2011:4-32). Vista Point and the
Scenic Overlook are managed by Consumers/DTE.
At the base of the northwest embankment is the Mason County Picnic Area. The picnic area
contains a shelter house that is similar in design to the Scenic Overlook pavilion, with the same
pyramidal roof covered with wood shakes. In this case, the shelter house roof is supported by large
textured concrete slabs. A popular disk golf course is located in the picnic area. Not included in the
CCRG survey is the Mason County Campground on the north side of the APE. The campground
has a new (2013) gatehouse at the entrance, and a picnic shelter, playground, and 56 lots for
primitive and RV camping. At the center of the camp is a bath house with the same pyramidal
shake roof with textured concrete supports seen in the picnic area shelter house and overlook
pavilion. Adjoining the campground is Hull Field, an airfield managed by Twisted Stix (a remote
control model aircraft club). There are no structures associated with the airfield. The picnic area
and campground are owned by Consumers/DTE but managed by Mason County.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
38
3.3.5
Pigeon Lake North Pier (PLNP)
Also under the FERC license is an off-site facility in Ottawa County, approximately 70 miles south
of the LPSF. The PLNP, a 1.8 acre satellite recreation site, was created by Consumers/DTE as a
condition of an environmental damage settlement in 1996. The trail is located in Port Sheldon, next
to the coal-fired J.H. Campbell Generating Complex, which draws water from Pigeon Lake for
cooling purposes. The trail is a 4,600-foot boardwalk and gravel path that is 56 inches wide and
features a 42-inch high fence on both sides. From a 30-vehicle parking lot, it follows the northern
shore of the Pigeon River and ends at the channel pier. A warm water discharge pipe runs along
the pier, which helps keep the channel open from the Pigeon River to Lake Michigan. The channel
piers were constructed between 1956 and 1959, and thus pre-date the recreational development.
The trail and parking lot were improved in the mid-1990s. Aside from the boardwalk and fencing,
no structural features associated with this site were observed or recorded. Photos of the PLNP site
are in Appendix E.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
39
4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
This section of the report includes a description of the research design and field methods employed during the
archaeological reconnaissance survey to identify archaeological resources for subsequent evaluation; the laboratory
methods used to analyze the material culture that was recovered; a detailed description of the results of fieldwork;
and individual descriptions of each archaeological site identified during the survey.
4.1
Research Design
The research design for the archaeological survey was based on the results of the literature review and
background research on environmental and cultural contexts. Prehistoric populations in Michigan can
generally be characterized as practicing some combination of hunting, gathering and/or horticulture.
Consequently, populations were intimately tethered to elements in the natural environment, most notably the
distribution of plant and animal species, raw material sources, water resources, soil types, and landform
features. Since these resources were unevenly distributed across the landscape during the prehistoric
period, it is logical to assume that aboriginal subsistence and settlement systems articulated with these
distributions (Cavallo and Mounier 1980:59).
Based on the known prehistory of the region and the environmental setting of the project area, the
prehistoric archaeological site types most likely to be present within the survey area are short-term, singlecomponent sites related to subsistence resource procurement or tool manufacture and/or maintenance.
Since the current project area lies adjacent to Lake Michigan and since all of the non-udorthent soil types
within the project area are well to excessively drained (see Table 2.1), slope takes on a greater importance
in determining which areas are more likely to contain prehistoric archaeological sites. In particular, areas of
less than 15% slope have the highest probability of yielding such sites.
Based on the known history of the region and the environmental setting of the project area, the historic
archaeological site types most likely to be present within the survey area are sites related to agricultural
activity, such as the historic farmsteads that dot the county and township roads in Pere Marquette and
Summit townships. While farmstead sites in general are common throughout the Midwest, intact farmstead
sites are rare. However, farmstead sites in Michigan and adjacent regions have been shown to have
enormous research potential in relation to important themes in American social and economic history (i.e.,
Adams 1990; Baugher and Klein 2001-2002; Bedell et al. 1994; Beedle 1996; Cabak et al. 1999;
Friedlander 1991; Genheimer 2003; Groover 1992, 2003, 2008; Kooiman et al. 1998; Mascia 1994;
McCorvie 1987; Moffat et al. 2009; Nassaney et al. 2001; Rafferty 2000; Rogers et al. 1988; Schweikart and
Coleman 2003; Stewart-Abernathy 1986; Stine 1990; Wilson 1990). Furthermore, while individual farmstead
sites may not appear to have much information potential on their own, a landscape approach that considers
evolving patterns of agrarian land use on a macro scale could prove to be a fruitful avenue of investigation
for such sites.
4.2
Methods
4.2.1
Field Methods
The archaeological reconnaissance survey was conducted in accordance with professionally
accepted standards. In areas where ground surface visibility was less than 50% (such as grassy
yard areas or woodlots), 30 cm (11.8-in) diameter shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated at 15-m
(49.2-ft) intervals. These STPs were excavated until culturally sterile subsoil was encountered or to
a depth of 50 cm (19.7 in), whichever came first. Excavated soil was screened through ¼-in wire
mesh, and recovered artifacts were bagged and labeled with the provenience. When surface
artifacts or features were not present to indicate site boundaries, radial STPs were excavated at a
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
40
distance of 7.5 m (24.6 ft) in cardinal directions from positive STPs in order to delineate the size of
the archaeological site. In areas where ground surface visibility was greater than 50% (such as
recently plowed agricultural fields), systematic pedestrian surface survey was conducted at 10-m
(32.8-ft) intervals. Locations of surface artifact concentrations were recorded using a hand-held
Trimble GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy.
In addition, the entire project area was visually inspected and photographically documented.
Members of the field crew took detailed notes about soil colors, textures, inclusions, stratigraphy,
and other relevant information. When cultural material was identified, site boundaries were
delineated and field site numbers were assigned. Not including areas that exhibit visible signs of
disturbance or for which photographic evidence of disturbance during the construction of the
hydropower facility exists, the project area was divided into 17 survey areas (Survey Areas A
through R) in order to facilitate accurate record keeping.
4.2.2
Laboratory Methods
All cultural materials collected in the field were washed, sorted and catalogued in MSG’s laboratory
facility in Maumee. MSG utilizes a two-step method for washing artifacts. Artifacts are first soaked
in a 40 gallon/liter aqueous Calgon solution for a minimum of 4 hours, then rinsed with clean water
(Neumann and Sanford 1998). Fragile artifacts or those not suited to wet cleaning (e.g., wood or
charcoal fragments, heavily rusted metal items) were dry-brushed to remove dirt. After artifacts
were cleaned, they were re-bagged in 4-mil plastic ziplock bags, and the bags were labeled
according to provenience.
The following is a description of the methods used by MSG to analyze the cultural materials
collected from each site encountered during the Phase I survey.
4.2.2.1 Prehistoric Artifact Analysis
Lithic Artifacts
In many ways, lithic assemblages are ideal for the study of prehistoric cultures. Chert was
almost universally utilized by prehistoric cultures in North America. Because the tool
manufacturing process creates large amounts of lithic detritus, chert has a nearly
ubiquitous presence on prehistoric sites (Meyers 1970:5). In the general vicinity of the
sites, chert would have likely been gathered from either of two possible source types:
primary bedded outcrops or glacial till and other secondary deposits. Several nongeological factors may also affect the availability of chert resources. These factors include
seasonal differences in the accessibility of source locations and the depletion of available
chert resources through continued exploitation.
Determination of chert types is based upon a macroscopic investigation of the overall
properties of the chert and descriptions taken from relevant literature (e.g.,
DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady 1998; Justice 1987; Ritchie 1961). In cases where
difficulty is encountered in identifying these varieties of chert, microscopic investigation
can be used to note signature mineral or fossil inclusions present in the lithic samples. As
much as possible, all lithic artifacts were identified by chert type. In cases where it was not
possible to identify the type of chert, artifacts are generally assumed to have been
manufactured from local pebble cherts from glacial deposits.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
41
The classification scheme presented here seeks to order all prehistoric artifacts into
groups based upon shared attributes (e.g., bifaces). These classes are broken down
further into morphological classifications that seek to place artifacts in descriptive
categories with a focus on the similarity of objects, if not their specific usage (e.g.,
projectile points). When possible, these descriptive categories are assigned to tertiary
groups, which are types that have been shown to have chronological or cultural
significance (e.g., Kirk Corner-Notched projectile points, which are diagnostic of the Early
Archaic period). The primary artifact classes utilized here are cores, lithic debitage (which
includes flakes, shatter and remnant core fragments) and tools (including projectile points,
bifaces, gravers, scrapers, drills, grinding stones, etc.).
Cores may be used to identify tool production (reduction) strategies employed at a site.
Reduction strategies may then help to identify the mobility strategies or the distances
involved (local or long-distance) in raw material procurement for lithic toolmakers
(Bamforth 1986; Beck et al. 2002; Binford 1979, 1980; Nelson 1991). Cores can be
identified as blade cores or flake cores based on fracture scar directionality and shape
across the core surface. Blade cores are here defined as cores with a prepared platform
from which long, thin, prismatic blades have been removed in a uniform direction across
the core. A prismatic blade is a relatively flat flake that is at least twice as long as it is
wide, with parallel sides, generally one or two dorsal ridges (creating a prismatic crosssection), and a prepared flat platform. Flake cores are defined here as cores that may or
may not have prepared platforms and exhibit flake removal from multiple directions across
the core. The objective pieces removed from blade cores are considered to have a high
utility and are preferable in situations of gearing up in anticipation of future needs (Rasic
and Andrefsky 2001), as opposed to the objective pieces removed from flake cores which
are more commonly associated with production as a result of more immediate needs.
Thus, analysis of core types can tell us what type(s) of objective pieces were leaving the
site and, by extension, which mobility strategies were likely employed by the site’s
occupants: Blade cores are more likely to be associated with a long-distance mobility
strategy while flake cores are more likely to be associated with a more localized, shortdistance mobility strategy.
Based on specific attributes, lithic debitage can be identified as being associated with a
biface reduction event or another reductive strategy. Debitage was sorted into four
primary categories based upon the individual attributes of the detritus. These categories
included simple flakes (including decortication flakes), complex flakes (flakes having two
or more dorsal scars and/or two or more platform facets), shatter, and remnant core
fragments. Additionally, statistical characterization and evaluation of the data was
expressed using frequencies of characteristics (e.g., platform facet counts and
preparation evidence, flake dimensions, weight, and presence of cortex). Modified flakes
demonstrate specific evidence of deliberate modification or use-wear and include both
retouched and utilized flakes. All flakes were both macroscopically and microscopically
analyzed for evidence of lithic retouch or use-wear along the edges. Lithic debitage was
then used to characterize likely manufacturing (reduction) processes at the site in terms of
expedience versus preparation for anticipated future needs (e.g., expediently removed
and utilized flakes or flakes produced as a byproduct of the creation of an objective piece)
and, when possible, tool form(s) produced or worked on at the site as evidenced by flake
debitage characteristics (e.g., biface manufacture identified through a predominance of
thinning flakes) (following Odell [2003] and Andrefsky [2005]). When a tool form is inferred
as the objective piece at such a site, a statement can be made regarding the intended use
of the objective piece and the relationship between that function and mobility. For
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
42
example, one is more likely to associate bifacial tools with a gearing up process which is
commonly associated with long distance travel, whereas simple flakes, possibly utilized,
are associated with an expedient strategy wherein use of that particular material is in
response to an immediate need of the manufacturer (Binford 1979; Bamforth 1986).
Analysis of lithic tools included the identification of the type of tool (e.g., projectile point,
graver, scraper, drill, ground stone, etc.) and the lithic material from which the tool was
fashioned. Projectile points were analyzed utilizing a synthesis of point type descriptions
developed for the midwestern and northeastern United States by Ritchie (1961) and
Justice (1987). By considering the intentions of the tool manufacturer, a statement can be
made regarding the relationship between the manufacturer, the material type, the material
source, and mobility strategy. In this way a better understanding can be gained of the
manufacturer’s relationship to the landscape and the surrounding environment.
Bifacial tools are defined here as lithic material with reduction scars occurring on both
faces, exhibiting a thinning of parallel sides and profile shape. Note that this definition
allows for the inclusion of bifacial cores as unfinished bifacial tools. Unifacial tools are
defined here as lithic material with reduction scars occurring on only one face and thinning
of either one or both parallel sides evidenced by relatively uniform flaking of the uniface
edge or a portion of the edge. Reworking or re-sharpening of edges is identified by the
presence of regularly spaced flakes superimposed on the original flake scars for either or
both faces of an edge. A predominance of broken rather than whole bifacial tools may
indicate that the material was part of a long-distance mobility strategy, based on the
assumption that under circumstances that warrant higher curation rates (in this example,
greater distance from the quarry) whole tools would be unlikely to have been discarded
(Bamforth 1986). Thus, if we know roughly where the material was acquired, we can
elucidate the relationship between the site location, the lithic material, and the intentions
of the manufacturer. The presence of re-sharpened biface edges may be another method
of determining whether a tool was part of a predominantly local or long distance strategy
(Kelly 1988). Analysis of the sharpened edges of bifacial tools can be beneficial
considering that a greater proportion of reworked edges has been associated with long
distance, long use-life, curated strategies (Bamforth and Becker 2000).
Prehistoric Ceramics
The analysis of prehistoric ceramics is concerned with reconstructing overall vessel
morphology, as well as understanding cultural or chronological markers sometimes
provided by decorative motif, technique and design. MSG’s analysis of ceramics utilized a
type-variety analytical approach. A standard attribute analysis was conducted using
attributes such as vessel or sherd size, shape, paste, interior surface treatment, exterior
surface treatment and decoration. If possible, these clustered attributes were then fitted
into an existing ceramic taxonomic model.
Prior to handling, all ceramics were carefully examined for residual carbon from food
preparation and cooking fires. These residues, when present, are an excellent source for
datable carbon for which contexts are clear. All ceramics were then examined for broken
edges to check for possible refits. Attributes recorded for rimsherds included temper, rim
thickness, collar height, collar thickness, interior surface treatment, exterior surface
treatment, and rim and lip decoration. Body sherds were studied for surface treatment,
thickness and temper.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
43
Archaeofaunal Analysis
The study of faunal remains can shed light on prehistoric subsistence as well as the
nature of the prehistoric environment. Animal bones, fish scales, mussel shells, and other
faunal materials can help to determine the seasons during which a site was occupied or
the functionality of a specific site. All faunal remains are analyzed using standard
identification guides. These references include Mammal Remains from Archaeological
Sites (Olsen 1964), Mammalian Osteology (Gilbert 1990), Avian Osteology (Gilbert et al.
1996), and Fish, Amphibian and Reptile Remains from Archaeological Sites (Olsen 1968).
4.2.2.2 Historic Artifact Analysis
Following the completion of initial processing, historic materials were identified according
to material, method of manufacture, and function. MSG’s laboratory staff first separated
historic artifacts into seven broad material categories: ceramics, glass, masonry, metal,
plastic, faunal, and other. Next, artifacts were sorted into subcategories within each of the
material categories. They were also grouped into functional categories, which can serve
as analytical tools in examining patterns such as activity areas, consumption and intensity
of site use. These functional categories have been adapted by MSG from previous studies
(e.g., Mansberger 1988; Rogers et al. 1988; South 1977). Both material and functional
categories are discussed in this section.
Ceramics
Ceramics are one of the most temporally diagnostic artifact classes on historic-period
sites. Ceramic analysis can illustrate the socio-economic status of site occupants (Miller
1980, 1991), consumption preferences (Wall 1994), and the range of some site-specific
activities (such as cooking, hosting visitors, or gardening), among other things. During
laboratory analysis, ceramics will initially be sorted into the following ware types:
stoneware, unrefined earthenware, refined earthenware, and porcelain. Ware types are
distinguished on the basis of paste color, paste texture, glaze, and decoration. The
classifications and chronologies formulated by standard collectors’ identification guides
(e.g., Cushion 1980; Debolt 1994; Greer 2005; Ketchum 1983, 1987, and 2000; Lehner
1988; Raycraft and Raycraft 1990), as well as the academic literature (e.g., Claney 2004;
Gibson 2011; Lofstrom et al. 1982; Miller 1980, 1991; Miller and Hunter 2001; Miller et al.
2000; Noël Hume 1969; Samford 1997; South 1977; Sussman 1977, 1997), will be among
the sources used to identify and date ceramic artifacts for the current project.
Glass
Prior to 1860, the glass industry was primarily unchanged and almost every piece was
handmade. Glassmaking underwent a “revolution” during the second half of the 19th
century, resulting in numerous identifiable temporal markers. These manufacturing
characteristics and their respective temporal ranges were identified for bottle-jar,
tableware, window, and miscellaneous glass. For example, a bottle or jar with a pontil
scar predates 1857, while one with side seams that continue to the base of the lip
postdates 1881. A piece with a seam on the lip, indicating fully automated manufacture,
would postdate 1903. Color and function are other major characteristics used to identify
glass artifacts. While color is not always a reliable diagnostic tool, it often illustrates
function and can sometimes provide dates. For instance, glass with magnesium added as
a clarifying agent (a technique used from about 1870 to 1914) can often become
solarized, and turns purple when exposed to the sun (Lockhart 2006). Applied color
labeling, which is still commonly used on glass soda-pop bottles, was first introduced in
the 1930s (Miller et al. 2000:8). MSG’s procedures for glass identification and temporal
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
44
affiliation followed studies by Deiss (1981), Ketchum (1975), Lorrain (1968), Madden and
Hardison (2004), Miller and Sullivan (1984), Putnam (1965), and Toulouse (1971). Bottle
glass in particular was analyzed according to Deiss’s (1981) classifications, terminology,
and definitions.
Metal
Metal artifacts were identified by material (aluminum, brass, copper, iron, lead, steel, etc.)
and function (hardware, tools, roofing, buttons, etc.). The mode of manufacture may be
used to identify and date the artifact (e.g., Busch 1981), and spatial analysis can provide
important clues as to the layout of a site; this has proven especially successful in the
analysis of historic nails (i.e., Wells 1998; Young 1994). Metal artifacts are commonly
found in severely deteriorated states that prevent successful identification. When good
preservation exists, metal artifacts can be useful not only in dating an assemblage, but
also in establishing construction dates for architectural and mechanical features.
Masonry
This category includes material types that do not fit into any of the above categories but
that share a general similarity of function such that it is practical to create a category for
them rather than simply including them in the broad category of “Other” (see below).
Material types that fall under the masonry category include brick, mortar, and dressed
stone.
Plastic
Although long ignored by archaeologists, plastic is increasingly becoming a focus of
research as more and more 20th-century sites pass the 50-year threshold for NRHP
eligibility. The very first plastics, including materials known as gutta percha, vulcanite, and
hard rubber, were made of natural materials and were produced as early as the 1840s.
Modern plastics are made from mostly synthetic materials and can be divided into
thermosetting plastics (those that are formed into a fixed shape by heating and stay in that
shape even if re-heated) and thermoplastic plastics (those that are heated for shaping,
become firm when cooled, but soften again if re-heated) (Young 2004:113). The first
modern plastic, trademarked as Bakelite, was introduced in 1907. Bakelite is a very hard
plastic that was used for electrical and telephone parts. Pyralin plastic was invented in
1915 and was used for items such as combs, tooth brushes, pens, toys, and kitchen tools.
Melmac plastic was trademarked in 1940 and used in the production of tableware; just five
years later Tupperware was invented (Miller et al. 2000:16-17).
Faunal
On historic archaeological sites, faunal remains can indicate the degree to which a site’s
occupants were self-sufficient or participated in the broader local economy; the financial
and social status of the residents; and even their ethnicity (based on generalized ethnic
preferences for different types and cuts of meat). Faunal remains on historic sites can
also include the remains of domesticated animals such as pets, livestock, and draft
animals. Faunal remains were identified using standard identification guides (Gilbert 1990;
Gilbert et al. 1996; Olsen 1964, 1968).
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
45
Other
This category encompasses all material types that cannot be classified as ceramic, glass,
metal, masonry, plastic, or faunal. Examples of such material include textiles (e.g.,
clothing), floral remains (e.g., wood, charcoal), and paper products. The Other category
also includes composite artifacts, or those that are made of multiple material types or
composite materials. Some examples include asphalt; glass jars with metal lids still
attached; porcelain electrical insulators with metal pins; and flashlights with metal, plastic
and/or glass parts.
Functional Categories
Artifacts were also separated into functional categories in order to determine the function
of features and sites. The functional categories used in the present study include:
1. Kitchen, which is divided into food preparation, food service, food storage, and
dietary remains (including floral and faunal remains);
2. Architecture, which is divided into construction materials, architectural hardware,
fixtures (including plumbing-related artifacts), electrical, and landscaping
(including ornamental plants and related artifacts such as flower pots);
3. Furnishings, which are divided into lighting and electrical, housewares (furniture,
decorative tableware, knick-knacks, etc.), domestic labor supplies, and
appliances/appliance parts;
4. Personal, which is divided into clothing (fasteners [such as buttons], footwear,
and miscellaneous), domestic labor supplies (e.g., sewing needles, shoe polish
bottles, etc.), indulgence (pipes, etc.), personal adornment (jewelry, cosmetics,
etc.), coins, communication (writing supplies, etc.), toys (dolls, miniature tea sets,
games, figurines, etc.), pets (faunal remains of domesticated pets, pet toys,
license/vaccination tags, etc.), recreation (sports, hobbies, etc.) and health and
hygiene (toothbrushes, hair supplies, pharmaceutical, etc.);
5. Transportation, which includes non-automotive vehicular parts, automotive parts,
aeronautical equipment and parts, etc.;
6. Agriculture, which includes agricultural tools, storage, agricultural machinery,
transportation
equipment,
infrastructure
(e.g.,
drainage
tiles),
livestock/domesticated work animals (i.e., faunal remains), livestock artifacts
(e.g., horse shoes, bridal buckles, other livestock-related equipment and tools,
etc.), and miscellaneous agricultural items (i.e., artifacts related to ancillary
activities, such as kiln bricks);
7. Industry, which includes machinery and machinery parts, transportation
equipment, raw materials, infrastructure, industrial hardware, and industrial byproducts or waste (i.e., slag);
8. Arms, which includes weapons and weapon parts, ammunition, military buttons
and other clothing items, and decorative hardware such as medals;
9. Miscellaneous, which includes fuel (including coal and charcoal), fuel storage,
storage, miscellaneous hardware, tools, power generation (e.g., batteries), and
infrastructure (e.g., sewer or drainage pipes, electrical insulators);
10. Indeterminate, which includes indeterminate ceramic items, items that may be
either pharmaceutical or kitchen, indeterminate storage items, etc.;
11. Non-Cultural, which consists of unmodified natural objects (i.e., natural rocks)
and non-cultural faunal and floral remains. (Non-cultural objects that were
collected during fieldwork were cataloged but not included in functional analyses
of individual sites.)
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
46
4.2.3
Artifact Curation
In order to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, the federal agency whose involvement has
triggered the Section 106 process is responsible for making a good-faith effort to ensure that
artifacts are curated at a federally recognized curation facility. However, all cultural materials
collected during professional archaeological investigations are the property of the landowner. In the
case of this project, the landowner for all areas surveyed is Consumers Energy. Consumers has
expressed a desire to donate all artifacts recovered during the survey to the MISHPO, a federally
recognized curation facility (36 CFR 79). Therefore, following the completion of the project, MSG
will formally apply to the MISHPO for curation of the collection. Should the MISHPO accept the
collection, MSG will prepare the artifacts for curation in accordance with the standards and
guidelines contained published by the MISHPO. MSG will then deliver all donated collections to the
MISHPO curation facility in Lansing.
4.3
Survey Results – LPSF Project Area
The archaeological survey of the LPSF Project Area was conducted from August 10-21, 2015. The weather
during this time period was generally temperate and conducive to archaeological survey, with little
precipitation and temperatures ranging from the mid-60s – high 70s ºF. As mentioned in Section 3.3.1,
those areas within the project boundary for which prior disturbance could not be established were divided
into 17 different survey areas, designated Survey Areas A-R. These survey areas are shown in Figure 4.1,
and will be described individually below. A total of 15 previously unrecorded archaeological sites were
identified during the survey, and have been assigned state site numbers 20MN324 – 20MN338. Three
additional locations of historic artifact deposits were identified, but due to various factors, have not been
assigned state site numbers. Both types of sites are described in detail below. The locations of sites
20MN324 – 20MN338 are shown on Figure 4.2.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
47
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS REMOVED
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
48
5.0 NRHP EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
After resources were identified through documentary research and fieldwork, significance evaluations of those
resources were made in terms of their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. According to 36 CFR 60.4 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), properties may be eligible for listing in the NRHP if they meet one or more of the
following criteria:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in the
districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of American history;
B. Association with the lives of historically significant persons;
C. Embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; representative of the
work of a master; possession of high artistic values; or representation of a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction (for archaeological sites associated with standing
architecture, or yielding related architectural evidence); or
D. Ability to yield information important to the study of North American prehistory or history.
Archaeological properties are most often determined to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. Therefore, it is
important to note that in order for archaeological remains to satisfy the criteria and to yield information important to
the study of North American prehistory or history, the materials should be within the depositional environment in
which they were originally interred or accumulated (i.e., undisturbed contexts). An isolated find site may be
considered any site that produces a single material object indicative of past human life or activity; such sites are not
generally eligible for the NRHP.
Historic/architectural resources include buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts that are typically over 50
years of age, although properties of exceptional importance that are less than 50 years old may be eligible for NRHP
listing under Criteria Consideration G.
5.1
Historic/Architectural Resources
In 2011, an historic assessment of the LPS facility was completed by CCRG. The survey area for that study
included only the LPS site, an area then encompassing approximately 1,630 acres (including the 842-acre
reservoir). From the time it began commercial operation in 1973 until 2011, when the LPSF was surveyed
by CCRG, the facility saw only minor changes, such as the construction of a new guard house, addition and
removal of temporary structures, an addition to the service building, equipment overhauls, and reservoir
repairs (Demeter 2011:6-3). In their assessment of eligibility, CCRG concluded that the integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association has nevertheless been retained at the plant
site, and that the LPSF is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, C, D and Criteria Consideration G.
These recommendations were submitted to the MISHPO by Consumers/DTE in August 2011.
In addition to the eligibility determination, Consumers/DTE requested the MISHPO’s review of a plan for
upgrades and modifications to the LPSF, as part of a non-capacity amendment to the project’s license
(which is not part of the current re-licensing process). Of the nineteen work items identified in the project
plan, most were maintenance or repair activities. More substantial infrastructure improvements included:
•
•
•
Reconstruction of an existing boat dock to facilitate a barge landing for parts delivery;
Construction of a new steel framed fabrication building (North Fabrication Shop) on the site of an original
warehouse and two-bay garage;
Extension of the existing gantry crane rail to meet the face of the new North Fabrication Shop;
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
49
•
•
Construction of a new fabrication building at the south end of the powerhouse yard (South Fabrication
Shop); and
Replacement of the original 360-ton gantry crane with two new 410-ton gantry cranes.
In February 2012 the MISHPO concurred with the recommendation of eligibility for the Ludington Pumped
Storage Hydroelectric Plant and determined that the proposed changes – the new cranes, crane rail
extension, and new fabrication buildings – would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic site.
Since the time of that determination, approximately 130 acres of land have been removed from the licensed
project boundary by FERC, including one 35-acre parcel at the northwest corner of the property and one 95acre parcel at the southeast corner of the property. Field investigations and research within those tracts by
CCRG identified no archaeological sites or aboveground resources that are eligible for or listed in the
NRHP, and no significant functional or historical association with the LPS’s operations. The MISHPO
concurred with this assessment in November 2013 and the application to remove both parcels from the
project boundary was approved by FERC by May 2015. The current project boundary shown in Figures 1.3
and 1.4 – including both the current 1,500-acre LPS facility and the 1.8-acre Pigeon Lake North Pier site –
also represents the APE for this project, and is the area in which the current historic/architectural survey
was completed.
The history/architecture survey documented all aboveground properties within the current project boundary,
which also represents the APE. The survey included the upper reservoir, penstocks, powerhouse and
ancillary structures at the LPSF (including a guardhouse and four recreational sites), as well as the PLNP
site. While there have been some physical changes to the facility infrastructure, the changes were
coordinated with the MISHPO through the Section 106 process and have not diminished the historic integrity
of the property, and the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association
has been retained at the LPSF site.
It is therefore our opinion that the LPSF is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, C, D and Criteria
Consideration D, as justified by CCRG, on the following basis:
•
•
•
•
Criterion A for its contributions to Michigan’s hydroelectric generating and transmitting capabilities;
Criterion C for its significant design and engineering features;
Criterion D for its ability to provide answers to research questions beyond those posed for
construction and engineering; and
Criteria Consideration D for an exceptionally significant resource less than 50 years old.
In this case, the recommended boundaries for the eligible property include only the 1,500-acre facility in
Mason County, as the property most directly associated with construction, operation and maintenance of the
hydroelectric project. It does not include the PLNP site, which is a mitigation site that has no individual
significance and no direct association with the history or development of the LPSF.
5.2
Archaeological Resources
A total of 15 archaeological sites were identified within the LPSF Project Area; no archaeological sites were
identified within the PLNP Project Area. The sites identified within the LPSF Project Area have been
assigned state trinomial site numbers 20MN324 – 20MN338. Three additional field sites consisting of
historic-period remains (Field Sites C1, I1 and L1) have not been assigned trinomial site numbers for
reasons described in Section 4 above, and will not be considered in this section. The 15 formally designated
sites can be divided into five basic types: prehistoric lithic isolates, prehistoric lithic scatters, historic artifact
scatters associated with known farm/orchard parcels, farmstead/orchard sites, and a historic artifact scatter
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
50
associated with the construction of the LPSF. Individual sites will be discussed and evaluated by site type
below. This information is also summarized in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
Trinomial Site #
20MN324
20MN325
20MN326
20MN327
20MN328
20MN329
20MN330
20MN331
20MN332
20MN333
20MN334
20MN335
20MN336
20MN337
20MN338
5.2.2
NRHP Eligibility and Recommendations for Archaeological Sites
Site Type
NRHP Eligibility
Recommendations
Phase II evaluation only if
Potentially Eligible
Farmstead/Orchard
future development is
(Criterion D)
planned in this location
Farm/Orchard-Associated
Not Eligible
No further investigation
Artifact Scatter
Farm/Orchard-Associated
Not Eligible
No further investigation
Artifact Scatter
Prehistoric Lithic Scatter
Not Eligible
No further investigation
Farm/Orchard-Associated
Not Eligible
No further investigation
Artifact Scatter
Potentially Eligible
Phase II evaluation only if
Farmstead/Orchard
(Criterion D) – historic
future development is
component only
planned in this location
Farmstead/Orchard
Not Eligible
No further investigation
LPSF-Associated Artifact
Not Eligible
No further investigation
Scatter
Farm/Orchard-Associated
Not Eligible
No further investigation
Artifact Scatter
Prehistoric Lithic Isolate
Not Eligible
No further investigation
Prehistoric Lithic Isolate
Not Eligible
No further investigation
Prehistoric Lithic Scatter
Not Eligible
No further investigation
Farmstead/Orchard
Not Eligible
No further investigation
Prehistoric Lithic Scatter
Not Eligible
No further investigation
Farm/Orchard-Associated
Not Eligible
No further investigation
Artifact Scatter
Prehistoric Lithic Isolates
Two prehistoric lithic isolated finds were identified within the LPSF Project Area, both in Survey
Area I. These sites have been assigned state trinomial numbers 20MN333 and 20MN334. As
mentioned above, isolated find sites are generally not eligible for the NRHP due to a lack of
potential to yield significant information regarding prehistory. All that can usually be said about
such sites is that they represent ephemeral, transient occupations of the locale by an unknown
person or persons at some time during the prehistoric period for the purpose of tool manufacture
and/or maintenance. 20MN333 and 20MN334 are not exceptions to this general rule. While it is
important to record isolated find sites as part of a much broader, regional perspective on prehistoric
landscape use, 20MN333 and 20MN334 are not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. No
further investigation of these sites is recommended.
In addition, a third prehistoric isolated find has been incorporated into site 20MN329, a
multicomponent site that includes a 20th-century farmstead remnant. For the same reasons stated
above, the prehistoric component of 20MN329 is not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D and
no further investigation of this component of the site is recommended.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
51
5.2.3
Prehistoric Lithic Scatters
Three prehistoric lithic scatters were identified within the LPSF Project Area, in Survey Areas D
(20MN327), Survey Area J (20MN335), and Survey Area K (20MN337). All three of these sites
consist of fewer than five pieces of non-diagnostic lithic debitage. The scatter was spread among
three positive shovel tests at 20MN327, but both 20MN335 and 20MN337 consist of single shovel
tests that yielded multiple pieces of debitage. Furthermore, 20MN337 is located within the
boundaries of a larger historic site (20MN336), and is in a location that appears to have been
extensively disturbed by historic-period activity, including the construction of the LPSF and the
creation of the current disc golf course. As with the prehistoric isolated finds, all that can be said
about sites 20MN327, 20MN335 and 20MN337 is that they represent ephemeral, transient
occupations of the locale by an unknown person or persons at some unknown time during the
prehistoric period for the purpose of tool manufacture and/or maintenance. No evidence for
subsurface features was identified at any of these three sites. It is highly unlikely that additional
investigation would yield significant information relevant to important research questions in regional
prehistoric archaeology. Therefore, 20MN327, 20MN335 and 20MN337 are not eligible for the
NRHP under Criterion D and no further investigations are recommended at these three sites.
5.2.4
Farm/Orchard-Associated Historic Artifact Scatters
Five historic-period artifact scatters associated with former farm/orchard parcels were identified
within the LPSF Project Area: 20MN325 (Survey Area A), 20MN326 (Survey Area D), 20MN328
(Survey Area E), 20MN332 (Survey Area H), and 20MN338 (Survey Area P). What distinguishes
these sites from the farmstead/orchard sites discussed below is the lack of any observed surface
or subsurface features associated with farmstead or orchard activity. However, these five also vary
in the amount of artefactual material identified within the sites as well as the degree of apparent
modern disturbance.
Both 20MN325 and 20MN326 are relatively dense, discrete surface refuse dumps that date to the
mid-20th-century and can therefore be directly associated with documented occupations based on
cadastral atlas and plat maps. Both sites are likely components of larger sites that extend outside
the current project area boundary. 20MN326, in particular, demonstrates one potential pitfall of the
piecemeal nature of much archaeological survey work conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the
NHPA. This site appears to be associated with previously recorded sites 20MN98 and 20MN308.
The former was recorded during a 1978 survey conducted in advance of the construction of
modern U.S. Route 31, and the latter was identified during a 2013 survey of 95-acres conducted
for the purpose of removing unused land from the FERC-licensed LPSF boundary. The authors of
the 1978 survey report and a subsequent Phase II investigation of the site (Lovis 1978; Flanders
and Szten 1981) could only consider the archaeological remains within the original survey area.
While the authors of the 2013 survey report explored the apparent connection between 20MN98
and 20MN308, they could not re-locate 20MN98 in the field (it was likely destroyed by the
construction of U.S. Route 31) and ultimately determined that 20MN308 is not eligible for the
NRHP in part because it was an apparently isolated farmstead remnant (Dunham and Espenshade
2013). A consideration of 20MN98, 20MN308 and 20MN326 as components of a single, larger site
associated with a 20th-century farm tenancy occupation might have allowed for a more complete
analysis of the farmstead landscape as well as changes in economic behavior and the use of
space over time.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
52
It is not the intention of this report’s authors, however, to suggest that the previous evaluations of
20MN98 and 20MN308 were incorrect and should be reversed, only that these previous
evaluations were the victims of necessarily incomplete information. Even with the identification of
20MN326, it would be difficult to argue for the potential eligibility of a larger, combined site. Taylor
et al. (2006:6-4) have suggested seven factors that should be taken into account when evaluating
farmstead sites in Michigan for potential NRHP eligibility: (1) site condition and extent of
disturbance; (2) the presence or absence of yard scatters that can provide information about the
socioeconomic status of site inhabitants; (3) the presence or absence of concentrated refuse areas
that can provide information about site organization and changing refuse disposal practices; (4) the
presence or absence of diagnostic artifacts; (5) length of occupation; (6) association with
historically known settlements; and (7) the ratio of domestic or household materials to architectural
or structural materials. In the case of sites 20MN98, 20MN308 and 20MN326, extensive
disturbance to the site is apparent from the construction of U.S. Route 31 as well as two power
transmission corridors that cut through the former farmstead. No significant yard scatters were
identified at either 20MN98 or 20MN326. While 20MN326 appears to represent a concentrated
refuse disposal area, the artifact assemblage can be tightly dated to the 1940s and does not
coincide with the known tenant occupation of the property (ca. 1900-1935). Tightly diagnostic
artifacts were only recovered from one of the three sites (20MN326). When considered together
the three sites appear to compare favorably to factors 5 and 6 (length of occupation and
association with historically known settlements). However, despite the predominance of domestic
artifacts at 20MN326, the extremely sparse artifact assemblages from 20MN98 and 20MN308 (one
of which likely represents the original domestic core of the farmstead) does not appear to satisfy
factor 7. For these reasons, it appears unlikely that additional investigation of 20MN326 (either
individually or as part of a broader investigation including 20MN98 and 20MN308) would yield
significant information that could be used to address important questions in regional farmstead
archaeology. Therefore, 20MN326 is not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. Furthermore, it
does not appear to be associated with important persons or events in Mason County history
(Criteria A and B). No further investigation of this site is recommended.
The evaluation of 20MN325 suffers from the same problem as sites 20MN98 and 20MN308:
necessarily incomplete information due to current survey boundaries. 20MN325 consists of two
closely-spaced surface refuse dumping locales, both dating to the 1940s. It is currently unclear
who the property owner at that time was, although the larger parcel on which the site was located
appears to have been a working orchard. It is possible, indeed likely, that 20MN325 is part of a
larger site that includes farmstead remnants located outside of the current project area boundary.
However, the current evaluation can only be based on what is known about 20MN325. Based on
the seven factors for farmstead evaluation listed above, this site only appears to satisfy factors 3
(presence of concentrated refuse areas that can provide information on diachronic patterns of
consumption and refuse disposal) and 7 (ratio of domestic to architectural artifacts), and even then
only partially due to the uncertain relationship of this site with as-yet unidentified components
outside the survey area. No subsurface component of 20MN325 was identified, and no surface or
subsurface features appear to be present. For these reasons, it is unlikely that further investigation
of 20MN325 would yield significant information that could be used to address important questions
in regional farmstead archaeology. Therefore, 20MN325 is not eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion D. Furthermore, it does not appear to be associated with important persons or events in
Mason County history (Criteria A and B). No further investigation of this site is recommended.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
53
Unlike sites 20MN325 and 20MN326, sites 20MN328, 20MN332 and 20MN338 are low-density
scatters of historic-period artifacts that do not represent intensive refuse dumping activity and that
are likely located in disturbed contexts. 20MN328 consists of three subsurface artifact findspots
dating to the late 19th or early 20th centuries and spread out over nearly half a kilometer, connected
only in their location on two former parcels owned by the Seymour family. This site has been
heavily disturbed by the construction of the LPSF and the consequent re-alignment of Brunson
Road. 20MN332 consists of a very sparse 19th-century surface artifact assemblage located on a
small bench in an otherwise sloped and eroded backdune setting. While the 20th-century occupants
of the parcel are known, it is not currently known who the 19th-century occupants of the parcel
were. 20MN338 also consists of a low-density, subsurface artifact scatter dating to the 19th-century
and located in an area that has been heavily disturbed by the construction of the LPSF and an
electrical substation on the west side of Lakeshore Drive. No surface or subsurface features were
encountered at any of these sites. Due to the apparent disturbance, the lack of cultural features,
and the low artifact density at these sites, it is unlikely that additional investigation of 20MN328,
20MN332 or 20MN338 would yield significant information that could be used to address important
questions in regional farmstead archaeology. Therefore, 20MN328, 20MN332 and 20MN338 are
not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. Furthermore, it does not appear that any of them are
associated with important persons or events in Mason County history (Criteria A and B). No further
investigations of these sites are recommended.
5.2.5
Farmstead/Orchard Sites
Four farmstead/orchard sites were identified during the current survey: 20MN324 (Survey Area A),
20MN329 (Survey Area E), 20MN330 (Survey Area G), and 20MN336 (Survey Areas J and K).
These four sites are distinguished from the sites in the Farm/Orchard-Associated Historic Artifact
Scatter category in that each of these sites include features associated with farm/orchard activity.
These four sites will be evaluated against the seven factors for farmstead significance identified by
Taylor et al. (2006).
20MN324 is the most complex site identified during the current survey. Located on the [text
removed]. Although the domestic core of this former parcel appears to have been located within
the modern overhead power transmission corridor to the east of the site, a significant portion of the
site remains in a wooded, stabilized dune setting. A total of 21 features were identified within
20MN324. Although only one of these features (a collapsed shed) appears to represent in situ
structural remains, a variety of feature types are present. Combined with the extensive artifact
assemblage, it appears that multiple activity areas are present. The site dates to the 1940s-1950s,
at which time the parcel was owned by either William Long or Ronald Van Dyke. As regards the
seven factors of farmstead significance, 20MN324 appears to have a high degree of potential
significance. While a portion of the site has been disturbed by the adjacent transmission corridor,
that part of the site that remains appears to have experienced little if any disturbance since its
creation (Factor 1). The site does not appear to match Factor 2 (presence of yard scatters that
could shed light on socioeconomic status of site inhabitants), but in this case the lack of a yard
scatter does not mean that no socioeconomic information can be obtained – several extensive
refuse dumps within the site can provide similar information. These refuse dumps also satisfy
Factor 3 (concentrated refuse areas that can provide information about site organization and
changing refuse disposal practices) and Factor 4 (presence of diagnostic artifacts). While the
artifact assemblage dates primarily to the 1940s and 1950s, the parcel was occupied from at least
1900 to the time it was sold to Consumers Power Co. in the late 1960s. Furthermore, the majority
of the 21 features within the site cannot be firmly dated and may represent older, different uses of
the area than do the refuse dumps (Factor 5 [length of occupation] and Factor 6 [association with
historically known settlements]). The site also matches Factor 7 (ratio of domestic to architectural
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
54
artifacts), as described in the artifact analysis (Section 4.3.1.1). In addition to these seven factors, it
appears likely that 20MN324 contains several different, distinct activity areas, possibly including a
maple sugaring locale.
While there are still many unanswered questions regarding 20MN324, it clearly has a high potential
to yield significant information that could address important questions in regional farmstead
archaeology. Therefore, 20MN324 is recommended potentially eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion D. The site does not, however, appear to be associated with important persons or events
in local or regional history (Criteria A and B). The site does not currently appear to be threatened
by either natural or cultural agents, and since no changes to the operations or physical plant of the
LPSF are proposed as part of the re-licensing process, the undertaking will have no adverse
effects on 20MN324. Therefore, no additional investigations are recommended at this time. Should
future development of the LPSF facility be planned in this location, however, a Phase II
archaeological evaluation of the site should be conducted.
20MN329 is also a 20th-century farmstead/orchard remnant. This site straddles the current project
area boundary, and it is highly likely that additional components of the site are present outside of
the survey area and as yet unrecorded. Recorded components include a house foundation with an
extensive refuse scatter adjacent to it as well as a cistern (both outside of the LPSF Project Area),
a concrete stock tank, the remnant of a brick wall, and a sparse subsurface artifact scatter (all
within the project area). The artifact assemblage (including both artifacts that were collected and
those that were not) appears to represent a broad 20th-century date range, and historic atlas and
plat maps indicate that the original property was owned by the Cole family from at least ca. 1900 to
the late 1960s, when it was sold to Consumers Power Co. As with sites 20MN325 and 20MN326,
however, the evaluation of 20MN329 is limited by the fact that the entire original property was not
included within the survey boundaries. Nevertheless, some preliminary observations can be made.
While a portion of the original property was destroyed by the construction of the LPSF reservoir,
that portion of the property that remains does not appear to have been much disturbed (Factor 1).
Subsurface testing was not conducted in the area around the house foundation, so it is currently
unknown whether a yard scatter exists (Factor 2). Similarly, while the extensive refuse scatter
adjacent to the house foundation is likely associated with the abandonment of the property, it is not
currently known whether other refuse deposits exist outside of the LPSF Project Area (Factor 3).
However, diagnostic artifacts were observed in the scatter adjacent to the house foundation (Factor
4), and the occupation of the parcel has been traced back to at least ca. 1900 (Factors 5 and 6).
Unfortunately, the paucity of artifacts recovered from that portion of the site within the current
project area boundary does not provide enough data to address Factor 7 (ratio of domestic to
architectural artifacts).
Given that 20MN329 appears to match four of the seven factors of farmstead significance, along
with the possibility that as-yet unrecorded elements of the site may exist outside of the LPSF
Project Area that could address the remaining three factors, 20MN329 should be considered to be
potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. The site does not appear to be associated with
important persons or events in local or regional history, and thus is not eligible under Criteria A and
B. As with site 20MN324, 20MN329 does not currently appear to be threatened by either natural or
cultural agents. Since no changes to the operations or physical plant of the LPSF are proposed as
part of the re-licensing process, the undertaking will have no adverse effects on 20MN329.
Therefore, no additional investigations are recommended at this time. Should future development
of the LPSF facility be planned in this location, however, a Phase II archaeological evaluation of
the site should be conducted.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
55
20MN330 is located in a wooded area within a stabilized backdune setting on the east side of the
LPSF reservoir. This site consists of two features – a depression of unknown origin and the
remnant of a barbed-wire fence. Two large chunks of concrete with embedded cobbles were
observed near the depression, suggesting the former presence of a structure in this location.
However, no artifacts were recovered from the site. While it is possible that additional elements of
this site exist outside of the current project area, the only such area is immediately to the south of
Survey Area G, an area that appears to have been extensively disturbed during the construction of
the LPSF reservoir (Ebasco Engineering Corporation 1974). Thus, a large portion of the original
farm parcel appears to have been heavily disturbed (Factor 1). No domestic component of the site
was identified, and shovel testing throughout the area failed to identify any subsurface deposits
(Factor 2). Similarly, shovel testing and visual inspection failed to identify any concentrated refuse
disposal areas (Factor 3). No diagnostic artifacts were recovered from the site (Factor 4). While the
property history was traced back to ca. 1900, multiple property owners/occupants were identified
and it is unknown which of them the site may be associated with (Factors 5 and 6). Since no
artifacts were recovered, the site also does not present a match with Factor 7 (ratio of domestic to
architectural artifacts). For these reasons, it does not appear that additional investigation of
20MN330 would be likely to yield significant information that could be used to address important
research questions in regional farmstead archaeology. Site 20MN330 is therefore not eligible for
the NRHP under Criterion D; it also does not appear to be associated with important persons or
events in local or regional history (Criteria A and B). No further investigations are recommended.
Site 20MN336 is located within a stabilized dune setting [text removed]. Three surface features
were identified at the site, all of them unidentified depressions (one with an associated concrete
foundation remnant). Four loci discrete subsurface artifact scatters were also identified, although
three of these are quite small and almost certainly located within disturbed contexts. The fourth
locus, Field Site K4, is associated with two of the three depressions and is located in an area near
the documented location of a former farm house on the east side of Lakeshore Drive. The artifact
assemblage from the site generally dates to the late 19th or early 20th century. However, even Field
Site K4 has been disturbed by an underground brine line. Thus, a majority of 20MN336 has been
subject to extensive disturbance during the second half of the 20th century (Factor 1). Field Site K4
does appear to represent a yard scatter (Factor 2), but no concentrated refuse disposal areas were
identified within the site (Factor 3). No tightly diagnostic artifacts were recovered from the site
(Factor 4). While the 20th-century history of the original property has been traced, it is unknown
whether the identified components of 20MN336 are associated with the early 20th-century Cowell
family occupation of the property, an unknown, earlier occupation, or both (Factors 5 and 6). As
discussed in Section 4.3.11.1, 20MN336 yielded an approximately equal number of architectural
and domestic artifacts (Factor 7). Therefore, this site demonstrates a lack of fit with the seven
factors of farmstead significance. It is unlikely that additional investigation of this site would be
likely to yield significant information that could be used to address important research questions in
regional farmstead archaeology. Site 20MN336 is therefore not eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion D; it also does not appear to be associated with important persons or events in local or
regional history (Criteria A and B). No further investigations are recommended.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
56
5.2.6
LPSF-Associated Artifact Scatters
One archaeological site that appears to be associated with the construction of the LPSF (19691972) was identified during the survey: 20MN331. This site consists of a low-density but discrete
surface refuse deposit in Survey Area H, on the [text removed]. A number of glass beer and soft
drink bottles bearing date codes from the early 1970s were recovered from this site. However, no
surface or subsurface features were encountered during the survey. Despite the fact that this site
has not yet reached 50 years of age, it was recorded and assigned a state trinomial site number
due to its association with the NRHP-eligible LPSF. Although its association with the LPSF
suggests that it could be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, MSG does not
recommend that 20MN331 should be considered a contributing element to the NRHP-eligible
facility. The ephemeral nature of the site indicates that it is unlikely that additional investigation
would yield significant data beyond that already collected. For this reason, 20MN331 does not
appear to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D, either individually or as a component of the
LPSF facility. No further investigation of this site is recommended.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
57
6.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In May 2015, Consumers contracted MSG to conduct a Phase I archaeological and historical resources survey of the
LPSF in Pere Marquette and Summit townships, Mason County, Michigan as well as the Pigeon Lake North Pier
recreational facility in Port Sheldon Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. The LPSF was constructed from 1969-1972
and is jointly owned and operated by Consumers and DTE; Consumers and DTE are currently engaged in a five-year
FERC re-licensing application process. Due to FERC’s involvement, the re-licensing process is considered a federal
undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as
amended. The archaeological and historical resources survey is being conducted as part of the consultation process
between FERC, DTE, Consumers, and the MISHPO. Since both the LPSF and the PLNP are included within the relicensing effort, they are collectively referred to as the Ludington Pumped Storage Project (LPSP)
For the current LPSP, the undertaking is the FERC license renewal. No change in operation or addition of facilities is
proposed as part of the re-licensing, nor is there any change in the capacity of the facility. Likewise, no impacts from
continued hydroelectric pumped storage operations are anticipated as a result of the relicensing, and no physical,
visual or auditory effects will result outside the permit boundaries. Because the effects of the current proposed project
will be confined exclusively to the LPSF, the recommended APE therefore corresponds to the project boundary,
which is defined by FERC as “a complete unit of improvement or development” that consists of all dams, reservoirs,
other engineered structures, as well as property rights in lands and waters that are necessary for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of a project. The APE includes both the 1,500-acre LPSF and the 1.8-acre PLNP site.
In July 2015 MSG completed a literature review within a study area encompassing a 2-km (1.2 mi) buffer around both
the LPSF and PLNP project areas. No historic/architectural sites (including sites listed on or eligible for the national
or state registers) have been recorded within either study area. A total of 17 previously recorded archaeological sites
are present within the LPSF study area, including two prehistoric archaeological sites (20MN48 and 20MN49) located
directly within the LPSF Project Area. No previously recorded archaeological sites are present within the PLNP
Project Area. In addition to the literature review, general background research was conducted on the environmental,
prehistoric and historic contexts of Mason County. (Since the PLNP Project Area is limited to the current boundaries
of the existing recreational facility, no additional background research was conducted for this area beyond the
literature review.) Based on the results of the literature review and background research, the cultural resource types
most likely to be present within the LPSF Project Area were identified as prehistoric archaeological sites representing
short-term occupations related to subsistence resource procurement or tool manufacture and/or maintenance
(including sites that may be deeply buried within sand dunes), and historic structures and archaeological sites related
to the 19th- and 20th-century agricultural settlement of Pere Marquette and Summit townships (including cash crop
farmsteads and orchards).
The historic resources survey was completed from August 10-11, 2015. Field reconnaissance included all
aboveground properties within the project APE, including those previously surveyed. Our goal was to document the
current condition and integrity of those resources. The survey included the upper reservoir, penstocks, powerhouse
and ancillary structures at the LPSF (including a guardhouse and four recreational sites), as well as the PLNP site.
All but two of these properties were previously recorded by CCRG in 2011. Based on survey results and analysis, the
LPSF retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association and is
recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, C, D and Criteria Consideration D. The
recommended boundary for the eligible property include only the 1,500-acre facility in Mason County, as the
property most directly associated with construction, operation and maintenance of the hydroelectric project. It does
not include the PLNP site, which is a mitigation site that has no individual significance and no direct association with
the history or development of the LPSF. Given the scale and nature of the proposed project, it is the opinion of MSG
that the effects of the re-licensing do not meet the Criteria of Adverse Effect (36 CFR Part 800.5[a][1]) and the project
will have no adverse effect on historic properties.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
58
The archaeological portion of the survey was completed from August 10-21, 2015. The survey boundaries for
archaeological investigations were limited to the areas encompassed by the re-licensing application for both the
LPSF and PLNP project areas. The LPSF Project Area encompasses 1,696 acres, although approximately 1,390
acres are either offshore in Lake Michigan or were extensively disturbed during the construction of the LPSF. While
these areas were visually inspected, only approximately 306 acres were subjected to formal archaeological survey in
the form of shovel testing (at 15-m [49-ft] intervals) or systematic pedestrian surface survey (at 10-m [33-ft] intervals).
The PLPNP Project Area encompasses approximately 1.8 acres. Since the PLNP Project Area boundary is limited to
the existing recreational facility, this project area was visually inspected but not subjected to formal archaeological
survey.
The survey of the LPSF Project Area resulted in the identification of 15 previously unrecorded archaeological sites
(designated as 20MN324 – 20MN338) as well as three additional locations of historic artifact deposition that were
determined not to represent in situ archaeological sites. Visual inspection confirmed that previously recorded sites
20MN48 and 20MN49 were destroyed by the construction of the LPSF from 1969-1972. Newly recorded site types
include two prehistoric lithic isolates, three small prehistoric lithic scatters, five farm/orchard-associated historic
artifact scatters, four farmstead/orchard sites (including one with an isolated prehistoric component), and one historic
artifact scatter associated with the construction of the LPSF. None of the prehistoric sites or components (20MN327,
20MN329, 20MN333-20MN335, and 20MN337) yielded any diagnostic artifacts. They all appear to represent
ephemeral uses of the landscape during prehistory, and do not appear to be eligible for the NRHP due to a lack of
research potential (criterion D). No further archaeological investigations of these sites are recommended.
Due to various factors including small artifact assemblages, lack of identified surface or subsurface features,
evidence for modern disturbance, and a lack of apparent associations with important persons or events, historic sites
20MN325, 20MN326, 20MN328, 20MN330-20MN332, 20MN336 and 20MN338 do not meet criteria A, B or D, and
therefore do not appear to be eligible for the NRHP. No further archaeological investigations of these sites are
recommended. However, historic sites 20MN324 and 20MN329 are farmstead/orchard sites that exhibit many factors
associated with significant farmstead archaeological sites in Michigan as identified by Taylor et al. 2006. These two
sites are potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. Neither site is currently threatened by either natural or
man-made forces, and Consumers does not propose any changes to LPSF operations or expansion of the physical
plant as part of the re-licensing process. Therefore, no additional investigation of these two sites is recommended at
this time. However, should future operational changes or physical plant expansion occur, the impact of such
development on these two sites will need to be considered and Phase II archaeological investigations may be
required.
In addition to the sites that were recorded during the archaeological survey, prehistoric archaeological sites may exist
buried deeply within sand dune formations in the LPSF Project Area. Typical Phase I archaeological survey methods
are clearly unlikely to encounter archaeological sites buried within sand dunes, as illustrated by the Camp Miniwanca
site in Oceana County (just south of Mason County), which was found over 20 m (66 ft) beneath the top surface of a
deflated dune (Lovis et al. 2012:102-107). While relatively level surfaces (<20% slope) within the dune formations in
the current project area were shovel tested, it is not currently known how likely it is that deeply buried sites may be
present within these dunes. Therefore, any future operational changes or physical plant expansion at the LPSF that
may impact dune areas should be preceded by an assessment of the potential for these dunes to contain buried
prehistoric sites. This assessment should be conducted by a qualified geoarchaeologist.
No undisturbed areas were observed within the extremely limited PLNP Project Area in Ottawa County, although at
least one level, apparently undisturbed area was observed to the north of the walking path. However, this area was
within the boundaries of the cultural resources survey of the Campbell Plant location conducted in 1980 (Weir et al.
1980). Therefore, no further archaeological investigations are recommended within the PLNP Project Area.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
59
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Adams, W. H.
1990 Landscape Archaeology, Landscape History, and the American Farmstead. Historical Archaeology 24(4):92101.
Advantage Marketing & Publications
2014 “Ludington, Michigan History – James Ludington, City Founder.” Visit Ludington: Your Complete Guide to
the
Ludington,
Michigan
Area.
Electronic
document
available
at
http://www.visitludington.com/stories/ludington_michigan_history_city_founder_james_ludington.
Last
accessed November 23, 2015.
2015a “History of the Lake Michigan Carferry, the S.S. Badger.” Visit Ludington: Your Complete Guide to the
Ludington,
Michigan
Area.
Electronic
document
available
at
http://www.visitludington.com/stories/historic_lake_michigan_carferry_ss_badger_history_ludington_manito
woc. Last accessed November 24, 2015.
2015b Visit Ludington: Your Complete Guide to the Ludington, Michigan Area. Electronic document available at
http://www.visitludington.com/. Last accessed November 24, 2015.
Andrefsky, W., Jr.
2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Andrews, W.
2006 Phase I Archaeological Investigations of Verizon Wireless Site No. 731/Pentwater North, 5211
Meisenheimer Road, Summit Township, Mason County. Report submitted to TES Consultants, P.C. by
Andrews Cultural Resources.
Anonymous
1995 “The J.M. Smucker Company History.” International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 11. St. James
Press, Ann Arbor. Reprinted electronically at http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/the-j-msmucker-company-history. Last accessed October 1, 2015.
Armor All/STP Products Company
2015 “STP® History.” Electronic document available at http://www.stp.com/about-stp/stp-history. Last accessed
September 15, 2015.
Bamforth, D. B.
1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51(1):38-50.
Bamforth, D. B. and M. S. Becker
2000 Core/Biface Ratios, Mobility, Refitting, and Artifact Use-Lives: A Paleoindian Example. Plains Anthropologist
45(173):273-290.
Baugher, S. and T. H. Klein (editors)
2001-2002
Historic Preservation and the Archaeology of Nineteenth-Century Farmsteads in the Northeast.
Northeast Historical Archaeology 30-31.
Beck, C., A. K. Taylor, G. T. Jones, C. M. Fadem, C. R. Cook, and S. A. Millward
2002 Rocks Are Heavy: Transport Costs and Paleoarchaic Quarry Behavior in the Great Basin. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 21:481-507.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
60
Bedell, J., M. Petraglia, and T. Plummer
1994 Status, Technology, and Rural Tradition in Western Pennsylvania: Excavations at the Shaeffer Farm Site.
Northeast Historical Archaeology 23:29-58.
Beedle, P. L.
1996 The Farm Landscape. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison.
Bellis, M.
2015 “Invention of Polystyrene and Styrofoam.” About Money: Inventors. Electronic document available at
http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/styrofoam.htm. Last accessed September 10, 2015.
Bessert, C. J.
2015 “US-10.” Michigan Highways. Electronic resource available at http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/US010.html. Last accessed November 24, 2015.
Binford, L. R.
1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological
Research 35(3):255-273.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation.
American Antiquities 45(1):4-20.
Biography.com Editors
2015 “Jacques
Marquette
Biography.”
Biography.com.
Electronic
document
available
http://www.biography.com/people/jacques-marquette-20984755. Last accessed November 23, 2015.
at
Brashler, J. G., E. B. Garland, M. B. Holman, W. A. Lovis, and S. R. Martin
2000 Adaptive Strategies and Socioeconomic Systems in Northern Great Lakes Riverine Environments: The Late
Woodland of Michigan. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent,
edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath and A. C. Fortier, pp 543-579. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln.
BrSpiritus
2012 “Pabst-ett Cheese.” The Vintage Recipe Blog: A Collection of Vintage Ads, Recipes, and Recipe Reviews
for the Modern Chef … Electronic document available at http://www.vintagerecipeblog.com/2012/05/pabstett-cheese.html. Last accessed September 25, 2015.
Busch, J.
1981 An Introduction to the Tin Can. Historical Archaeology 15(1):95-104.
Cabak, M. A., M. D. Groover, and M. M. Inkrot
1999 Rural Modernization during the Recent Past: Farmstead Archaeology in the Aiken Plateau. Historical
Archaeology 33(4):19-43.
Cabot, J. L.
2005 Ludington, 1830-1930. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago.
Cavallo, J. and R. A. Mounier
1980 An Inventory and Assessment of Prehistoric Archaeological Resources in the New Jersey Pinelands: Phase
I of a Regional Predictive Survey. Report submitted to the New Jersey Pinelands Commission by the
Archaeological Research Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Monmouth College, West Long Branch,
NJ.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
61
Chidester, R. C., K. J. Hayfield, R. M. Schumaker, B. P. Agosti, B. M. Zsigmond, D. Boling, S. Slater, and C. E.
Knaub
2015 Report of a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of 18 Selected Training Areas at Camp
Ravenna Joint Military Training Center, Charlestown, Freedom, Paris and Windham Townships, Portage
County, Ohio. Report submitted to the Ohio Army National Guard, Columbus by BB&E, LLC, Northville, MI
and The Mannik & Smith Group, Inc., Maumee, OH.
CITGO Petroleum Corporation
2015 “Company
History.”
CITGO.
Electronic
document
available
https://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGO/CompanyHistory.jsp. Last accessed October 2, 2015.
at
Cleland, C. E.
1966 The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Ethnozoology of the Upper Great Lakes Region. Anthropological
Papers No. 29, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Claney, J. P.
2004 Rockingham Ware in American Culture, 1830-1930: Reading Historical Artifacts. University Press of New
England, Lebanon, NH.
Cleland, C. E. and D. L. Ruggles
1996 The Samels Field Site: An Early Archaic Base Camp in Grand Traverse County. In Investigating the
Archaeological Record of the Great Lakes State: Essays in Honor of Elizabeth Baldwin Garland, edited by
M. B. Holman, J. G. Brashler, and K. E. Parker, pp. 55-99. New Issues Press, Western Michigan University,
Kalamazoo.
Clorox Company
2015 “Bottle
Guide.”
The
Clorox
Company.
Electronic
document
available
https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/company/heritage/bottle-guide/. Last accessed September 4, 2015.
at
Covington, E. J.
n.d.
Early Incandescent Lamps. Electronic document available at http://home.frognet.net/~ejcov/index40.html.
Last accessed October 1, 2015.
Cushion, J. P.
1980 Handbook of Pottery and Porcelain Marks. Faber and Faber, London and Boston.
Day, G. L.
2014 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 0.19 Acres, for New Cabin Sites in the Mason County
Campground Located within the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant Area, Pere Marquette Township, Mason
County, Michigan. Report submitted to Consumers Energy Company by Commonwealth Cultural Resources
Group, Inc.
Debolt, G. C.
1994 Debolt’s Dictionary of American Pottery Marks. Collector Books, Paducah, KY.
Deiss, R. W.
1981 The Development and Application of a Chronology for American Glass. Midwestern Archaeological Center,
Illinois State University, Normal.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
62
Demeter, N. F.
2011 Historic Assessment of the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant (FERC Project No. 2680), Ludington, Mason
County, Michigan. Report submitted to Consumers Energy, Cadillac, MI by Commonwealth Cultural
Resources Group, Jackson, MI.
Department of Hydropower Administration & Compliance (HDAC)
2015 Compliance Handbook. Electronic document available at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/geninfo/handbooks/compliance_handbook.pdf. Last accessed December 12, 2015.
DeRegnaucourt, T. and J. Georgiady
1998 Prehistoric Chert Types of the Midwest. Occasional Monograph No. 7, Upper Miami Valley Archaeological
Research Museum, Arcanum, OH.
Dice, L. R.
1938 The Canadian Biotic Province with Special Reference to the Mammals. Ecology 19(4):503-514.
Dorr, J. A. and D. F. Eschman
1970 The Geology of Michigan. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Doug & Linda’s Dairy Antique Site
2015 “Other Dairy Antiques.” Doug & Linda’s Dairy Antique Site. Electronic document available at
http://dairyantiques.com/Other_Dairy_Antiques.html. Last accessed September 11, 2015.
Drewrys Brewing Company
n.d.
“Drewrys History.” Drewrys: Have a Taste of History. Electronic document available at
http://www.drewrysbrewing.com/Drewrys History.html. Last accessed October 2, 2015.
Dunbar, W. F. and G. S. May
1995 Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI.
Dunham, S. B.
2013 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 35 Acres, Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, Pere
Marquette Township, Mason County, Michigan. Report submitted to Consumers Energy Company by
Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc.
Dunham, S. B. and C. T. Espenshade
2013 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 95 Acres, Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, Summit
Township, Mason County, Michigan. Report submitted to Consumers Energy Company by Commonwealth
Cultural Resources Group, Inc.
Ebasco Engineering Corporation
1974 Ludington Pumped Storage Project: Construction Plant – General Plan. Map. Unpublished document on file
at Consumers Energy, Jackson, MI.
Eckart, B.
2009 “The National Refining Company: It’s Story 1882-1950.” History of the National Refining Company.
Electronic document available at http://www.enarco.com/home.htm. Last accessed September 4, 2015.
Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, The
2015 “Pennzoil Company.” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Electronic document
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Pennzoil-Company. Last accessed October 1, 2015.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
available
at
63
Ellis, C. J., I. T. Kenyon, and M. W. Spence
1990 The Archaic. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp.
65-124. Occasional Publication No. 5, The London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London.
Farrand, W. R. and D. F. Eschman
1974 Glaciation of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan: A Review. Michigan Academician 7.
Fischer, F. W.
1972 Schultz Site Ceramics. In The Schultz Site at Green Point: A Stratified Occupation Area in the Saginaw
Valley of Michigan, edited by J. E. Fitting, pp. 137-190. Memoirs No. 4, Museum of Anthropology, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Fitting, J. E.
1975 The Archaeology of Michigan: A Guide to the Prehistory of the Great Lakes Region. Cranbrook Institute of
Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI.
Flanders, R. E. and W. Szten
1981 Phase II Site Examination of 20MN98 in Summit Township (T17N R18W), Mason County, Michigan. Report
submitted to the Michigan Department of Transportation by Grand Valley State Colleges.
Flint, R. F.
1971 Glacial and Quaternary Geology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Ford, R. I.
1977 Evolutionary Ecology and the Evolution of Human Ecosystems: A Case Study from the Midwestern U.S.A.
In Explanation of Prehistoric Change, edited by J. N. Hill, pp. 153-184. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Freudenrich, C.
2015 “How Plastics Work.” How Stuff Works: Science. Electronic document
http://science.howstuffworks.com/plastic.htm. Last accessed September 30, 2015.
available
at
Friedlander, A.
1991 House and Barn: The Wealth of Farmers, 1795-1815. Historical Archaeology 25(2):15-30.
Garland, E. B. and S. G. Beld
1999 The Early Woodland: Ceramics, Domesticated Plants, and Burial Mounds Foretell the Shape of the Future.
In Retrieving Michigan’s Buried Past: The Archaeology of the Great Lakes State, edited by J. R. Halsey, pp.
125-146. Bulletin No. 64, Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI.
Gartrell, E.
n.d.
“More About the Lever Bros. Lux (laundry flakes) Collection.” Emergence of Advertising in America: 1850 1920. Electronic document available online at http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/eaa/guide/lever/. Last
accessed September 29, 2015.
Genheimer, R. A.
2003 Excavations at Chrisholm: A Nineteenth-Century Amish-Mennonnite Farmstead Comes to Life. Ohio Valley
Historical Archaeology 18:120-134.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
64
Geo. A. Ogle & Co.
1904 Standard Atlas of Mason County, Michigan. Geo. A. Ogle & Co., Chicago.
1912 Standard Atlas of Ottawa County, Michigan. Geo. A. Ogle & Co., Chicago.
Gibson, E.
2011 Ceramic Makers‘ Marks. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Gilbert, B. M.
1990 Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.
Gilbert, B. M., L. D. Martin, and H. G. Savage
1996 Avian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.
Gramly, R. M.
1988 Paleo-Indian Sites South of Lake Ontario, Western and Central New York State. In Late Pleistocene and
Early Holocene Paleoecology and Archaeology of the Eastern Great Lakes Region, edited by R. S. Laub, N.
Miller and D. Steadman, pp. 265-280. Bulletin No. 33., Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Buffalo, NY.
Greer, G. H.
2005 American Stonewares: The Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters. 4th edition. Schiffer Publishing, Atglen, PA.
Groover, M. D.
1992 Illinois Farmstead Archaeology: Past Issues, Future Goals. Report submitted to the Illinois Department of
Transportation, Springfield, by the Midwestern Archaeological Research Center, Illinois State University,
Normal.
2003 An Archaeological Study of Rural Capitalism and Material Life: The Gibbs Farmstead in Southern
Appalachia, 1790-1920. Springer, New York.
2008 The Archaeology of North American Farmsteads. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Gross, I. M.
1864 Map of the Counties of Ottawa and Muskegon and Part of Allegan, Michigan. Samuel Geil, Philadelphia.
Hambacher, M. J. and M. B. Holman
1995 Camp, Cache, and Carry: The Porter Creek South Site (20MN100) and Cache Pits at 20MN31 in the
Manistee National Forest. The Michigan Archaeologist 41:47-94.
H. Belden & Co.
1876 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Counties of Ottawa and Kent, Michigan. H. Belden & Co., Chicago.
Helman V. R.
1950 The Cultural Affiliations and Relationships of the Oliver Farm Site, Marion County, Indiana. Master’s Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Hinsdale, W. B.
1931 Archaeological Atlas of Michigan. Michigan Handbook Series No. 4. The University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
65
Historical Information Gatherers
2015a Ludington Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, Mason County, 3321 Lakeshore Dr., Ludington, MI: Aerial
Photographs, 1956-2014. Historical Information Gatherers, Hopkins, MN.
2015b Ludington Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, Ottawa [County], 17300 Lake Ave., West Olive, MI: Aerial
Photographs, 1956-2014. Historical Information Gatherers, Hopkins, MN.
Hixson, W. W.
1930a Plat Book of Mason County, Michigan. W. W. Hixson & Company, Rockford, IL.
1930b Plat Book of Ottawa County, Michigan. W. W. Hixson & Company, Rockford, IL.
Hizone Brands
2015 “About Us.” Hizone Brands Ltd. Electronic document available at http://www.hizonebrands.com/about-us/.
Last accessed September 30, 2015.
Holman, M. B. and J. G. Brashler
1999 Economics, Material Culture, and Trade in the Late Woodland Lower Penninsula of Michigan. In Retrieving
Michigans’s Buried Past: The Archaeology of the Great Lakes State, edited by J. R. Halsey, pp. 212-220.
Bulletin No. 64, Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI.
Holman, M. B. and F. J. Krist, Jr.
2001 Late Woodland Storage and Mobility in Western Lower Michigan. In “Papers in Honor of Carol I. Mason,” ed.
T. C. Pleger, R. A. Birmingham, and C. I. Mason, pp. 7-32. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 82(1-2).
Ifert, B.
1994 Made in Japan Ceramics, 1921-1941: With Price Guide. Schiffer Publishing, Atglen, PA.
Italian Tribune, The (La Tribuna del Popolo)
2009 Roman Cleanser: First Bleach in the United States. The Italian Tribune July 24-August 6, page 6. Electronic
document available online at http://www.italian-tribune.com/IT_07_24_09_06.pdf. Last accessed September
15, 2015.
Ivey, P.
1919 The Pere Marquette Railroad Company. Michigan Historical Commission, Lansing.
Johnson, E. P.
1995 Soil Survey of Mason County, Michigan. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, D.C.
Justice, N. D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrowpoints of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University
Press, Bloomington.
Kapp, R. O.
1999 Michigan Late Pleistocene, Holocene, and Presettlement Vegetation and Climate. In Retrieving Michigan’s
Buried Past: The Archaeology of the Great Lakes State, edited by J. R. Halsey, pp. 31-58. Bulletin No. 64,
Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI.
Kelly, R. L.
1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53(4):717-734.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
66
Ketchum, Jr., W. C.
1975 A Treasury of American Bottles. Rutledge Books, New York.
1983 Pottery and Porcelain. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
1987 American Country Pottery: Yellowware and Spongeware. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
2000 The Antique Hunter’s Guide: American Pottery and Porcelain. Black Dog and Leventhal Publishers, New
York.
Kingsley, R. G.
1981 Hopewell Middle Woodland Settlement Systems and Cultural Dynamics in Southern Michigan.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 6:131-178.
1999 The Middle Woodland Period in Southern Michigan. In Retrieving Michigan’s Buried Past: The Archaeology
of the Great Lakes State, edited by J. R. Halsey, pp.148-172. Bulletin No. 64, Cranbrook Institute of
Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI.
Kooiman, B., C. Moffat and B. Bielefeldt
1998 MnDOT Historic Farmstead Study: Research Design – History and Archaeology – Focal/Cash Crop Area.
Draft report prepared for the Minnesota Department of Transportation by the Mississippi Valley Archaeology
Center.
Kovel, R. and T. Kovel
1986 Kovels’ New Dictionary of Marks: Pottery & Porcelain, 1850 to the Present. Crown Publishers, New York.
Lehner, L.
1988 Lehner’s Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain and Clay. Collector Books, Paducah, KY.
Lindsey, B.
2015a “Bottle Bases.” Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. Electronic document available at
http://www.sha.org/bottle/bases.htm. Last accessed June 1, 2015.
2015b “Bottle Dating.” Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. Electronic document available at
http://www.sha.org/bottle/dating.htm. Last accessed September 28, 2015.
2015c “Bottle Finishes & Closures.” Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. Electronic document
available at http://www.sha.org/bottle/closures.htm. Last accessed September 21, 2015.
2015d “Bottle / Glass Colors.” Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. Electronic document
available at http://www.sha.org/bottle/colors.htm. Last accessed February 24, 2015.
2015e “Bottle Typing (Typology) & Diagnostic Shapes.” Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website.
Electronic document available at http://www.sha.org/bottle/typing.htm. Last accessed September 25, 2015.
2015f “Glassmaking & Glassmakers: Bottle & Glass Makers Markings.” Historic Glass Bottle Identification &
Information Website. Electronic document available at http://www.sha.org/bottle/makersmarks.htm. Last
accessed September 10, 2015.
Lockhart, B.
2004 The Dating Game: Owens-Illinois Glass Co. Bottles and Extras Summer:2-5.
2006 The Color Purple: Dating Solarized Amethyst Container Glass. Historical Archaeology 40(2):45-56.
Lockhart, B. and R. Hoenig
2015 “The Bewildering Array of Owens-Illinois Glass Co. Logos and Codes.” Electronic document available at
http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/OwensIllinois2015.pdf. Last accessed September 10, 2015.
Lockhart, B., B. Lindsey, D. Whitten and C. Serr
2005 The Dating Game: The Illinois Glass Company. Bottles and Extras Winter:2-9.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
67
Lockhart, B., B. Schriever and B. Lindsey
2015 The Dominion Glass Companies of Montreal, Canada. In Encyclopedia of Manufacturer’s Marks on Glass
Containers: Volume D, edited by The Bottle Research Group, pp. 141-172. Electronic document available
online at http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/DominionGlass.pdf. Last accessed September 15, 2015.
Lockhart, B., B. Schriever, B. Lindsey, and C. Serr
2013 Anchor Hocking Glass Corp. In Encyclopedia of Manufacturers Marks: Volume A by the Bottle Research
Group, pp. 423-443. Electronic document available at http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/AnchorHocking.pdf.
Last accessed September 10, 2015.
2015a Fairmount Glass Works. In Encyclopedia of Manufacturer’s Marks on Glass Containers: Volume F, edited by
The Bottle Research Group, pp. 65-96. Electronic document available online at
http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/FairmountGlass.pdf. Last accessed September 25, 2015.
2015b Foster-Forbes Glass Co. In Encyclopedia of Manufacturer’s Marks on Glass Containers: Volume F, edited
by The Bottle Research Group, pp. 235-244. Electronic document available online at
http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/FosterForbes.pdf. Last accessed September 20, 2015.
Lockhart, B., B. Schriever, C. Serr, B. Lindsey, and J. Sears
2013 Ball Brothers Glass Mfg. Co. In Encyclopedia of Manufacturer’s Marks on Glass Containers: Volume B,
edited by The Bottle Research Group, pp. 51-80. Electronic document available online at
http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/BallBros.pdf. Last accessed September 15, 2015.
Lockhart, B., P. Schulz, B. Schriever, B. Lindsey, C. Serr, and D. Whitten
2013 Armstrong Cork Co. In Encyclopedia of Manufacturer's Marks on Glass Containers, Volume A, edited by
The
Bottle
Research
Group,
pp.
445-454.
Electronic
document
available
at
http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/ArmstrongCork.pdf. Last accessed June 2, 2015.
Lockhart, B., P. Schulz, B. Schriever, C. Serr and B. Lindsey
2013 Brockway Machine Bottle Co. and Brockway Glass Co. In Encyclopedia of Manufacturers Marks: Volume B
by the Bottle Research Group, pp. 311-338. Electronic document available at
http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/Brockway.pdf. Last accessed September 15, 2015.
Lockhart, B., P. Schulz, C. Serr and B. Lindsey
2007 The Dating Game: Thatcher Glass Mfg. Co. Bottles and Extras July-August:2-14.
2008 The Knox Glass Bottle Co. Bottles and Extras May-June:2-11.
Lofstrom, E. U., J. P. Tordoff, and D. C. George
1982 A Seriation of Historic Earthenwares in the Midwest, 1780-1870. The Minnesota Archaeologist 41(1):3-29.
Lorrain, D.
1968 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Nineteenth-Century American Glass. Historical Archaeology 2:35-44.
Lovis, W. A.
1978 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed US-31 Freeway, Mason County, Michigan: Washington Road to
US-10. Michigan State University Museum Archaeological Survey Report No. 29. Report submitted to the
Michigan State Highway Commission by the Michigan State University Museum.
1999 The Middle Archaic: Learning to Live in the Woodlands. In Retrieving Michigan's Buried Past: The
Archaeology of the Great Lakes State, edited by J. R. Halsey, pp. 83-94. Bulletin No. 64, Cranbrook Institute
of Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
68
Lovis, W. A., A. F. Arbogast, and G. W. Monaghan
2012 The Geoarchaeology of Lake Michigan Coastal Dunes. Michigan Department of Transportation
Environmental Research Series, Vol. 2. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing.
Madden, M. J. and J. C. Hardison
2004 An Easy Identification Guide and Typology for Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Bottles.
Special Publication No. 42, Archeological Society of Virginia, Richmond. 2nd edition.
Mansberger, F.
1988 The Archaeology of Historic Galena, Illinois. Cultural Resources Study No. 7, Illinois Historic Preservation
Agency, Springfield.
Mascia, S. F.
1994 Climbing the Agricultural Ladder: An Archaeological and Documentary Case Study of the Transition from
Tenant to Owner on a New England Farmstead. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Boston
University. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.
Mason, R. J.
1981 Great Lakes Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Mason County Business Guide
1933 History of Mason County. Commercial Printing Company, Ludington, MI.
Mason County Historical Society
1978-1979
Mason Memories Vol. VI, No. 4.
1980 Historic Mason County. Taylor Publishing Company, Dallas.
1982 Mason Memories Vol. X, No. 4.
Mason County Road Commission
1949 [Road Map of Mason County]. Mason County Road Commission, Ludington, MI.
Maxwell, D. B. S.
1993 Beer Cans: A Guide for the Archaeologist. Historical Archaeology 27(1):95-113.
McComsey, D. W.
2002 Zinc-Carbon Batteries (Leclanché and Zinc Chloride Cell Systems). In Handbook of Batteries, 3rd edition, D.
Linden and T. B. Reddy, eds., pp. 8.1-8.45. McGraw-Hill, New York.
McCorvie, M. R.
1987 The Davis, Baldridge, and Huggins Sites: Three Nineteenth Century Upland South Farmsteads in Perry
County, Illinois. Preservation Series 4. American Resources Group, Ltd., Carbondale, IL.
McPherron, A.
1967 The Juntunen Site and the Late Woodland Prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes Area. Anthropological
Papers No. 30, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Meyers, J. T.
1970 Chert Resources of the Lower Illinois Valley. Illinois State Museum Reports of Investigation No. 18,
Research Papers Vol. 2, Illinois Valley Archaeological Program, Springfield.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
69
Miller, G. L.
1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th-Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14:1-40.
1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787
to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1):1-25.
Miller, G. L. and R. Hunter
2001 How Creamware Got the Blues: The Origins of China Glaze and Pearlware. In Ceramics in America 2001,
edited by R. Hunter, pp. 135-161. University Press of New England, Lebanon, NH.
Miller, G. L., with contributions by P. Samford, E. Shlasko, and A. Madsen
2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology 29:1-22.
Miller, G. L. and C. Sullivan
1984 Machine-Made Glass Containers and the End of Production for Mouth-Blown Bottles. Historical Archaeology
18(2):83-96.
Moffat, C. R., K. M. Hagenmaier, J. Lillis-Warwick, R. C. Chidester, M. L. Kagelmacher, M. R. Mock, and E. M. Tidlow
2009 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Garrison Creek Project, Boone County, Kentucky. Two volumes. Report
submitted to BBC&M Engineering, Dublin, OH, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, by
Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc., Jackson, MI.
Munson, P. J.
1988 Late Woodland Settlement and Subsistence in Temporal Perspective. In Interpretations of Culture Change
in the Eastern Woodlands during the Late Woodland Period, edited by R. Yerkes, pp. 7-16. Occasional
Papers in Anthropology No. 3, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Nassaney, M. S., D. L. Rotman, D. O. Sayers, and C. A. Nickolai
2001 The Southwest Michigan Historical Landscape Project: Exploring Class, Gender, and Ethnicity from the
Ground Up. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 5(3):219-261.
Nelson, B. and G. Nelson
2008 “The Mazda Lamp Story …” Old Christmas Tree Lights: A History. Electronic document available at
http://www.oldchristmastreelights.com/the_mazda_lamp_story.htm. Last accessed October 1, 2015.
Nelson, M. C.
1991 The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by M.B.
Schiffer, pp. 57-100. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.
Neumann, T. W. and R. M. Sanford
1998 Cleaning Artifacts with Calgon. American Antiquity 63(1):157-160.
Neusius, S. W.
1986 Generalized and Specialized Resource Utilization During the Archaic Period: Implications of the Koster Site
Faunal Record. In Foraging, Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the
Eastern Woodlands, edited by S. Neusius, pp. 117-143. Occasional Paper No. 6, Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.
Nilsson, J.-E.
2012 “Japanese Porcelain Marks.” Antique Chinese and Japanese Porcelain Collectors’ Help and Info Page.
Electronic document available at http://www.gotheborg.com/marks/20thcenturyjapan.shtml. Last accessed
September 30, 2015.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
70
Noël Hume, I.
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial North America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Odell, G. H.
2003 Lithic Analysis. Springer Science + Business Media, New York.
Ogden, J. G., III
1977 The Late Quaternary Paleoenvironmental Record of Northeastern North America. In "Amerinds and Their
Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America," edited by W. S. Newman and B. Salwen, pp. 16-34.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288.
Old Spice Collectibles
2012 Old Spice Collectibles. Electronic document available at http://www.oldspicecollectibles.com/. Last accessed
October 1, 2015.
Olsen, S. J.
1964 Mammal Remains from Archaeological Sites, Part I: Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Papers
of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 51(1), The Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA.
1968 Fish, Amphibian and Reptile Remains from Archaeological Sites, Part 1: Southeastern and Southwestern
United States. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 56(2), The Peabody
Museum, Cambridge, MA.
Ozker, D.
1977 The Naugle Site, 20MD30, Midland County, Michigan: Early Late Woodland and Late Archaic Components
on a Pine River Site. The Michigan Archaeologist 22:315-355.
Page, H. R.
1882 History of Mason County, Michigan. H. R. Page, Chicago.
Page, W. C.
2011 F. W. Fitch Company Historic District – National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. Unpublished
document available electronically at http://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/pdfs/13000147.pdf. Last accessed
September 10, 2015.
Peter Henderson & Co.
2002 [1898]
Turn-of-the-Century Farm Tools and Implements. Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY.
Port Sheldon Township
2015 Port Sheldon Township: Official Government Website for Port Sheldon Township, Michigan. Electronic
document available at http://www.portsheldontwp.org/. Last accessed November 5, 2015.
Pregitzer, K. E.
1972 Soil Survey of Ottawa County, Michigan. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, D.C.
Procter & Gamble
2015 “History of Old Spice.” Old Spice Newsroom. Electronic document
http://news.oldspice.com/about/history_timeline. Last accessed October 1, 2015.
available
at
Putnam, H. E.
1965 Bottle Identification. OTB Worldwide Publishers, Salem, OR.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
71
Rafferty, S. M.
2000 A Farmhouse View: The Porter Site. In Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Domestic Site Archaeology
in New York State, edited by J. P. Hart and C. l. Fisher, pp. 125-147. New York State Museum Bulletin 495.
University of the State of New York and the State Education Department, Albany.
Rasic, J. and W. Andrefsky, Jr.
2001 Alaskan Blade Cores as Specialized Components of Mobile Toolkits: Assessing Design Parameters and
Toolkit Organization through Debitage Analysis. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form and Meaning, ed. W.
Andrefsky, Jr., pp. 61-78. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Raycraft, D. and C. Raycraft
1990 Collector’s Guide to Country Stoneware and Pottery. Collector Books, Paducah, KY.
Ritchie, W. A.
1961 A Typology and Nomenclature of New York Projectile Points. Bulletin No. 384, New York State Museum and
Science Service, Albany.
Robertson, J. A.
1989 The Lithic Assemblage of 20SA581: Description and Analysis. In Archaeological Investigations at the Weber
I (20SA581) and Weber II (20SA582) Sites, Frankenmuth Township, Saginaw County, Michigan, edited by
W. A. Lovis, pp. 51-137. Michigan Cultural Resource Investigation Series Vol. 1, Michigan Department of
the State and Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing.
Robertson, J. A., W. A. Lovis, and J. R. Halsey
1999 The Late Archaic: Hunter-Gatherers in an Uncertain Environment. In Retrieving Michigan's Buried Past: The
Archaeology of the Great Lakes State, edited by J. R. Halsey, pp. 95-124. Bulletin No. 64, Cranbrook
Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI.
Rockford Map Publishers
1955 Farm Plat Book, Ottawa County, Michigan. Rockford Map Publishers, Rockford, IL.
1961 Farm Plat Book with Index to Owners, Mason County, Michigan. Rockford Map Publishers, Rockford, IL.
1966 Tri-Annual Atlas & Plat Book, Mason County, Michigan. Rockford Map Publishers, Rockford, IL.
1969 Triennial Atlas & Plat Book, Mason County, Michigan. Rockford Map Publishers, Rockford, IL.
1975 Atlas & Plat Book, Mason County, Michigan. Rockford Map Publishers, Inc., Rockford, IL.
1976 Ottawa County Plat Book, Centennial Edition. Rockford Map Publishers, Inc., Rockford, IL.
Rogers, L. D., C. J. Lutzow, and T. J. Martin
1988 The Ratchff (13MA40O) and Storted/Crookham (13MA262) Sites: Data Recovery at Two Historic
Farmsteads, Lake Red Rock, Iowa. Cultural Resources Management Report No. 129, American Resources
Group, Ltd., Carbondale, IL.
Samford, P.
1997 Response to a Market: Dating English Underglaze Transfer-Printed Wares. Historical Archaeology 31(2):130.
Sawyers, J.
1989 “Pere Marquette Makes a Tough Chicago ‘First.’” Chicago Tribune, April 2.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
72
Schaetzl, R. J. and K. McWain
n.d.
“Salt Brines.” GEO 333: Geography of Michigan and the Great Lakes Region, edited by R. Schaetzl.
Electronic document available at http://geo.msu.edu/extra/geogmich/salt_brines.html. Last accessed
November 23, 2015.
Schweikart, J. F. and K. Coleman
2003 After the Thaw: Investigation Results from a Nineteenth- to Mid-Twentieth Century Rural Upland South
Community at a Cold War-Era Nuclear Facility in Pike County, Ohio. Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology
18:175-186.
Shane, L. C. K.
1994 Intensity and Rate of Vegetation and Climatic Change in the Ohio Region between 14,000 and 9,000 14C YR
B.P. In The First Discovery of America: Archaeological Evidence of the Early Inhabitants of the Ohio Area,
edited by W. S. Dancey, pp. 7-21. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.
Shott, M. J.
1989 Technological Organization in Great Lakes Paleoindian Assemblages. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic
Resource Use, edited by C. J. Ellis and J. C. Lothrop, pp. 221-237. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
1999 The Early Archaic: Life After the Glaciers. In Retrieving Michigan's Buried Past: The Archaeology of the
Great Lakes State, edited by J. R. Halsey, pp. 71-82. Bulletin No. 64, Cranbrook Institute of Science,
Bloomfield Hills, MI.
Shott, M. J. and H. T. Wright
1999 The Paleo-Indians: Michigan’s First People. In Retrieving Michigan’s Buried Past: The Archaeology of the
Great Lakes State, edited by J. R. Halsey, pp. 59-70. Bulletin No. 64, Cranbrook Institute of Science,
Bloomfield Hills, MI.
South, S. A.
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. Academic Press, New York.
Standard Map Company
1915 Atlas and Farm Directory of Mason County, Michigan. Standard Map Company, Chicago.
Steinhauer, C.
n.d.
“Centerfire Shot Shells Page 1: Shot Shell Headstamp Identification.” Cartridge Corner. Electronic document
available at http://members.shaw.ca/cartridge-corner/shotgun.htm. Last accessed September 22, 2015.
Stewart-Abernathy, L. C.
1986 The Moser Farmstead, Independent but Not Isolated: The Archaeology of a Late Nineteenth Century Ozark
Farmstead. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 26. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Stillwell, L. N.
2005 An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of a Proposed Cellular Phone Tower (Project #050661) in Port
Sheldon, Ottawa County, Michigan. Report submitted to G2 Consulting Group by Archaeological
Consultants of Ossian.
Stine, L. F.
1990 Social Inequality and Turn-of-the-Century Farmsteads: Issues of Class, Status, Ethnicity, and Race.
Historical Archaeology 24(4):37-49.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
73
Stothers, D. M.
1975 The Emergence and Development of the Younge and Ontario Iroquois Traditions. Ontario Archaeology
25:21-30.
1996 Resource Procurement and Band Territories: A Model for the Lower Great Lakes PaleoIndian and Early
Archaic Settlement System. Archaeology of Eastern North America 24:173-216.
Stothers, D. M., T. J. Abel, and A. M. Schneider
2001 Archaic Perspectives in the Western Lake Erie Basin. In Archaic Transitions in Ohio and Kentucky
Prehistory, edited by O. H. Prufer, S. E. Pedde, and R. S. Meindl, pp. 233-289. The Kent State University
Press, Kent, OH.
Strohpaul, A. D.
n.d.
“Indian Massacre Provided Ludington With First Name.” Undated newspaper clipping, Local History
Collection, Mason County District Library, Ludington, MI.
Summit Township
2013 “History.” Summit Township. Electronic document available at http://summittownship.org/townshipinformation/history/. Last accessed November 24, 2015.
Sussman, L.
1977 Changes in Pearlware Dinnerware, 1780-1830. Historical Archaeology 11:105-111.
1997 Mocha, Banded, Cat’s Eye, and Other Factory-Made Slipware. Studies in Northeast Historical Archaeology
No. 1, Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology, Boston.
Taylor, K. C., E. Janulis, D. Seltz and S. B. Dunham
2006 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Fort Custer Army National Guard Training Center, Kalamazoo and Calhoun
Counties, Michigan. Report submitted to the Potawatomi Resource Conservation & Development Area
Council, Inc. by Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc., Jackson, MI.
Toulouse, J. H.
1971 Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson, Inc., New York.
TripAdvisor LLC
2015 “Bortell’s
Fisheries,
Ludington.”
TripAdvisor.
Electronic
document
available
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g42416-d1522973-Reviews-Bortell_s_FisheriesLudington_Michigan.html#photos. Last accessed November 24, 2015.
at
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
n.d.
Harbor Infrastructure Inventories: Ludington Harbor, Michigan. Electronic document available at
http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Portals/69/docs/Navigation/RiskCommunication/Ludington%20Harbor.pdf.
Last accessed November 24, 2015.
U.S. Geological Survey
2015 topoView. Electronic database available at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/topoview/. Last accessed
November 4, 2015.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
2015 “Patent Full-Text and Image Database (PatFT).” Electronic database available at
http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/search-patents#heading-1. Last accessed September 4,
2015.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
74
Vajen and New
2004 [1884]
Collector’s Encyclopedia of 19th Century Hardware with Price Guide on Cutlery Tools, Kitchen,
Small Farm Equipment, and Miscellaneous Items. Reprinted by L-W Book Sales, Gas City, IN.
Wall, D. diZ.
1994 The Archaeology of Gender: Separating the Spheres in Urban America. Plenum Press, New York.
Weir, D. J., W. L. Andrews, C. S. Demeter, and M. L. Jeakle
1993 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Campbell Ash Pond Expansion and 345 kV Line Relocation,
Holland, Michigan. Report submitted to Consumers Power Company by Commonwealth Cultural Resources
Group, Inc.
Weir, D. J., C. S. Demeter, and C. E. Larsen
1980 Cultural Resource Management Assessment Study of Eight Candidate Power Plant Sites. Commonwealth
Cultural Resources Group, Inc., Jackson, MI.
Wells, T.
1998 Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features. Historical Archaeology 32(2):78-99.
Western Michigan Development Bureau
1918 Western Michigan – The Land of Fruit and Fortune. 1918 edition. Western Michigan Development Bureau,
Grand Rapids, MI.
Whitten, D.
2015a “Glass Manufacturer's Marks on Bottles.” Glass Bottle Marks. Electronic document available at
http://www.glassbottlemarks.com/bottlemarks/. Last accessed September 10, 2015.
2015b “Hazel-Atlas Glass Company (1902-1964).” Glass Bottle Marks. Electronic document available at
http://www.glassbottlemarks.com/hazel-atlas-glass-company/. Last accessed September 10, 2015.
2015c “Kerr Glass Manufacturing Company (“Corporation” after 1927).” Glass Bottle Marks. Electronic document
available at http://www.glassbottlemarks.com/kerr-glass-manufacturing-corporation/. Last accessed
September 25, 2015.
Wilson, J. S.
1990 We’ve Got Thousands of These! What Makes an Historic Farmstead Significant? Historical Archaeology
24(2):23-33.
www.fruitjar.org
n.d.
“How
to
Identify
Hazel-Atlas…”
Electronic
document
available
at
http://www.fruitjar.org/PlantCodes/Hazel%20Atlas_files/image002.jpg. Last accessed September 10, 2015.
Young, A. L.
1994 Spatial Patterning on a 19th-Century Appalachian Houselot: Evidence from Nail Analysis. Southeastern
Archaeology 13(1):56-63.
Young, L.
2004 Plastics – The Good, the Bad and the Really Bad. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 20:113-118.
THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC.
2016-02-03 LPSP Historic-Arch Final Draft Text public version
75
APPENDIX A
HISTORIC MAPS AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX B
LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS
APPENDIX C
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY PHOTOGRAPH LOG
APPENDIX D
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY PHOTOGRAPH LOG
APPENDIX E
PIGEON LAKE NORTH PIER PHOTOGRAPH LOG
APPENDIX F
ARTIFACT CATALOG
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement