Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the 10” Lincoln

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the 10” Lincoln-Traverse City Loop

Pipeline, Grand Traverse Counties, Michigan

DTE Gas Company

Project No. 115495

8/12/2019

Case No.: U-20640 Exhibit: A-1, Appendix C Witness: C. M. Paquette

Page: 1 of 54

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the 10” Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline, Grand Traverse

Counties, Michigan

prepared for

DTE Gas Company

Project No. 115495

August 2019

Author Mark A. Latham

Burns & McDonnell Michigan, Inc. Kansas City, Missouri

COPYRIGHT © 2019 BURNS & McDONNELL Michigan, INC.


Page: 2 of 54

ABSTRACT

Burns & McDonnell Michigan, Inc. (Burns & McDonnell) was retained by DTE Gas Company (DTE) to

conduct a cultural resources survey for the proposed nine mile, 10-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, the

10” Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline (Project), in Paradise Township, East Bay Township, Blair

Township, and Garfield Township Grand Traverse County, Michigan. The pipeline will commence near

the DTE Gas’ crossing of the DTE Energy’s Gas Storage & Pipeline’s 24” gathering header and end at

the existing DTE Gas Traverse City Gate Station. This Project also includes an expansion of the existing

DTE Frankfort Junction Station and upgrades to the existing DTE Traverse City Gate Station. This report

describes the results of a Phase I cultural resources survey for the proposed Project.

The survey also included a 19-acre pipe yard. The total area surveyed was 222 acres. Two previously

unrecorded archaeological sites were identified during the investigation; one prehistoric and the other

historic age. Both sites are recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic

Places (NRHP). All work was conducted to professional standards and guidelines in accordance with the

Michigan State Historic Preservation Office and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines

for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, (48 FR 44716-44742) and in accordance with the Secretary’s

Standard for Identification (48 FR 44720-44723).


Page: 3 of 54

10” Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline Project Table of Contents

DTE Energy TOC-1 Burns & McDonnell

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Description of Project Area ................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Objectives of the Investigation ............................................................................ 1-1

1.3 Schedule and Personnel ....................................................................................... 1-4

1.4 Report Format ...................................................................................................... 1-4

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Physiography........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Geology ................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Soils...................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.4 Drainage ............................................................................................................... 2-3

2.5 Flora and Fauna.................................................................................................... 2-3

3.0 CULTURAL HISTORY ...................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Paleoindian (9,000-8,000 B.C.) ........................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Archaic Period (8,000-500 B.C.) ......................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Woodland Period (500 B.C – A.D. 1650) ............................................................ 3-2

3.4 Protohistoric (A.D. 600-1650) ............................................................................. 3-3

3.5 Historic Period ..................................................................................................... 3-3

4.0 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ............................................................ 4-5

4.1 Archival Research ................................................................................................ 4-5

4.2 Field Methods ...................................................................................................... 4-6

4.2.1 Intensive Visual Inspection and Shovel Testing ................................... 4-6

4.2.2 Site Mapping ......................................................................................... 4-6

4.3 Laboratory Methods ............................................................................................. 4-6

4.3.1 Prehistoric Artifact Analysis ................................................................. 4-7

4.3.2 Historic Artifact Analysis ..................................................................... 4-7

4.4 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 4-7

5.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND ARCHAEOGOICAL POTENTIAL OF THE STUDY AREA ........................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Near the Survey Area ...................... 5-1

5.2 Historic Map Review ........................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Archaeological Site Potential ............................................................................... 5-2

6.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION ....................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Archaeological Sites ............................................................................................ 6-2

6.1.1 Site 20GT161 ........................................................................................ 6-2


Page: 4 of 54



6.1.2 Site 20GT162 ........................................................................................ 6-5

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 7-9

7.1 Summary Evaluations of Sites ............................................................................. 7-9

7.2 Stipulations .......................................................................................................... 7-9

8.0 REFERENCES CITED ...................................................................................... 8-1

APPENDIX A - PROJECT MAPS

APPENDIX B - PROJECT AREA AND SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX C - SITE MAPS


Page: 5 of 54



LIST OF TABLES

Page No.

Table 2-1: Soil Associations in the Traverse City-Lincoln Survey Area ................................ 2-2

Table 5-1: Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One Mile of Survey

Area ........................................................................................................................ 5-1

Table 6-1: Shovel Tests Results, Site 20GT161 ...................................................................... 6-3

Table 6-2: Shovel Tests Results, Site 20GT162 ...................................................................... 6-7

Table 7-1: Recommendations for Sites Within the Survey Area ............................................. 7-9


Page: 6 of 54



LIST OF FIGURES

Page No.

Figure 1-1 General Location ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.


Page: 7 of 54

Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline Project List of Abbreviations

DTE Gas Company i Burns & McDonnell

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Term/Phrase/Name

AMSL above mean sea level

Burns & McDonnell Burns & McDonnell Michigan, Inc.

DTE DTE Gas Company

GIS Geographic Information System

GLO General Land Office

GPS Global Positioning System

GSV ground surface visibility

MSHPO Michigan State Historic Preservation Office

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

Project 10” Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline

Study Area within one mile of the Survey Area

Survey Area Project layout plus a buffer area

TCARP Traverse City-Alpena Reinforcement Project

USGS U.S. Geological Survey


Page: 8 of 54

Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline Project Introduction

DTE Gas Company 1-1 Burns & McDonnell

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Burns & McDonnell Michigan, Inc. (Burns & McDonnell) was retained by DTE Gas Company (DTE) to

conduct a cultural resources Phase I survey for the proposed DTE’s Traverse City-Alpena Reinforcement

Project (TCARP) 10” Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline (Project) in Grand Traverse County, Michigan

(Figure 1-1). The Project involves installing approximately 9 miles of the Lincoln-Traverse pipeline (10-

inch diameter) which will commence near the DTE Gas’ crossing of the DTE Energy’s Gas Storage &

Pipeline’s 24” gathering header and end at the existing DTE Gas Traverse City Gate Station. This Project

also includes an expansion of the existing DTE Frankfort Junction Station and upgrades to the existing

DTE Traverse City Gate Station.

This pipeline will help create a loop to add a second natural gas supply source to the area to minimize

customer disruptions during routine and emergency situations. The Project has the potential to impact

wetlands or other waterbodies that may be under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and therefore this

cultural resources survey was conducted in anticipation of compliance with Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

1.1 Description of Project Area

The looping pipeline travels from the Lincoln-Traverse City Tie-In in the south, travelling north to the

Frankfort Junction and continuing north to the Traverse City Gate Station (Figures A-1 and A-2). The

cultural resource survey was completed based on the proposed Project layout plus a buffer area to allow

for small Project design modifications (Survey Area). The Survey Area ranged in width but was typically

150-feet wide. In some areas additional potential corridors or reroutes were included and a pipe laydown

yard was also surveyed. The survey totaled approximately 222 acres, of which 15 acres or 7 percent were

wetlands.

The Survey Area has several types of land use, including maintained pipeline and other utility corridors,

wooded areas, pine plantations, wetlands, grasslands, waterways, manicured lawns, livestock pastures,

cherry orchards, agricultural fields, public road rights-of-way, and industrial areas.

1.2 Objectives of the Investigation

The primary objective of the archaeological investigation was to identify cultural resources through a

systematic survey of the proposed construction corridor, laydown yards and other activity areas associated

with the Project (Appendix A). All work was conducted to professional standards and guidelines in

accordance with consultation with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (MSHPO), as well as


Page: 9 of 54



the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, (48

FR 44716-44742) and the Secretary’s Standard for Identification (48 FR 44720-44723).


Page: 10 of 54

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

")

")

")

Traverse CityGate Station

Blair toLincoln-Traverse

Interconnect

FrankfortCheck MeterStation

COPYRIGHT © 2019 BURNS & McDONNELL MICHIGAN, INC.

Source : Esri, a nd Burns & McDonne ll Mich ig a n, Inc. Issue d: 9/20/2019Path: \\bmcd\dfs\Clients\TND\DTEEnr\115495_TCARP\Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\Cultural\AppendixA\DTE_TCARP_Cultural_AppA_Overview_P1.mxd snekolny 9/20/2019

Fig ure 1-1Ge ne ra l Loca tion Map

P h a se I10” Lincoln-Trave rse City Loop P ipe line

Trave rse City-Alpe na Re inforce m e nt P roje ct (TCARP )DTE Ga s Com pa ny (DTE)

Existing RouteP ropose d Route

Sta tions") Expa nsion") Ne w") Upg rade

NORTH

3,000 0 3,0001,500

Sca le in Fe e t


FrankfortJunction

Lincoln-Traverse City Tie-In


Page: 11 of 54



1.3 Schedule and Personnel

The archival research for the Project included a review of the site files and survey records maintained by

MSHPO, at the Michigan State Housing Development Authority on April 9, 2019. Mark A. Latham acted

as Principal Investigator for the archaeological investigations, which were conducted May 28 to June 4,

and July 16 to 18 2019. Survey participants included John Topi and Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham also

conducted archival research, artifact analysis, and authored the report. Kyle Boatright and Kim House

produced the report figures and Mr. Boatright also coordinated the Global Information System (GIS) data.

1.4 Report Format

This report is presented in a format following the guidelines set forth by the MSHPO, client request, and

the format used by Burns & McDonnell on similar projects. The second and third chapters include

Environmental Setting and Cultural History sections to set the context for the investigation and assist in

the interpretation and preliminary assessment of the cultural resources identified. Chapter 4.0 is the

Research Design and Methods chapter which presents a summary of the guidelines followed and

approaches used to conduct the investigation. Previous Investigations in the vicinity of the Project are

presented in Chapter 5.0. Chapter 6.0 contains the Results of Investigation including a detailed discussion

of the archaeological resources recorded during the current investigation. is Chapter 7.0, Conclusions and

Recommendations, summarizes the results of the investigation, a review of the significance of the

findings, and recommendations concerning the proposed Project. A References Cited section is also

included in the report as Chapter 8.0. Three appendixes are included in the report. Appendix A includes

topographic maps and aerial images showing the Project layout, areas surveyed, and sites recorded.

Project area and site photographs are found in Appendix B, and site maps in Appendix C.


Page: 12 of 54

Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline Project Environmental Setting


2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The Project is within the Northern Lower Peninsula High Hills region and encompasses a variety of

landscapes and environments with diverse resources. This chapter gives a brief overview of the

environmental setting, including discussion of some of the critical resources used by the prehistoric and

historic populations of the area.

2.1 Physiography

The Lincoln-Traverse City Project is divided between two units within the Northern Lower Peninsula

High Hills region. The portion of the Project south of the Boardman River is within the Mancelona-

Thompsonville Outwash Plain, while to the north it is within the Northern Lower Peninsula Tunneled

Uplands. Both physiographic units are characterized by hills and plains that were formed by glacial

deposition and meltwater erosion (Michigan Geological Survey 2019). The Project crosses the Port Huron

Moraine just north of the Boardman River.

2.2 Geology

The underlying bedrock of the Project is shale. The southern portion is Coldwater Shale and the northern

is Ellsworth Shale (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1999). No bedrock outcroppings were

noted in the Survey Area.

2.3 Soils

Soils occur in recognizable patterns across landscapes. This patterning is greatly influenced by parent

material and landscape position. Soil science commonly defines parent material as the mineral or organic

material in which soil has formed, and it includes the kinds of rock from which the regolith is derived

(Soil Survey Staff 1993; Wysocki et al. 2005). Soils can form in an extensive array of surficial geologic

deposits, including unconsolidated sediments (alluvial, glacial, marine, and eolian), saprolite, and bedrock

(weathered and unweathered) (Wysocki et al. 2005). Most of the soils in the area were formed from

glacial deposits (Table 2-1). The soil types not formed from glacial include muck (Carlisle and Edwards)

and Calcareous silty lacustrine and/or eolian deposits of the Sanilac-Richter loam found in a small area of

the Boardman River floodplain.


Page: 13 of 54



Table 2-1: Soil Associations in the Traverse City-Lincoln Survey Area

Soil Type Slope Setting, Parent Material

Rubicon sand 0 to 6% Sandy glaciofluvial deposits

Kalkaska loamy sand 0 to 25% Sandy glaciofluvial deposits

Carlisle muck 0 to 2% Woody organic material

Tonkey mucky sandy loam 0 to 1% Stratified loam and sand glaciofluvial

deposits

Emmet sandy loam

6 to 45%,

moderately

eroded

Thick layer (24-50 inches) of loamy

material over calcareous loamy till

Guelph-Nester loams

2 to 35%,

moderately

eroded

Loamy glacial till

Nessen-Kaleva sands 0 to 6%

Thick layer (40-55 inches) of sand over

calcareous sand and gravelly glaciofluvial

deposits

Losco-Ogemaw loamy sand 0 to 2% Thick layer (20-40 inches) of glaciofluvial

deposits over loamy till

Richter, Tonkey, and Piconning

loams 0 to 2%

Thick layer (25-40 inches) of sand and

loam over calcareous sandy and silty

glaciofluvial deposits

Leelanau-Kalkaska loamy sand 0 to 45%


loam over calcareous sandy glaciofluvial

deposits

Richter loams 0 to 2%

Outwash. Thick layer (25-40 inches) of

sand and loam over calcareous sandy and

silty glaciofluvial deposits

Mancelona gravelly sandy loam 6 to 12%


gravel over calcareous sandy and gravelly

glaciofluvial deposits

Ubly-Nester complex 12 to 25% Thick layer (30-50 inches) of loam over

calcareous loamy till

Kalkaska sand 0 to 2% Sandy glaciofluvial deposits

Wind eroded land Strongly

sloping (Not described)

Croswell loamy sand 0 to 2%,

Overwash Sandy glaciofluvial deposits

Tawas-Roscommon complex (none given) Thick layer (16-51 inches) of organic

material over sandy glaciofluvial deposits

Kalkaska loamy sand 0 to 25% Sandy glaciofluvial deposits

Roscommon mucky loamy sand (none given) Sandy glaciofluvial deposits

Source: Soil Survey Staff 2015


Page: 14 of 54



Nineteen soil types have been mapped for the Survey Area, ranging from 0 to 45 percent slopes. Over 90

percent of the Survey Area soils are sand. The other soil types are a variety of muck found along

drainages, a gravelly moraine slope, and small areas of sandy loam found near the middle of the Survey

Area.

2.4 Drainage

The Project area is within the Boardman River drainage, crossing it near the southern end the proposed

pipeline corridor. The Boardman River is just over 28 miles long, beginning near Kalkaska and flowing

into the west arm of Grand Traverse Bay. During the logging period of the nineteenth century it was used

by lumber companies to transport logs to sawmills at Traverse City. Prior to the logging activities in the

area, the river was reportedly over 200 feet wide (Rennie 1982). Currently the river channel is only about

50 feet wide.

2.5 Flora and Fauna

The Project area was glaciated until sometime between 12,500 to 11,800 years ago when most of the

region was tundra. By 9,900 years ago, the area was dominated by spruce and pine forest. During the dry

and warm period from 4,500 to 3,500 years ago, the area appears to have been dominated by northern

hardwood forest, which continues to the present (Kapp 1999). The project area is considered to be within

the transitional zone, which is described as having integrated floral and faunal elements of two provinces.

The northern community is the Canadian Biotic Province and the southern one is the Carolinian Biotic

Province. The northern flora includes beech-maple and conifer forests, while the southern flora are

species associated with oak-hickory forests (Douglas et al. 1998).


Page: 15 of 54

Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline Project Cultural History


3.0 CULTURAL HISTORY

This chapter presents an overview of the prehistory and history of the general area of the Project.

Archaeologists generally divide the prehistoric cultural sequence of the Great Lakes into two preceramic

periods and two ceramic periods. The historic period follows these periods and the transitional

protohistoric period. The site densities of the various prehistoric periods vary considerably, as do the

climate and lake levels, The highest site density appears to be along the shores of the Great Lakes, and

considering the fluctuations of the shorelines throughout prehistory, the occupied shorelines could

currently be either underwater or some distance inland.

3.1 Paleoindian (9,000-8,000 B.C.)

Based on the current data, most archaeologists identify the Paleoindian period as the earliest stage of

human occupation in the Midwest and Great Lakes. Sites assigned to this period are best known by the

presence of unique projectile point styles, with the fluted varieties being the most recognized. By the end

of the Paleoindian period, the environment had changed dramatically. The withdrawal of the Wisconsin

ice sheet caused a gradual shift in the distribution of floral communities across the landscape. At the

beginning of the Paleoindian period, the climate in northwestern portions of the Michigan lower peninsula

was sub-arctic, with vegetation dominated by grasslands with some small woodlands. By the end of the

period the climate was warmer, and the landscape was dominated by mixed boreal-deciduous forests.

Little evidence of Paleoindian occupation has been recorded in the northwestern portions of the Michigan

lower peninsula (Monaghan and Lovis 2005; Shott and Wright 1999), but possible evidence has been

identified at a site (20GT89) along the shores of Green Lake in Interlochen (Douglas et al. 1998).

3.2 Archaic Period (8,000-500 B.C.)

The Archaic period in the Midwest has been divided into three subdivisions: Early Archaic (8,000 to

6,000 B.C.), Middle Archaic (6,000 to 3,000 B.C.), and Late Archaic (3,000 to 500 B.C.). The Early

Archaic is generally viewed as a continuation of the lifestyle traditions established during the late

Paleoindian period. As the climate continued to shift, a broader range of ecological niches was exploited.

Even though temporally diagnostic artifacts of the Early Archaic are not uncommon in Michigan, very

few such sites have been recorded or investigated. At least one Early Archaic site, the Samels Field site

(20GT90), has been reported in Grand Traverse County (Shott 1999). The Samels Field site was an Agate

Basin base camp near Traverse City (Cleland and Ruggles 1996). Many other sites from the period are

now likely submerged by the waters of the Great Lakes. Lake levels were much lower during the Early

Archaic than during the present, and it is postulated that most of the sites dating to this period were


Page: 16 of 54



located along ancient lake shores and are now submerged deep below modern lake levels (Monaghan and

Lovis 2005).

The environment continued to shift throughout the Middle Archaic, resulting in continued changes in

vegetation and lake levels. The Middle Archaic is poorly understood in Michigan, as only a few sites have

been excavated and few large systematic surveys of localities have been undertaken. The recorded site

density is low, and much of the current understanding of the period is inferred from more intensely

studied sites and localities in neighboring regions. Even though the number of known sites in Michigan is

low it may not reflect the true site density, as lake levels were much lower at this time and it is postulated

that many Middle Archaic sites were likely along the contemporary shoreline and therefore are currently

underwater or deeply buried and not identifiable by typical survey methods (Lovis 1999; Monaghan and

Lovis 2005). The Middle Archaic is the only period not identified in the Green Lake site assemblage

(Douglas et al. 1998).

By the beginning of the Late Archaic period, the vegetation communities were similar to the composition

of historic period to modern species composition. Late Archaic occupations are marked by further

expansion of the toolkits. Groundstone tools that became common during this period include three-quarter

grooved axes, bannerstones, plummets, hammerstones, pestles, and manos. The increased number of

pestles and manos is thought to reflect the increased exploitation of wild seeds and nuts. During the

terminal Late Archaic period, ceramic technology began to develop (Robertson et al. 1999). Architectural

evidence is rare for the Late Archaic, with only the Rock Hearth site (20BE306) known to contain the

remains of a structure: a small, rectangular house (Clark 1994).

3.3 Woodland Period (500 B.C – A.D. 1650)

In the Midwest, the Woodland period has also been divided into three subdivisions: Early Woodland (500

B.C to A.D. 1), Middle Woodland (A.D. 1-600), and Late Woodland (A.D. 600-1650). The Woodland

period is characterized by a trend toward increased sedentism, production of pottery, intensified

horticultural activity, and other changes in subsistence patterns. Additionally, researchers have

documented evidence of regional exchange networks and the elaboration of ceremonial activities and

mortuary practices (Brashler et al. 1999; Garland and Beld 1999; Griffin 1967; Kingsley et al. 1999;

Stothers and Abel 1993). The origin of these trends can be traced to the Late Archaic, but the elaboration

of cultural elements became the hallmark of the Woodland period. These developmental trends form the

basis for distinguishing the Early, Middle, and Late Woodland substages. Regional variations in the

timing and extent to which these traditions were expressed, however, make this three-part subdivision

difficult to apply in certain areas. The invention of pottery is generally associated with the beginning of


Page: 17 of 54



the Early Woodland, though the timing of its appearance seems to vary spatially across the landscape

(Garland and Beld 1999; Stothers and Abel 1993).

The Middle Woodland period is characterized by the refinement of ceramic technology, by mound

building, and by the appearance of semi-permanent villages (Kingsley et al. 1999). This period is also

associated with the Hopewellian Interaction Sphere, which is marked by specific design motifs on pottery

vessels, “elite” burial mounds, and the exchange of exotic materials (Caldwell and Hall 1964). The

Hopewellian Interaction Sphere connected distant Middle Woodland groups through a highly developed

socio-religious organization (Struever 1964). Large regional centers, which exhibit conical-shaped burial

mounds, were the focal points for Hopewellian activities.

The beginning of the Late Woodland period was marked by a reduction in interregional trade, a decrease

in the complexity of ceremonial/mortuary practices, and a reduction in the elaborateness of ceramic

decoration (Brashler et al. 1999; Stothers 1999). Otherwise, the period did not differ much from earlier

Woodland times in terms of subsistence practices and settlement systems. The introduction of the bow

and arrow was an important technological development.

3.4 Protohistoric (A.D. 600-1650)

The protohistoric is described as the period during which European derived trade items appear in the

assemblage of native groups and prior to actual contact between the two groups (Parker 1907; Stothers

2000; Trigger 1985). In the Great Lakes area, the protohistoric period has been dated to A.D. 1534 when

French explorer Jacques Cartier met several groups of Iroquoian-speakers in what is now Canada. Around

A.D. 1600, European trade goods were steadily flowing into the region as the fur trade intensified and

several Native American confederacies were formed, including the Huron, Iroquois, Erie, and Neutral

(Kuhn and Spempowski 2001). Europeans increased their presence in the area during the late seventeenth

century, following the Iroquois Wars of the mid-seventeenth century.

3.5 Historic Period

The first European settlers in the Grand Traverse area were Jesuits, who had followed certain bands of the

Hurons after they were defeated by the Iroquois in the Georgian Bay area of Lake Huron. These Huron

bands joined the Ottawa in what is now northwest Michigan and northeast Wisconsin. Early histories and

maps of Grand Traverse county characterize the Project area as being mature forest, with a mixture of

pines and hardwoods. In 1847, Captain Horace Boardman purchased some of the land around what would

become Grand Traverse County. The Boardman River, which was formerly called the Ottawa River, was

renamed after the captain (Leach 1883; Rennie 1982; Sprague and Smith 1903).


Page: 18 of 54



Grand Traverse County was organized in 1851 and by 1854 the county was dominated by one logging

company; the Hannah & Lay Company (Benson 1989; Rennie 1982). Logs were transported down the

Boardman river to the mill in Traverse City for several years until the area had been clear-cut. The

introduction of the railroad changed how lumber was transported (Benson 1989; Rennie 1982). By the

late 1860s, Euroamerican settlers began establishing farms throughout the valley (Rennie 1982).


Page: 19 of 54



4.0 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The investigations were guided through consultation with the MSHPO and by contract requirements and

objectives as outlined in the scope of work, topographic and vegetation conditions in the Survey Area,

and the level of the proposed effort. Using National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria of

significance, the investigation focused on locating and assessing all cultural resources found within the

Survey Area. The level of effort used in this Project is typically referred to as a Phase I cultural resources

survey, with preliminary NRHP site and historic-age resource evaluation.

4.1 Archival Research

Prior to the beginning of the field investigation, a review of archaeological and historical literature

relevant to the Survey Area was conducted. This review included examination of site inventory records on

file at the MSHPO. These records document the identified cultural resources in and around the Survey

Area. The review also garnered information regarding cultural history and environmental setting, as these

pertain to site distribution and the evaluation of cultural resources. In addition, the archival research effort

included an examination of previous archaeological investigations conducted in the vicinity. In

conjunction with NRHP significance criteria, this information established a context within which all

cultural resources could be evaluated.

In addition to the archaeological site records and previous project reports, other archival sources that were

consulted are listed below.

• General Land Office (GLO) survey notes and plat maps

(http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/SurveySearch/Default.asp?)

• NRHP list (http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome)

• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Map (http://nationalmap.gov/)

• County historical plat maps

A review of available historic-era maps was undertaken to determine land use history and the potential for

historic-era resources in or near the Survey Area. The maps selected for review were those depicting the

locations of houses, other types of buildings, and cultural features that would illustrate the land use

history of the Survey Area. Reviewed maps include GLO maps (GLO 1840), county and township plat

maps (Hayes 1881; Pond 1895; Ogle 1910); and topographic quadrangles (USGS 1958a, 1958b, 1965a,

1965b, 1983a, 1983b).


Page: 20 of 54



4.2 Field Methods

The field methods used during the investigation were designed to identify cultural resources and obtain

data needed to identify age, function, and other characteristics of each cultural resource discovered within

the Survey Area. The approach gleaned information on land use, landform integrity, site probability, site

location, and artifact density throughout the Survey Area.

4.2.1 Intensive Visual Inspection and Shovel Testing

Field survey was undertaken by means of visual examination of the ground surface as trained professional

archaeologists walked parallel transects spaced at 15-meter intervals. Where cultural materials were

observed, the ground surface was examined visually using parallel 5-meter transects to determine the

areal extent of any artifact scatter and to determine the presence of any cultural features that might be

exposed on the ground surface. Visual inspection also included examination of obvious surface features,

stream cut banks, tree falls, animal burrows, trails, road cuts, eroded ridge slopes, two-track roads, push

piles, and borrow pits. This approach not only helped identify and define cultural resources, it also

allowed the investigator insight into depositional settings, environmental characteristics, and landform

integrity within the Survey Area.

The Survey Area primarily included sandy soils with ground surface visibility (GSV) exceeding 30

percent. In portions of the Survey Area that had less than 25 percent GSV, shovel testing was conducted.

Shovel tests were approximately 30 centimeters in diameter (about 1 foot) and were excavated to the

depth of the Holocene-aged deposits, which in most cases was 20 to 30 centimeters below the current

ground surface. Excavated soils were screened through ¼-inch mesh. Where needed, survey shovel tests

were excavated at 5- to 15-meter (16- to 50-foot) intervals.

4.2.2 Site Mapping

Artifact locations at each site or isolated find spot were mapped using Global Positioning System (GPS)

units with sub-meter accuracy. Maps were generated based on GPS mapping, field notes, and sketch maps

prepared during field work to thoroughly document cultural, environmental, and topographic features.

Measurements of historic features were recorded in Standard English units (feet and inches) to match the

system of measurement used by the occupants of nineteenth and twentieth century sites. The GPS data

was processed by Burns & McDonnell in a GIS mapping program to produce map figures for the report.

4.3 Laboratory Methods

The artifacts were analyzed using appropriate methods discussed below, before being returned to the

landowners or the site. No artifacts were identified on state-owned lands.


Page: 21 of 54



4.3.1 Prehistoric Artifact Analysis

Considering there was only one prehistoric artifact recovered during the current investigation, the artifact

analysis was not intensive. The artifact was tabulated according functional category, material class, and

provenience.

4.3.2 Historic Artifact Analysis

All historic artifacts were identified and tabulated according to functional categories, material classes, and

provenience. They were analyzed and described as required by state and Federal guidelines. Diagnostic

material was identified and dated using applicable references (listed in the bibliography).

4.4 Objectives

The main objectives of this survey were to find and record cultural resources within the Survey Area.

After archaeological resources were identified and sufficient data was gathered, each site was evaluated

for historical significance based on the eligibility criteria set forth in the NHPA:

Criteria for evaluation: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,

engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess

integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, associations, and

A. that are associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the

broad patterns of our history; or

B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic

value, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components

may lack individual distinction; or

D. that yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or

history.

Criteria considerations: Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures;

properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been

moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings; properties primarily

commemorative in nature; and properties that have achieved their significance within the past

50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register (36 CFR § 60.4).

Typically, the most applicable criterion for evaluating archaeological properties is Criterion D. In general,

prehistoric and historic sites containing subsurface deposits in the form of features or middens that are

potentially eligible for NRHP listing are significant under Criterion D. Sites that are viewed as likely to

contain intact subsurface deposits are determined by occupation intensity, function or type of site, and the

degree of disturbance. Site integrity and condition are key factors in evaluating NRHP significance.


Page: 22 of 54

Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline Project Previous Investigations of the Study Area


5.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND ARCHAEOGOICAL POTENTIAL OF THE

STUDY AREA

The pre-fieldwork research was conducted to identify previously recorded archaeological site and surveys

within one mile of the Survey Area (Study Area). The results were utilized to help develop a context for

human occupation during the prehistoric and historic period and develop a better understanding of

landform types and settings that are more likely to include archaeological sites. This section gives a brief

overview of the previously documented sites, archaeological investigations, and historic era residential

density within the Study Area.

5.1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Near the Survey Area

The review of the previously recorded archaeological sites identified three sites within the Lincoln-

Traverse City Study Area (Figures A-1 A-2). Site 20GT21 was recorded in Hinsdale’s 1931 Michigan

Archaeological Atlas as containing two mounds to the east of the Survey Area. The exact location has not

been determined, and therefore not on the Appendix A maps, but it is somewhere east of the Survey Area

along the intermittent drainage northeast of Slights (Brunett et al. 1980) (Figure A-1 and A-2). The other

two sites (20GT96 and 20GT101) were recorded during a 1996 survey that crossed terraces of the

Boardman River (Robertson et al. 1996) (Figure A-1 and A-2).

Table 5-1: Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One Mile of Survey Area

Site Number Component(s) Site Type

NRHP Status Reference

20GT21 Unknown

prehistoric

Site lead/

Mounds

Unevaluated Hinsdale 1931; Brunett et

al. 1980

20GT96 Unknown

prehistoric

Lithic

scatter

Unevaluated Robertson et al. 1996

20GT101 Unknown

prehistoric

Lithic

scatter

Unevaluated Robertson et al. 1996

5.2 Historic Map Review

A review of historic-era maps shows that the southern half of the Study Area had few residences until the

mid-twentieth century, while the northern half had one to five houses per section by 1881 (Hayes 1881;

Pond 1895; Ogle 1910; USGS 1958a, 1958b, 1965a, 1965b, 1983a, 1983b). The residential density of the

Study Area only increased slightly from the late nineteenth century through the mid-twentieth century. By

the late twentieth century, the residential density for most of the Study Area north of the Boardman River

more than tripled in density. South of the river is primarily state-owned lands, which has no residences.


Page: 23 of 54

Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline Project Previous Investigations of the Study Area


The few residential occupations in this segment are small, privately-owned tracts flanking the state-owned

parcels.

5.3 Archaeological Site Potential

Based on a review of the previously recorded archaeological sites and their distribution, previous cultural

resource survey results, previous land use, and historic-era maps, the archaeological site density of the

area is low. Based on this review, it appears the archaeological site potential is also low through the

majority of the Survey Area. The review of the Hinsdale’s 1930 Michigan Archaeological Atlas indicated

that two burial mounds were recorded to the east of the Survey Area. Most of the mounds documented by

Hinsdale in the region have been destroyed by cultivation. Nearly all the Survey Area has been previously

disturbed by cultivation, timber activities, utility and pipeline construction, or subjected to twentieth and

twenty-first century development.

Based on the previous surveys and sites recorded, the areas with the highest potential for containing

prehistoric sites are on terraces or elevated landscapes overlooking streams. The Survey Area crosses the

Boardman River; however, this segment of the river has no terraces or elevated landforms within the

floodplain. No evidence of prehistoric occupation was identified in this location during the survey.

The locations of the mapped houses and overall residential density suggest that the potential for historic

era sites within the Survey Area is low. The most likely sites types present would be dumpsites or

possibly logging camps. According to the 1881 plat map, logging companies owned several large tracts of

land, which reduced the areas open to homesteading and rural schools, churches, and industries (Hayes

1881).


Page: 24 of 54

Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline Project Results of Investigation


6.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

This chapter details the archaeological investigation undertaken for the Project, including a summary of

the field investigations followed by a discussion of resources identified. All of the sites identified were in

Grand Traverse County, Michigan. The field surveys were limited to the Survey Area, which includes

construction corridors, buffers, and laydown yard footprint areas of the proposed Project. During the

current investigation, historic period maps were consulted to assist in the survey procedures and site

interpretation and assessments.

The Project area was primarily level to rolling uplands that included have been predominately forest until

cleared in the mid- to late nineteenth century. Some areas are presently wooded, which are periodically

harvested or clear-cut for lumber. Other areas include agricultural fields, orchards, pastures, manicured

lawns, and modern development areas (both industrial and residential). The GSV ranged from 0 in most

of the heavily wooded areas to 100 percent in the existing maintenance road corridors. Many of the shovel

tests in the wooded areas revealed the repeated logging in the sandy soils has severely disturbed the A

horizon.

The maps, photographs, and artifact tables referenced in the following site discussions are presented in a

series of appendixes. Appendix A includes the topographic and aerial maps that depict the Survey Area

and the locations of the sites recorded. Appendix B includes the photographs of the Survey Area,

archaeological site overviews, and cultural features documented within the sites. Appendix C includes the

site maps.

The segment between the Lincoln-Traverse City Tie-In and the Frankfort Junction parallels an existing

pipeline, which is within the Survey Area. This segment also includes the crossing of the Boardman

River. South of the river, the existing pipeline and a heavily traveled maintenance road along the eastern

half of the Survey Area are on a sandy level plain (Photograph B-1). The Survey Area south of the

Boardman River passes through some privately-owned and four state-owned land parcels. A Permit to

Perform Archaeological Exploration on State-Owned Land (Permit Number 2019-03) was required before

surveying the state-owned parcels. The Survey Area within the four state-owned parcels totaled 32 acres

and was approximately half wooded and half cleared existing pipeline maintenance corridor. The state-

owned wooded areas had evidence of past logging activities, borrow areas, and other buried pipelines and

utilities. The private property included tracts of wooded areas (also with evidence of previous logging

activities), portions of manicured lawns, and grassy meadows. The sandy soil, combined with the

extensive disturbances and sparse vegetation cover within much of the Survey Area afforded excellent


Page: 25 of 54



GSV in the existing pipeline maintenance corridors, borrow areas, yards, and grassy meadows during the

survey.

The Survey Area crossing of the Boardman River was in a segment of the valley floor that was all low-

lying floodplain on both sides of the river with no terraces or elevated landforms (Photograph B-2). Burns

& McDonnell’s 2019 wetland survey determined both sides of the river were wetlands (Figures A-1 and

A-2).

The northern edge of the Broadman River floodplain is marked by the steep slope of the in the Port Huron

Moraine (Photograph B-3). From this moraine to the Frankfort Junction, the Survey Area includes

existing pipeline. The moraine is wooded, with the exception of the existing pipeline maintenance

corridor and some open meadows on the crest of the landform. The rolling hills to the north of the highest

elevations of the moraine and south of the Frankfort Junction were agricultural fields, cherry orchards,

grasslands, and woodlands. During the survey, these areas had 20 to 80 percent GSV.

The segment between the Frankfort Junction and the Traverse City Gate Station was a mixture of

agricultural fields, wooded areas, housing developments, and industrial areas (Figures A-2 and A-4;

Photograph B-4). Adjacent to this segment is the proposed pipe yard, for which 19 acres of an alfalfa field

was surveyed (Figures A-1 and A-2; Photograph B-5). Much of this segment also parallels an existing

pipeline, which is included in the Survey Area. North of the laydown yard, the Survey Area is primarily

in highly disturbed areas adjacent to and within housing developments and industrial areas (Photographs

B-6 through B-8).

6.1 Archaeological Sites

Two archaeological sites were recorded during the current investigation of the Survey Area. One was

prehistoric of unknown cultural affiliation and the other was mid- to late twentieth century Euroamerican.

Each archaeological site is discussed in detail below.

6.1.1 Site 20GT161

Summary Data

Site Type: Isolated find

Component: Unknown prehistoric

Site Area: 8 square meters (46 square meters; 0.01 acres)

Topography: Glacial moraine

Elevation: 276 meters above mean sea level (AMSL)

Soil Type: Kalkaska loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Nearest Water: Marsh 117 meters to the south

Field Method: Visual inspection and shovel testing


Page: 26 of 54



Site Condition: Fair

NRHP Status: Recommended not eligible

6.1.1.1 Site Description

During the survey, this site was identified as a prehistoric isolated find situated on the gentle slope of a

large glacial moraine north of the Boardman River floodplain (Figure A-1). The find was recovered in

Shovel Test JT-10, which was excavated along the eastern edge of the Survey Area and just east of an

existing pipeline (Table 6-1; Photograph B-9; Figure C-1). At the time of survey, the site area was in a

clearing that included a thin mixture of forbs and grasses, with a few bushes and trees. GSV ranged from

40 percent along the existing pipeline trench to 30 to 10 percent in the surrounding areas.

The site boundaries were established by visual inspection and shovel testing. Visual inspection was

conducted at 2- to 5-meter intervals, including examination of the surface of the backfilled pipeline within

this segment of the Survey Area. Thirteen shovel tests were excavated in the site area at 5- to 15-meter

intervals; skipping over the disturbed area of the existing pipeline. No evidence of the site was found on

the surface and only 1 of the 13 shovel tests was positive for cultural resources.

Table 6-1: Shovel Tests Results, Site 20GT161

Shovel Test Number

Zone I Depth

(cm)

Zone I Soil

Description

Zone II

Depth (cm)

Zone II Soil

Description Results

JT-6 0-27 Brown (10YR

4/3) loamy sand 27-40+

Brown

(10YR 5/3)

loamy sand

Negative

JT-10 0-25

Dark brown

(10YR 3/3)

loamy sand

25-37+

Yellowish

brown

(10YR 5/4)

loamy sand

Positive 0-25 cm

JT-11 0-25

Very dark

grayish brown

(10YR 3/2)

loamy sand

25-35+

Brown

(10YR 5/3)

loamy sand

Negative

JT-12 0-29

Very dark

grayish brown

(10YR 3/2)

loamy sand

29-40+

Brown

(10YR 5/3)

loamy sand

Negative

JT-13 0-26

Dark brown

(10YR 3/3)

sandy loam

26-36+

Brown

(10YR 5/3)

sandy loam

Negative

JT-14 0-26

Dark brown

(10YR 3/3)

sandy loam

26-38+

Brown

(10YR 5/3)

sandy loam

Negative


Page: 27 of 54



Shovel Test Number

Zone I Depth

(cm)

Zone I Soil

Description

Zone II

Depth (cm)

Zone II Soil

Description Results

JT-15 0-23

Dark brown

(10YR 3/3)

sandy loam

23-35+

Brown

(10YR 5/3)

sandy loam

Negative

JT-16 0-22

Dark brown

(10YR 3/3)

sandy loam

22-33+

Brown

(10YR 5/3)

sandy loam

Negative

JT-17 0-25

Dark brown

(10YR 3/3)

sandy loam

25-35+

Brown

(10YR 5/3)

sandy loam

Negative

JT-18 0-20

Dark brown

(10YR 3/3)

sandy loam

20-32+

Yellowish

brown

(10YR 5/4)

loamy sand

Negative

JT-19 0-27

Very dark

grayish brown

(10YR 3/2)

loamy sand

27-40+

Brown

(10YR 5/3)

sandy loam

Negative

ML-6 0-24

Dark brown

(10YR 3/3)

sandy loam

24-40+

Brown

(10YR 5/3)

sandy loam

Negative

ML-7 0-23

Dark brown

(10YR 3/3)

sandy loam

23-40+

Brown

(10YR 5/3)

sandy loam

Negative

6.1.1.2 Artifact Descriptions

The only artifact identified at the site was a large tertiary flake of Norwood chert. Norwood chert is found

about 40 miles north northeast of the site. The flake was found in the upper 20 cm of Shovel Test JT-10

No evidence of use or retouch was noted on the flake.

6.1.1.3 Site Summary, Site 20GT161

The aspects of the site are described below, in addition to the significance and recommendations.

6.1.1.3.1 Horizontal and Vertical Extent of Cultural Deposit

The site is an isolated find within the A horizon of the high glacial moraine.

6.1.1.3.2 Site Integrity

The find spot appears to have fair integrity, with the area adversely impacted by clearing, construction,

and maintenance of the existing pipeline. The buried pipeline is immediately to the west of the find spot.


Page: 28 of 54



The construction and maintenance of this pipeline may have destroyed elements of this low artifact

density site.

6.1.1.3.3 Site Function

The site was identified as an isolated find that was likely associated with a short-term activity area on the

crest of a glacial moraine.

6.1.1.3.4 Cultural Affiliation

Based on the artifact present, the cultural affiliation was identified as prehistoric of unknown cultural

affiliation.

6.1.1.3.5 Stratigraphic Placement of Components

The site is limited to the A horizon.

6.1.1.3.6 Presence of Subsurface Features

No evidence of subsurface features was identified during the current investigation of the site.

6.1.1.3.7 Site Significance

The isolated find lacks research potential due to its low artifact density, and diversity. It is the opinion of

the investigator that the current investigation has exhausted the research potential of the site within the

Survey Area.

6.1.1.3.8 Impact

It is the opinion of the investigator that the proposed Project would not impact significant cultural

resources at this site within the Survey Area.

6.1.1.3.9 Recommendations

No further archaeological investigations are recommended for this site within the Survey Area.

6.1.2 Site 20GT162

Summary Data

Site Type: Foundation

Component: Mid- to late twentieth century

Site Area: 17 meters (north-south) by 28 meters (east-west); 472 square meters (0.12 acres)

Topography: Rolling plain

Elevation: 276 meters AMSL

Soil Type: Kalkaska loamy sand, 12 to 18 percent slopes

Nearest Water: Well about 50 meters to the west southwest


Page: 29 of 54



Field Method: Visual inspection and shovel testing

Site Condition: Good

NRHP Status: Recommended not eligible

6.1.2.1 Site Description

During the survey, this site was identified as a concrete foundation remnant along the western edge of the

Survey Area just south of Rusch Road and the Frankfort Junction (: Figures A-1 and A-2). The

foundation is currently associated with an extant residence that is located several hundred feet to the west

of the feature outside the Survey Area (Photograph B-10; Figure C-2). The foundation feature is under an

extant outbuilding, which sets outside the Survey Area, and extends to the east of it. The cinder block

building appears to be a later construction that only incorporated a portion of the historic-era foundation,

outside the Survey Area, that appears to be of later construction than the foundation (Photograph B-11).

The foundation feature east of the cinder block outbuilding measured 24 feet north to south and 22 feet

east to west. It was at least one foot thick and 16 inches wide.

The site boundaries were defined by the feature limits, visual inspection, shovel testing (Table 6-2), and

the Survey Area. Shovel test JT-20 was placed just to the east of the foundation. A buried portion of a

concrete slab was found at a depth of 22 cm. This large piece of concrete was resting at an angle; sloping

from 22 cm on one side of the shovel test to 33 cm on the other. The foundation is in a level area created

by mechanical removal or cutting of the fine sandy landform (Photograph B-12). An access road passes

along the southern edge of the foundation, and a planted grove of pine trees to the south. The excellent

ground surface in this area is a result of the mechanical removal of portions of the original landform. To

the north of the feature is the steep wall of the cut landform and ditch along Rusch Road. To the east of

the foundation is a continuation of the mechanically created a level area or building pad.

A review of the available historic maps found that the associated farmstead was not present until the mid-

to late twentieth century. No buildings were depicted in the site area on any of the early plat or

topographic maps (Hayes 1881; Pond 1895; Ogle 1910; USGS 1958b, 1965b). The first map to depict the

house to the west of the site was the 1983 topographic map (USGS 1983b).

Even though the adjacent residence is not old enough to be considered historic period, the foundation

appears to be of an earlier date. The building was likely constructed after 1954, as it does not appear on

the 1954 aerial image, but prior to 1983 when the residence was first depicted. No temporarily diagnostic

artifacts, other than concrete, were identified at the site, but based on the concrete the foundation appears

to predate the cinder block building that now sits on its western half.


Page: 30 of 54



Most of the sandy area in and around the site had 40 to 100 percent GSV, which included the excavated

southern hill side and the eroded slope to the east. The network of graded access roads and two-tracks to

the south allowed for excellent GSV as well as profile walls or cuts along incised sections of these roads.

Immediately south of the site the terrain slopes into the floor of level basin.

Table 6-2: Shovel Tests Results, Site 20GT162

Shovel Test Number

Zone I Depth

(cm)

Zone I Soil

Description

Zone II

Depth (cm)

Zone II Soil

Description Results

JT-20 0-22 to 33

Dark yellowish

brown (10YR

4/4) loamy sand

N/A N/A Positive

JT-21 0-14

Yellowish

brown (10YR

5/4) loamy sand

14-26+

Strong

brown

(7.5YR 4/6)

loamy sand

Negative

JT-22 0-16

Yellowish

brown (10YR

5/4) loamy sand

16-32+

Strong

brown

(7.5YR 4/6)

loamy sand

Negative

6.1.2.2 Artifact Descriptions

The only artifacts found were chunks of concrete.

6.1.2.3 Site Summary, Site 20GT162

The aspects of the site are described below, in addition to the significance and recommendations.

6.1.2.3.1 Horizontal and Vertical Extent of Cultural Deposit

The site covers a 17-by-28-meter area and is limited to the ground surface.

6.1.2.3.2 Site Integrity

The site appears to have good integrity. Minimal disturbances to the site include the redeposited concrete

piece found buried just outside the feature, erosion of the landform, and vehicular travel on the access

road along the southern edge of the feature.

6.1.2.3.3 Site Function

The function of the site is unknown.


Page: 31 of 54



6.1.2.3.4 Cultural Affiliation

Based on the historic map review and feature type, the site was occupied during the mid- to late twentieth

century.

6.1.2.3.5 Stratigraphic Placement of Components

The site is limited to the historic-age excavated and leveled surface.

6.1.2.3.6 Presence of Subsurface Features

No evidence of intact subsurface features was identified during the current investigation of the site.

6.1.2.3.7 Site Significance

The surface site lacks research potential due to its period of occupation and lack of association with

individuals of local significance. It is the opinion of the investigator that the current investigation has

exhausted the research potential of the site.

6.1.2.3.8 Impact

It is the opinion of the investigator that the proposed Project would not impact significant cultural

resources at this site.

6.1.2.3.9 Recommendations

No further archaeological investigations are recommended for this site.


Page: 32 of 54

Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline Project Conclusions and Recommendations


7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The objectives of this cultural resources investigation were to identify, record, and provide a preliminary

assessment of the cultural resources found within the Survey Area. This section summarizes the

investigation, including conclusions and site recommendations based on the NRHP criteria of significance

(36 CFR 60.4) and guidelines established by the MSHPO.

7.1 Summary Evaluations of Sites

Two archaeological sites were recorded during the investigation of the proposed Project construction

areas (Table 7-1). As with most linear surveys, one of the sites extended beyond the boundaries of the

Survey Area. Portions of these sites outside the Survey Area were also investigated to document the full

extent, integrity, and significance of each resource investigated. The background research indicated the

site density would be low and that most of the shallow soils of the landscape would exhibit evidence of

previous disturbance. It also indicated that the prehistoric sites recorded would typically have low artifact

densities. The survey results demonstrated the background review assessments were accurate.

It is the opinion of the investigator that the current investigation has exhausted the research potential for

both sites recorded, and they should not be considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. It is the opinion

of the Principal Investigator that significant cultural resources will not be impacted by the Project and the

Project should be allowed to proceed as planned.

Table 7-1: Recommendations for Sites Within the Survey Area

Site Site Type Identified

Component Site

Integrity

NRHP Status within Survey Area Recommend

20GT161 Isolated Find Unknown

Prehistoric Fair Not eligible

No further

investigation

20GT162 Foundation Mid- to Late

20th Century Good Not eligible

No further

investigation

7.2 Stipulations

Burns & McDonnell recommends archaeological clearance for the current Project with the following

stipulations:

• If the Project area is changed, additional Phase I investigations and construction monitoring may

be necessary.


Page: 33 of 54

Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline Project Conclusions and Recommendations


• If human burials or buried archaeological deposits are encountered during Project construction,

land-disturbing activities in the immediate area will be halted, and the Principal Investigator, the

MSHPO, and the appropriate agency archaeologist will be notified. Then the exposed cultural

resources will be evaluated for their significance in accordance with the state and federal

guidelines.


Page: 34 of 54

Lincoln-Traverse City Loop Pipeline Project References Cited


8.0 REFERENCES CITED

Benson, Barbara E.

1989 Logs and Lumber: The Development of the Limber Industry in Michigan’s Lower

Peninsula, 1837-1870. Clarke Historical Library, Central Michigan University, Mount

Pleasant, Michigan.

Brashler, Janet G., John R. Halsey, Margaret B. Holman, James J. Krakker, Susan R. Martin, David M.

Stothers, and Richard L. Zurel

1999 Late Woodland: Prehistory’s Finale, History’s Prelude. In Retrieving Michigan’s Buried

Past, edited by John R Halsey, pp. 125-146. Cranbook Institute of Sciences, Bloomfield

Hills, Michigan.

Brunett, Fel., M.K. Scott, and M.K. Speas

1980 An Historical-Archaeological Survey of the Traverse Bay Regional Planning Commission

Area: Phase I. Traverse Bay Regional Planning Commission, Traverse City.

Caldwell, Joseph and Robert L. Hall

1964 Hopewellian Studies. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers Volume 12. Illinois State

Museum, Springfield.

Clark, Caven P.

1994 Berrien County’s 4,000-Year-Old House. Michigan History Magazine 78(5):51-53.

Cleland, Charles E., and David L. Ruggles

1996 The Samels Field Site: An Early Archaic Base Camp in Grand Traverse County, Michigan.

In Investigating the Archaeological Record of the Great Lakes State: Essays in the Honor

of Elizabeth Baldwin Garland, edited by Margret B. Holman, Janet G. Brashler, and

Kathryn E. Parker., pp. 55-79. New Issues Press, Western Michigan University,

Kalamazoo.

Douglas, John F., Margret B. Holman, and James H. Stephenson

1998 Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland Artifacts from a Site at Green Lake, Grand Traverse

County, Michigan. The Michigan Archaeologist, 44(3): 151-192.

Garland, Elizabeth B., and Scott G. Beld

1999 The Early Woodlands: Ceramics, Domesticated Plants, and Burial Mounds Foretell the

Shape of the Future. In Retrieving Michigan’s Buried Past, edited by John R Halsey, pp.

125-146. Cranbook Institute of Sciences, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

General Land Office (GLO)

1840 Survey maps and notes on file with the Bureau of Land Management.

Griffin, James B.

1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-91.

Hayes, E. L.

1881 Atlas of Grand Traverse County, Michigan. C.O. Titus, Philadelphia.

Hinsdale, Wilbert B.


Page: 35 of 54



1930 The Archaeological Atlas of Michigan. Michigan Handbook Series no. 4, University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Kapp, Ronald O.

1999 Michigan Late Pleistocene, Holocene, and Presettlement Vegetation and Climate. In In

Retrieving Michigan’s Buried Past, edited by John R Halsey, pp. 31-58. Cranbook Institute of

Sciences, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

Kingsley, Robert G., David S. Brose, and Michael J. Hambacher

1999 The Woodlands: A Golden Age of Mound Builders and Fishermen. In Retrieving

Michigan’s Buried Past, edited by John R Halsey, pp. 147-192. Cranbook Institute of


Kuhn, R.D., and M.L. Spempowski

2001 A New Approach to Dating the League of Iroquois. American Antiquity 66(2): 301-314.

Leach, M.L.

1883 A History of Grand Traverse Region. Grand Traverse Herald, Traverse City, Michigan.

Lovis, William A.

1999 The Middle Archaic: Learning to Live in the Woods. In Retrieving Michigan’s Buried Past,

edited by John R Halsey, pp. 83-94. Cranbook Institute of Sciences, Bloomfield Hills,

Michigan.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

1999 1987 Bedrock Geology of Michigan. Land and Mineral Services Division. Lansing.

Michigan Geological Survey

2019 Physiographic Map of Michigan.

http://mgs.geology.wmich.edu/webmgs/physiography/physio.html.

Accessed May 21, 2019.

Monaghan, G. William and William A. Lovis

2005 Modeling Archaeological Site Burial in Southern Michigan: A Geoarchaeological

Synthesis. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing.

Ogle, George A.

1910 Standard Atlas of Grand Traverse County, Michigan. Geo, A. Ogle and Company,

Chicago.

Parker, A.C.

1907 Excavation in an Erie Indian Village and Burial Site at Ripley, Chautauqua County, New

York. New York State Museum Bulletin 117, Albany.

Pond, Seymour E.

1895 New Atlas and Directory of Grand Traverse County, Michigan. Seymour E. Pond and

Company, Traverse City, Michigan.

Rennie, Alec M.

1982 The Boardman River. In Currents of the Boardman, pp. 17-25. Compiled by the Boardman

River Historical Committee, Grand Traverse Historical Society, Traverse City.


Page: 36 of 54



Robertson, James A., R. Neumann, E. Robinson, K.C. Taylor, and D.G. Landis

1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey and Reconnaissance Level Survey of Above Ground

Resources, Cass Road Bridge Reconstruction Project, Garfield Township, Grand Traverse

County, Michigan. Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc., Jackson, Michigan.

Robertson, James A., William A. Lovis, and John R. Halsey

1999 The Late Archaic Hunter-Gatherers in an Uncertain Environment. In Retrieving

Michigan’s Buried Past, edited by John R Halsey, pp. 95-124. Cranbook Institute of


Shott, Michael J

1999 The Early Archaic: Life After the Glaciers. In Retrieving Michigan’s Buried Past, edited

by John R Halsey, pp. 71-70. Cranbook Institute of Sciences, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

Shott, Michael J. and Henry T. Wright

1999 The Paleo-Indians: Michigan’s First People. In Retrieving Michigan’s Buried Past, edited

by John R Halsey, pp. 59-70. Cranbook Institute of Sciences, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

Soil Survey Staff

1993 Soil Survey Manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture

Handbook 18. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

2015 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document,

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html, accessed March 2017

Sprague, Elvin L., and Mrs. George A. Smith

1903 Sprague’s History of Traverse and Leelanaw Counties, Michigan. B.F. Bowen.

Stothers, David M.

1999 Late Woodland Models for Cultural Development in Southern Michigan. In Retrieving

Michigan’s Buried Past, Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of the Great Lakes State,

edited by J. Halsey, pp. 194-211. Cranbook Institute of Sciences, Bloomfield Hills,

Michigan.

2000 The Protohistoric Time Period in the Southwestern Lake Erie Region: European-Derived

Trade Material, Population Movement and Cultural Realignment. In Cultures Before

Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions, ed. By Robert

Genheimer, pp. 52-94. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, OH.

Stothers, David M., and Timothy J. Abel

1993 Archaeological Reflections of the Late Archaic and Early Woodland Time Periods in the

Western Lake Erie Region. Archaeology of Eastern North America 21:25-109.

Struever, S.

1964 The Hopewellian Interaction Sphere in Riverine-Western Great Lakes Culture History. In

Hopewellian Studies, edited by J. R. Caldwell and R. L. Hall, pp. 87-106. Scientific Papers

No. 12. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Trigger, Bruce G.

1985 Natives and Newcomers: Canada’s “Heroic Age” Revisited. McGill-Queens University

Press, Montreal.


Page: 37 of 54



U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

1958a Kingsley, 1:25,000 topographic map. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

1958b Mayfield, 1:25,000 topographic map. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.





Wysocki, D. A., P. J. Schoeneberger, and H. E. LaGarry

2005 Soil Surveys: A Window to the Subsurface, Geoderma, 126: 167–180.


Page: 38 of 54

APPENDIX A - PROJECT MAPS


Page: 39 of 54

Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

")

")

Grand Traverse Co.

20GT162

20GT161

Lincoln-TraverseCity Tie-In

FrankfortJunction


Source : Esri, MSHPO, a nd Burns & McDonne ll Mich ig a n, Inc. Issue d: 10/17/2019Path: \\bmcd\dfs\Clients\TND\DTEEnr\115495_TCARP\Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\Cultural\AppendixA\DTE_TCARP_Cultural_AppA_Topo_P1_3.mxd kdboatright 10/17/2019

Fig ure A-1Topog ra ph ic Ma p

Ph a se I10” Lincoln-Trave rse City Loop Pipe line

Trave rse City-Alpe na R e inforce m e nt Proje ct (TCAR P)DTE Ga s Com pa ny (DTE)

Pa g e 1 of 2

21

Existing R outePropose d R outeSurve y Are aArch a e olog ica l Site

Pre vious Surve y Are aPre viously R e porte d SiteDe line a te d We tla nd/Stre a mSta te -Owne d La nd

Laydown YardStations") Expa nsion") Ne w") Upg rade

NORTH

0 2,0001,000Sca le in Fe e t

FrankfortJunction



Page: 40 of 54

Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

")

")

20GT101

20GT96

Grand Traverse Co.

20GT162

Robertsonet al. 1996




FrankfortJunction


Source : Esri, MSHPO, a nd Burns & McDonne ll Mich ig a n, Inc. Issue d: 10/17/2019Path: \\bmcd\dfs\Clients\TND\DTEEnr\115495_TCARP\Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\Cultural\AppendixA\DTE_TCARP_Cultural_AppA_Topo_P1_3.mxd kdboatright 10/17/2019

Fig ure A-1Topog ra ph ic Ma p

Ph a se I10” Lincoln-Trave rse City Loop Pipe line

Trave rse City-Alpe na R e inforce m e nt Proje ct (TCAR P)DTE Ga s Com pa ny (DTE)

Pa g e 2 of 2

21

Existing R outePropose d R outeSurve y Are aArch a e olog ica l Site

Pre vious Surve y Are aPre viously R e porte d SiteDe line a te d We tla nd/Stre a mSta te -Owne d La nd

Laydown YardStations") Expa nsion") Ne w") Upg rade

NORTH

0 2,0001,000Sca le in Fe e t

FrankfortJunction



Page: 41 of 54

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

")

")

Grand Traverse Co.

20GT162

20GT161

Blair toLincoln-TraverseInterconnect

Frankfort CheckMeter Station


Source: Esri, MSHPO, and Burns & McDonnell Mic h ig an, Inc. Issued : 9/20/2019Path: \\bmcd\dfs\Clients\TND\DTEEnr\115495_TCARP\Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\Cultural\AppendixA\DTE_TCARP_Cultural_AppA_Aerial_P1.mxd snekolny 9/20/2019

Fig ure A-2Aerial MapPh ase I

10” Lincoln-T rav erse City Loop PipelineT rav erse City-Alpena

Reinforcem ent Project (T CARP)DT E Gas Com pany (DT E)

Pag e 1 of 2

21

Existing RouteProposed RouteSurvey AreaArc h aeolog ic al Site

Prev ious Survey AreaPrev iously Reported SiteDelineated Wetland/StreamState-Owned Land

Layd own YardStations") Expansion") New") Upg rade

NORTH

0 2,0001,000

Scale in Feet


Frankfort Junction


Page: 42 of 54

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

")

")

20GT101

20GT96

Grand Traverse Co.

20GT162





Frankfort CheckMeter Station


Source: Esri, MSHPO, and Burns & McDonnell Mic h ig an, Inc. Issued : 9/20/2019Path: \\bmcd\dfs\Clients\TND\DTEEnr\115495_TCARP\Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\Cultural\AppendixA\DTE_TCARP_Cultural_AppA_Aerial_P1.mxd snekolny 9/20/2019

Fig ure A-2Aerial MapPh ase I

10” Lincoln-T rav erse City Loop PipelineT rav erse City-Alpena

Reinforcem ent Project (T CARP)DT E Gas Com pany (DT E)

Pag e 2 of 2

21

Existing RouteProposed RouteSurvey AreaArc h aeolog ic al Site

Prev ious Survey AreaPrev iously Reported SiteDelineated Wetland/StreamState-Owned Land

Layd own YardStations") Expansion") New") Upg rade

NORTH

0 2,0001,000

Scale in Feet

Frankfort Junction



Page: 43 of 54

APPENDIX B - PROJECT AREA AND SITE PHOTOGRAPHS


Page: 44 of 54

DTE 10” Lincoln-Traverse City Loop

Pipeline Project

Project Area and Site Photographs May 24 to June 4 and July 16 to 17,

2019 Grand Traverse County, Michigan

Photograph B-1: South end of Project, Lincoln Traverse Blair Interconnect, view to north.

Photograph B-2: Boardman River crossing, view to southeast.


Page: 45 of 54


Pipeline Project



Photograph B-3: East edge of Survey Area on slope of Port Huron Moraine, overlooking Boardman River valley, view to south.

Photograph B-4: Frankfort Check Meter Station, view to north.


Page: 46 of 54


Pipeline Project



Photograph B-5: Proposed pipe laydown yard along Project between the Traverse City Gate Station and Frankfort Check Meter Station, view to south.

Photograph B-6: Frankfort Check Meter Station, view to north.


Page: 47 of 54


Pipeline Project



Photograph B-7: Survey Area through undeveloped parcel north of Hammond Road, includes push piles, view to north.

Photograph B-8: North end of Project, DTE Traverse City Gate Station, view to north.


Page: 48 of 54


Pipeline Project



Photograph B-9: Site 20GT161 overview, view to north.

Photograph B-10: Site 20GT162 overview, view to west northwest.


Page: 49 of 54


Pipeline Project



Photograph B-11: Site DTE-2 foundation, view to north.

Photograph B-12: Site DTE-2, showing original landform to the north (right) of the foundation, view to west.


Page: 50 of 54

APPENDIX C - SITE MAPS


Page: 51 of 54

Issue d: 9/20/2019

Figure C-1Site 20GT161Phase I

10” Linc oln-Trave rse City Loop Pipe lineTrave rse City-Alpe na

Re inforc e m e nt Proje c t (TCARP)DTE Gas Com pany (DTE)

Grand Trave rse County, Mic higan

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!. !.

!.

!.

!.!.

ML-7ML-6

JT-6JT-19

JT-18

JT-16JT-17

JT-15

JT-14

JT-12

JT-13

JT-11

JT-10

276 m273 m

270 m

267 m

264 m

273 m

276 m270 m

NORTH

0 3015Scale in Me te rs

Surve y Are aSite Boundary

!! !! Existing Route

!.Positive Shove lTe st

!.N e gative Shove lTe stContour


Sourc e : Esri, Am e ric an Surve y, and Burns & McDonne ll Mic higan, Inc.Path: \\bmcd\dfs\Clients\TND\DTEEnr\115495_TCARP\Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\Cultural\DTE-1_Site Map.mxd kdboatright 9/20/2019


Page: 52 of 54


Source : Es ri, Am e rica n Surve y, a nd Burns & McDonne ll Michig a n, Inc. Is s ue d : 9/20/2019Path: \\bmcd\dfs\Clients\TND\DTEEnr\115495_TCARP\Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\Cultural\DTE-2_Site Map.mxd kdboatright 9/20/2019

Fig ure C-2Site 20GT162Pha s e I

10” Lincoln-Tra ve rs e City Loop Pipe lineTra ve rs e City-Alpe na

Re inforce m e nt Proje ct (TCARP)DTE Ga s Com pa ny (DTE)

Gra nd Tra ve rs e County, Michig a n

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!.!.!.

JT-22

JT-21

JT-20

S Rusch Rd

From

holz

Rd

279 m

276 m

273 m

279 m

273 m

NORTHSurve y Are aSite Bound a ry

!! !! Exis ting RouteFound a tion

!.Pos itive Shove lTe s t

!.Ne g a tive Shove lTe s tRoa dContour

0 3015Sca le in Mete rs


Page: 53 of 54

Burns & McDonnell World Headquarters 9400 Ward Parkway

Kansas City, MO 64114 O 816-333-9400 F 816-333-3690

www.burnsmcd.com


Page: 54 of 54

Documents

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the 10” Lincoln