ML20040C250

Preliminary Rept on Subsurface Archaeological Investigations of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co 345-kV Transmission Line:Perry-Leroy Ctr - Macedonia-Cleveland Inland.

ML20040C250
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	12/31/1977
From:	Benson D, Brose D, White N CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
To:
Shared Package
ML20040C239	List: ML20040C238 ML20040C242 ML20040C248 ML20040C250
References
NUDOCS 8201270450
Download: ML20040C250 (1)

Text

_ . . . . _ _ . . _ .-. . __. . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ __ _ _

,- . l 4- . . .

l- ]:> 72 .

i

O 1

j-r t

i ,

PRELIMIfiARY REPORT ON SUBSURFACE i ARCHAE 0 LOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE CEI

!- 345 kV TRANSMISSION LINE: PERRY-LER0Y CENTER-l MACEDONIA-CLEVELAND INLAND i

i 1

41' 1

i 1

~

t O 81

David S. Brose -

~

Nancy Marie White '

and l'

Donna Benson l Cleveland Museum of Natural History l December 1977 r

r Submitted to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company 1300 Public Square, Cleveland,' Ohio L

LO I =

8201270450 e20125-

, PDR ADOCK 05000440' A' PDR

.l

C0 lTErlTS Pace IllTR000CTI0t! i ARCHAE 0 LOGICAL IflVESTIGATIGIS 16 SURVEY METHOD 18 RESULTS OF SURVEY 20 CONCLUSIO.'lS 21 REFEREllCES CITED 23

, APPEflDICES A. Survey flotes .v B. Description of Recovered Materials C. Letters and Agreements ,

D. Proposed Budget E. Figure 1

INTRODUCTI0ft During September of 1974 Dr. David Brose was requested by William Klatt of Stanley Consultants, Inc., to assist in the planning of Cleveland O eiectric Iiiemiaetias Co. 34skv trensmission iine. Theee lines were to ren

- from the proposed Perry fluclear Power Plant.in Lake County, Ohio, to the South Cleveland Inland sub-station in Cuyahoga County. A number of alternative transmission line corridors had been proposed by Stanley ,

Consultants Inc. and Dr. Brose was requested to evaluate the potential adverse environmental impact on those known cultural resources which might occur along each of the alternative corridors. In addition, Dr. Brose was requested to provide some. comparative probalistic statement of potential (although undocumented) prehistoric cultural resources which might be expected along each of the alternative corridors. -

The initial phase in these investigations consisted of a thorough documentary review of all existing information on known archaeological sites along the alternate corridor routes.

O The purpose of review of the historical and archaeological literature

~~

was to locate historical and archaeological sites previously documented for Lake, Geauga, and Cuyahoga counties and thus facilitate preservation efforts in any future development proposed for these counties. In addi tion, a number of ecological data for each identified archaeological site was obtained for the purpose of creating a statistical model which would predict the frequency and location of further prehistoric si tes in unsurveyed areas. Such methodology was deemed unnecessary for standing historic structures (those eligible for nomination to the flational Register),

as these will be directly observable irrespective of any additional pa rameters . To these ends, several different, types of sources were

~

O t

s

, consul ted. A search through 'all three of the relevant county histories i was conducted, related archaeological literature was examined, interviews

i. were carried out with persons knowledgeable in the-history and archaeology O of the counties, and United States Deoartment of Agriculture publications

~

were hel pful .

Descriotion of the Study Area It is difficult to describe these counties in detail. Such a descrip-tion here will be limited to generalities of climate, drainage, and phsyio-graphy - these being the ecological factors relevant to the present study.

The area is bordered on the north by Lake Erie. The lake is the most significant drainage basin for all three counties, with the Cuyahoga, Chagrin, and Grand Rivers draining into it. Thesedepresent the significant

. water sources in the three-county area. .

Besides being the most important draina,ge basin for the county, Lake I

Erie also affects the climate. Temperatures are somewhat moderated by the lake, and annual precipitation tends to be greater than in most con-tinental climates. Precipitation averages just about 160 inches per year, U

, while temperatures average a high of 72 F and a low of 28 F.

Physiographically, the region can be divided into two major provinces:

the Lake Plain in the northern portion, less than five miles wide, and the glaciated Appalachian Plateau. These tuo areas are separated by the Portage Escarpment, a moraine of the Wisconsinian Age.

The topography of the area is relatively uniform. Most of the region is level or gently undulating, with steep areas along streams. The lowest

! point at the Lake Erie shore'is 573 feet above. sea level, and highest point in the study area is 1275 feet above sea level at Little Mountain in Lake County. In the Appalachian Plateau area, the elevation averages between 850 and 1100 feet above sea level.

o.

4

, - ~ . , - - - _ . . , - ,-. ,,w , - ,_ , - ,, ,,-.n7

' Today, 27.5% of the land in the three-county area is farmed. A large portion of this region is suburban, with the major concentrations within the Cleveland suburbs along the southern corridor terminus, and at Painesville O elons the ieke.

Purpose -

The. purpose of this study was threefold:

1. To identify and describe all historic and known archaeological sites.

listed in the flational Register, nominatdd to the 96 ister, or eligible for inclusion in the Register;

2. To locate all identified sites on a map;

3. To construct preliminary. predictive sensitivity. maps ~for 345kV transmission corridor, identifying existing and potential greas of cultural resources which render each area unsuitable for intensive development. .

Historic and archaeological sites were sought from the following sources:

The flational Register of Historic Places (1976) and records of the planning comissions of Lake and Cuyahoga counties. The historic and prehistoric O listings at the Regional Offices of the Ohio Historical Preservation Office,

~

Cleveland, were reviewed for site locations. All of the historic properties mentioned in this report were identified in this way. Eleven prehistoric sites were identified by the Regional Preservation Office. An additional twenty-one sites were identified from unpublished reports on a Case Western Reserve University survey, undertaken in 1971, and from an earlier survey of l

the Grand River area in Lake County. A search was made through additional archaeological and historical literature, although this resulted in no further site locations.

l The data collected for each identified site included time of occupation, to cultural affiliation, recovered artifacts, site function, recorder, significance S

U -

I r

(if a historic site), and location. Determinations of site eligibility for inclusion in this report were as follows. .

Sites On flational Register O ^11 sites iistee in the f:etio ei aesister (1974) were incieeed in ta t report, and by inspection of the Ohio Historic Inventory fonns and Ohio Archaeological Inventories, as well as the nominated and approved Ohio.

sites in the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus. ~

Sites flominated _To The flational Regis ter All sites currently nominated to the flational Register were located in the files of the Offices of Historic Preservation in Columbus. The listing was current as 'of flay 1975.

Sites Eligible For flomination To The flational Register According to the State Archaeologist of the Ohio Office of Historic '

Preservation, theoretically, any historic site is eligible for nomination, although not every site will be nominated. Because no specific criteria..were available, it was decided to list all historic sites which appear on state O

and county registers as eligible for nomination to the flational Register.

~

The state registers were located in the files of the Offices of Historic Preserva tion.

This list was substantially supplemented by the 2ft Regional Office of the Ohio Preservation Office, under the direction of Eric Johanneson of the Western Reserve Historical Society with a comprehensive and systematic survey and inventory of historic sites. 7hese records and survey notes were made available to this study.

In order to supplement these lists, members of various local chapters of the Ohio Archaeological Society and the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeo-logy were interviewed. Although this yielded a substantial number of sites for which only locations were known, they were nevertheless considered vital

o. -

L'

to the construction of the predictive sensitivi,ty maps- and therefore were included in this survey. -

An. additional, and potentially important source of information was O available in the form of a survey of prehistoric sites in northern Ohio per-formed by Western Reserve College in 1940, and on an NSF-sponsored survey of northeast Ohio performed by the principal investigator in 1971-72.

Limited rereading of local newspaper files pre;ad relatively unpro-ductive in the location of significant historic sites or for the precise location of prehistoric sites in this region. Most such information having previously been collated by regional centers in Cleveland.

• These investigations resulted in the identification of previously known historic and prehistoric site locations for The tri-county study area. _ As far as the historic sites are concerned, those standing structures already identified by that synthesis must represent the vas t bulk of all significant historic cultural resources within the region. While new additions or nominations to the National Register of Historic Places may occur, due to a progressive temporal limit or to a potential association with significant historical persons or events or to changes in criteria for eligibility, it is improbable that such additions will be numerically important. A periodic review of the lists of historic sites nominated or added to the Register should fully supplement that report. Archaeological sites are distinctly different and, for that reason, must be treated in a thoroughly different manner. While the number of significant archaeological sites in the three-county region will increase slowly, the presently known archaeological sites represent a small proportion of the total number of archaeological sites present. Furcher, by definition, archaeological sites are no longer directly observable. Therefore, to be of any value as a planning aid, predictive studies such as these must seek methods to C .

predict the probability of still unobserved archaeological sites from other, directly observable parameters. The remainder of the 1974' study 7_T and the accompanying archaeological sensitivity maps represent such an at-(

tempt.

Methodolocy It is a maxim of all studies in the biological sciences that organisms must interact with their environment. It is further clear that most biological organisas do not exist in isolation but, rather, exist in various communities of similar and diverse organisms and that these, too, arrange themselves in relationship to other such communities and to the abiotic ecological parameters which together consitute the effective envi ronment. In recent years it has become increalingly evident to the various disciplines of the social sciences that human populations also organize themselves to effectively maximize their potential for advan-tageous environmental interactions. Since neither the behavior of pre-

/~'T historic human communities nor the spatial distribution of the ecological

%.)

variables with which they interacted was random, there must therefore be regular and discernable patterns in the interrelationships of the distri-bution of prehistoric human communities and those other spatially circum-scribed or limited ecological variables whose proximity was (or was. con-sidered to be) essential. These assumptions underlie the study of prehis-toric settlement patterns (viz. Brose 1976a, b).

Ilithin the past decades, American archaeology has been increasingly utilizing many of the statistical techniques developed by quantitative geography in order to discern rore subtle, changing cultural patterns to be found in the location of prehistoric human occupation and the effective ecological parameters with which such populations existed (e.g.,1lilley 1966; Brose and Scarry 1976). It should therefore be possible to investigate

('*\ .

V h

, the location of prehistoric archaeological sites, to determine the proximal ecological parameters and to arrive at stochastic statements of preferential (or, at least, effective) combinations of ecological variables which co-O occur with such sites in stetisticeiiy si nificent 9 non-readom freaueacies.

If this can be done, it should then be po'ssible to ar' rive at a predictive statement concerning the probability of archaeological sites existing in specific corrbinations or patterns of ecological variables. If the ecological data can be controlled, such information can be then converted to a geographic-fonrat where it should result in a probable map of expectations for prehistoric archaeological sites which are not presently known to exist.

Several types of ecological information were obtained for each prehistoric site located during the initial phase of this study. Data on average annual temperatures and precipitation, number of frost-free days, and depth of frost penetration were obtained from the United S,tates Department of Agriculture's 1941 publication, Climate and f4an. The unpublished and published United States Soil Conversation Services Soil Survey of Lake, Geauca, and Cuyahoga O'

Counties provided data on soil type, slope, and productivity. Soil pro-

~

ductivity was estimated in a relat:ye way by combininD the tables on annual woodland growth in board feet per acre and wild-life suitability. Floral community of each site was obtained from early survey records and from summary studies such as Robert B. Gordon's 1966 flatural Vegetation of Ohio at the Time of Earliest Land Surveys. Information on the topography and surface geomorphology of each site area was obtained by Dr. David S. Brose from the Case Insti tute of Technology Department of Geology.

Limitations pertaining To Gathered Archaeological Site Data Systenatic archaeological research is limited in ?!orthern Ohio. The research that does exis t is generally limited to coarse preliminary sampling O

or to small excavations and nonsystematic surveys undertaken by area colleges-and a few active amateur archaeologists. Therefore, the 1974 sdrvey can prob-ably be considered the most comprehensive such undertaking done to date for O

V the three counties. Its 1 imitations, however, are quite serious.

First, the data about each site listed were incomple'te. For many sites ,

only the location was known. In many cases, no specific temporal or cultural data were available or useable (e.g., the word " relics" was often used to identify cultural remains).

Second, few, if any, of the sites had been re-examined in order to verify their time of occupation, nature of archaeological remains, or, for that matter, whether or not in some cases they were properly identified as sites.

Third, the list was far from complete becaus's of the nonsystematic nature of most identifications. It was suspected that all three of these counties are much richer in archaeological sites than this survey would indicate.

Fourth, it was known that an. unknown number of sites are known by local g artifact " hunters" who keep such. data a secret from the professional archae-

%./

ologist.

Finally, with limited exceptions, the gathered list of sites represented some sampling bias because of the specific manner of much of the previous site survey undertaken. (This pertains both to sites registered with Cleveland Museums. and to those not registered). The majority of sites located in Ohio areas are on fossil beach ridges or are frequently found where streams cut through the escarpments. Sites tend to be found in areas of modern agricul-tural activity. This gives the impression that few, if any, sites exist in swamps, in high interfluves, or are to be found far away from water. There-fore, one might assume that non-swamp or upland areas away from water would be safe for development. Although this may be relatively correct, as the O

L

test excavations since that initial survey area have proved % be the case locally (viz. Brose 1976, n.d.a.), it should be understood that at that point f3 in 1974 the results suggested that a significant aspect of such descriptive (g

models far site location was that some unknown portion of previously known sites were found to occur in agriculturakly productive areas along streams because these are the easiest places to find sites. Stream banks and farm fields are generally the only places that many archaeologists had looked.'

(It should be noted that many of the sites listed in that survey were iden-tified by nonprofessionals during nonsystematic surveys.) Given these limitations, caution was urged in the interpretation of the results of the Stanley Corridor Survey.

All key ecological variables described for each known archaeological site were coded and entered into a computer for initial analysis. Slope of the land and distance to water produced. minor technical problems: the slope ranges, as noted in soil survey maps, varied to such an extent that it was necessary to collapse them from seven to four categories for any meaningful results. For compatibility with other variables, distance to

' ~

water was ranked instead of dealing with it on an absolute interval scale.

The distribution of each of the variables was then tested for significance.

All variables provided distributions which were different from expected

{ random at a highly significant .001 level . This means that they all have

good predictive value in locating archaeological sites. It does not mean they are independent variables or that any one variable can locate sites equally well as another.

To move to the predictive stage in the.1974 study required ranking-the attributes in each variable in descending order, based on frequency of occurrence. A score was then attached to each attribute; the lower the O- .

1 4

I

score for a given geographical location, the higher the probability an archaeological site exis ts on tha t location. .

It should be noted that 97.67, of the sites were found to exist with-i in 400 meters of a source of water (lake or second-ranked stream, or higher) is alluvial bottomland, lake plain, secondary floodplain, or rolling uplands.

Following this fact as a guide, a more specific predictive model was produced.

Statistics calculated on total scores for existing sites were sub'ivided-d ,

i (Uased on standard deviation units) into four ranges, to provide four predict- '

i ability models, giving four " sensitivities.'.' For examp!?, if a given location was under consideration for development as a, tower location its characteristics would be tabulated:

Attribute *

. Score Lake plain 2 .

Glacial moraine 2 O - < 3% slope . 1 200 meters from water 2 Nearest stream. rank 3 Total Score 10 <

The score for the example locatibn is "10" and therefore extremelf sensitive.

, .. Maximum score in this ranking was 14. This knowledge should prompt additional archaeological exploration prior to further development.

To produce a map of regional predictive utility required further analysis

! of the data. The known cases were divided on the basis of their respective scores into threesen.sitivity groups. Chi-square statistics were performed i

again within och of the sensitivity groups for each variable'to track the predictive value of each variable. For simplicity, the darived probabilities i

giving the significance of the distributions were graphed. The general trend -

that can be seen in Figure 2 is an increasing state of disorder and therefore, t

uniqueness of the locations as one moves from extreme to high to moderate sensi tivi ty. This trend becomes especially evident when attempting to define o.

1

-.--w- ,,,.,m_ - - - ---er s% __

the sites within each sensitivity group by as few sets of parameters as possible, using a minimum number of variables. The results clearfy indicate that as sensitivity decreases, the more parameters become proportionately necessary, therefore, the more unique the, site locations and, subsequently, the less predictable they are.

In the case of this predictive archaeological site location analysis, factor analysis was employed to discover the redundant variables so they could be discounted, thereby simplifying the predictive model by reducing the variable list. This resulted in a manageable number of ecological variables for the prediction of probable sensitive areas.

The standardized scores for ranked and interval data were entered and factor analyses were run on all those cases within" prehistoric time periods, in an effort to gain finer predictive control . This latter step was performed because there were indications that site use varied in time. Only camps and villages were considered so that expected values would not drop below five Q within any given cell. The same reason was used to collapse some of the temporal periods. With a probability value at less than .01, this distribution is very significant. The hypothesis put forward suggests that within a given time period different environmental variables, or the same ones in different proportions, affected the decision making of prehistoric man as to whether a given location would be a camp or a village site or, would be unutilized as a site completely.

Our concern was to identify those areas along the proposed 345kV trans-mission line alternate corridors which were likely to have been utilized as archaeological sites. In order to do this, we can look at changes in temporal period and site use since the models for each are expected to change. Just considering well-documented prehistoric sites within the flortheast Ohio -

O

d florthwest Pennsylvania region the distribution through time of camps as opposed to villages appears as: .

_P* _M _L _B _R _1 _2_ _H Camp 9 30 11 12 13 1 6 3 Count 81.8 30.9 73.3 50.0 37.1 33.3 17.6 42.9  %

Village 2 67 4 12 22 2 28 4 Count 18.2 69.1 26.6 50.0 62.9 66.6 82.4 57.1  %

Other types of site uses (e.g., quarry, cemetery) were not considered due to their low frequencies of occurrence (5.15% of the total sample), which results in proportional representation too small to analyze. Such sites were not combined With other site types because it was considered that the factors governing their location were too different from those of habitation sites. The above distribution was then" plotted revealing three separate behaviors are evidenced in (1) a high percentage of camp- -

i sites,. Part "A"; (2) moderate and relatively balanced percentage camp-

~

sites, Page "B"; and (3) low percentage of campsi te, Part "C". A tentative

explanatory hypothesis for this variation is as follows

Those time periodshaving a high percentage of campsites are

. ~ representative of populations locatine themsalves more in relation to single, well-defined variables withir. the environment. This relationship can be demonstrated by the high loading of the environmental variables in a factor analysis (with iteration and varimax rotation). In comparison, those time periods with a lower percentage of campsites will load lower in the factors. In short,

, there is a direct linear and upright relationship expected between the relative percentage of campsites and the number of factor loadings.

This hypothesis is illustrated in Figure 1, producing a remarkably similar

, plot with a significant (Rho) correlation of +.812.

The variables (Mean Annual Temperature, Mean Annual Precipitation, and the ilumber of Frost-free Days) loaded high in every factor analysis. This was Considered to be a natural phenorenon, resulting from the ecologically non-significant variation such variables display. These variables can be Time period codes: P-Palco and Early Archaic (12000-5000 B.C.); M-Middle Archaic (5000-2500 B.C.); L-Late Archaic (2500-500B.C.); B-Surial Mound (5003.C.-500A.D.);

R-early Late !!oodland (500-1000A.D.); 1-Vaittlesey I (1000-1300A.D.); 2-tihittlesey II l (1300-1600 A.D.); H-Proto-historic,(1600-1796 A.D.)

1 therefore considered non-significant for the predictive purposes of this study and, cay be omitted.

A factor loading of greater than r = .70711 is considered to be statis-2 cally signi ficant since r = .S. This means that over half of the variance in the variabig is accommedated in the factor in which it displays high loading.

)

The above hypothesis was considered acceptable, but must be extended: the hypothesis stated there would be a direct relation observable between the location of archaeological campsites and the observable ecological variables.

. Therefore, if the prehistoric temporal periods were to be divided according I

to site us.e, then campsites should have more variables that load high than will the village sites.

g This testable hypothesis was put forth becaus'd the location of a village was probably based on more than the few environmental variables dealth with here, or with more complex interactions of such variables as transportation cos ts . Campsites, it was hypothesized, represent short-term occupancy locations O for the most expedient exploitation of specific proximal aspects of the environ-ment. On the other hand, villages or areas of longer duration represent com-promise locations, occurring more frequently between certain resources, thus, offerine a centraliznd base for exploitation by sub-population aggregates; that is, by specialized parties (hunters, gatherers, quarriers, traders, etc.).

Also, as subsistence reliance upon agriculture gained importance, through time the soils and their associated characteristics (permeability, productivity, etc.) would lit:ewise gain importance in the choice of village location. In summary, campsite locations would continue to be ruled by relatively simple, isolated environmental variables directly, while villages would thus appear to be more at random to the immediate, observable, ecological variables.

Other variables such as defensive position or location on communication net-O .

r

m

, works may come into play. These relationships will be reflected by signif-icant factor loadings of such variables and/or their interactions. Unfortunately 7.s too little detailed data are available within the study region to do more than

( )

suggest the increasing importance of such secondary interactions (viz. Brose

'et al . ,1977; Brose 1976a).

Quite obviously, even if the optimum productive values for a prehistoric site location were to occur in any specific area, it does not mean the exca-vation will reveal a site 100P, of the time.

Conclusions The alternate corridor area study performed in 1974 resulted in an up-to date synthesis of al.1 available historical and archaeological information. A series of maps were prepared which located all known archaeological sites and historic structures added to, nominated to, or deemed eligible for the

?lational Register of Historic Places. In addition, the locations of all presently known archaeological sites in the tri-county area were entered on Q these maps.

It must be reiterated that while the documented historic sites accurately reflected the locations of all significant extant historic sites in the study are with an estimated confidence level exceeding 96", the documented archae-ological sites were estimated to reflect the locations of less than 30% of existing archaeological sites. Furthermore, most previously documented archaeological site locations exhibit considerable sampling bias (Brose 1976a).

For these reasons it was necessary to extrapolate from the observable proximal ecological variables of the wall-docurented, previously known archaeological sites to discern the significant factors which can be used for retrodiction of archaeological site locations. Several modifications of locational analysis were performed to provide a logistically feasible method- for graphically rep-

o. -

, I i

resenting those crosscutting geographical zones within the tri-county area which can be statistically shown to yield high probabilities gf encountering prehistoric archaeological sites (see Brose,1976a, b). These O areas were then graphically represented as zones of variable " sensitivity" 1

~

on the pro;;osed transmission line corridor maps, and a "least probable impact" corridor idantified.

l

.A graphic analysis of variance revealed that temporal placement was~

of less significance than was site type (small special-purpose campsite versus large permanent village). This suggests that small seasonal pre-

~

historic campsites of any period (probably 85% of all archaeological sites in the area) could be well predicted by analyses of key ecological variables. The large, possibly more significant, mere permanent villages still appeared randomly located with respect to most variables. It should

be pointed out that other-lower-order studies of this nature (Brose 1973,1975) reveal that a primary consideration for the location of such villages is ease of defense as reflected by topography. The success of this cethod of predictive analysis is demonstrated by the lack"of- signi-

, ficant archaeological remains recovered in the sub-surface investigations of that corridor chosen for the C.E.I. 345kV Transmission Line from Perry l

Substation to Macedonia Inland Substation.

i s

O 4

Sub.. Surface Archaeological Investigations Through the use of these quantifiable archaeological sampling and survey methods, a predictive "least potential impact" model for C.E.I.

transmission line corridors was designed as described. This model was subsequently adopted by Stanley Consultants, Inc. and formed one of the i

variables influencing the final choice of transmission corridors as seert in the C.E.I. Perry-Macedonia-Inland Transmission Line Draft D.viremertal Impact Statement and the C.E.I. Application to the 0.P.S.C. for a Certifi-cate of Environmental Compatibility and Public fleed in March 1976.

While the final transmission line corridor approved represented that with the least potential for encountering significnnt prehistoric or 1 historic cultural resourc2s, there remained the very real possibility that some transmission line tower locations might create an adverse impact on prehistoric cultural resources. Dr. Brose communicated this possibility to C.E.I. (see letter from Miner to Brose of October 7th,1975). Dr.

O .

Brose submitted at proposal for full investigation of. this proposed line ,

~

(letter of flovember.10th,1975) although C.E.I. felt some reluctance

.n i f.,

to expend these funds without need. As a result of this feeling, the Ohio Power Siting Commission, in consultation with the director of the Division of Archaeology of the Ohio Historical Society, determined that under the terms of both Federal and State legislation, an on-the-grou'1d archaeological l

l surface and sub-surface reconnaissance was required (opinion of 0.P.S.C.

issued 15 March 1976). A preliminary sub-surface archaeological investi-gation of some 25 potential tower locations along portions of the proposed 345kV transmission line was performed during June 1976 (see letter Brose to Miner 28 June 1976).

Throughout the summer and fall of 1976 sub-surface archaeological .

O

investigations were perfonned at all the proposed tower locations in the Leroy Center-Macedonia segment of the C.E.I. 345kV transmission line as

O C.E.I. indicated a need for pre-construction clearance. During December 1976 several additional tower locations were investigated lying immediately south of the Perry ttuclear Power Plant itself. Most of these tower locations

had been graded prior to our appearance and const.ruction activities already.

initiated. As of the end of 1976 all segments of the Leroy Center-Macedonia-Cleveland Inland sections of the C.E.I. 345kV transmission line had been archaeo--

logically investigated (see /ppendix A). fio significant prehistoric cultural re-sources were encountered. The few historic refuse areas encountered within areas

of proposed construction activity were scientifically investigated, and an adequate sample of their cultural resources recovered.(see Appendix B). It is thus apparent that the construction of the Leroy C, enter-Inland station segments of the C.E.I. transmission line will have no adverse impact on significant cultural j resources. The eight (8) miles of proposed transmission line and access road for the Perry fluclear Power Plant to the Leroy Center substation have not yet been surveyed. These archaeological investigations should take place during the spring and summer of 1978. A new proposed budget for these archaeological investi-gations is included as Appendix 0.

i i

i O -

i

(-

S'J27EY */ETHO P .

The basic sequence of operations for this archaeological survey was as folloAs:

{}

1. Location of each nu:bered stake indicating the future position of a tower was accomplished. In cases where the ntake was not present (due to vandalic =, probably) or had obviously been rr.oved(usually by other CII operations, such as bulldozing, painting the ex$ sting towers, etc.), an estication of its position was made with the help of the ' maps,

2) Intensive surface collection was done in the tower location area, a 10-20m radius around the stake, in all locations where ground t

cover did not preclude it. 21ost wooded locations were surfaced in the first weeks of the survey, even where not specifically indicated in the field notes, when leaf and snow cover had not yet accumulated to a creat extent. In some cases the stake location was on. cultivated land, and the o

plowed rows would be walked carefully.

Furthermore, any surfaces, within >U-75m or so, where grounc could be seen better than at the stake location $ tself, including plowed l ground and open forest floor, were briefly' surface collected. 61oping or cut banks of nearby streans were usually checked for outwashing caterial.

3) 1est excavations were undertaken at all tower locations where surface collection was either 1 possible, due to vegetation cover or

. -- was considered insuf ficient; this was the case for cost locations. All trat units were excavated within a 10-20m radius of the survey stake.

1:ndications of exact positions of units can be found on most of the in-dividual =aps in the field notes, Appendix A ) All units were approxicately 1x1= square, unless otherwise indicated in the 1.ot' es, and were excavated 1

until a depth consicered to be culturally sterile was reached. Excavations were ,;erforced by shoveli:.g, ther. troweling of walls and ficors to permit a c'ean stratigraphic picture.

Screening was not done, but careful inspec-ti:n was made of- all excavated soils for cultural caterials or features.

-escriptio: and =easure.mer.t c f the ap cearance, cepths and coritents of all strata were taker.. Fachu:.i; was backfillec af terward.

The'nur.ber of units excava ec at each tower locatio ran6ed l

(]) . .

p

l from 0 to 3, according to the amount of disturbarice considere'd to be present and the topographical position of the location.

4) Information from local informants was obtained whenever possible, and in one case a landowner partitted us to view and photograph his collection taken fro = the tower location area (see Appendix B).

e O

l .

l s

t e

PESULTS OF SL'DVEY

• Of the 204 toser locations investigated, none was situated or a prehistoric occupation or activity site of cajor importance.

Several tower locations, as indicated in soce of the individual notes taken in the field ( Appendix A), were in topographic settings that would see ideal for prehistoric occupation (such as high bluf fs overlooking strea=s), and several were relatively close to known prehistoric sites.

Such areas were tested as carefully as possible and yielded no cultbral raterials. Only tower location # 7017-B yielded so:e probable worked flint. This, when co:bited with the infor=ation obtained fron the land-owner, who showed us his collection of artifacts fro: the area, was enou6h to make advisable the recc::endation that earth toving operations here be watched by the archaeologist to see if anything is uncovered.

roing archaeological survey along an electrical power line, across 2 or 3 courties, could ct first appraisal be considered a random sa:pling o f several dif ferert 6eological and topographical locatinns for -

their archaeological content. Thus, such results tigh t be unexpected, since it was esti=ated that from 100-15?! of the Power locations would yield prehistoric materials. However the right of way f or the perry-

acedonia line was specifically chosen to have the least environmental impact; this fact undoub;edly best explains the above results.

[

' S s ,./l 4

sm w.-e .

CONCLUSI0tlS During the spring of 1976 the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Com-pany authorized Dr. David Brose of Case Western Reserve University and the ,

Cleveland Museum of Natural History, to undertake pre-construction Archae-ological reconnaissance and sub-surface investigations of certain poten-tial tower locations along the proposed 345kV Perry-Leroy-Macedonia transmission line. One factor for the location of this proposed route had been the statistical analysis of alternate routes to minimize any potential adverse impact to historic and/or prehis' toric archaeological resources. This analysis had been performed in 1975 by Dr. Brose for Stanley Associates Inc.

^

g During the summer and fall of 1976 Dr. Brose directed the archae-ological investigations of all proposed tower locations in the Leroy _.

Center, Macedonia-Cleveland Inland sub-stations transmission line seg-ments which had any potential for disturbing significant cultural resources.

In the course of these investigations only two locations were encountered

~

which yielded potentially significant early historic archaeological components. Additional fieldwork recovered suf ficient scientific infor-mation to mitigate any significant adverse impact due to construction j activities.

Some seven tower locations, immediately south of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant were investigated during the winter of 1976. These sites had l

l already been severely disturbed by construction activities but subsequent archaeological investigations fortunately suggested that no significant archaeological resources had been destroyed.

1

. Due to the decision of the C.E.I.Co. engineers to investigate the I archaeological potential of those proposed transmission towers only as 1

O .

l l

l l

t

they were scheduled for construction, it was extremely difficult to sche-dule cost efficiently the allocation of logistic resources for archaeolo-gical investigations. As a result of these considerations many scheduling and financial aspects of the estimated budget for the archaeological in-vestigations could not be maintained in detail. The entire eight (8) mile segment of Transmission line from the Perry Nuclear Power Plant to the Leroy Center station has not been investigated as of this date.

All other segments of the proposed 345kV Transmission line from Leroy Center to Macedonia to the Cleveland inland Station have teen investi-gated. No significant archaeological resources were encountered within those areas of proposed tower locations which would suffer any adverse impact as a result of the construction activities.

l l

O .

i l

L _

23 o

REFERErlCES CITED g

U Brose, David S.

1973 Preliminary Report on the Recent Excavations at the South Park Site, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Pennsylvania Archaeologist 43:25-43.

1974 Archaeological Review and Statistical Model for the Perry-Leroy

' Macedonia 345Kv Transmission Line. Report submitted to Stanley Consultants, Inc., Stanley Building, Muscatine, Iowa.

1975 Preliminary Results of an Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Area of--

Lower Tinkers Creek TalTey. Report sutEitted to the Cuyafi6ga Valley flational Park Board.

1976a Locational Analysis in the Prehistory of flortheast Ohio. In CL; wral Change and Continuity: Papers in Honor of James B. Grf ffin. Editel-by Charles E. Cleland. Academic Press. ,

1976b The Whittlesey Occupations of flortheast Ohio:a Second Approximation.

In Late Prehistory of the Lake Erie Drainage Basin: A Symposium .Ed.

by D. Brose. ScientITic Papers of the Cleveland Museum of f4atural History.

Brose, David S. and John Scarry 1976 Boston Ledges: Spatial Analyses of an Early late Woodland Rockshelter g in Summit County, Ohio. MidContinental Journal of Archaeology f 1:.115-156.

Brose, David S., Bernard Werner and Renata Wolynec 1977 Discriminate Archaeological Analyses of Ashtabula County, Ohio,

~~

Crawford and Erie Counties, Pennsylvania. Report to the United States Steel Corporatien, Pittsburgh, Pa.

Gordon, Robert B.

1969 Vegetation of Ohio at the Time of Original Survey. Ohio Biolcgical Survey, Cdlumtss. ~--

U. S . D. A.

1941 Climate and Man. Yearbook. U.S.D.A. Washington D.C.

I Soil Survey of Lake County. Washinnton, D.C.

Soil Survey of Geauga County. Washington, D.C.

Soil Survey of Cuyahoga County. U.S.D. A. , Washington, D.C.

Willey, Gordon R.

1966 An Introduction to Anerican Archaeolog_y. Volume I,florth Anerica.

Prentice-Hall. Engicwood Cliffs,tiew Jersey.

O .

. . ~ . . ._._ . ~ _ __ _. . _ .

APPEllDIX B: DESCRIPTIO1 0F RECOVERED MATERIALS PREHISTORIC MATERIAL:

Sore 20-30 tower locations yielded glacial flint chips which, at first glance, seemed to have been worked, Closer inspection of these carefully saved materials at a later date, in the laboratory, showed them all to be either glacially rounded nodules or chips made from som.e .

Other action than flint knapping by humans; usually this action was

~

asscmed to be plowing or other contact with heavy machinery.

The only exception to the above was the bag of material collected

. from tower location #7017-B. In addition to glacial flint and machine chipped pieces there .were 5 good flint flakes whiqh seemed to have been w

chipped by human hand. Furthermore the landowner, Mr. Vanac, displayed to us his artifact collection, which contained pieces from that tower-location, according to him, though he could not remember exactly which pieces (see photos). Among other things, the collection contained 1 or O 2 flint cores, I heavy scraper o'f banded flint, several stemmed projec-

, _. tile points of flint and-one of quartzite.

fic other prehistoric artifactual material was recovered.

HISTORIC ARTIFACTS:

f A total of one-hundred and five historic artifacts, predominantly ceramics and glassware, were recovered during this survey; of these, the majority of the artifacts were recovered from two sites which had as-sociated structural remains.

One such tower location is 7045 - B; here, part of the cellar wall was located during preliminary reconnaissance activities. In addition a total of 51 artifacts representing eight different classes were recovered.

9 O .

~

Among these were seventeen ceramic sherds; of these, six are undeco-

. i rated pearlware sherds, one is an undecorated creamware sherd and ten are undecorated whiteware sherds. One blue edgeware sherd was recovered which O has one of the ieter modified wheet rotifs. Three crockery sherds were also recovered. Of these, one is a redwire sherd which has a slip-like glaze on the exterior and an unglazed interior, and another has a Rocking-ham-type glaze on the exterior with an unglazed interior surface. The' third .is the side of a small, shallow bowl or crock; it has a clear exte-rior glaze and an unglazed interior surface. This piece is unusual in that it had handles, one of tyhich is still extant. All the ceramics and crockery sherds would appear to date to the latter half of the nine-teen th-cen tury.

4 Seven glass vessel sherds were also recovered from 7045 - B. Of these, one is the collar and neck of a medicine or extract bottle; it is clear in color and appears to have been made in a two-piece mold. A portion of the shoulder to a small bottle or goblet was also recovered; O

it is pale green in color and has no visible mold marks. Two clear glass

~

sherds which are unidentifiable as to vessel form were also recovered.

In addition, twelve pieces of pale green and one piece of clear window glass were also recovered.

Four nails were also recovered; of these, one is a 9d common cut.

square nail, two are square cut nails which have been corroded beyond identification, and one is a 3d comrron cut wire nail. Two other pieces of metal were also re' covered; of these, one is a clothing fastener, 2 cm.

in diameter, and the other is a 35 cm. long piece of metal tubing.

Lastly, six bone fragments were recovered; in general these are unremarkable except for the presence of butchering marks on two of 'the 0 -

L

I .

larger fragments.

The structural remains, plus this collection of late ninetecnth-century material indicate that this to.ter site should have further testing and salvage of associated materials before tower construction begins.

The second tower location which needs further testing is that of 17003 - A. A total of thirty-six artifacts representing six'different classes were recovered here.

Of these, the majority are bone fragments. Seventeen bones, includ-ing pelvic and long bones, from a pig or dog were recovered.

Six ceramic sherds were also recovered from this tower site. Of these, four are undecorated whiteware sherds, one is whiteware sherd with a molded decoration on the rim, and one is a $1ue transfer print which appears to date to the 1830's. One crockery sherd was also reco-ve red. It has a grey exterior. glaze and a black (matte) interior glaze on a grey-bisque.

O sine giess vessei sherds were eiso recovered from this site. Of these, three'are from a large, pale amethyst bottle. Three other fragments are from a milk glass canning jar lid. The collar and neck to a hand-blown, pale green bottle was also recovered. In addition, there are three pieces of window glass, one pale green in color and the other two clear, from this site. ~

Lastly, one piece of metal, probably an eye bolt, was also recovered.

This piece is heavily corroded so that identification is difficult.

Although White reported no structural remains per se, the placing by local informants of a structure in this area, plus this collection of material from the 1830's indicates that this tower should have further extensive testing and salvaging of associated materials before tower

~

O- -

construction begins. Because of their proximity to this site, tower locations 17003 and 17003 - B should probably also have further testing conducted prior to tower construction.

- -(:) Six artifacts were also recovered from tower location 12167 - A. Of these, two are fragments of a metal sheet, one is a pale green window glass fragment, and one is a sherd of pale green glass for which no vessel

.; form is reconstructable. One piece of undecorated earthenware and one

i brick fragment were also recovered. Because this collection in all probability represents surface scatter and/or dumping processes, no further testing is necessary at this site.

Nine artifacts were recovered from 12100 - A. Of these, five are fragments of drain tile which is of fairly recent vintage, one -is a frag-

! ment of clear window alass and one is a fragment of white, undecorated * '

earthenware. Also recovered was one spring lock washer. Again, because l this probably represents surface scatter associated with refuse dumping processes, no further testing is necessary at this site.

-)

Lastly, three additional artifacts were recovered from several dif-

~~

ferent tower locations. These artifacts, a curved piece of metal, a a 12d common cut square nail and a fragment of green glass, have no sig-nificance except that they indicate the activity of Europeans in the

area.

l l

l l

I

! C:)

1 i

i,

. , ~ .

O APPEf1 DIX C: LETTERS AND AGREEMEf1TS O .

9

{ i' ;{ ' ' '-! d -[? [ . ' , ] : :]

i

?

f]{

,0 7, ,' i 'i h etwww.nuc stoc e pusuc souaal e Ct(VE L AN D OHIO 44101 e TELEPHONE (216) 6731350 e M att A,00 A E SS P. O. 801 $000 Serwng The Best Location in the Nation d October 7, 1973 Dr. David S. Erose Curator of Archeology ,

Cleveland Miseum of natural History i

Wade Oval, University Circle Cleveland, Ohio 4410o

Dear Dr. Erose:

This letter is in response to our previous discusaion concerning the archeological investigations associated with a new.trussission line the Cleveland Electric 111minating Company proposes tb construct. This line vill run from the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in Ferry, Chio to 1.!acedonia and then to Inland Substation located in the south side of Cleveland.

The purpose of this letter is to provide ynu with information now available and to describe infor=ation that will be developed so you can provide an estimate of the costs, involvement, and ti=etable to perform the archeological investigation.

At this time we do not have the approval of the Ohio Power Siting Co=nission for this line. We are proceeding on a limited basis with some aspects of

~

the work because of stringent time requirements.

Perry to Leroy Center to !%cedonia Section This section is bl.o miles long and vill have approximately 284 towers.

These tower locations are shown on the attached route caps.

The section from Ferry to Leroy Center Substation in Leroy Township would be constructed on a new right-of-way. This section is 8.0 miles long.

The remaining 33.6 miles from Leroy Center to 1iaeedonia vill be constructed adjacent to an enisting transmission line corridor. This corridor vill be videned for the new line.

Each tower vill have four foundations. The foundation holes vill be machine drilled and vill ren;;e frem two to six feet in die =eter and from 10 to 30 feet in depth. rach fcundation vill be located at the corner of a square configuration with each side of the square from 20 to 30 feet. The specific structural strength requirements of each tower will determine foundation dimensions.

We have ec=pleted 59 soil borings at various tower foundations and plan an additional 22 more for this line. In addition we have information on

,77 general soil conditions plus some additional boring infor=ation on the

' - existing line right of way from Leroy Center to IIacedonia bhich is adjacent i,

Dr. David S. Brose October r

7, 1975 Perry to Leroy Center to Macedonia Section (cont.)

to the proposed line right of way. The s611 boring and soil condition data vill be used to develop a soil profile for this line. That information will be available to you, and a typical sample is attached.

. Macedonia to Inland Section ..

This section is 11.7 miles long. It win have 85 steel poles plus one additional structure now being studied. The route is along an existing

< railroad right of way through older highly urbanized areas that are pre-l' dominately industrial land use. All but two of these poles will be located on an existing railroad bed. Those two poles will be in close proximity to the railroad.

There will be one foundation for each pole. Ibis foundati.on will be con-structed in a machine drilled hole ranging from six to ten feet in diameter and from 20 to 40 feet in depth. The specific strhtural strength require-ments of each tower will determine foundation requirements.

We have completed 64 test borings for this section and are not planning any additional borings at this time. The boring information is available to you.

General Information The attached route naps show the,line centerline and approximate location of each structure. We could make available to you the route centerline plotted on U.S. Geodetic Survey caps. We could also make available to you an eleva-

~~

! tion profile along the route showing elevations and facilities such as roads i and culverts.

Actual field work is done in several steps. Survey crews will stake the exact location of each structure, generally staking 10 to 20 locations. Ibe survey crews are then follo <ed by construction crews. The survey and construction vork is often scattered along various sections of the route instead of following in sequence. This work proceeds in all seasons of the j year.

We expect the construction period to span several years. The Macedonic to Inland Section will start approximately January,1976 and will take approximately nine months.to complete all the foundation work. The Perry to !!acedonia section is scheduled to start sometime in the Spring of 1970, and will require approxi=ately three years to cc::plete the foundation work.

We would like to have an esti= ate of the costs involved in performing the archeological investigations and al:,o the canner in which your work would coordinate with the line construction.

O -

l l

Dr. David S. Brose October 7,1975 General Information (cont.)

tie would be glad to furnish any of the previously mentioned information to assist you. I could also arrange for a field inspection of the route if that vould be helphil. Please feel free to contact me for any additional information you require.

Sincerely,

• lb)(1p 1f UA. C. Miner General Supervising Engineer 4Y MK:mm1 Attachments O

9 O -

musin i mi imimm nsii mi

G November 10, 1975 Mr. A. ! liner General Supervising Engineer Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101

Dear !!r. Miner:

Enclosed you will find a proposed budget For the archaeological investigation of the new C.E.I. power transmission lines which will run from the Perry Nuclear Power Plant to the South Cleveland Inland Substation.

In accordance with the provisions o'f Public Law 74:292: 16 USCA 461-467; Public Law 89-665: 16 USCA 470, 470 a-n, Section 106; Public Law 93:291: 16 USCA 469-469c; and Public Law 91-190: 42 USCA 1331-4347;

(-)

(_/

and in accordance with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency A-95 procedures, archaeological reconnaissance will be required to mitigate any potential adverse environmental inpact to cultural resources on any

_ publicly funded, licensed, or assisted project. The proposed archaeo-logical investigation is best described in teras of the three segments of proposed transmission line corridor representing the sections from Perry to Leroy Center, from Leroy Center to Macedonia, and from Macedonia to the Inland Substation.

Perry t_o o Leroy Center. This section is 3.0 miles long, and will represent the construction of new right of way. Because of the great potential of destruction of prehistoric cultural resources in the con-struction of the work road through this section, it will be necessary to initiate an on-the-ground archaeological reconnaissance and testing progran for this entire section. It is estimated that an archaeolegical reconnaissance party consisting of two field supervisors, four field assistants, and one part-time laboratory supervisor, could complete the archaeological survey of a 200-foot wide corridor some 8.0 niles long across the terrain and vegetation representative of this section in a period of approximately six working days. Such a survey should produce professionally competent information on the presenco and precise loca-tion of any prehistoric cultural resources within this project section with a statistical confidence factor of greater than 90 percent.

/~T '

()

• i 1

11/ avi ..

Leroy Centor to Macedonia. This section is 33.6 'niles lohg and will run adjacant to an existing tranrais.cion line corridor, h'hile the corridor will be videned for the new power transmission line, new road (l

V construction is not proposed. In this section, therefore, only proposed tower locations must be investigated. Some 223 tower locations are proposed for this section. After inspection of proposed corridor routes ~

and aerial photographs, it is apparent that at Icast 37 of these tower locations are on areas of previous ground disturbance and will therefore not require archaeological investigation. Of the remaining 192 proposed tower locations, preliminary inspection of corridor routes, soil and .

vegetation maps, and aerial photographs, it appears that less than 45 of these proposed tower locations will be capable of yielding reliable indications of the presence of prehistoric cultural resources through surface inspection alone. It is estinated that the remaining 150 i

proposed tower locations will require approximately 1.66 test excavation units (1.5 meters :x 1.5 meters to a depth depending upon local pedology) in order to yield statistically reliable data at a 90-percent confidence interval. It is further estimated that approximately 15 percent of -

proposed tower locations susceptible to sirple controlled surfaen @, ' ,

investigation will further require approximately 1.5 text excavations per location to determine precise stratigraphic dhd horizontal location, and the significance of prehistoric cultural materials encountered in surface investigations. For the Leroy Center to Macedonia, it is estimated that a total of 260 test excavation Units will be required.

A field archaeological reconnaissance crew, composed of two field supervisors, .foura rchaeological field assistants, and one part-tirne laboratory supervisor, should be capable of qualified professional excavation snd evaluation of approximately seven test excavation units s in an eight-hour day. To complete the testing of all 260 such locations J would require approximately 35 ilays. Such an archaeological crew should be capable of intensive controlled surface collection of the

. remaining 45 - 100M2 proposed tower location areas in 5 or 6 cight-hour days.

Macedonia to Inland Substation. This section will comprise a segment 11.7 miles long. All of the proposed power transnission line corridor represents previously disturbed area. No archaeological reconnaissance is thus required to mitigato potential adverse environmental impact.

The total on-the-ground archaeological investigation of the proposed power transmission line corridors will thus require approximately 45 working days by a professionally trained archaeolop,ical field crew composed of two field suuervisors, four field assistants, and one part-time laborator-f supervisor. A full-time professional archaeologist would be required as project director to design and

( implement the research strategy, to coordinate field operations, to administor the financial and logistic phases of the total project, and

} to evalusto its results and incorporate these into a final report.

l Two possible alternatives, with slightly varying proposed budgets, are feasible for such an archaeological investigation. One method would Q

t I

..r. A. Minst 11/10/ /;

involve a si=ple contract for the full-time, nine-week archaeological investigation wits a total proposed budget of $25,117.00. Details for

this figure are presented in Proposed Budget A. An alternative nothod would involve an open contract to be fulfilled over a variable period of froo three to thirty conths en a core or less consultation basis.

The total proposed budget for this cethod of archaeological investigation would be $23,903.00. Details for this figure are presented in Proposed Budget B.

The budget figures in either case represent a close approximation of actual costs. Should further detailed analysis of nore recent nerial

~

photographs or initial ground reconnaissance indicate that a larger proportion of proposed tower locations are on previously disturbed ground areas, these proposed budget figures could be adjusted.

I trust that these details will provide you with sufficient information to mako those determinations of timin2 and resource avail-ability which are required. I look forward to hearing from you concerning this catter.

Sincerely, David S. brose, Ph.D. --

Associate Professor of Anthropology

() DSB:a

Enclosures:

Proposed Budget A Proposed Dudget B t

(:) -

Proposed Budget A: liine-Weck Direct

() Archaeolog,ical Investication of C.E.I. Transmission Line Corridor / Perry-:facedonia-Inland Salaries 5 liages Project Director: Dr. David Brose ($100/ day x 45 days) $ 4,500 -

Field Supervisors: ($50/ day x 45 days x 2)............ 4,500 Archaeological Field Crew: ($32/ day x 45 days x 4)....

5,760 Laboratotr Supervisor (325/ day x 45 days x 1/2) . ..... .. 67;5 T15,435 Fringe Benefits and Institutional 7,254 Overhead Recovery (47%) . . . . . . . . . . .

Total Salaries G Wagos with Overhead........... $22,689 Outside Personnel Services Professional Archival and Research: Ohio Ar ch ae o l o gi cal Counci l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 771 Floral and Palynological Analysis. . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Faunal and Ecological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Clerical and Photographic Services for

-s Report Preparation......................,........... 250 v

Total Outside Personnel Services. . . . . . $ 1,221 Itiscellaneous Expenses Transportation to Project Area (35 miles / day x 154/ mile x 45 days x 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 472 Radiocarbon Dete rminations (3 x $95) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Expcudable Supplies:

Field forms, daemicals, photographic paper, film. . . . 250 Field Equipment:

Hand tools, line, polyvinyl sheeting, naps, etc. ... 200

Total fliscellaneous Expenses _$_ 1,207 TOTAL PROPOSED BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . $25,117.00

(:)

Proposed Budget B: Long-Term Consultation and Archaeological Investigation of C.E.I. Transmission Line Corridor: Perry-:!acodonia-Inland Salaries S IIages -

i Field Supervisors ($50/ day x 45 days x 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,500 Archaeological Field Crew ($32/ day x 45 days x 4) ..... 5,750 Laboratory Supervisor ($25/ day x 45 days x 1/2) . .. . ... 675

$10,93S Fringe Benefits and Institutional .... 5,139 Overhead Recovery (47%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total Salaries 5 Fages with overheid $16.074 n

Outside Personnel Services Project Coordination and Direction:

Dr. David Brose ($125/ day x 45 days) ................ $ 5,625 Professional Archival and Research:

• Ohio Arch aeological Coun cil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547 Floral and Palynological Analysis ..................... 100 Faunal and Ecological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

() Clerical ~ and Photographic Services:

Final Report Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100 250 Total Outside Personnel Services 3 6,622 fliscellaneous Expenses Transportation to Project Area:

(35 niles/ day x 15?/ nile x 45 days x 2) ............. $ 472 Radiocarbon Determinations (3 x $95) .................. 285 Expendable Supplies:

Fiold forms, chemicals, photographic psps?, etc. . . . . 250 Field Equipment:

lland tools, line, polyvinyl sheeting, maps, ote. .... 200

l. Total Eliscellaneous Expenses $ 1,207 TOTA' PROPOSED SUDGET . . . . . . . . . . g3,903.00 _

I p

• s

\v

F. , ,, o

• S. ~

• /

8 ^

THE POWER SIT!f4G COMMISS10ft >

0F .

THE STATE OF OHIO O.

. CASE fl0. 02-00001 -- Application of.the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public fleed authorizing the construction, operation and maintenance of a 345,000 volt transmission line, .

known as the Perry-Macedonia-Inland Transmission Line.

. a)

~

OPIflI0fl Afl0 FIflAL ORDER GRAtlTIflG CERTIFICATE OF EfWIRONMEilTAL LOMPATIBILITY Afl0 PUBLIC ffEED WITH CONDITI0tl5

. O' COPY E ll u,D F

k

. MAR 2 91976 OHIO POWER SITING COMMISSION

' Issued: March 15, 1976 '

O Entered ia the aoernel: nerch 29. 1976 I

X. fit:DIt1GS OF FACT

/

A .

Q') The Commission, having considered its statutory responsibilities under  !

Chapter 4906. of the Ohio Revised Code and the record evidence presented in the s' Perry-Macedonia-Inland 345,000 volt transmi'ssion line case, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds:

(1) That the findings contained in Section IX of this Opinion and Final Order represent the findings of this Commission with regard to. the adoption in part of the Administrative Law Judge's Report in this' case.

(2) That the need exists for transmission facilities to transmit a portion of the electric power and energy from the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, to the Inland Substation; and further, that the balance of the energy from the Perry Plant Unit I will be transmitted along the existing Eastlake-Juniper line; (3) That the applicant's load flow studies fox the 132 kV system between the Eastlake Power Plant and Juniper Substation show the heavily loaded conditions of the 132 kV lines in the applicant'.s service area and demonstrate the need for reinforcement prior to placing the Perry fluclear Power Plant in service; and further, that the Inl a d Substation supply to the area will approximately double the capacity of the existing 132 kV system; (4) That looping the Macedonia-Inland transmission line into the Eastlake-h# Juniper transmission line is required to relieve the overloaded 132 kV system in the Eastlake to Juniper area; and further,'that this in-

- terim measure is necessary for the period between May, 1978 and until such time the Perry Plant is placed in operation; (5) That the record evidence submitted and adduced in this case exhaustively addresses and describes the nature of the probable environmental im-pact of the proposed Perry-Macedonia-Inland transmission line; (6) !That the Certificate issued in this case should be conditioned upon the applicant's use of mitigation measures to minimize the environmental impact of the proposed facility to the fullest extent possible; such measures should include, but not be limited to mitigation of aquatic discharge (Application, Vol. I, P. 04 6), disposal of solid waste (ibid.; Vol . I, P. 04-9), and mitigating disruption of ma.jor plant and animal groups (ibid. ; Vol . I, Pp. 05-7 and 05-8);

(7) That the Certificate issued in this case should include the conditions numbered 1, 2, 3, and 6 set forth on paces 18 and 19 of the Secretary's Report issued in this case (ICf1 125)' such conditions relate to the environmental impact from the proposed facility; A '

CASE W .s b f E R N RESERVh ti t, a s i . ,, , a i i .. . , , . . . , , , , , t , .,,,n COPY ATTACICIENT A June 28, 1976 Hr. A1 !!Lner Transmission Engineer Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -

Re: Initial Archaeological Reccqnal_ssance of Portions of CEI Perry-Leroy Center-ii'eedenia 345kv Transmission Line __

Dear Mr. Miner:

This letter represents a formal st'atement concerning the pre-construction archaeological reconnaissance nnd field testing of some twenty-five (25) proposed tower locations along the CEI

/'N Perry-Leroy Center-Macedonia 345kv transmission line perforned during the month of June,1976 under my direction. A detailed location of these 25 towers is provided in Appendix A. At three

, _. proposed locations, recent agricultural activities had exposed the upper ground strata. These were investigated through l controlled surface inspection. All other proposed tower locations required subsurface test excavations to determine whether significant archaeological resources might suffer any adverse impact as the result of proposed construction. At these locations some 28 stratigraphic test units were excavated. These units were in x In and were excavated to depths varying between

.55 and 1.30 meters depending on local geonorphology.

At none of the 25 tower locations investigated were any indications of significant archaeological retains encountered.

The construction activities at the proposed 25 tower locations will have no adverse impact on significant prehistoric cultural resources.

Appendix B represents an invoice for $1091.25 with the details of the expenses for this portion of the archaeological reconnaissance already perfarned. Details of the agreement for s ,

. .. . varnumms the pre-construction archaeological reconnaissance of the remaining portions of the CEI Perry-Loroy Center-Macedonia i

345ky transmission line should be settled as soon as possible.

Sincerel ,

?.

eii;b(!y,::"jI,[7' c' 3- David S. Brose Associate Professor -

Departcent of Anthropology 1 Yost !!all Cr3.e Western Reserve University Cleveland, Ohio 44106 s

Ag endix A \

i List Location of Archaeological Reconnq{ssance k at 25 Towers along CEI Perry-Leroy Center-Macedonia \

i 345kv Transmission Line \

! '\

71008 ,

7099B ,

70988 -

4 O 7095B 7093B i .

- 7092B

' 7091B 7089B 7088B 7087B I 7086B 7085B 7084B 7083B 70S2B 7081B l 7080B l 7079B l 7078B 7077B -

7076B 70758 7074B 7073B 7072B ,

All between Grakeman and Robinson Roads, Leroy and llacbden Townships, 4

Lake County, Ohio.

I Ie

s *

. 2

.ppendix j B Invoice for Archaeological Reconnoissance at hienty-Fivo Proposed Tower Locations along the CUI Perry-Leroy Center "acedonia 345kv Transmission '.ine Persorsnel Project Coordinator, Dr. David Broso

, Consultation ($125/ day x 3 days) $ 375.d0 l

Archaeological Supervisor L. Murray ($50/ day x 4 days) 200.00 Field Archaeologists ($32/ day) 432.00 D. Benson (5 days) 160.00 N. lihite (2-1/2 days) 80.00 ,

D. Wilkie (4-1/2 days) 144.00 R. Larick (1/2 day) 16.00 Supplies and Equipcent 34.25 Stakes, chaining pins, lines, levels 4.75 r% Shovels, screens 18.30

(_) Field fonas 4.95 Maps 6.25 Transportation 50.00 Meeting with 0.P.S.C.

Cleveland-Columbus-Cleveland (Greyhound) 16.80

!!ileage to project area (15t/ mile x 76 alles/ day x 3 days) 33.20 TOTAL EXPENSES- $1091.25 r

l I

~

O -

1

~

ll

1 .  !

. 2M r lp W-[m m j.% , \. . The Cleveland Museurn of Natural Ilistory s s D i [ '

wade oval. universtry circle. cleveland. ohio 44:os. (2 6) 23i.4000

.Qu-...

6 July 1976 E

!!r. A. Minor i Ceneral Supervising Engineer Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113 RE: Revised budget for continuing Archaeological Reconnaissance of remaining portions of the CEI Perry-Leroy Center-Macedonia 345kV s Transmission Line.

w

Dear Mr. Miner:

Following our discussion of 30 June 1976 I am enclosing a proposed budget for completing the pre-construction Archaeological reconnaissance and field testing of the remaining proposed tower locations for the CEI Perry-Leroy Center-Macedonia-Inland Transmission lines.

In accordance with the recent dec,isions of the Ohio Power Siting Com-mission to seek compliance with the provisions of Public Law 74-292:

.16 USCA 461-467; Public Law 89-665: 16 USCA 470, 470 a-n, Section 106;

. ~ ' Public Law 93-291: 16 USCA 469-469c; Public Law 91-190: 42 USCA 4331-4347; and in accordance with the Ohio Revised Code, Section 149.53 as amended 25 May 1976; and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency A-95 procedures, archaeological investigation will be required to mitigate potential adverse impact to significant cultural resources on this project.

The proposed archaeological investigations represent a continuation of the previous archaeological investigation of some 25 proposed tower s locations in the Leroy Center-Macedonia segment as described in my letter of 28 June 1976 Attachment A. These new proposed investigations reficct an updated familiarity with the project area and a revised estimation of personnel and equipment requirements based on t.he previous work already performed. These proposed Archaeolocical investigations are described in terms of the three segments ,,teposed transmission line corridor representing the three sectic a em the Perry Nuclear Power Plant to Leroy Center, from Leroy " er a h.tcedonia, and from Macedonia to the South Cleveland Inlar, -

n. Tuo distinct investigatory phases of fictd work are .ast1%.,mhed for the first two segments: an initial ficid reconnaissance testing phase, and a secondary phase in which parameters of precise spatial extent anJ significance shall be determined for those loci where evidence of prehistoric cultural o.

- . . -. - - _ . - _ - -- . . ~.

hr. A. Mince 6 Joly L's s o

% a 1

activity are predicted. ,

Phase I Perry t,o_ Leroy Center. This section is 8.0 miles long and will represent the construction of a new right-of-way. .Because of the high' potential of destruction for any significant prehistoric or early historic cultural-t resources in the construction of a work road through this section, it will be necessary to implement a Phase I on-the-ground archaeological reconnaissance and testing program for this entire section. Recent evidence suggests that approximately 2.0 miles of this section represent previously disturbed or potentially uninhabitable terrain. It is estimated that an i Archaeological Field Reconnaissance party consisting of one' Archaeological i Supervisor and two Field Archaeologists, and one half-time laboratory assistant should be capable of completing the archaeological reconnaissance of a 100 foot wide corridor some 6.0 miles long across the terrain and vegetation representative of this section in a period of approximately eight working days. Such a survey should yield professionally competent information on the presence and precise location of any prehistoric cultural resources within this segment of the project area with a statistical confidence interval approaching 90 poicent.

Leroy Center y Macedonia. This section is 33.6 miles long and will run adjacent to an existing transmission line corridor. New road.construc-tion is not proposed. Some 25 of the 229 already been professionally investigatedsee (proposed Attachment tower A). locations Followinghave recent field observations and my personal recent aerial inspection of this segment of:the project area (1 July 1976) it is apparent that s.ome 40 of the proposed 204 untested tower locations are to be located in O areas where previous construction activity has destroyed all reasonable potential of significant cultural resources. Of the remaining 164 i - untested tower locations some 57. (n=9) appear to be located in areas where

[ reconstructed pre-contact topography and drainage conditions would have precluded any significant occupation. Of.the remaining 155. untested proposed tower locations examination of corridor routes, soil and vegetation maps, and recent field experience and personal aerial inspection suggests that only about 157. (n=24) would be capable of yiciding reliable indica- -+

tions of the presence of prehistoric cultural materials through surface inspection alone. 'It is estimated on the basis of recent field experience that each of the remaining 130 proposed tower locations will require approximated 1.6 excavation units (1.5 m x 1.5 m to a depth dependent upon local geomorphology) in order to yield statistically reliable data approaching a .90 confidence interval. Thus it is estimated that a total of 217 test excavation units will be required for the Phane I investigation of this segment. An Archaeological Field Reconnaiccance Party consisting of one archaeological supervisor, two field archaeologists, and a half-time laboratory assistant, should be capabic of completing the Phase I archaeological reconnaissance of the remaining portions of the Leroy Center to Macedonia segment in approximately twenty six (26)

! working days. This same party should be capable of completing the l intensive controlled surface inspection of the remaining 24 proposed tower location areas in approximately si.x (6) working days.

L j f

. - , - , . , - - - - - .e-. , . --- N --

...n. u nsuucas a- o m i, .

s .

Macedonia to Inland Substation. This section comprises a segmen,t 11. /

miles long. All proposed tower locations are in areas of previous ground disturbance. 'No archaeological reconnaissance or testing would

( ) be required to mitigate potential adverse impact to cultural resources, v

The total Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance of the remaining untested partions of the proposed CEI Perry-Leroy-R,cedonia-Inland 345kV trans-mission line will thus require approxicately 40 working days by a pro-fessionally trained Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Party consisting of one Field Supervisor, two field archaeologists, and one half-time laboratory assistant. At 1 cast half-time involvement would be required' by a fully trained professional archaeologist to act as project director to design and implement the research, to coordinate field operations, to administer financial and logistic aspects of the total project, cnd to evaluate results and incorporate these into a final report. Attachment -

B represents a proposed budget for completing such Phase I reconnaissance.

The total of this proposed Phase I budget is $12,358.50.

Phase II It is highly probable that some portion of the proposed transmission line tower locations investigated in Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance will yield some evidence of prehistoric cultural occupation. Based on several years' previous archaeological experience in this area, it is estimated that some 157. of all tower locations tested in Phase I will yield such evidence. Because the initial corridor had been chosen to avoid a high probability of encountering large and/or significant archaeo-logical sites, it is likely that the evidence of prehistoric activity es expectable at approximately twenty to twenty five of the untested proposed

(_)s tower locations will represent small temporary occupations. Based on prior information from nearly a decade of personal archaeological

~'

,. investigation in this area, it is estimated that some three additional 1 x 1 meter test excavation units at each such tower location would be capable of yielding sufficient archaeological information concerning the precise spatial, temporal, and cultural-ecological parameters of the archaeological manifestation to either substantially mitigate the potential adverse impact, or to provide limits for adjacent and alternative locations which would have no adverse impact. It is estimated that an archaeological field party composed of the project director, one archaeological supervisor, two field archaeologists, and a full-time laboratory assistant should be capable of completing such investigations in approximately six (6) working days. Attachment C represents a proposed budget for the expected Phase II investigations. The total of this proposed Phase II budget is

$3,402.00 The total proposed budget for both Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance and testing and fer Phase Il archaeological field investigation is Sl5,760.50 It is felt that these budget figures represent a close approximation of actual costs based on recent field data. I t rus t these details will provide you with sufficient data to come to a determination.

Sincerely, I)

\l

• David S. Brose '

Curator of Archaeology I,

i TH E CLEV ELAU D ELECTRIC II.LU Uli! ATli!G CO M P Ai4Y

,y; ettuumarmo stoc = Pusuc souane . ctivitano. omo moi . uttenont oisi un uso . enn avoness e.o sox woo

w. .

Semny The Best location in the Nation O

v August 20, 1976 Dr. David S. Brose Curator of Archeology The Cleveland Puseum of Natural History University Circle Cleveland, Ohio W106

Dear Dr. Brose:

This letter is to inform you that we vill be proceeding with the precon-struction archeological reconnaissance and field tq$ ting of the remaining proposed tcwer locations for the Perry-Ieroy Center-Macedonia-Inland transmission line, as described in Phase I of your letter dated July 6, 1976.

It should be recognized that the work between Perry and Ieroy Center will have to be deferred for several months until' this section of line is revised to include the Grand River Crossing relocation.

The re=aining portion of the Ieroy Center to Ibcedonia should be investigated I as quickly as possible. It should be recognized, however, that some sites will have to be deferred pending the completion of right-of-way negotiations.

We would like to receive biweekly reports covering progress during the period with particular ec:phasis on tower locations investigated and cleared so that the construction activities can proceed. We vill also want invoices at the end of each month to cover the work performed to date. The work in this proposal cannot exceed the amounts bud 6eted in your letter.

Coordination on your activities and assistance on locating sites should be acco=plished through this office.

I am looking forward to working with you on this project and hope for a successful ccepletion.

Very truly yours, i

[I , , .

j;',t '

)fu t ;50 I A. C. Miner l General Supervising Engineer l

ACM

bam ,

APPEflDIX D Proposed Budget for Archaeological Investigation of the '

CEI Perry-Leroy Center 345 kV Transmission Line

( ]) Salaries and Wages Field Supervisor ($60/ day x 8 days x'2) $ 960.00 Archaeological Field Crew ($40 day x 8 days x 4) 1280.00 Laboratory Supervisor ($30 day x 4 days) 120.00 2360.00 _

' Fringe Benefits & Institutional Recovery (47%) __1109.00 Total Salaries & Overhesc $3469.00 Outside Personnel Services Project Coordinator & Direction ($125/ day x 8 days) a' 1000.00 Professional Archival .Research 100.00 Ecological Analyses 250.00 Clerical & Photographic Services 250.00

$1600.00 Miscellaneou's Expenses O Transportation to Project Area (70 miles / day x 15c/ mile x 8 days x 2) 168.00 Expendable Supplies 175.00 Field Equipment 175.00 Radiocarbon Determination (20 $120.00) 240.00 708.00 TOTAL PROPOSED BUDGET $5777.00 S

, --n. .- - . - - - -- , -

O I

i I

APPENDIX E: FIGURE 1 l -

O

.- e e

a b

O -

I e

APPENDIX A: SURVEY NOTES i The following are the notes taken during the survey at each tower location, including a description of each location, summary of O erx cce 911ewee. e 1' meet e e . xetch excavation units ( )( = stake; O = excavation unit; er&

er the 1ec tie # -o

= standing tower).

Field supervisor was Nancy White. Full time field workers were Donna Benson, Jan Engebretsen, Cheryl Holt, Lisa Murray. Part time field workers were Don Bier, Dave Morse, Franco Ruffini, Iennis Grif fin.

Occasional volunteers, whose time and help were greatly appreciated, were George rawson, Mark Doblekar, Joe Kadish, Bill Kimball, Bob Mensforth.

Tower locations investigated were the following numbers: .

17001 '7044 . 12112-/. 12157-; 12201-A

-17001-A 70h3-? 12113-A 1215 -A 12202-A 17001 7042 : 12114-A 12203-A 17002 12115-A 12159-70h1 ' 12160-A 1220h-A 17002-A 7037 c 12116-I. 12161-A 12205-I.

17002-2 7036 r 12117-A  : 12207-i.

17003 9035-? 12110-A 12162 7 12 2 0 c.-A 17003A 7031 ~ 12110-A 12163[2 216h' 1220 CA 17003-? 703" ' 12120-A 12210-A 17004 702c ' 12121 -A 12165i .

12211-;.

17004-A 7026 5 12122-A 12166 g -'7 12212-A 1700h :. 7023 ' 12123-A go , 12213-l.

1"on5 7022-? 1212 h-!' - 12210-A 17005-?. 7021 - 121259A 12{r,c[7 12215-A

-17005-? 7020 - 12124-t 12170 ? 1221 { -A 12127-A 12171 '.

17006 701 2 - I 21' 12217-1.

17006-A 7017 - 1212C-! 21b 7 12 21 = -l O' 17co' - 7ct' ' 1221 2 2 ' 2 9-'. 12176 2-1?OOf-O '014 ~ 12130-. 12175 2 12220-A 17007 701h ' 12131-/ 217I"; 12221-i.

.', 17007-A 7013, - 12132-/ 12222-A 7010 - 12133-A 21F 1 1217c ~ 12223-i.

70#7 700c_- 1213h-! l 1222L-A 7000- 12135-!

.?o#( ' 12225-!.

f 21on 21?oii

??/5 n 707 - 1213# -A 121e 1222f-!

'ofh ' 7004 r 12137-! 21 2! 12227 ..

70f1 ' 7005 - 1213o- ;. ~

121o 7 0 t' 2 ' 70au - 12130-, 3 -e.

70/1- 7 0 ] - 121h0 ,

?^/" '

12 C ' - . 121hl-121,7l' 1-- -

12 a c -; 121h2 . 121 ~ ' .'

~057_

905* ' 1 ? " ' ' -, 121h7-; {j{ e.n2 9057 - 12 0 -

1?l---

7 A ci - 121 - 1212< ~ 1h. -

1-',~'

cae<- 171 3- 1210, -

9 6 < 'I - 121 2 -. 121L'- IU; [g- ..

7 " e ~

l 1 ' ' - l'13 - 1;g an<>- -

1 ' i - 7 1?1h - 1

,, l-

-a el -- f ;I : }-~

1.1ar- l 1 c ~

- 1 ^ 1 ~1

.  ?

• S -

~ a.!. e. '

1"1' 121 - 1 ~ 1 c' -

.3.l-~ .

j '.; c ,.

~ I' 's : - 1'l' - 1 "' 1 ' - {, , ,~

p - a !. 11-- l 1 < - ,;;,.-

()

=a.

~

O '

rAE 1 O' .

l '

RELATIONSHIP OF DISTRIBUTION SIGNIFICANCES TO SENSITIVITY GROUP X*

PROBABILITY A p- ,

KEY <.os_

k *. #

TOPOGRAPHY 'I\: 1

, l 1 ,'

- GEOMORPHOLOGY k

.... SLOPE OF LAND

.l I \ f' E

,f

__ DISTANCE TO WATER '

• E ,

. .. STREAM RANK

<.2s_ ll g

l

)\

g I

.Ill l '- t

\

l l

i \

\

I

• 5 \

.l \

l '

.E , \

<.01-

,,I j \

l 1.j \

\

.f - .

g

<. cot _ /J. . . . . . . . : \ '

, 177/< cue Hibn MOohRATE SENSITIVITY