LAND USE IN RELATION TO PHEASANT ABUNDA-NCE IN EATON AND LENAWEE COUNTIES, MICHIGAN Thesis for degree of Master of Science Michigan State College LEE KERN NELSON ‘ 1952 5“..." 1“_~W~"“ w. - I ! . ' ‘ . g z This is to certify that the ’ thesis entitled 's' ~ Land Use 1n.Re1ation.to Pheasant {I EMnflanmainimnmntnm.Lmeme . presented by '. Lee K. Nelson ! 3 1 has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ._. .‘ —‘.—— '-v o _1LLS_'__ degree in M ii .. J 1} Date "51126- 1952: M, I ‘. \ (12“ a: £7“) w x. u‘h‘ VF{’,“ ‘3‘ ‘1‘. ,V. s, l . . Vu 'ngi‘ ‘1 . ”5“. IL . '.'$“' .': ’ ‘ -' \ 4 firm n :7 .- ,W‘ 19‘ f .‘ '.‘., ' f; d .j.‘ .J j?" , g , f b... I \Iw't‘vo\.u LAND USE IN RELATION TO PWANT ABUNDMICE IN EATON AND LENMEE COUNTIES, MICHIGAN BY Lee Kern Nelson W .A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and.Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Zoology 1952 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The field study was carried out with the guidance of Dr. Donald W} Douglass of the Michigan Department of Conservation and former.Associate Professor of Wildlife Management at Michigan State, whose efforts are deeply appreciated. Final preparation of the manuscript was undertaken in consultation with Dr. George.A. Petrides, Associate Professor of Wildlife Management at Michigan State College. His conStructive criticism.was invaluable. Statistical assistance was given by'Mr. A. L. Harter, of the Michigan State College Mathematics Department. Dr. Dana G. Card, of the Agricultural Experiment Station staff of the University of Kentucky, and Dr. Don W. Hayne, of the Michigan State Zoology Department. Others whose assistance was invaluable and to whom the writer is very grateful are messrs. Ralph A. MacMullan, Cash E. Wonser. Ralph I. Blouch, of the Michigan Department of Conservation; Roy E. Decker, Head, Farm Crops Department, Michigan State College; J. 0. Veatch, Michigan State Soils Department; and C. J. Borum, U. S. Department of Agriculture Crop Reporting Bureau. a.","I‘ .‘ ’.:'I } . a , . T}. (Ad’"' 1. I. II. m. Iv. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Cock pheasant population levels .Soils and land use factors Conclusions Summary Appendix Bibliography 2. Page 6. 8. 21. 23. 26. 54. List of Tables Number Eggg I. Range classification 12. II. Acreage of corn and number of cock calls by station 13. III. Fenoerows and field borders 19. IV. Acres of corn -‘X; number of cock calls - Y; for 20 stations on Eaton County area 27. V. Acres of corn -‘X; number of cock calls - Y; for 20 stations on.Lenawee County area 28. VI. Data on acreage at corn and cook calls for two study areas 29. VII. Regression and correlation data in two study areas 30. VIII. Test of the relationship, regression of .., cock calls on corn acreage, by analysis of variance 31. II. ‘Analysis of covariance and test of significance of adjusted lot means 32. 1X. Test of significance between regression coefficients 33. 3. List of Figures Nmmber 1. Class 1 fencerow 2. Class 2 fencerow 3. Class 3 field border 4. I. INTRODUCTION Since the introduction of the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) into North America, game managers have been confronted with the problem of explaining the variation in population levels which existed over the range of this species. Factors such as food, cover, soils, climate, land utilization patterns and others have been thought to affect pheasant abundance. Knowledge of the exact relations of each factor is needed. This study was to determine whether the difference in pheasant population density between two parcels of Michigan pheasant range could be accounted for by dif- ferences in land use or soils. The two study areas were located, respectively, in eastern Eaton County (Map #1), in south central Michigan, and southeastern Lenawee County (Map #2) bordering northwest Ohio. Each area was 20 square miles surrounding listening points along routes established by the Michigan Department of Conservation in making spring crowing-cock surveys. The Eaton County area maintained a moderate but not high population of ring- necks, while the Lenawee County tract was situated in some of the best pheasant range in Michigan. Field work was begun in the fall of 1949 and com- pleted in June 1950. 5. II. COCK PHEASANT POPULATION LEVELS The crowing count method (Kimball, 1949) was used to provide an index for comparison of pheasant popu- lations of the study areas. The crowing season in this region began early in April and continued through June. From data obtained in this study, it appeared that the peak of the crowing of pheasant cocks fell in the second week of May on each of the areas. Growing routes were established in representative land types. County gravel roads were selected in most cases, since they were subject to a minimum amount of traffic interference. The Eaton County route crossed highway U.S. 27 which had heavy early morning truck traffic. Stations 14, 15, and 16 were affected by the interference and the counts obtained at these points were low and not representative of the true crowing intensity. ‘A similar situation existed at stations 5 and 4 on the Lenawee route which intersected highway U.S. 223 south- east of Blissfield, Michigan, so that each route had an equal point of possible error. The routes were 20 miles in length and took, on the average, one hour and forty minutes to complete. 6. The Eaton County route was run seven times and the Lenawee route six times between may 1 and June 8, 1950. Two.minute stops were made every.mile recording the number of pheasant crowing calls heard at each stop. The sum of the highest crowing counts obtained on the Eaton area was 311 as compared to 649 for the Lenawee County area (Table II). These data indicated a cock population on the Lena- ‘wee tract 2.1 times greater than that on the Eaton County area. It is assumed that the ratio of cocks on the two areas was equal to that for the total pheasant population. 7. III. SOILS AND LAND USE FACTORS The soils on both areas were glacial in origin, but were formed by different processes. The soils of the Eaton County area were produced from.material dropped directly from receding glaciers and from sediment re- leased by waters which flowed from the glacial front as the ice melted. Those of the Lenawee County area de- veloped when water collected in a large glacial lake where the fine sediments, silt and clay, were deposited on the lake bed. The Eaton aregfgdzgained a mixture of well-drained and poorly-drained clay, loam, and sandy soils. The topography was gently rolling to hilly. Drainage was an agricultural problem on approximately 50% of the types. The soils in this area were capable of relatively high production and best suited to a general type of agriculture [Mu-v, er .I., (no! (“hr'd The soils of the Lenawee tract‘were wet to semi-wet and 95.1% were classed as clays, the remainder being sandy soils and alluviums. Most of this area was in the flat Lake Plains land type. These soils were capable of medium to high production, if drained, and able to withstand intensive cultivationJV-ITJ, I94!)- 8. The land use analysis was initiated in the fall of 1949 shortly after the harvest and continued throughout the winter. The results represented the status of the summer and winter range. Since the study areas were representative of much of the surrounding land, it was believed that any error introduced by movement of birds on or off the areas prior to the crowing season was not great. As the crowing territories were chosen before ground was broken for the spring planting, it was assumed that the state of the range of the'winter and previous summer largely influenced this selection. Land use data for one square.mile surrounding lis- tening stations were recorded from the car with the aid of binoculars and aerial photographs, estimating the acreagee of each land use type. A transparent overlay, ruled to scale into 10-acre divisions, was superimposed on the aerial photographs as an aid in obtaining accurate estimates. The lengths of fencerows and field borders were obtained from the aerial photographs. Both areas were readily accessible, since the ma- lJority'of the stations, located one mile apart, were either at road intersections or in the immediate vicinity of such intersections. It was possible to identify accurately range types within.a halfemile. The rolling topography of parts of the 9. Eaton County area interfered somewhat with distant sighting, but the error was not great. Cross-checking from various vantage points was necessary in some cases. The level Lake Plains region of the Lenawee County tract was well adapted to this type of survey. Leopold (1933) used 11 range types in the composition tally method which he described, and Randall (1940) used 13 categories for a land use study in Pennsylvania. These were used as a basis for the development of a land use classification in this study (see Table I). The orchard areas include small farmyard orchards as well as larger specialized plots. The miscellaneous classification includes land area occupied by farmyards, homes, and all other land not accounted for in the survey. It also in- cludes acreage due to error of underestimation. Fencerows and field borders often assume an important role in pro- viding necessary cover for pheasants. Linear measurements were made in yards and they were grouped into three classes according to the amount of cover provided: Class 1 (Fig. l) -- contained a dense growth of shrubs in conjunction with a thick ground cover of weeds and grass. Afforded pheasants good protection from unfavorable weather and provided valuable roosting, nesting, loafing, travel, and escape cover. 10. Class 2 (Fig. 2) -- contained a thick ground cover of weeds and grass with little or no brush in- cluded. This type also offered good cover and pro- tection for pheasants. (S Class 3 (Fig. 3) -- contained a thin ground cover of grass and weeds. Offered little to no pro- tection for pheasants. .Analysis of the land use data (Table I) showed some outstanding differences which might account for differences in the pheasant populations. The amount of corn grown seemed especially significant. The Eaton County area had a total of 1,797 acres in corn, or 14% of the total acreage, while the Lenawee tract had 3,399 acres, or 26.5% of the total acreage. The latter area had 3:8- times W‘ corn than the Eaton area. A statistical analysis of co-variance was made, uti- lizing the total acreage of corn and the cock counts re- corded at each station during the crowing survey.(Table II). The highest cock count recorded during the crowing survey was used in the correlation computation instead of an average of the counts from 13 mornings. This was done to eliminate the possibility of a lower figure which may have resulted from environmental interference or chance on one or more days. Each of the routes was run in reverse on good listening days which resulted in the reduction of the error introduced by the daily time factor. 11. TABLE I IAND USE CLASSIFICATION w Eaton County Area Lenawee County.Area Acreage % .Acreage % 1. Cultivated cropland: Mechanically picked corn 1,075 8.4 3,061 23.9 Shocked corn 182 1.4 186 1.5 Standing corn 221 1.7 41 .3 Corn stubble 319 2.5 111 .9 Bay and grain, harvested 1,718 13.4 2,570 20.1 Hay and grain, unharvested 1,565 12.2 886 6.9 Fall sown grain 1,655 12.9 2,266 17.7 Sugar beets 24 .2 367 2.9 Soybeans 0 0.0 426 3.3 Tomatoes 0 0.0 266 2.1 2. Orchards 130 1.0 28 .2 3. Plowed land 514 4.0 653 5.1 4. Pasture 2,407 18.8 257 2.0 5. Idle land 912 7.2 270 2.1 6. Woodlots: Crazed 318 2.5 129 _ 1.0 Ungrazed 882 6.9 464 3.6 7. ‘Miscellaneous 878 6.9 819 6.4 TOTAL ACREAGE SURVEYED 12,800 100.0 12,800 100.0 12. TABLE II ACREAGE OF CORN AND NUMBER OF COCK CALLS BY STATION Eaton County Area Lenawee County Area Stations .Acres of Corn Cock Calls .Acres of Corn Cock Calls 1 160 29 268 68 2 140 24 226 40 3 79 21 219 23 4 103 12 140 21 5 85 14 135 37 6 63 9 144 41 7 43 16 165 33 8 85 24 160 44 9 110 22 122 11 10 71 15 128‘ 35 ll 84 11 201 42 12 34 9 134 38 13 81 16 143 32 14 122 7 240 29 15 74 12 143 27 16 119 10 204 26 17 94 11 185 22 18 91 17 115 27 19 66 14 146 27 20 93 18 181 26 Total y1,797 311 3,399 649 l3. The analysis of co-variance (Appendix) was made in the manner of Snedecor (1946). The calculation. of the re- lationship of the cock callsflto the acreage of corn of the two counties resulted in an 1" value of 8.58. This figure was significant at the 1% level, which meant that in less than one case out of 100 would a correlation of this mag- nitude be due to chance alone, in sampling from a popu- lation with a correlation of zero. The average number of cock calls per station was 15.55 for Eaton County and 32.45 for Lenawee. In order to allow for the difference due to corn and hence learn if the whole difference was greater than might have been expected from corn alone, the means were adjusted. When the Eaton County area data were adjusted upward and the Lenawee area down- ward, based on the average regression of cocks on corn (.108), the means became 19.88 for Eaton and 28.12 for Lenawee. The analysis of co-variance showed that even these two figures differed significantly (F:4.22), which indicated that there were factors, other than a larger corn acreage, which accounted for the larger population of pheasants on the Lenawee County area. Coefficients officorrelation of corn acreage and pheasants for Eaton and Lenawee Counties combined was .433, which were highly significant. 14. The regression coefficients of corn and pheasants, .089 for Eaton and .117 for Lenawee, did not differ signi- ficantly in the two counties. This meant that unit changes in corn acreage had about the same effect upon the phea- sant population in one county as in the other. The importance of corn in pheasant production has been pointed out by a number of workers. Leedy (1939) reported that corn made up 50-70% of the diet of 600 pheasants under observation in Wood County, Ohio during the winter of 1937-38. .A total of 186 bushels of corn was eaten by the birds in a 16-week period. He also pointed out that picked corn fields provided an important source of foxtail and smartweed seeds which rank high as pheasant food. .A survey of undisturbed corn fields in Ohio in 1938 revealed an average of 48 pounds of smartweed seeds per acre. The results of 92 stomach analyses reported by Hicks (1936) in Ohio listed corn as one of the most im- portant vegetable foods of the pheasant. One of the in- dicators of superior pheasant range set forth by Leedy and Hicks (1945) in Ohio was 25—35% of the total acreage planted to corn. The Lenawee County area qualified on this point with 26.5% of the total acreage in corn; however, the Eaton County area fell considerably short of the minimum level with 14%. .A pheasant food habits study by Severin (1936) in South Dakota disclosed that corn was the most important 15. single food eaten at all seasons. Randall and Bennett (1939) stated: .A comparison of cropping practices in the respective study areas brought out some interesting correlations. The regions that had the greatest acreage planted in corn also supported the greatest number of pheasants. As the corn acreage decreased and that devoted to other land uses increased, the pheasant population became progressively less dense. The cover provided by corn may be one of the reasons why this crop is so closely associated with pheasants. The abundant food provided by the corn, along with the large quantity of choice food-producing weeds in the cornfields on good soils, also probably accounts for the higher pheasant populations in those areas. .A study of pheasant food by Green (1938) during the very severe winter of 1935-36 in Iowa revealed that field corn and sweet corn were the number one and two foods, respectively. Corn made up 34.8% (dry weight) of the fall food of the pheasant according to Wright (1941) from a study in Washington County, Rhode Island. He also reported the results of studies in other states as to the percentage of corn in the pheasant diet: Nebraska 67%, Ohio 55%, Michigan 33%, Pennsylvania 54%, and Minnesota 49.5%. English and Bennett (1940) listed corn as the first ranked food of pheasants from.sn analysis of 84 birds collected during the 1939 hunting season in Pennsylvania. Gigstead (1937), reporting on habits of Wisconsin phea- sants, stated that corn was eaten at all seasons of the year and comprised about one-third of the birds' fall and winter diet. .A food habits study of the ring-necked pheasant in the Connecticut River Valley, Massachusetts 16. by McLaughlin (1942) listed corn as the leading grain of the diet of the bird. The amount of land devoted to the production of hay and small grains appeared to be another significant fac- tor influencing cock pheasant populations on the Michigan study areas. The Lenawee County area had 45% of the total acreage in hay and small grains as compared to 39% for the Eaton County area. Although the difference between coun- ties was not as great as the difference in corn acreages of the areas, it was believed that the hay and small grains supplemented the role of the corn factor. The small grains provided valuable nesting sites and were a source of food and cover (Randall, 1940). It was also found that second-class counties in Pennsylvania produced as much and in some cases more small grains than did first-class counties. He concluded that small grain was not a limiting factor of pheasant abundance. Wheat and cats were listed as important vegetable foodsof pheasants as the result of a food habits study in Ohio by Hicks (1936). Leedy (1959) stated that wheat was an important source of food and roosting cover. Not only were the grains eaten by the Ohio birds, but wheat and oats stubble fields produced an abundant supply of ragweed seed, an important pheasant food. .A survey of 15 wheat fields in Ohio revealed an average of 85.9 pounds of ragweed seed per acre. Dalke reported 41% of 17. the food of Michigan pheasants to consist of wheat, bar- ley, beans, oats, and buckwheat (Wright, 1941). An overall analysis of the components of the range of the areas showed that the Eaton County area was devoted to a general type of farming, and capable of relatively high productivity, whereas the Lenawee County area was largely utilized for the production of corn and small grains. The Eaton area had 2,407 acres of pasture as against 257 for the Lenawee tract. The amount of sub- marginal land (unfarmed land) was significant, with 912 acres tallied for the Eaton County area and 270 acres for the Lenawee County area. The former area contained 1,200 acres while the Lenawee area had less than half, or 593 acres, in woodlots. The Lenawee area contained two crops, soybeans and tomatoes, which were not grown on the Eaton area. The combined acreage of these crops totaled 692. The average size of farms was slightly larger on the Lena- wee area since 159 farms were recorded compared to 170 for the Eaton County area. By grouping the various categories of the range classi- fication used in this study according to the amount of win- ter cover provided, it was found that 7,045 acres of land on the Lenawee tract offered practically no cover for phea- sants. The Eaton County area was very nearly the same with 6,955 acres. The results indicate that the Eaton County area had sufficient winter cover to support a 18. greater number of birds. The components of the range used in this comparison and considered to offer little or no winter cover were: corn stubble, hay and grain-harvested, fall-sown grain, plowed land, pasture, sugar beets, soy- beans, tomatoes, and grazed woodlots. TABLE III FENCEROWS AND FIELD BORDERS Eaton County Lenawee County Thousands %»of Thousands % of Classes of Yards Total of Yards Total 1 118 27 41 7 2 112 25 138 24 3 209 48 401 69 Total 439 100 580 100 The analysis of fencerow and field border cover re- vealed that fencerows and field borders which provided good cover for pheasants were not a major factor in sus- taining high populations. Since 52% of all fencerows and field borders on the Eaton County area were listed in the better classes 1 and 2, while only 31% were so classified for the Lenawee area (Table III), the area providing the best cover had the smaller pheasant popu- lation. Although good fencerow and field border cover 19. is beneficial to pheasants, it seemed that this factor did not limit ring-neck abundance on the areas studied. 20. IV. CONCLUSIONS In an attempt to account for the difference in cock pheasant population levels between the Eaton and Lenawee County tracts, it was necessary to consider a number of inter-related factors. The basic factor is believed to be the development of the land, 1.6. from separate gla— cial processes. The inherent qualities of the soils are dependent upon the parent materials and together with the topography determined, to a large extent, the land utili- zation pattern. Since the Lenawee area supported a greater pheasant population, it is concluded that the soils and land use patterns of this tract were more favorable to pheasants. A statistical analysis of co-variance revealed that acreage of corn and density of pheasants varied together to a significant degree. Further analysis showed that there must also be other factors besides a larger corn acreage, which accounted for the larger population of pheasants on the Lenawee County area, but corn was evi- dently the most outstanding single land use factor operating. Corn provided a source of preferred food, cover, and a large supply of food-producing weeds asso- ciated with cornfields. 21. The Lenawee County area had 6% more land area de- voted to the production of hay and small grains. Since hay and small grains provided good nesting sites and an abundant supply of food, they are believed to be supple- mental factors to corn. Soybeans, also a good pheasant food, played a similar role. Land in permanent pasture acted as a negative factor. Since the Eaton area contained a greater acreage of idle land and provided better cover in fencerows and field borders, it was concluded that cover could not have been a limiting factor on that area. \ While the scope of this study was limited to a com- parison of the components of pheasant range as regards pheasant abundance on two relatively small areas, it is believed that similar investigations on other land types would provide game managers with valuable criteria for determining the capability of the land to support pheasants. 22. V. SUMMARY A study to compare pheasant populations with land use factors was initiated in the fall of 1949 and com» pleted in June 1950 on two areas of 12,800 acres each, located inEaton and Lenawee Counties, Michigan. Data indicated a pheasant population on the Lenawee area 2.1 times greater than on the Eaton tract. The Lenawee area, which evidently was more favorable for pheasants, had 1.9 thmes as much corn, and 1.2 times as much hay and small grains as the Eaton area. The latter area had 9.4 times as much permanent pasture, 3.4 times as much idle land, and 2.0 times as much woods as the former area. Statistical analysis revealed that corn acreages and pheasants varied together*to a highly significant degree. The lack of cover on the Lenawee area did not prevent high populations there. The Lenawee soils were of lake laid rather than outwash origin and while less well-drained were inherently more productive once tiled. Soil origin resulting in greater corn and probably small grain and hay production is believed responsible for higher pheasant production in Lenawee County. )2 ' “20.1“". ' WW“ Li I ,.I ~ Fig. 1. Class 1 fencerow Fig. 2. Class 2 fencerow 24. Fig. 3. Class 3 field border 25. APPENDIX Statistical Analysis of Co-variance of Corn and Pheasants 26. TABLE IV ACRES OF CORN - X; NUMBER OF COCK CALLS - Y, FOR 20 STATIONS ON EATON COUNTY AREA Station x x2 Y Y2 LL 1 160 25,600 29 841 4,640 2 140 19,600 24 576 5,560 5 79 6,241 21 441 1,659 4 105 10,609 12 144 1,256 5 85 7,225 14 196 1,190 6 65 5,969 9 61 567 7 45 1,849 16 256 666 8 85 7,225 24 576 2,040 9 110 12,100 22 484 2,420 10 71 5,041 15 225 1,065 11 84 7,056 11 121 924 12 54 1,156 9 81 306 15 61 6,561 16 256 1,296 14 122 14,884 7 49 654 15 74 5,476 12 144 666 16 119 14,161 10 100 1,190 17 94 8,836 11 121 1,054 16 91 6,261 17 269 1,547 19 66 4,556 14 196 924 20 95 6,649 16 524 1,674 Sum. 1,797 176,875 511 5,501 29,502 2'7. TABLE V ACRES OF CORN - X; NUMBER OF COCK CALLS - Y. FOR 20 STATIONS ON LENAWEE COUNTY AREA Station I X2 Y Y2 X.Y 1 268 71,824 68 4,624 18,224 2 226 51,076 40 1,600 9,040 3 219 47,961 23 529 5,037 4 140 19,600 21 441 2,940 5 135 18,225 37 1,369 4,995 6 144 20,736 41 1,681 5,904 7 165 27,225 33 1,089 5,445 8 160 25,600 44 1,936 7,040 9 122 14,884 11 121 1,342 10 128 16,384 35 1,225 4,480 11 201 40,401 42 1,764 8,442 12 134 17,956 38 1,444 5,092 13 143 20,449 32 1,024 4,576 14 240 57,600 29 841 6,960 15 143 20,449 27 729 3,861 16 204 41,616 26 676 5,304 17 185 34,225 22 484 4,070 18 115 13,225 27 729 3,105 19 146 21,316 27 729 3,942 20 181 32,761 26 676 4,706 Sums 3,399 613,513 649 23,711 114,505 28. TABLE VI DATA ON ACREAGE OF CORN AND COCK CALLS FOR TWO STUDY AREAS Areas SK SY 8X2 SX.Y SYZ Eaton 1,797 311 178,875 29,502 5,501 Lenawee 3,399 649 613,513 114, 505 23,711 Total 5,196 960 792,388 144,007 29,212 29. an He.amm.m moa. nae. wm.man.n me.ooe.m mm.bom.nm mm atone assess owcaobd on no.mmo.m _adm ma ma.ema.m baa. ans. mm.omo.m me.>om.¢ mm.mmm.mn ma ooawch ma 44.nmm mmo. mme. moo anm.a mae.ea ma septa aocoonh mouwsvm pncaoauucoo pneaoaehooo mhm hum mum aooconh wooed no no How nonmmonwom soapcaonaoo no moonwon moonmcn opsaapmm no muonnm overcoam can monesum no mfism mamas 88m age 2H 33 233.828 ozs zfimmamaam HH> Hflm4a 30. TABLE VIII TEST or THE RELATIONSHIP, REGRESSION or soon CALLS ON CORN.ACREAGE, BY'ANALNSIS or VARIANCE Source of‘Variation,, I Nban.$quare Average within areas (before adjustment) Reduction due to re- gression on corn acreage Residual unexplained variation in cock calls Degrees . of Sum of .Freedcm , , Squares. 38 3,315.95 1 624.22 37 2,691.73 624.22 72.7 r = 624.22 = 6.56 *2. 31. m.eon H Hm.bon manna eopmsneo no ooueOHnaqum Ho pump you Anonnov e.mb 5m n>.amo.m o.man.n H.moe.m o.bom.nm mm meow damp“: H.onm.m o.onm.ma o.ooa.¢o a :2. sage. mm em.mmm.m o.mpa.o o.nom.ma o.bm¢.eaa an mecca Hence madam 302 . aocoonm monwddm hm bum mum. 836lo 5832.32? .3 no How N no no 3.30m mooHMon moonwon cpmaapmm mo muonnm mpoduonm and monwsvm Ho madm mz- F . Lax HW SA NTEE Hw L 4DOANE 3 2 2 5 . 'IlfLwooo' V‘s j a I is __ SCH. fl: 3 . BILLWOOD > d 7 a / ‘ $SSACNHTEE \ / . HWY. l ___ .BT m” <3: c: 8 9 I 7,000 (, 4}- SMITH IO . ll I2 7 8 9 IO 2 I’ ' I %9\$ 6000 —‘ a: SCH. o k / _ I la 7 ’ _l / L—“L— k HWY 0: "w- z L———--— “SHOP HWY‘ Vv [a E g R M z l _ T " HWY. _ \ l2 5. '7 '6 '5 3 I4 .3 S l , ' L 00 l# (9 O l l8 5 l7 l6 :5 >_ E O I ' I \ — 6, 0 T3" 1?: g l 0 C2) '4 ‘3 |8 N l l - - 5.000 __ i— f7 MIERS 4 : W'NDSO H LE HWY ORE \ M RTIN SCH. . W.WIN son -—— ——— T ‘11 SHAM QT ‘ éCH M (4 0 l3 SCII?8 "I I7 '6 RESHA GRESHAM HWY. BRIDGEI HWY 23 24 SCH' j - ' 5.000 .. , , 'C I9 H 20 2I 2 23 2., i POTTER 4'5”: W | N a ,._a , ,1: ‘ lg 20 . fiat—3: D m 8 4,000 . . :33 7'“: I 'VER MONTVILLE E L. S E o R 23 lgdllf‘ldh 3‘3.” 24 l l9 20; 2| m E 23:1 my T’T HWY. ‘ |;.;.:/"- "u | I § 15}- -." i: E it '13-. I ‘L Q“ 33:33:: J t _ If“: " fiIVF—RMONTVILLEIIXM " If: ' In. fig: 29 - 28 it d 6) , " ,x/ l- 1.": 2"}: If PRAY K/NNE I ‘ "00° ”'10:. " :1?“ 3...:HI' 0 GI' 27 26 25 30 I y ’ SCH. Q' ' R H '2-2- ' ‘-.-;:'-. '26 ; LAMIE SCH“.C Q m 44 29 I a 2 K , vl' 3,000 NASHVILL NASHVILLE i ’5 m \ 26 H 30 %:_N__ER HWY' l 07 23 2! 26 RANSOM ”Y ..';.' . H I. g-fl: 2 H HVILL X SCSI MC CONNELL any. , 7 25 . 29 SKIN" CH. 25 yQUANTRELL 44 , AN HWY. ROSSMAN ., Hwy vl 3' 32 g 3‘ 33 54 y 35 3‘ ”+3., SCH. '1‘, ___Q 3,000 -—— .;-.=--, E a I m 36 3| 3 32‘ " 35 36 “0‘ 3| IL” on ' 2,000 32:31 ‘ I m 35 ,_ ' ' ' 32 has 34 BURKE HWY. :-.3'.' , —e . j— HWY- I 3 I\\ I 5 . . / W E HWY. 3 KlNGSlgfig'I‘D 35 '. _. ,‘ ;. CD a . .--7’7'3:3 - I _ _. _ . a 35 ‘-.'::'-.'E-:E o' I I d ! MUNSON -" ' KlNSEL HWY“ A» ”534R w W ”Semi ”W 2.1;. 6 a: 5 4 3 2 x ‘J m MAPL‘EE SCH. ,1 m . _ "" —" "T * 2,000 . I I.) w ' ,/ ‘ ,’ 4 - JL 3 “14 _z_ a MILLERBUR c3 \ /i 8 3 2 d l 5 “Nest—AND HWY' a: I I,000 -— .n _ VALLEY Hm. I o , 5 SCH G a: , FAIRVIE . .— g __l _ - , SCH. l ‘5. ° GUNN LL 4 3 ,f ' . / l. RICHARD . .. x: o . 2 K 2 A l— A M O /'I f L: - 3715:: -"-"-.'-;:’.-’t.-'.",'.~': if H N Y' SCH COLUMBIA HWY R0652? I, 0: . .- - . . ., -’:_.’:‘:’.’..'.’-_Z. 523;: k. . L n . I 9 ‘ :1 ' - ' ' I m 2 o «a \ S ' I lo J3 H '3 Elf-.3}; 7;- 8 9 a: I0 I F090 HwY, I2 A T O N 0000 TO M-IM e: [LAWRENCE , 2 23:4 1215.3}; ”Ti. ‘3 d3 ' a . 9 IO N 3 l2 “CL—l ‘79 J i ‘ HWY 79 I 3 FOOT .QllA OTT 04) “.3 H R503?” 0 d ‘3 ' - .. .. . , o e _ . .- a: t: I fl 3 a: S i I < C A , . 3...:32‘51... 2,.- .3375] ISLA ND - ‘3) I8 IT ‘2 I6 I5 5 \ I4 I9 I5 R M E l 9'35! E A T 0000 . . . . I w n . .. .. a» n . . N T-ZN' I000 — CARLISLE ii’ ‘0 3 li-"52‘ 3 d J I? j '6 _J ‘5 I '4 l3 1 HWY l l ' :23; .‘-.Z: CENTR SOUT WORTH , I N < '— I" _1 t‘ {5' ”III Mt SCH. L PERKEY SCH. § 2 i .IPSMITH l ELLs a "‘ mi 0 B E LL I I .4 3 d SCH SCH' . I9 [4 ““40 >_I SCH. 7"“) 0 ' l ' Y ‘9 o ' BUNKER HWY. IT $P0?E d 3.! '9 20 2I 22 23 if?” '1 ,9 \ 20 a 2 / Q4.“ R o A P l D I \ l 22 )— _.| SENTLY W ; 2,000 -# /K AMO at El I‘ll I BIN). ( 3 2 04/ 24 ‘9 E H Yfl 22 25 24 —_—__T I KALAMO Hwy, Z a: T BENTLY . C _l '5'”) \ 3‘ \ I 3’ O G 3 20 2| T SCH. 2' . L _ N , o 3080'“ @IgACuHRER / I ‘L . e ”WY- _____ PETRIEVILLEHW. TOLES HWY. I_ 2000 29 23 27 COLE ’ / ‘3 4 ‘ — ’ HWY. 4: / ' F 30 Q 7 0.} 6 ‘1 < a a: a: RIE PETRIEVILLE Q- 30 2 VI 3000 -—d ° 5 29 a 43/ 4% MORs 2 26 . 25 :0 z 29 o 28 . 2 “- ’ —_l \ . WLDT HWY 3 THORNTON HWY "T x 0.? SCH-E “6794, E 3 ‘2‘ 7 2 3 25 ' ./ BROADWAY s o o: 4 U j I H“ Q3 ”ll-‘- 4 HWY C2) 0 BARNES 3 HWY m 1' z I MUD L. THORNTo / — \ __rrw, . . ' : 3,000 l: T 9 32 @335 34 SCH. Q a: 3.". 4.3.1.2: r. a: S I 3) 32 33* x‘ 2;: LL, 35 71, \ ,7 ifAT N I) u ‘U ‘6? .1: 36 3[ 32 \4/Lfi .1. ....... 0 to SPAULDIN -SCH. o .S/ 9 D 35 \’\ 040 33 , g 4,000 a L FIVE _. POINT HWY" ‘ a: I 9‘ ‘2‘ 36 ”2.": :71, a: 35 36 ' E VA 5 ' g l .41.: I :10: '5. E sell. 2 r N FIVE IL POINT / mm IT 125;; 3‘ 3.... SCH. f | g ./ m —4 __ __ - "'35; PM“ “WY bi- 4,000 f/ I I l:' ,0 f __ 6/ O 5 3 2 I 6 / / I... 712, l °‘ 5 I 5 .5" b 4 3 z 2 o0 6 5 o A _.__._ , A3 05 T o k x ,_ E I 4 a: 3 2 I 6 z 5 a l : r. ,_ 5000 ___4IFOLLETT L.— E o, S EIL x Q- g ,_I ,_ I ,3 2 | ' , —————’—— z: 0 m _' . ‘” ’ B ——l . I. — L—— SPICEszLLE m HWY ‘5; 3 3;, 00" 4'5; L3— 4 _/ O // - u. {N _o 7 ANDREWS m Hwy I 'y 2 V D ‘2 o E 5,000 _J 8 ___—H' l2 7 IthDE H Y. vv 6 3‘ °‘ ’41, IVJ fl C5 ——l 9 DJ IO 63% | )2 D I J 2 6‘, I ‘0 II of —— ~ '8 E *3 o 7 ‘r 8 ’5 9 <2: '0 II 800 Y I2 8 IQ v.F.w. RD. 5,000 STONY POINT _. HWY. wJN—J HWY ING / é *- a: B R O}, a O K g F I E L D e lo 6‘ II 1' 8 B E L a: r“ W __ j . NYE 00 HWY. g S 2 RD, '2 Z _J LINK HWY . V 8 U . 6,000 )7 2 I5 >‘ I4 E l3 l8 .. I7 BAKER HWY' l5 bSBORN ”mil 2 z ' j ,8 PADDY HWY. 5 x, Q- ___- 1 13 (3:: IS 4 l7 iTEVENS HWY. . l4 ‘ 18 BAY WIN I.__. l \/\ cc .1 o 0' l5 T. I N. 7,000 ASSYRIA HWY j 333- 8 . 4’6“ V. '6 . '4 § 5 P RSCH '6 I!) L ORITEE’ °‘ (:3 \ 2 S w ' « . H ; i . MAHAN 5 ' HWY 5C”- E at ' h 22 23 V‘ ,9 3 2 I I . HWY- 7,000 I C) c: )9 20 g 2. CRONK HWY I 7 < 23 2‘ ._ a: I I 4 S 24 l l9 __ 20 (2) 2 MILLER HWY. [9 (g. 20 2| 22 < H 3 L I N I “U z o A. 23 z 24 19 DJ 22 23 24 l a o I w 0 ,_ 2 POWER Hwy e ’3 i a 5 same WHIPPLE Hm T o a N M v o .. o a: ' f , l I BE LEv “ Q —I L “5 ‘“ , - '3 19" / I. DE 7, 7 ,_ \ to HWY I kW; #3 g i 9 2 l__ A | 30 29 ' . 2 v» ‘//, OUT?) DNV'L , “g BELLEVUE HWY. 8,000 oJO ES R0. CREEK HWY. 32",”:1} " ,_ . ‘6/ , ,. é) LE _J CHARLESWORTH — :——- ,/ 26 fi—————— 2: 0 STEE SCH. 2 >T , :-;.,.;; c; 26 )- ? 3° 29 28 27 26 g 25 LL. 30 m . d 2 0: . I“ L", D .2‘7 3 26 ‘r 25 4 PlNE V - .'...-."-" I Iii-VYJTL'.’ 73.3: 2 _l’LQL-F flflf C ‘ :3 9,000 0: id, Q - —- . . . _f BPT‘TERHELD rm . DEVIIEFIL. ; 0K 8 / I 4 Deg I act. I BALLARD-H 0 9,000 CD 3| 0 IMARKLE Hf. 6‘4, D- Z I s! (n H 56 Q. 2 46 K m 0 32 o A W 3‘ r; 35 SEGAR RC. ‘3, P / x - .— + ' é, a: I E _ g E 4 35 g S 6. Io.ooo $942.- _- _ _. I e LOOMLIS m 3 4,4 I- g 0 II \":O"' _ '_ - \ ‘P _ I0 000 \. ~4— «V O O o O O ’x 0 C A L E O -U N o o o o o o o b o o . o o o O o o o o o . . Q? 9; :" o‘ g, a; E. 0, or 0, o" 8. 8‘ g I 8. 8 \l A C (8 S O N ' o o o C @ ._ (D \D (1' K) (\J __ o __ O O C O O «o \/ I In, N” o'- g“ 3' 3 \l 0 k .. - — R.6W. .st 0“} Q? R.5W. ‘ R4w. - <30? 9 w e ~1- ' ' g INDEX 5; 0 Scale .75 Inches to the Mile 0) ,\ «0‘s DRAWN BY w. c. BERRYMAN r v A Bri . H . _ _ _ _ - - F-5 Do Rd T . . ggs wy- W . ~ — — — — — (SH—7 H Kenyon Rd. - — — — — — H-4 M 11k Rd - - - - _ _ - AFkIeY Rd- - - - - - - cs: Broadbent Rd. - - - - - H-2 Durfee Rd. — - _ _ — — B—2 Haoer Rd _ _ - _ _ - 17-8 Kikendall Rd. — — — — — B—2 u 1 en . M EH5 11:51.“: Hfiw' . _ _ - - 01 Stevens Hwy. — ~ - - - B—3-4 West Rd. - - - -_ - - - B-2 Amge, Rd _ _ _ _ _ AF_6 Broadway Hwy. _ _ - - 04—13 E Pale HW' _ _ B, King Hwy. - — _ - _ _ 13-3 c P eRd wy- - — - — - A-4 Stine Rd. - — — - - — AE-S Wheaton Rd. - — - - - DH-S Allegan' Rd. - - - - - E—6-7 Brookfield Rd. — — — T AC-4 . ‘T *f ‘ y. " “ ‘ ‘ ' in land Hw _ _ _ _ _ _ McClure Rd. - — — — _ A_3 ray - _ T _ - - — — E-2 Stoll Rd. - - - - - - — H-l Whlpple Hwy. - — - - - A-8 Eaton H Halsey Rd - _ _ _ _ _ A-2 K as y D1 , , Anderson Hwy. _ _ _ _ E-7 Brown Rd. _ _ _ _ _ _ EG—7 Elm Rd Wy. — _ _ -. -. H-1-8 Hi.“ 1. R1}. A 6 Kinneyville Hwy. _ _ _ _ B—l McConnell Hwy. — — — — E-4 R Stony Pomt Hwy. - - — B-7-8 White Rd. - - - - - - B—6 Andrews Hw . - - - - _ 13-7 Buck Hwy. - — — T T " A‘l ‘ _ — - — _ — _ Bl) (“EL ’ .(' — g — — _ _ _ ' 1 Hw , ~ — _ _ _ _ _ McDonald Rd- _ _ T _ AB-6 Ransom Hw . - _ _ _ _ Strange HWY- ' ‘ ‘ ' G‘3’6 Whittum Rd- " ' " ' " BC-2 ' y ~ Elmwood Rd Hart HW V — — — — — — F—l Kinse y E 3 8 M y E—l W 1 H Arbor Rd. - _ .. - _. .. E—8 Bunker Hwy. — — - T T D‘1 ' ' _ ‘ " ‘ H‘l Hartel Rd _ * _ _ _ EH—3 L cWhorter HWY- _ _ _ T GT7 Renker Rd. _ - _ _ (C) H—l Strong Rd- ‘ ‘ ' ‘ " ’ H‘6 {but wy. ' " T ‘ ‘ E‘l Ash Hwy. - - - _ _ - F-6 Burke Hwy. — - - - T ’ E‘1 F H F Hickory HIV _ _ _ _ _ F—7 Mt. Reynolds Rd, - - _ _ _ A—8 Stub'HWY- ’ ' ‘ ' T ‘ E‘2 WIICOX Rd- ‘ ‘ ‘ T ' T AB-3 Assyria Hwy. _ _ _ _ _ A-8 Bursley Hwy. _ _ - — - F-6 Fa?e_ Wy. — — — — ~ D—8 Hicl's Hw y._ _ _ _ _ _ B-6 Lacy Lake Rd. - — — — BD—7 Mt. Hope Hwy. _ _ _ G-1-8 River Rd. _ _ _ _ _ _ A-8 Sunfleld Rd. - - - - - GH-7 Wildt Hwy. - - - - - C-7-8 8 Burton Hwy. _ _ _ _ _ A-8 a1rv1ew Hwy - _ _ _ _ Dull H'IILRd y. B Lake Hwy. — - — — — — F77 N Rossman Hwy. _ _ _ _ E—1_2 Sw1ft Rd. - - — - — - C—7 WillIams Rd. - - - - - F-l Butterfield Hwy. - - T A‘4'7 Fees Rd' ‘ ‘ _ T _ _ - H4 1 ' fl _ _ _ _ _ ~ _8 Lamie Hwy. ‘ ‘ ‘ T _ ET6 Royston Rd. _ _ _ _ A Spicer Rd. - - - - - - G—3 Wlllls Hwy. - - - — — - A-5 Bahcock Rd. - - — - - A-7 ' Fhaner Hwy. . _ _ _ _ fl EL“: HOQ'Sl‘taCk Rd- _ - _ - - B-Z Lansing Rd, _ — _ _ DG_1_4 Narrow Lake Rd. - - — AC-4 Rupp Rd _ _ _ _ G‘?’ Sandbom Rd. — — - - - H-8 Willis Rd. - - - - - - A-S Bailey Rd. - - - .. _ _ E-l C 5 Point Hwy, _ _ _ __ C—2-8 Holmes Hwy. — — — — — B—2 Lawrence Hwy. _, _ _ _ D-5-8 Nashville Hwy. — - — — E-7-8 ' " — ' H'3 St. Willow Hwy. - - - - - H-1-3 Baker Hwy. - - - _ _ _ 13-6 Canal Rd _ _ _ _ _ _ CH-l Flanders Rd. ~ _ _ - -. (ID—4 HO“ Hwy. ' T ' T ' ‘ F‘l Lawson Rd. - — — — — _ H_3 Needmore Hwy. - — - — G—4-6 S e Hw _ _ _ _ _ H-1-8 Windsor Hwy. - - - - F-1-3 Ballard Hwy. - — _ .. _ A—1 C' 1f' 1d Rd ‘ _ BD-2 Follett Hwy. — — — — — 11.7-9 HOOP“ Rd' ' ' ‘ ’ ‘ ” A’4 Link Hwy. — — ~ — — —— B-8 Nickle Rd- - - - - - — H-S Saddle Bag Rd- - — - — H-8 St’ JO y. Wilson Rd. - - - — — - A-2 Base Line Hwy. - _ _ A_4_7 Call-lei H ' - _ _ _ C_5_8 Foote HVVV: _ _ - 1 _ _ D—CI HO\Véil‘d Hwy. - — - - — C_7 Long Hwy _ _ _ __ _ _ C_3 Nixon Rd — _ _ _ - EH_2 Saglnaw Hwy — _ _ _ H_1_8 T Wolf Hwy _ _ _ _ _ _ A_3 Battle Creek Rd. - - - CA—5-8 Carl‘s-eRdwy' ' _ _ - _ 13-4 Ford Hwy. - _ - _ _ 9, Houston Rd- - - - — - AB-l Loucks Rd. — - — - — — G-6 North River Hwy. — - - H—2 Sand Rd- _ - - - - - - A-8 Taylor HWY- _ - - _ - _ 3'1 Waverly Rd- - - - - - AH-l Barnes Hwy. _ _ _ _ _ C-l as ex ' ’ " CE—6 Freeman Rd _ . Hubbard Rd. — — - — — E-5 M Nye Hwy. - — - — — B-2-4 Santee Hwy. - - — _ _ F—S Thornton Hwy. - - - - - C-6 Y Baum Rd — .. - A 5 Chester Rd' ‘ — — H 1 Fre Rd ' _ H _ _ B-Z Hunt Hwy. - — — — — - A—3 0 Saubee Rd. - — _ - _ _ H 8 Thuma Hwy. - - - - - B-3 . . - - - _ Clark Rd. - - - "' (A) - .y ' " " " " T _ I)_7 _)_ i _ _ _ __ _ _ Mahan Hwy_ — — .. _ ._ B_3_4 SCl l0 H _ _ _ _ H _ _ _ __ __ _ c_1 Young Rd. - - - — - - B—7 Beech Hwy. _ _ _ _ _ D—S Cl' T _1 — _ M— 0 Frlth Rd. _ _ ~ * -. _ FJ HUTILEI Rd. FH 8 Oak Hw _ _ _ _ _ _ F—2 P wy. - - _ E—8 Toles wy. _ Bell Hwy. - - - - - - 13-3 ””0“ r8” ‘ ‘ ‘ A_3 FulleT Rd _ . Hyde Hwy. _ - - - - - B-6 Maple Hwy- - - - - ~ D-5 . Y- Seott Rd. _ - - - - _ A_5 Tucker Rd. - - - — — AB-l SUBDIVISIONS OF EATON COUNTY B 11 Coats Rd' ' ' ‘ ' ‘ — l ' _ h _ ’ — A‘l Marcy Rd- _ _ _ T _ _ GT1 onelda Rd‘ ' ’ ' ' " FHA Scout Rd - - _ - T wn Rd - - - - - — - A-8 Be elvueHHwy. ' ‘ ‘ ' A’1"6 Cochran Rd. - -. - T ‘ AH'4 G I Markle Hwy. - — - — ~ A-2 Otto Rd' ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ' DG’4 Section Rd - - - —- - — D_2 Tfrrill Rd - - - — - - C-5 Bretton Woods - - - (B) H'l entey WY- _ _ _ - - C-2 Cockroft Rd. — - — — - AT2 Gale Rd. - — ~ — ~ - - c-I Ionia Rd. - - — — — — AH-8 Marshall Rd. — — - — AB-5—6 Osborn HWY- - - - - - B~5 Segar Rd _ _ _ _ " ' 0.8 T “man Rd. - - _ _ - H-3 caStle H.‘“S _ ' ‘ - (G) 1“ Benton Rd. - - - - - EH4 Cole Hwy _ _ _ _ - - C—6 Gates Rd. — ~ _ .. _ - GHJ) Irish Rd. _ _ _ _ _ _ FH—8 Martin Rd _ _ _ _ _ _ B—S Oxby Rd. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A-6 Sh t .Rd — - A-3 a Delta Mills - - — - (O) H-l Blllwood Hwy. _ - _ _ F-2-3 . ' _ _ D-1-2 Gidner Rd _ , .. I ' 3y own - ‘ _ T - CH-7 U Fairview - - - - - (Q) H-3 Bisho H Columbia Hwy. — - T G' - _ - - — — L)—.) lfildml HWY. ~ — - - - D_1_4 Mason Rd. — - - — — DE-8 . P Sherman Rd. - - - - _ AC-4 Rd H 2 Greenfield A (K) H 2 . p wy. - - - - - F-l Cook Rd. _ _ _ _ _ - — A—7 Ildart Rd. — — _ - - - AB) Matthews Rd. — - — - AB-S Packard Hw . - — - — D—3—4 Sherwood Hw _ - _ _ UPW‘ ' .' ' ' ' ' ' ' "es ' ' ‘ Blsmark Hw - _ G78 - FH1 G J y y. A-6—7 Homedale - - - - - (F) H-l Bolock Hw 3" _ ' ’ 'E‘ Crietz Rd. — - - T " A- Grace HWY- _ - — ~- - ~ Hf) Iaryis Hwy _ _ _ _ _ _ E—l Maurer Rd. — - - — — - C—5 Paddy Hwy. - - — — — — B—7 Skinner HWY- T - ~ — - E-1 V Homeland - _ See Marc Rd Bood Hw y. - - - - -5 Cronk Hwy. ‘ _ _ _ .. — -7 Grand Ledge Hwy. — H-{LR iIeIIkS ngl' - _ _ _ _ _ C—3 Messenger Hwy. — — — — A-6 Fares Rd. - — - — — - E-2 Smith Rd. - _ _ _ _ _ CE-l Valley Hwy. .. T - - - D-5-8 Maplewood _ _ _ _ (Ll, G-l Boste3dor Ryd . - — _ - 86 Curtis Rd' _ d i — — - BD-S Granger Hwy. N _ d _ I G"? IolmSon Rd ~ — — — — — F—3 Michigan Rd' _ - ~ _ _ CF~1 Parker Rd' ‘ ‘ ' ’ " G'6 Smithville Rd' ' _ - _ BC-l Vance Hwy. - - _ - - - E'3 Meadowlawn - - —- - (C) H-l - _ - T T .. C-2 Cutler Rd. - - - - — T G-6 fee“ Rd. - — — — ,. — A4) . ‘ ' Miller Hwy- T T _ - - A-5 Pease Rd. - - - — — AD—8 Snow Rd. - - — - - _ Vel'montVIIle Hwy. ' ‘ ~‘ E‘1'8 ° Bowen Hw , _ _ _ _ _ C-8 Gresh _ . Jolly Hwy. — — — — — — G-l . _ _ _ - G-l _ _ _ _ - Meadowv1ew - See Gunther Rd. B' Rd y D . 'am Hwy. —- - -— }‘4T4T7 [on Q I’IVV _. .. _ _ _ _ A-8 Mlllerburg Rd- _ — T - D‘s PeCk Rd, — - — - — - - A—2 SplcerVIIIQ Hwy. .. _ _ _ B_1_7 V.F.We Rd' ' B'l Milletts - _ _ (M) & (N) G 1 Boyd; d H l - — - _ - GH‘S - G—1-3 Griffin Hwy' ‘ " ‘ _ _ BTW ‘ ' e" y' ‘ Millett HWY. _ _ T _ _ G-1-2 Perkey Rd- - - - - - CD-3 Spore St- - - - - - - - 07 W Oak Park - - (D) 86 (E) H:1 Bra or wy' _ — _ — _ Be Dam H-Wy' " -' ‘ ‘ — H 1 Griffith Rd' ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ " A" K Mills HWY' ‘ ” ' ‘ " C‘2‘3 Perry Rd- _ _ _ _ _ - 13-7 Springport Rd- - - - - AB-2 w lnut Hwy. - - - - - F-l Russell - - - - - (P) H3 BTTCIIGI’I Rd- - _ - _ _ BE-7 Delta Rwer Drive _ _ ‘_ F:1 Gums” Rd. — - « - - DF-Q Kalamo Hwy. - - - _ - CH-8 Moore Rd. — - — — — - G-7 Petrieville Hwy. - - _ - C-l Spruce Rd. — — - - - - 1.3-2 szters Hwy. - - - - - B-Z Sunshine Gardens 4: (A) H:1 8:23.; I_VIVy. - - - - - - F-7 Dimondale Hwy. - - T- F-3-4 guenther Rd. — - - — ~ G—l Kelly Hwy. — - — — - — G—8 Mott Rd. - _ _ - - — — A-S Pine Hwy. - — - - - - A—8 Steele Hwy. - - — - - _ B-2 Wardell Rd. - - - - _ 3-1 Woodbury _ - _ _ (H) H-8 g wy. - - - - - F-l-Z Doane Hwy. — - — T umea Rd. — _ ~ — —. FG—2 Kemler Rd. - — — - — - C—2 Moyel' Rd. - _ - — — — F—5 Pinch Hwy. - - - — - F-2—4 Stewart Rd. - - — - _ CD~3 Weeks Rd. - - - - _ _ A-S VVorthmore _ _ _ _ (J) H-l MAP #1 Official Road Map Of Eaton County Michigan Map Showing: ROAD INDEX RURAL HOUSE NUMBERING LAKES AND STREAMS TOWNSHlPS AND MUNICIPALITIES Issued By EATON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS Free Distribution Only September l, 1950 somom- couwy now condasszmms - ROAD MAP OF LENAWEE COUNTY, MICHIGAN L E G E N D - TRUNK LINEs camera-roar: sauna“! stun HILLARD wM. 5.:wxcx momma-Ir, ”r. or mmrluauct lac-ran; Imam, canary nu. M‘NITT BLACK TOP ROADS INK! L.RICHAR0. ORFTS Iv Pheasant Growing-cock Route I 4 .5- 2 7 — PRIMARY COUNTY ROAD: _ NORMA “UCOCK, CLERK .- 2 5 Z 2 7 28 Z 9 K 70 anooxcwv Y S O N / \ To 8741': PARK _ ‘ TO SAL/NE O x LINTON IO ENN/NG TOV‘V / 5 /4 //////////////// I //////’////// N A N ”CAD! RO- \ 70 CONE 23 23 D [:3 26 MIL WA UKEE G- 70 NORTH ADAM: MAN/ T0 CH N ADRIAN GRANGI' /2 0 7'0 DUNDEE lfR’50/V T/PT’ON I D FOR/("STE N 0. CHA TF1 A RAMS/N ENTER HA WK/NS 00 m SKINNER 3 I W/// MAW/M [ii/I" ’ e 5 4 / I ./ BEECHEE’ R0. T0 PE TENS BURG \ I2 rr/o/VD R0 mama ORA N‘l’ 'Asoum - _ .cvtp RD. E. 6755» Davy? GRAIN/6‘5 , ,, _ 3o 29 " I ' 27 2e [7] RIC: , / H 50/7- .COIVKL/N I90 GOFMN /////// //////I:/// ‘ //////////,/I/// /// . ~ ' . ocoew 07A. . .’/“ ' ‘ ' A/RF/ELD M / .5 I - ///5 VALE! Q 1.sz k UA 5 COUN T Y l0 SENECA 9 \ E . PA crown ‘ H oTHWELL CREEK ,3 .7'0 PRA T TV/L I. E . CO- ' - TO 077/! /7 . U T WCJTON F‘A Q TO WA L ORON b, ‘ ELLIOTT K 355' 36 V v YANKEE 37'- WHITE _. E 3 \ ' 70 RA DEN-’0” To LYOIvs R35 ro SEWARD To WHITEVILLE ”VA"? 0‘ TO FAYETT B _ o O H o 29 A T ' I8 19 2 4 28 6 I0 ’ I Y-C RYAN Ytb-QM smu- LINE YS-Yb re’m'Y sz-rIz W504,” ‘ ”"n' ”’°'“” ”amen: ca“ 820-428 WAD: L- flux/”SON Kq-J’ p- I PARAGON 1 '5' -l ’7 I'D" p, 5. x17 LAKE 04-4 3 our/ow RZO-RZI turn- - um. noru Mic-J” U. :fl-"a Ou-R" 7” co” on uzunaru " "J” ”Hr“ tb'p‘ LAK‘ Gas-~45 gnlvg‘ggelVEk 5134’" "‘UP arr-~18 *rIvonnswv ’14-'24! ”t. III-20 WIMPL‘ ’- 9 ‘ A o I: z (HI/vs: Iakr art-cm tron Irn- ga :r arr- A“ 7"” ”4""?0“ ”’ "" ”‘wwfl c w“, PARKIWR" "If: 33:2: “x: 91414 .124-» MIvor acne” 63-67 Qty-430 N-"E‘R’V‘ 3:335}; Tm £00 25%;, wmrcn Irv-:0 caarnv luv-u! RAN‘R 5"" “ ”’”"’“ L "5'35 l"‘“'"'" '- Y” 'x ” E"”'°"£"c' 27:32,, anew I42!- "23 Emu! 9" ’ u acx Al4-AJO ”'7 “‘ "an: Lil-([6 MMORchI V7427 PARK N 3131814 p'Imrr wII-wn vn-vz “Ariana J-ps' L27-K27 s.sr:MIv'2~ 07- on forum? pz- PIS «wave» ma -4 I‘ 6“" "4’ “' M“ “ "' ’ ”‘°’""' "‘ ' ' c322,” ” I- 2 near a- 24 rrcr P-Iv uvr aroma ’V“ °”°“’ NAPL‘ m 01'0" ”kn" a "'c" 2:55: age-Ives pnzsrow au-pao Y27-oz-I MIvn'amun Ins-ms o arr-~27 “’2‘” 0-24 Tow/v1.57 x34” wwrr Oar-32a “”“m :35: I'M-:7: 2:27:13?" 5,533 3 ” "NV" °°“-" ""“"” ‘RHY‘7K‘ avg-:4 £x£L.Y I :1 N” ““”“°" ”1' 74‘ “080% c- N ,0 1&7!va «.538; DAIrwooa Lao-Lao Army/mm azI-aao mospccr mu. Q’s-’53; Q n P22 ”9" ”fi'fi,’ :2:ng 337’” HI . H3 TRIAT Vida-0’48 ‘mZ‘R 51515:: 400“" ' ' . ,v /- st cannon c-zz IL! 1- HA I'll-70” ' N pt." - " I 4119 pcmrgcosr NIJ -A I) PUTNAH I: - ' — £2 _ waanrownr xa- rm rm»; ~ I “WV" "" "" ”’°“ c ’2 - . aa-n ""”’“D "’4" “ c- W“? N 786-?! I 9‘0‘” R ’ . Prue: ru-ru rI'r-rla w-zl 4 03° . mgr cncnr LIz-cI: .ffp‘2’:: am? ,6; fm :zzgzorofl orbs/I, 3;; I“; 53%;; IN “IV/:42: f)“ t "’21:? :ARN‘R ‘4', 22:: - ”‘ KC AIM” aa_ 04 gzgraucw: luv/9° ocagnr cur. $37-$30 55,?231‘ C1,; cum“? .1 ,_ a: Vat-’3’: ,9). I. {(3. 52 gurrmN “$12330 gggz-z ”Coil/o "may .14. OIJ' I ~ - I . ' - AY ‘ - I" z - " - wr I - ‘ ma... "2?: mm ”gm am..." "my 323:, ms: «cc mm m"; 52%” $15: :3: 5m 52%» mm“ was “:1: 25:: .53: gmmcgmgyg; ~ ° 0-, can. gg-vg 3%;th ”mg as mm mm; n “I“; «r, Inna-cu 1' " 0"" 7‘ I . . ' PM” 9' n-I: ' MONAHON (Jo-Lao ' - 3419/” ' ' (2.14 (an: ~ ‘ . - raven - ”315°" ":72, 2:233" ”2;. m "z 0.7mm: 13;: mm .m 32:... ”v...” "gm?” Ir; Iran: N -' m 5337;; ,, , magmas? mam: 323:: $252,, my: 54m. 9%: mg” m ,, a" W W "Iv °“""’ - ‘ ‘ ' 930-”? Mm: ~ num- ' ‘ ' .uAmrm - '3"; III. Io ' plug-r Iva-Inn: a-ao ’ - ' y R an- :3 mun an. .IaI Awnrnnaw ,- ,, 481-01.) anon-rte YII-TII .ts-‘.. cram. .43 ”’66, pat-qu- pogo (ll-At! Aft. VIJ-VM ~84 N.H‘-p,p,4~ plug, ‘1'“: RAU 5-. 67'", u-RSO TA LO 7-F 4 VIchPfl/ILLL' .9/7-130 . . - a an r-I-r . m I- KI: - 4. 4 (In K I. N -o I cameo rI-rIo LANK “- rIa-ns . . eta-cal nun-Hour r I .‘V‘ no ‘ H 0,35; 0.74:: ago-n: x- u 'cROcIrtrr rat-on UDLEY ‘ ’1 ”525" K - I M?” aft-a Zfi’ifi’nv Shag» m 3'” ' ' a: wflffiza’“ E a} QLHIR K86484- K‘lm” ”";f’,’: @100” .1294”, , plffpgz Jrzq R24~ 24 ruse.- CLINTON Izz-Am vacant D- 6 —. UI-r- p» LII-NI: anvau c- II K- 3’ corn A" «at: n-ao run HAN alt-PI! M i M um muImu ”.5 ILLAIIWCY CAD-l" ' an“: -: 23 “~va ”ll-P22 1.: - R." a." _ I ‘2’“;‘2: 91:. pa 0 Gas-In: urAIvr 39-8/3 ’0‘,be pzxct‘a "'1‘,” can Y 1“”: b I" all 53:.” y. g, a“, RIO-In: "we’ll/RY "'3" ' . I- 2: mom-mmr - ' - uorr I - I ADY - GALfidIN OI‘ UM J_ , raceway? HJO~JJO gun.” ng‘aup T I? L ‘A 7‘ I- ~ 0 . ’ ' I ”'TITI'I‘ILII’ILEJMIQEHIEIIITLHI'NWIT‘5