18

Figure 12. Color image of magnetometer data in magnetic amplitudes.

19

Figure 13. Black-and-white image of magnetometer data in magnetic amplitudes.

20

There are three interesting anomalies present in the magnetic data, two of which contain a

monopole—a single magnetic high or low—and one that contains a dipole—pairs of

magnetic highs and lows from surface metals or strongly magnetized minerals.

The dipole1 in the project area is a ‘non-normal’ dipolar anomaly (Reynolds

1997:160) because the magnetic low is oriented to the west and the magnetic high is

oriented to the east. In ‘normal’ dipolar anomalies, the low is oriented to the north and

the high is oriented to the south. The ‘normal’ orientation is formed by remnant

magnetism, which refers to the permanent alignment of magnetic domains along a single

axis within a material (Reynolds 1997). The orientation of the dipole in the magnetic

data suggests that this object is a human-made ferrous object that probably moved after

remnant magnetization occurred. The dipole is roughly 14 m (45 ft) long and 7 m (23 ft)

wide, with a low amplitude of 48,465 nT and a high amplitude of 48, 500 nT. This

magnetic signature is much weaker than the intense monopole to the west indicating that

there are less iron-bearing minerals in the former.

Monopole anomalies are caused when a strongly magnetized mineral is oriented

so that one pole is near the sensor and the other is far enough away to be unrecorded

(Telford et al. 1990:85). One anomaly of interest is the monopole located in the northern

section of the project area.2 This anomaly is 15 m (50 ft) long and 7 m (23 ft) wide and

contained intense magnetic amplitudes of 49,000 nT with readings 600 nT higher than the

surrounding area, which ranged on average from 48,480 nT. Monopoles with high

magnetic signatures are typically encountered when surveys cover metallic well casings

(Reynolds 2002:24-25). The magnetic axes of the metal tubes are lined up with

magnetization, while the ends of the well casings are the opposing magnetic poles.

Sometimes, these anomalies appear as radially symmetrical areas of extremely high

amplitude readings of single polarity because the sensor is only detecting the magnetic

field created by the end of the artifact (Von Frese and Noble 1984:42). Based on these

observations, the high amplitude monopole in the Chester McPherson Pier project area is

possibly a metal pipe.

21

A monopole with weak magnetic readings of 48,430 nT was also observed in the

project area.3 The presence of this magnetic low suggests that this area may contain

topographically lower elevations than the surrounding area because there is a weaker

magnetic signature overall. It is uncertain what this anomaly may be without testing, but

it is outside the project boundaries and will not be affected during construction of the

pier. The remainder of the project area has linear patterns of magnetic highs and lows.

The high signatures could be related to debris associated with the previous pier or the

disruption of the sea floor during its construction. The areas with these higher readings

appear to parallel each side of the location of the previous pier as well as the area

surrounding the proposed pier (Figures 14 and 15). The areas containing slightly lower

magnetic readings are probably the sea floor itself. These anomalies form a linear pattern

that parallels the current shoreline.

While the identity of the magnetic objects in the project area could not be

determined during the survey from the magnetometer data alone, the size and intensity of

these magnetic signatures suggests the presence of two or more relatively large metal

objects. While these anomalies represent intense signatures expanding greater than 10 m

(32 ft) in size, the intensity is largely a result of the distance from the sensor to the object

underwater, which in this case is fairly shallow at less than 1 m (3.3 ft). The sizes of the

objects are unknown, but data interpretation suggests that they are moderately large (e.g.,

larger than a metal nail). Wood pilings from a previous pier were observed in the project

area during the magnetometer survey, and these pilings were within a few meters of two

of the magnetic anomalies (Figure 16). The locations of the metal objects/anomalies in

relation to the pilings suggests that the anomalies may be associated with the pier that

previously occupied this area. The metal objects may be pipes, cables, or metal debris

from the original pier pilings.

22

Figure 14. Magnetometer data showing the location of anomalies in relation to the proposed pier (base image from BMI).

23

Figure 15. Magnetometer data showing the location of anomalies in relation to the proposed pier (base image from BMI).

24

Figure 16. Pilings in project area, facing southwest.

25

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CEI conducted a cultural resources survey of the Chester McPherson Pier project

area in March 2008. This survey included the use of an auger to search for buried

deposits on land and the use of a magnetometer to search for submerged vessels in the

shallow waters on the south side of the project area. No significant cultural resources

were encountered within the project area during this survey. Although an important

French colonial archaeological site is located just north of the project area across Front

Beach Drive, no artifacts or archaeological deposits were encountered on land within the

project area. This is probably because the land portion of the Chester McPherson Pier

project area is sand beach which has been thoroughly re-worked by wave action and may

be dredge spoil from another location entirely. The only submerged cultural materials

identified during the magnetometer survey of the portion of the project area within Biloxi

Bay are likely the remains of a pier, and these remains are not considered eligible for

listing in the NRHP because of their lack of integrity and their possible recent origin.

The absence of submerged cultural resources within the project area is somewhat

surprising because this portion of Ocean Springs’s waterfront contained a steamboat

wharf and other facilities over the water as early as the 1830s. The steamboat wharf and

other piers were located at the foot of Jackson and Washington avenues, just to the west

and east of the project area, so it is possible that intact, submerged archaeological

deposits are still present in the vicinity, but that they are located just outside of the project

area. Alternatively, submerged deposits in this area may have been destroyed by recent

natural or cultural processes.

The Chester McPherson Pier project area is located just south of the Old Ocean

Springs Historic District. The project is located completely outside of the district,

though, and it will have no direct effect on the district itself. The pier will be visible from

the southern end of the Old Ocean Springs Historic District, so this project could have an

indirect visual effect on the district. However, this effect will be minimal because the

maximum height of the pier will be relatively low at less than 25-ft tall. Additionally, the

pier will be constructed in an area that has contained multiple piers and/or seafood

26

processing facilities during the period from the 1830s up to 2005. Regarding any indirect

effects on the adjacent Old Ocean Springs Historic District, placing a pier in this location

is at least consistent with the area’s historic use, and a public pier is arguably an

improvement over a commercial seafood establishment. Therefore, it is CEI’s opinion

that the Chester McPherson Pier project will have no adverse effects on the adjacent Old

Ocean Springs Historic District, and that the construction of this pier will not diminish

the integrity of the significant historic features of the properties that constitute the historic

district.

Based on the fact that archaeological deposits were not encountered during the

survey and based on a consideration of the potential indirect effects on the Old Ocean

Springs Historic District, it is CEI’s opinion that no cultural resources will be affected by

the Chester McPherson Pier project. It is our recommendation that no further

archaeological work will be necessary regarding this project. It should be noted,

however, that there is potential for encountering unexpected remains in this area. In the

unlikely event that such remains are found, work should immediately stop in the find area

and the Historic Preservation Division of the Mississippi Department of Archives and

History should be contacted.

27

ENDNOTES

1 Latitude and longitude coordinates for this anomaly are N= 30.404763 and E= -

88.829950. 2 Latitude and longitude coordinates for this anomaly are N= -88.830410 and E=

30.404507. 3 Latitude and longitude coordinates for this anomaly are N=30.404731 and E=-

88.829760.

28

REFERENCES CITED Bellande, Ray L. 1994 Hotels and Tourist Homes of Ocean Springs, Mississippi. Electronic

document, http://www.oceanspringsarchives.com/hotels_and_tourists_homes_1.htm, accessed March 26, 2008.

2004 The Seafood Industry at Ocean Springs. Electronic document,

http://www.oceanspringsarchives.com/seafood.htm, accessed March 26, 2008. Berggren, Brian 1987 National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form: Ocean

Springs Multiple Resource Area. Document on file, Historic Preservation Division, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Bevan, Bruce W. 1998 Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical

Exploration. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 1. National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Blitz, John H., and C. Baxter Mann 2000 Fisherfolk, Farmers, and Frenchmen: Archaeological Explorations on the

Mississippi Gulf Coast. Archaeological Report No. 30. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Blitz, John H., C. Baxter Mann, and Ray L. Bellande 1995 Fort Maurepas and Vieux Biloxi: Search and Research. Mississippi

Archaeology 30(1):23-58. Caraway, Margaret R. 1951 The Cornerstone of Old Fort Maurepas. The Journal of Mississippi History

13(1):101-104. Clark, Anthony 1996 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. Routledge,

London. Originally published 1990, B.T. Batsford Ltd, London. Clausen, Carl J. 1966 The Proton Magnetometer: Its Use in Plotting the Distribution of Ferrous

Components of a Shipwreck Site as an Aid to Archaeological Interpretation. Florida Anthropologist 19:77-84.

29

Clausen, Carl J., and J. Barto Arnold, III 1975 The Magnetometer and Underwater Archeology: Magnetic Delineation of

Individual shipwreck Sites, A New Control Technique. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 5(2):159-169.

Dyer, Charles L. 1971 Along the Gulf: An Entertaining Story of an Outing among the Beautiful

Resorts on the Mississippi Sound. Reprinted. Dixie Press, Gulfport. Originally published ca. 1900, William E. Myers.

Gaffney, Christopher, and John Gater 2003 Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists. Tempus

Publishing Ltd, Stroud, Gloucestershire. Garrison, E. G., C. P. Giammona, F. J. Kelly, A. R. Tripp, and G. A. Wolf 1989 Historic Shipwrecks and Magnetic Anomalies of the Northern Gulf of Mexico:

Reevaluation of Archaeological Resource Management Zone 1. Volume II: Technical Narrative. U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans.

Gilbert, S. A., W. E. Greenwell, and B. F. Sands 1858 Biloxi Bay, Mississippi. Electronic document,

http://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/tiled_jpgs_done/zoomifyURLDrivenWebPage.htm?zoomifyImagePath=CP487C, accessed March 28, 2008.

Giraud, Marcel 1974 A History of French Louisiana, Volume One: The Reign of Louis XIV, 1698-

1715. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Geometrics 2001 Magmap 2000 4.0, User Guide. Geometrics, Inc., San Jose, California. Golden Software 1997 Surfer 7.0. Golden Software, Inc., Golden, Colorado. Greenwell, W. E. 1851 Map of the Shores of Mississippi Sound from West Pascagoula River to

Beloxi [sic] Bay. U. S. Coast Survey. Map on file, Coastal Environments, Inc., Biloxi.

Husley, Val 2000 Images of America: Maritime Biloxi. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South

Carolina.

30

Johnson, Jay K. (editor) 2006 Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective.

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Jones, Ruth I. 1956 Ante-Bellum Watering Places of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Journal of

Mississippi History 18:268-301. Keith, Donald H., and Toni L. Carrell 1991 The Search for the Caravel Gallega Rio Belen, Panama: 1990 Season Report.

EG & G Geometrics, Sunnyvale, California. Geometrics (M-TR51) Electronic document, http://www.geometrics.com/Literature/Magnetics/magnetics.html, accessed March 10, 2008.

Krivor, Michael C. 2001 Relocation and Evaluation of the Back Bay Biloxi Shipwreck Site 22Ja542,

Jackson County, Biloxi Bay, Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology 36(2):101-127.

Kvamme, Kenneth L. 2006 Magnetometry: Nature’s Gift to Archaeology. In Remote Sensing in

Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective, edited by Jay K. Johnson, pp 205-233. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Pearson, Charles E. 2001 Remote Sensing Survey of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Coastal Environments, Inc., Baton Rouge. Submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans.

Pearson, Charles E., Bryan L. Guevin, and Allen R. Saltus, Jr. 1991 Remote-Sensing Survey of the Lower Pearl and West Pearl Rivers, Louisiana

and Mississippi. Coastal Environments, Inc., Baton Rouge. Submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg.

Reynolds, J. M. 1997 An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics. John Wiley and

Sons, New York. Reynolds, Matthew D. 2002 Magnetic Remote Sensing and Ground Truth: Some Examples From the

Hollywood Site, Tunica County, Mississippi. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi, Oxford.

31

Schmidt, C. E. 1972 Ocean Springs: French Beachhead. Lewis Printing Services, Pascagoula,

Mississippi. Sims, Douglas C. 2001 Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations and Reports in Mississippi.

Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Sullivan, Charles L., and Murella Hebert Powell 1999 The Mississippi Gulf Coast: Portrait of a People. American Historical Press,

Sun Valley, California. Telford, W. M., L. P. Geldart, and R. E. Sheriff 1990 Applied Geophysics. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2007 Digital Raster Graphics. Electronic document,

http://www.maris.state.ms.us/HTM/DownloadData/DRG.html, accessed September 30, 2007.

Von Frese, R. P. B., and V. E. Noble 1984 Magnetometry for Archaeological Exploration of Historic Sites. Historical

Archaeology 18(2):38-53. Works Progress Administration (WPA) 1939 Mississippi Gulf Coast: Yesterday and Today. Federal Writer’s Project in

Mississippi, Works Progress Administration and Woman’s Club of Gulfport. Gulfport Printing Company, Gulfport.

EFH and Critical Habitat Coordination

COE and Other Agency Coordination

MDMR Permit Coordiantion