Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
HAPB Agenda 02/19/2021
AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD WILL MEET AT 9:15 AM, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2021 AT THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT – DIVISION OF PLANNING & ZONING, CONFERENCE ROOM 610, LOCATED AT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA. NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. Any person in need of a verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Division Department of Planning and Zoning. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE HAPB WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. THESE MATERIALS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 1. ROLL CALL/ATTENDANCE 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 20, 2020 5. OLD BUSINESS: A. Marco Island Historic Society Letter Status B. Collier County Museum Director Amanda Townsend will give an update for the Goodlett/Pine Ridge Road (Plot W) historic designation C. Horse Creek Historic Marker Update by Eugene Erjavec 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. HAPB Vacancy Status B. Immokalee Solar Farm Cultural Assessment [CU-PL20200001865] C. Seminole Trail Government Center Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment [CU-PL20190000360] D. Certificate of Appropriateness for Mar-good Park E. Rural lands presentation – staff 7. REVIEW OF PROJECT AND ACTIVITY LOG: 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 9. HAPB COMMENTS: 10. ADJOURNMENT: 22.A.2 Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Agenda 2-19-21 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) November 20, 2020 1 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, November 20, 2020 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division – Planning and Regulation Building, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Eugene (Gene) Erjavec Austin Bell-(Z) Elaine Reed-(Z) Barry O’Brien Elizabeth Perdichizzi-(Z) Patricia Sherry George Thompson ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Timothy Finn, Principal Planner, Growth Management Alexandra Casanova, Operations Coordinator Amanda Townsend, Collier County Museums 22.A.3 Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Signed Meeting Minutes 11-20-20 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) November 20, 2020 2 1. Roll Call/Attendance Chairman Eugene Erjavec called the meeting to order at 9:23 A.M. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. (Four members were present in person; three members present via zoom.) 2. Welcome New Members: Barry O’Brien and Patricia Sherry were introduced and welcomed by the HAPB Chairman, County Staff and Board members. 3. Addenda to the Agenda Amended to Move item #7A, New Business, to be addressed prior to #5, Approval of the Minutes. 4. Approval of the Agenda George Thompson moved to approve the Agenda, including the change to take up item 7A. prior to Item 5. Second by Eugene Erjavec and Carried unanimously, 7-0. Elaine Reed stated she had sent e-mails regarding Agenda items to be included on the Agenda which were omitted. She had sent an e-mail on Oct 20th recommending a presentation for December by April Olson from the Conservancy which was not acknowledged. It was in regard to a presentation about the development in eastern Collier County. On Sept 18 she had sent a letter from the State of Florida, Bureau of Archives -which was not addressed. She stressed that she had spent a great deal of time on these items which were not being addressed nor acknowledged. Elaine noted that items need to be put on the agenda in order to decide whether HAPB wants to deal with them or not; and, that HAPB needs to be informed of what is being planned for the future. Chairman Eugene Erjavec apologized for the omission. An additional item will be added to the Agenda under New Business –C. “ Brief Discussion of presentation by April Olson re: Eastern Collier County”. The Letter from the State of Florida Bureau of Archives” will be addressed at December’s HAPB meeting. Item 7A was taken up next. 7 A. Certificate of Appropriateness for Roberts Ranch Family Home - Amanda Townsend, Collier County Museum Director, spoke about Brent Trout, the new Manager at Roberts Ranch, and his plans for tours and various activities. She presented a detailed report of the highlights and improvements in process, and/or already completed, projected on an overhead screen, The HAPB members were provided copies of a detailed printout of the permit and construction plans and documents. She spoke about the background of Roberts Ranch, a 1926 to 1940 era structure, as well as the scope of the restoration project. Some of the improvements included: a dehumidifying system, a new HVAC unit, window 22.A.3 Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Signed Meeting Minutes 11-20-20 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) November 20, 2020 3 replacements, plumbing, chimney repairs, improving accessibility and restoring of the original paint color. George Thompson commented on the remarkable planning and comprehensive quality of the project itself, as well as the thorough presentation by Amanda Townsend; and the attention to detail of the planned restoration project of this historic site. Elaine Reed also commented on the thorough presentation by Amanda Townsend. She also complimented the architect of the project and requested his contact information from Amanda. Eugene Erjavec called for a vote to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Roberts Ranch Family Home - which was unanimously approved by the entire HAPB. Chairman Eugene Erjavec announced there would be a brief discussion on inviting April Olson to the December 18 HAPB meeting. The HAPB was in favor of hearing her presentation on what is happening with development in eastern Collier County. Following their unanimous consent, Elaine Reed will invite her to the next meeting to give a 30 minute presentation. 5. Approval of the Minutes: September 18, 2020 George Thompson moved to table the approval of the minutes of September 18, 2020, until the December 18, 2020 meeting, in order for the HAPB to have time to review those minutes. Second by Eugene Erjavec. Carried unanimously, 5-0. 6. Old Business A. Distribution of the Updated Historic Guide Copies of the completed Historic Guide were distributed to everyone present. Several boxes were available for members to take with them for distribution in their areas. Chairman Eugene Erjavec noted a few changes and/or addition will be made for the next printing. He stated a list will be created of any changes to be added in future printings of the Historic Guide. B. Marco Island Letter Status (Elaine Reed will send a copy of the letter to Patricia Sherry at her request) Elaine Reed stated she had sent to the whole HAPB a 1968 letter from the State of Florida Bureau of Archives and History regarding how much longer it has been to have some type of designation in Marco Island acknowledging historic properties than it has been in Naples. She had asked Austin Bell to contact Pat Rutledge, who seemed to have enough information to move forward with this information. Austin Bell noted that Patricia Rutledge is still trying to get on the City Manager’s schedule. Both she and the City Manager were tied up with trying to fill several positions. Austin will try to follow up before the next HAPB meeting. 22.A.3 Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Signed Meeting Minutes 11-20-20 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) November 20, 2020 4 Elaine Reed explained the purpose of the letter for the benefit of the new members. She stated of the three options proposed, the HAPB had agreed on the option of an interlocal agreement. There was also an option to include the Marco Island Historical Society or not. She emphasized the fact that the City Manager of Marco Island and/or the Historical Society may have no knowledge about Certified Local governments and/or Interlocal agreements and how they work when it comes to historic preservation. Ray Bellows suggested the letter’s intent was to provides some options to the City of Marco Island’s leaders, offering HAPB’s assistance on how to deal with their preservation issues and historic resources. In regards to an interlocal agreement, he noted, it may be best to work through the County and City attorneys on how to move forward with them. . Amanda Townsend offered her assistance, as a member of the SW Florida Archaeological Society and the Collier County Museums, adding their support to the letter. Austin Bell stated he did, at one time, approach the MIHS Board of Directors with a request to meet with the City Manager to bring the issue up at a Board of Directors meeting. The former City Manager did not understand Certified Local Govt. when it comes to preservation. Amanda Townsend suggested SWAFAS and County Museums would offer their support. She will obtain their signatures for the letter. Patricia Sherry made a motion to move forward with the letter to the City of Marco Island regarding an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Marco Island and Collier County,pending the addition of the signatures from SWAFAS and Collier County Museums; and, including the latest corrections noted on the draft and the current HAPB member’s names. Second by Elaine Reed. Chairman Eugene Erjavec questioned whether a vote could be taken pending the added changes. Ray Bellows responded that all the conditions of the motion should be complete before the final vote. Therefore the item was tabled until all conditions were met. Elaine Reed requested Patricia Sherry’s and Barry O’Brien’s e-mails in order to send them a copy of the updated letter to Marco City Council. C. Update for the Historic Designation for the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Road Cemetary (PlotW) Chairman Eugene Erjavec stated the subject parcel is located at Pine Ridge and Goodlette Rd. near the sidewalk. Amanda Townsend explained the parcels involved are privately owned outparcels of the original Rosemary cemetery. They do not come under the County’s ownership 22.A.3 Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Signed Meeting Minutes 11-20-20 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) November 20, 2020 5 or control. She stated the owners are deceased. The challenge is to find the proper means to transfer the properties, since the chain of title is unknown. She plans to contact the Clerk of Courts to see if there would be some way to determine the chain of title. Ray Bellows explained the person who brought the matter to the attention of the County wanted some type of recognition of the grave’s existence and protection of the site. Chairman Eugene Erjavec stated that until authority of ownership can be determined the status quo will remain. D. Horse Creek Historic Marker Update Chairman Eugene Erjavec stated he will have more information on this topic at the next HAPB Meeting. 7. New Business A. Certificate of Appropriateness for Roberts Ranch Family Home ( This item was moved to #3 Addenda to the Agenda) B. Certificate of Appropriateness for Mar-good Park in Goodland Amanda Townsend reported that Parks and Recreation was responsible for the Mar-good Park and they had received a small matching grant to do a Master Plan and Conceptual plan to restore several small fishing cottages. MLD Architects from Tallahassee have completed their work. She’ll bring more information to the HAPB as the project progresses. C. Brief Discussion of presentation by April Olson on Eastern Collier County development The HAPB will invite Ms Olson to give a presentation at the December HAPB meeting. 8. Review of Project Activity Log (Revised 10-8-2020) 1. Rivergrass Village SRA – Ray Bellows explained rules on specific project development required--some legal issues need addressing before they can progress. ( Patricia Sherry left at 10:12 am) 2. City of Marco Island Interlocal Agreement – Still on hold. 3. Indian Hill – Still for sale. Not posted. Buildable with conditions. 4. Historic Guide Update – completed –will be removed from Activity Log 5. Roberts Ranch- Approved by HAPB- will be removed from Activity Log 6. Horse Creek Estates Historic Marker- Will coordinate with Amanda Townsend 9. Public Comments: NONE 10. HAPB Comments: Chairman Eugene Erjavec reported an example of the situation in Marco. A mound on Horr’s Island, lost for a hundred years was found. Only half of it remains; but, the owner was happy to preserve it on his property. 11. Adjournment: The next HAPB meeting will be held on December 18, 2020 at 9:15 AM. 22.A.3 Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Signed Meeting Minutes 11-20-20 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) November 20, 2020 6 There being no further business for the good of the County, George Thompson moved to adjourn. Seconded by Eugene Erjavec. Motion passed, 6-0. The meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 10:45 A.M. Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board _ ___________________________ Chairman, Eugene Erjavec These minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on _____________ as presented _________, or as amended __________. 22.A.3 Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Signed Meeting Minutes 11-20-20 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE IMMOKALEE SOLAR ENERGY CENTER TRACT Collier County, Florida Project No. HK207363 November 2020 Prepared for: Florida Power & Light 700 Universe Blvd. Juno Beach FL, 33408-2657 Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Jacksonville, Florida 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE IMMOKALEE SOLAR ENERGY CENTER, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Brian McNamara, M.A., R.P.A., And Brent Handley, M.A., R.P.A. Prepared For: Florida Power & Light, Juno Beach Office 700 Universe Blvd. Juno Beach, Florida 33408-2567 Report of Investigations No: 1953 ___________________________ _____________________________ Brent M. Handley, M.A., R.P.A. Gary K. Howalt, PWS Cultural Resource Department Manager Senior Principal/Department Manager 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. i LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ ii 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................... 2-1 Physiography............................................................................................................................ 2-1 Soils.......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 2-1 Current Conditions ................................................................................................................... 2-1 3 CULTURAL HISTORY OF FLORIDA ............................................................................... 3-1 Archaic Period ......................................................................................................................... 3-2 Woodland Period (500 BC - AD 750) ..................................................................................... 3-3 Contact and Mission Period (AD 1539-1704) ......................................................................... 3-3 British Florida (1763-1784) ..................................................................................................... 3-6 Second Spanish Period ............................................................................................................. 3-8 Seminole Period (AD 1750-1840) ........................................................................................... 3-8 American Territorial (1821-1845) to the Early 20th Century ................................................... 3-8 4 BACKGROUND RESEARCH .............................................................................................. 4-1 Regional History ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 Florida Master Site File ........................................................................................................... 4-2 Historic Map Research ............................................................................................................. 4-5 5 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 5-1 Expected Results ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 Field Methodology ................................................................................................................... 5-1 Laboratory Methods ................................................................................................................. 5-2 Site Significance ...................................................................................................................... 5-2 Informant Interviews ................................................................................................................ 5-3 Procedures to Deal with Unexpected Results .......................................................................... 5-3 6 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 6-1 Pedestrian Inspection: .............................................................................................................. 6-1 Subsurface Testing: .................................................................................................................. 6-1 Historic Structure Review and Indirect APE ........................................................................... 6-1 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 7-1 8 REFERENCES CITED .......................................................................................................... 8-8 APPENDIX A: Survey Log Sheet 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable ii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1: Project Location Map ........................................................................................... 1-1 Figure 2.1: Soils Map ............................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2.2: View of fallow citrus grove ................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 2.3: View of northern tree island ................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 3.1: Regions of Pre-Columbian Florida ...................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3.2: Detail of A Map of the Southern British Colonies by Capt. William DeBrahm, depicting East and West Florida. ....................................................................... 3-10 Figure 4.1: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources ............................................................. 4-3 Figure 4.2: Original 1872 survey by Deputy Surveyor William Apthorp .............................. 4-6 Figure 4.3: USGS 1958 Topographical Map of West Palm Beach ........................................ 4-7 Figure 4.4: USGS 1987 Topographic map of West Palm Beach ........................................... 4-7 Figure 4.5: Aerial Photograph of Hendry County (Flidght 1D, 1947) ................................... 4-8 Figure 4.6: USGS 1994 Satellite Image ................................................................................. 4-9 Figure 6.1: Testing Results ..................................................................................................... 6-2 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4.1: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in Project Vicinity .............................. 4-1 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1-1 1. INTRODUCTION In November 2020, Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI), a Terracon Company, conducted a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) of the approximately 632-acre Immokalee Solar Energy Center Energy Center in Collier County, Florida (Figure 1.1). The project area comprises all, or portions of Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Sections 04, 03, 09, 10, 16, 15, 21, 22 as seen on the Immokalee (1987 Edition) United States Geological Surveys (USGS) topographical quadrangle map. According to the Collier County Property Appraiser (CCPA), the parcels ID numbers are 00063280003, 00064320001, and 00065000003. The investigation was undertaken on behalf of Florida Power & Light (FPL) in compliance with State regulations. The goals of the survey were to locate, delineate, identify and evaluate all cultural resources within the proposed project area, and to assess their significance and potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) The term "cultural resources" as used herein is meant to refer to sites or objects that are archaeological, architectural, and/or historical in nature. All work was conducted with respects to the cultural resources provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89-190, as amended) and its implementing regulation 36 CFR Part 800 (Protection of Historic Properties); Chapter 267, Florida Statutes, as well as the Florida Division of Historical Resources (DHR) recommendations for such projects as stipulated in the Division’s Historic Preservation Compliance Review Program manual and Rule Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed direct effect area (DEA) for this project includes the property boundaries as direct effect area (DEA), and the neighboring parcels for visual effect areas (VEA). Given the nature of the proposed solar project, it was assumed that the VEA of 500-feet around the project boundaries was adequate for potential future projects. Prior to fieldwork, a search of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) identified no previously recorded cultural resources within the project area. Fieldwork consisted of a pedestrian inspection along with 168 shovel tests. The fieldwork was conducted by archaeologists Brian McNamara, Joshua Newman, Robert Lundin, and Katie Ulewicz under the direction of Brent Handley, who served as Principal Investigator. Architectural survey methods consisted of a review of the Collier County property appraiser’s website, a review of the FMSF for any previously recorded resources, and a pedestrian investigation to field verify all architectural resources within the project area. As a result of the survey, no archaeological sites, isolated artifacts, or historic structural remains were encountered. Based on the findings of the CRAS, it is the recommendation of Terracon Consultants Inc. that no historic properties will be affected by the proposed project. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1-2 Figure 1.1: Project Location Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Immokalee Solar Energy Center Collier County, Florida 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2-1 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Environmental variables have always had an important influence on the selection of habitation and special use sites by human groups. The availability of water, dry land, and associated natural resources (i.e., food, material for tools, etc.) has had a pronounced effect on prehistoric technological organization and mobility strategies (Anderson 1990:198). Therefore, knowledge of past environments coupled with archaeological data is critical to the reconstruction of past lifeways and in drawing appropriate conclusions regarding site location and interpretation. Physiography The project area is within the Estero Bay-Cape Romano Coastal Strip of the Southwestern Flatwoods district. The area is a low energy coast with few well-developed beaches and mangrove swamps. The poorly drained mainland is a flatwood plain with less than 12 feet in elevation. On a larger scale, the district is made up of Miocene and Pliocene sedimentary rocks (Brooks 1981). Soils According to the soil survey of Collier County, Florida (USDA), the project area is comprised of four distinct soil types (Figure 2.1). These soil types are described as the, poorly drained Oldsmar fine sand (0-2% slopes); Chobee, Winder, and Gator soils, (depressional); Holopaw fine sand; and Hilolo, Jupiter, and Margate find sands. Hydrology Running through the project area is a system or large drainage canals and smaller irrigation ditches. The irrigation ditches are furrowed in between planted orange grove rows in a north – south orientation. Also present in proximity to the project area are several low-lying wet areas. According to the soil survey, portions of the tract contain poorly drained soils. Current Conditions The project area is currently a fallow citrus grove. (Figure 2.2). Located in the north of the project area is an island of uncleared palm trees with a dense tropical understory (Figure 2.3). The southern area of the project tract is bisected by a large overhead power transmission line and corridor. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2-2 Figure 2.1: Area Soils Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Immokalee Solar Energy Center Collier County, Florida 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2-3 Figure 2.2: View of fallow citrus grove Figure 2.3: View of northern tree island 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3-1 3. CULTURAL HISTORY OF FLORIDA Evidence for the earliest human occupations in the southeastern United States dates from the Paleoindian period (10,000 and 12,000 BC) to present time. This section will provide a board view of the major cultural traditions ranging from the Paleoindian period to the mid-20th century. Paleoindian Period The earliest radiocarbon dates firmly associated with human artifacts in unquestioned contexts indicate people were living in North Florida by at least 11,050 BP (Hemmings 2004). This was during the Clovis phase of the Early Paleoindian subperiod. Evidence for occupation of Florida during the subsequent Middle Paleoindian subperiod is much more secure. The diagnostic Suwannee and Simpson lanceolate bifaces are relatively common in north and central Florida, and although no radiocarbon dates have been obtained in association with these artifacts, they are believed to date sometime around 11,000-10,500 BP (Goodyear 1999). Prior to 2016, radiocarbon dates clustering at 10,000 BC have been generated from sites located in counties along the gulf coast (Cockrell and Murphy 1978; Clausen et al. 1979). However, by 2016, pre-Clovis occupation was indicated at the Page-Ladson Site within the Aucilla River in Florida (Halligan et al. 2016). This is the earliest evidence for human habitation in Florida, and the Southeast. The Page-Ladson site was calculated at 14,550 calendar years before present. This demonstrates that the earliest peopling of the North American was within the Gulf Coast region at the same time as other locations in North America. The Page-Ladson Site also indicated that the possibility of co-existence of humans and megafauna in the Southeast. Based on the recovery of diagnostic Paleoindian artifacts (i.e., stone projectile points), the major areas of Paleoindian site concentration are within the Northern Panhandle and central Gulf Coast regions of Florida, including the Suwannee and Santa Fe rivers of North Florida (Dunbar and Waller 1983). These localities are characterized by areas of exposed Tertiary age limestone that served as important sources of stone tool material to these early peoples. Theories about Paleoindian existence are based primarily upon site size and the uniformity of the known stone tool kit of the period. These Indians were nomadic hunters who supplemented their carnivorous diet by gathering various edible plants. The most widely accepted model for the peopling of North and South America argues that Asian populations migrated to North America over the Beringia land bridge that formerly linked Siberia and Alaska some 12,000 years ago (Smith 1986). However, archaeological data are mounting in support of migrations that date to before 12,000 years ago (Adovasio et al. 1990; Dillehay et al. 2008). Alternative pre-12,000 BP migration routes that have been hypothesized include populations travelling along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts using boats or following an exposed shoreline (Anderson and Gillam 2000; Bradley and Stanford 2004; Dixon 1993; Faught 2008; Fladmark 1979). These sites would now be inundated as a result of higher sea levels. Regardless of the precise timing of the first occupations, the current evidence suggests that Florida was not intensively inhabited by humans prior to about 12,000 years ago. Due to preservation biases in the archaeological record, lithic tools, generally associated with past hunting and butchering activities, are the most frequently recovered artifacts at Paleoindian sites. The most common Paleoindian implement was the stone lanceolate projectile point. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3-2 Diagnostic spear point types found in Florida include Clovis, Simpson, Suwannee, and Dalton (Bullen 1975). Archaeological evidence also suggests that bone pins, stone knives, lithic scrapers and atlatls were also used by Paleoindian hunters (Milanich 1994). Archaic Period The environment of the Archaic period (7500-500 B.C.) was characterized by warmer climatic conditions and higher sea levels, resulting in the emergence of a mesic oak-hickory forest (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Modern sea levels were reached around 5000 B.P. during the middle Holocene changing the climate of the area. The Pleistocene megafauna were unable to adapt to the more arid Holocene environment. This period happens in this Holocene environmental time of change between 10,000 to 3000 B.P. As a result, Archaic period Indians focused their subsistence strategies on the procurement of smaller game, fish, wild plant foods, and in some cases, shellfish. Thus, the period seems to have been characterized by changes in human subsistence patterns, tool manufacturing techniques, and the surrounding environment itself. As the population became more sedentary, a variety of site types evolved, including base camps, short-term camps, procurement camps, and cemeteries. These site sizes increased during the transition of sub-stages (Early, Middle, Late Archaic) that were necessary for the changing systems of increased social complexity. By about 6500 BC, the Florida populace had developed a sedentary, or semi-sedentary, settlement system wherein groups seem to have established permanent habitation sites of larger size than had been utilized previously. However, small groups continued to roam the interior, periodically aggregating at large centralized settlements within the central highlands of North Florida (Hemmings and Kohler 1974). Recent excavation at the Wedgeworth site in south Florida revealed patterns that shed light on how Archaic people adapted, perhaps thrived in an environment long believed by archaeologist to have been unsuitable for the establishment of communities (Locascio 2019:4). While many small lithic scatter sites potentially dating to the Archaic period in Florida have been recorded, only a few large Archaic sites have been investigated archaeologically. Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:50-51) suggest that the increased variety of projectile points and tools may reflect ethnicity and perhaps, cultural relationships with similar groups located outside of Florida. Archaic groups produced a tool assemblage that was not as well executed as th ose of the Paleoindian period. Qualitatively, Archaic period stone tools are quite different from those of the earlier Paleo era in that, with some prominent exceptions, they appear to have been much more expediently produced. Observable wear patterns indicate varied uses of individual tools, and the degree of attrition is comparatively minimal in many cases, suggesting that tools were used sparingly before being discarded. Paleoindian tools, on the other hand, were manufactured for specific tasks, and were repeatedly used until they were lost, broken or worn out. The most well- known artifacts of the Archaic Period in Florida belong to a family of large, stemmed spear poi nt types that are variations of a basic design, and include Hillsborough, Newnan, Alachu a, Putnam and Marion types (Bullen 1975). Tools in other parts of the state where chert material for Archaic points were not available include bone and shell tools, bone awls, bone points, and manufactured antler tools. It can also be noted that different pottery manufacturing techniques emerged in the late archaic during the Orange period. Orange period Archaic sites have little difference from earlier Archaic sites in size, location, or artifact assemblages, except for the presence of this fiber-tempered pottery (Smith 2012). 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3-3 Woodland Period (500 BC - AD 750) According to Milianch (1994) Florida can be described regionally based upon distinctive cultures until after 500 BC. Though, regional culture existed in the Archaic, distinctive pottery styles were more regional, correlating with different geographical regions (Figure 3.1). Figure 3.1 Regions of Pre-Columbian Florida (Milanich 1994; xix) Region 7: Caloosahatchee Caloosahatchee I-V (AD 700- AD 1750) Charlotte and Lee counties were the primary locale of a people known as the Calusa. The Calusa were a sedentary group that harvested whelk, shellfish and other marine food sources. Part of the Calusa's success came from their prime location north of the swamps and south of the generally unproductive prairies. This area has a gradual runoff of nutrients into the shallow inshore marine waters, which supported a healthy supply of natural food production. Fishing in shallow pools and estuaries was of utmost importance to the subsistence ways of the Calusa; agriculture was not practiced. Archaeological research indicates the importance of fishing and shellfish to the 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3-4 Calusa's diet. This focus on marine animals was supplemented with animals such as white-tailed deer, fowl, turtle and alligators (Fradkin 1976; Milanich 1994). It also appears that certain areas were fished on a massive communal scale employing techniques to gather the food source en masse (Milanich 1994). Vegetables also made up a portion of the Calusa diet and plants such as mastic fruit, prickly pear cactus fruit, palm fruits, sea grapes, hogplum cocoplum, goosefoot and starchy grasses have been identified in the ethnohistoric and archaeological records (Fontaneda 1944; Zubillaga 1946; Scarry and Newsom in prep.). The ceramic sequence introduced by Widmer (1988) follows. Caloosahatchee I (500 BC- AD 700) this period’s dominant ceramic type are sand tempered and laminated sand tempered pottery. However, this period is more importantly marked by the lack of Belle Glades pottery, which is a distinguishing aspect of the Caloosahatchee II (AD 700-1200) period. Sites of this period include Solana (Windmer 1986); Useppa Island (Milanich et al 1984); Wightmand (Fradkin 1976); and Cash Mound (Marquardt 1992). Caloosahatchee II (AD 700-1200) was a period where the population among the Calusa had reached its critical level; where fissioning off into new villages along the periphery of an established village could no longer accommodate the population's stress on food levels. It is believed that the Calusa adopted a hegemonic rule over their neighbors in the region (Widmer 1988). Neighbors are gradually annexed into the Calusa culture by alliances or force. This increase in importance of leaders is reflected in the massive earthworks and other public works such as canals. An increase in leaders sway through the region starts to also be seen in the archaeological record by an increase in foreign goods. Various other hypotheses have been offered for the system of rule that persisted through Colonial Spanish times. These hypotheses explain the change from a hunter-gather lifestyle into a chiefdom by such rationales as prehistoric climate change and the protohistoric introduction of European artifacts (Marquardt 1986). In any event the Calusa were a people with a strong central power structure capable of organizing canal construction and large earthworks such as non-mortuary ceremonial mounds and having political sway over all of south Florida. The Buck Key midden and the John Quiet Site on the Cape Haze Peninsula have been dated to this period (Bullen and Bullen 1956; Marquardt 1992). Caloosahatchee III (AD 1200-1400) is a period that is mainly noted by the occasional inclusion of St. Johns, notably St. Johns Check Stamped and Englewood ceramics. It is thought that the St Johns ceramics are a trade item while the Englewood ceramics is believed to have been used in mortuary rituals. Galt, Josslyn Island, Pineland, and Buck Key contain shell middens that date to this period (Marquardt 1992). Caloosahatchee IV (AD 1400-1513) is a period when a lot of different ceramics from around Florida start being included in archaeological assemblages. Archaeological research has revealed the inclusion of Glades tooled ceramics coming into the Calusa region from the south. Safety Harbor Incised and Pinellas Plain ceramics, which are generally associated with the central Peninsular Coast Region around Tampa Bay, are also included in the Caloosahatchee IV assemblages. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3-5 Caloosahatchee V (AD 1513-1750) is a period that is contemporaneous with European contact. European artifacts begin to appear in sites associated with aboriginal artifacts. Cultural materials from the Leon-Jefferson Mission period have also been recovered (Widmer 1988). Contact and Mission Period (AD 1539-1704) Accounts by Spanish explorers and missionaries, combined with archaeological data, have helped to specifically identify a number of the indigenous populations on the Florida peninsula. The major native groups of northern Florida were Timucuans, who were descendants of the St. Johns, Alachua, and other known prehistoric archaeological societies. Following the movement of the de Soto entrada through North Florida in 1539, the Florida natives were forced to adapt to a rapidly changing physical and cultural environment. During the Spanish Mission period, the native population was decimated by introduced European diseases, and groups were frequently relocated and consolidated to facilitate missionization and exploitation of their labor by the Spaniards. The historic period Indians of North Florida were a Western Timucua tribe known as the Utina, who are believed to have had the largest population of any Timucuan group (Milanich 1978:70; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:217). The first documented contact with the Utina (Outina) was in 1528 by the Spaniard Panfilo de Narvaez (Milanich 1978:70). In 1539, the de Soto expedition traveled through the Utina territory, and visited three Utina towns including Aguacaleyquen, Uriutina, and Napituca (Milanich and Hudson 1993). It was in the Utina province that the entrada abandoned their northerly route and turned west toward Apalachee. After leaving the village of Aguacaleyquen, the entrada camped at a small, unnamed village that Milanich and Hudson (1993:177) place near Alligator Lake in Columbia County. At Napituca, located near the Suwannee River, de Soto and his men engaged in a battle with the Utina, whose warriors numbered over 300 (Milanich 1978:70). Several decades later, the French Huguenots, who occupied Fort Caroline near the mouth of the St. Johns River, reported interacting with the Utina, who lived a short distance (ca. 20 mil es) west of the St. Johns River (Bennett 1964). Recent research indicates that there were two distinct groups referred to as Utina by the Europeans (Hann 1990). The confusion presumably stems from the fact that Utina is the common Timucuan word for chief (Milanich and Hudson 1993:150). Following the lead of Johnson (1991), Milanich and Hudson (1993) distinguish between the two Utina groups and designate the St. Johns group as Eastern Utina and the North Florida group as Northern Utina. Spanish Missions were established in the North Florida or Utina region during the early seventeenth century and continued until around 1689 or 1690 (Milanich 1978:73). Weisman (1991:191) argues that the Spaniards never used the term Utina but referred to the area as the "land or province of the Timucua." Prior to the founding of missions in North Florida, European contact with the Utina-Timucua was intermittent. The mid-17th century Utina population was more consolidated and groups were concentrated in sedentary horticultural villages in the southern and western sections of the Utina territory along the St. Augustine to Apalachee trail (Milanich 1978:74). The appearance of Leon-Jefferson ceramics at mission-related sites dating to the seventeenth century marks the movement of Apalachee Indians into North Florida. Johnson 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3-6 (1991) has recorded several mission period sites in the vicinity of Alligator Lake, and one such mission (San Juan de Guacara) is located at Charles Springs (Loucks 1993:212; Worth 1992:59). British Florida (1763-1784) In 1764 Great Britain gained control of the Florida peninsula when Spain relinquished the province as part of treaty negotiations ending the Seven Years War, known better in the U.S. as the French and Indian War (1756-1763). Spanish colonists and their Native-American allies evacuated en masse. Most of the former Floridians moved to Cuba, while a few went to Mexico (Gannon, ed. 1996, 136; Gold 1961:29-54). Great Britain emerged from the war as the world’s most powerful empire. In Florida, unlike during the recently terminated centuries of Spanish rule, the British did not have to concern themselves with hostilities and attacks from nearby enemy colonies; the entire Atlantic coast of North America was in British possession after 1763. With Florida, Great Britain acquired a colony, which had been emptied of rival inhabitants of European origin. The remaining Native Americans and escaped Africans did not qualify as settler material in the eyes of the British. With the Proclamation of 1763, British administrators split the former Spanish colony into East and West Florida at the Apalachicola River (Figure 3.2). The Proclamation of 1763 assigned Native Americans to lands west of the Appalachians in the colonies north of Florida. A 1765 agreement between the Native Americans in Florida and the new British government in East Florida relegated Native activity to the west side of the St. Johns River, in a manner similar to the Proclamation of 1763. Migrating Creek groups of Native Americans had begun moving into Spanish Florida about 1715 and by the time of the arrival of the British, these groups were known as Seminoles. They were the Native American participants in the 1765 agreement (Gannon, ed. 1996:187-89). The new British owners hoped to turn the Florida peninsula into a land of profitable plantations. Entrepreneurs in the British Isles devised exotic schemes toward that end. Indigo and rice were crops that were particularly favored at the time. Surveyors and publicists visited Florida to encourage land sales on the Home Island and subsequent development. A proclamation provided for township grants of up to 20,000 acres or for family grants that were apportioned according to family size. James Grant, the new Governor of East Florida was anxious to colonize the province. He realized that good roads would increase trade, speed communications, permit rapid movement of military forces and supplies, and encourage settlers to locate along the way (Coomes 1976: 36). 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3-7 Figure 3.2 Detail of A Map of the Southern British Colonies by Capt. William DeBrahm, Depicting East and West Florida. Based on surveys by James Moncrief, Military Engineer, and by William Gerard De Brahm, Surveyor General for the Southern District of North America, Grant recommended the location for a future settlement, and proposed to build “… a road from this p lace to the Mosquetoes. It will be a continuation of the Subscription Road and will be a continuation of the Subscription Road...”. The location favored by Grant was selected some few years later by Dr. Andrew Turnbull for his New Smyrna colony (Coomes 1976: 37). The King’s Road had hardly been completed when the American Colonies declared their independence from British rule. When Georgia and South Carolina required their citizens to take a strict oath of allegiance to the Revolutionary cause, the province of East Florida became a haven for the Loyalists. A stream of some 7,000 refugees came in 1778 alone. Many arrived in St. Augustine over the King’s Road, and Governor Patrick Tonyn was hard pressed to take care of them (Coomes 1976: 43-44). Historian Leitch Wright thought that half of the 12,000 refugees were slaves brought by their fleeing owners. A community of Loyalist refugees sprang up at St. Johns Bluff, and at least 200 substantial houses appeared at the community, called St. Johns Town (Wright 1975:126). 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3-8 Second Spanish Period Spain’s support of the American revolutionaries was re-paid at the peace talks in 1782 with the restoration of the Floridas to the Spanish empire. This time it was the British who would evacuate, although quite a few British subjects chose to remain in now-Spanish East Florida. The majority chose to relocate to other parts of the British Empire. Many of the migrants had only resided in Florida for a short time. In July 1784 a Spanish governor once again took command of the Florida peninsula. Spain, however, lacked the resources to develop the area, and the presence of hostile Indian groups played into the decision not to expand. During the Second Spanish period, Florida provided a place for runaway slaves, contrab and trade, and slave smuggling. The combination of angry homeless Indians, escaped slaves, British arms merchants and slave traders, and frontiersmen created a land of lawlessness and unrest. To further add to the confusion, new settlers coming from Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina were interested in adding Florida to the United States. When Andrew Jackson invaded Florida during the First Seminole War in 1818, it became clear that Spain could no longer control the region and it was transferred to the United States in 1821 as a territory (Adams 1990:4). Seminole Period (AD 1750-1840) Following Moore's destructive raids (1702-1704) on the Spanish Mission system, which stretched from St. Augustine westward to present day Tallahassee, the North Florida region was abandoned. It was later occupied by Creek Indian refugees, known today as Seminoles, who began to infiltrate into northern Florida from Georgia and Alabama during the mid-eighteenth century (Weisman 1989). The most notable Seminole settlement in the vicinity was Alligator Town, which existed somewhere near Alligator Lake as late as 1817. Between 1821 and 1845, central Florida was the scene of numerous hostilities between several bands of Seminoles and white settlers. To the south, the rich pasturelands around East Lake Tohopekaliga were used by Spanish ranchers and Seminole Indians during the 19th century. The 1823 Treaty of Moultrie Creek confined the Seminoles to an approximately 4 -million-acre tract in the center of the state (Mahon 1967:50). Over the next decade, two more treaties were forced upon the Seminoles in an attempt to remove the Seminole population to Oklahoma. The terms of the treaties were considered unfair by the Seminoles, and their signing led to the S econd Seminole War in 1835 (Mahon 1967:75-83). A military outpost, Fort Mason, was established on the eastern bank of Lake Eustis around 1830. With the end of the Second Seminole War, the Armed Occupation Act was approved in 1842 to encourage settlement of central Florida. As a result, any family head or male over the age of 18 was eligible to receive 160 acres provided they agreed to cultivate at least five acres, build a dwelling, and reside there for at least five years (Tebeau 1980:149). Soon settlers, mostly southern Anglo-American farmers, began to infiltrate American Territorial (1821-1845) to the Early 20th Century In 1821, the United States government created the Territory of Florida and named Andrew Jackson military governor. Jackson initiated the Americanization of Florida, naming Tallahassee the seat of the territorial government. St. Augustine lost its political influence as capital of the province of East Florida, and instead became the seat of government for St. Johns County. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3-9 In 1822, Congress appointed a board of land commissioners with the task of confirming or rejecting private claims in Florida. A process that often-included translating Spanish documents, obtaining old surveys from archives, and deposing witnesses, the reviewing of claims slowed the public survey and land sales by the state and federal governments. Still, by the end of 1825, the East Florida commissioners had confirmed 325 claims and rejected sixty-one others. Congress furnished final adjudication for eighty-eight other claims that consisted of 3,000 or more acres, while several large grants were adjudicated in the courts during the 1830s (Tebeau 1980). 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 4-1 4. BACKGROUND RESEARCH Regional History: Collier County Southwest Florida remained virtually uninhabited until after the Civil War when farmers and squatters made their way south. Early pioneers fished and hunted for a living, raised crops, dug clams, made charcoal, sold bird plumes and trapped otters and alligators for their pelts and hides. Trading posts started by Ted Smallwood on Chokoloskee Island and George Storter at Everglades City became important gathering places for the few isolated settlers and Indians. By the late 1880s, Naples and Marco Island were already gaining popularity as winter resorts for wealthy Northerners and sportsmen (https://www.paradisecoast.com/article/quick-history-naples- the-paradise-coast). Collier County was created from the southern portion of Lee County by an act of the Florida Legislature on May 8, 1923. The decision was signed into law by Governor Cary A. Hardee, Florida's 28th governor. It is Florida's 62nd county and the third largest in total land area - 2,305 square miles (http://www.fl-genweb.org/decole/collier/Index.html). Collier County and the Town of Naples’ creation in 1923, as well as its early economic growth, were closely tied to Memphis-born millionaire, Barron Gift Collier. With his fortune from streetcar advertising, Collier introduced paved roads, electric power, telegraphs and countless new businesses and homeowners to Florida’s last frontier. The completion of the Tamiami Trail in 1928 also unlocked the region’s enormous agricultural and resort potential. Florida’s first commercial oil well was brought in at Sunniland in 1943, and Collier County’s cypress logging industry flourished at Copeland well into the 1950’s. World War II introduced hundreds of aircraft servicemen to Naples when the U.S. Army Airfield (now Naples Airport) was activated in 1943 to train combat pilots. At one point, several hundred men and 53 aircraft were assigned to the Naples base. Many veterans returned after the war as prospective home buyers and businessmen. A direct hit by Hurricane Donna in 1960, actually stimulated Naples’ growth with an infusion of insurance money and loans. In the short span of thirty years, number of County residents swelled from 6,488 in 1950, to a phenomenal 85,000 by 1980. The County seat was transferred from Everglades City to East Naples in 1962 and signaled a new era of sustained growth in agriculture, tourism, and real estate that have made Naples and Collier County one of the fastest developing areas in the nation (https://www.paradisecoast.com/article/quick-history-naples-the-paradise-coast). 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 4-2 Florida Master Site File (FMSF) A review of the archaeological site file records maintained by the FMSF indicated that no previously recorded cultural resources are within the project area. Extending the search to include the general vicinity of the project area revealed no archaeological sites, three resource groups, and three historic structures (Table 4.1, Figure 4.1). None of resources are within the VEA of the current project area. A brief description of the previously completed survey within the project boundaries and some of the more notable resources in the area follows below. Table 4-1 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Site ID Site Name Resource Type Cultural Period / Year SHPO Evaluation CR00979 SR82 Linear Resource 1950-present Ineligible for NRHP CR01309 SR29 Linear Resource 1900-present Ineligible for NRHP HN00518 SR29 Linear Resource 1900-present Ineligible for NRHP CR00982 1660 SR 82 RD Historic Structure c1959 Ineligible for NRHP CR01187 3077 SR-29 N Historic Structure c1967 Ineligible for NRHP CR01188 3065 SR-29 N Historic Structure c1969 Ineligible for NRHP 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 4-3 Figure 4.1 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Immokalee Solar Energy Center Collier County, Florida 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 4-4 FMSF Survey# 1108: 1986- Historical/architectural survey of Collier County, Florida. By Florida Preservation Services on behalf of Collier County. FMSF Survey# 8141: 2001- An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Proposed DT Immokalee Tower Location in Collier County, Florida. By Julie Batategas on behalf of ATC Associates. FMSF Survey# 14907: 2007- Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of State Road 82 from Lee Boulevard to State Road 29 Lee, Hendry and Collier Counties. By Janus Research on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation. FMSF Survey# 16907: 2009- Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study S.R. 29 from North of S.R. 82 to south of C.R. 80A Col lier and Hendry Counties, Florida. By Archaeological Consultants Inc. on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation, District One. FMSF Survey# 20705: 2014- Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Technical Memorandum Amendment, State Road (SR) 29 from North of SR 82 to South of County Road (CR) 80A, Collier and Hendry Counties, Florida; FPID No.: 417878-2-22-01, FAP No.: NA, County Section Nos: 03080 and 07060. By ACI on behalf of AIM Engineering & Surveying Inc. FMSF Survey# 20872: 2014- Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Lee County Electric Cooperative (LCEC) SR 82 and SR 29 Distribution Line Replacement, Co llier County, Florida. By ACI on behalf of W. Dexter Bender & Associates, Inc. FMSF Survey# 21923: 2015- Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Technical Memorandum Addendum Preferred Stormwater Treatment Areas, State Road (SR) 82 from Gator Slough Lane to SR 29, Collier County, Florida Financial Project ID No.: 430849-1-52-01. By ACI on behalf of HTNB. FMSF Survey# 21792: 2015- Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Technical Memorandum Preferred Stormwater Treatment Areas, State Road (SR) 82 from Gator Slough Lane to SR 29, Collier. By ACI on behalf of HTNB. FMSF Survey# 23126: 2016- Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Technical Memorandum, Regional Stormwater Pond 4B and Proposed Roundabout State Road 82 from Gator Slough Lane to SR 29, Collier County, Florida; Financial Project ID No. 430849-1-32-01. By ACI on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation. FMSF Survey# 24480: 2017- Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Technical Memorandum Preferred Ponds, Drainage Easements, and Right-of-Way, State Road (SR) 82 from the Hendry County Line to Gator Slough Lane, Collier County, Florida Financial Project ID No.: 430848-1- 52-01. By ACI. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 4-5 FMSF Survey# 25332: 2018- Lane, Collier County, Florida Financial Project ID No.: 430848-1- 52-01. By Janus Research. FMSF Survey# 26188: 2019- Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Orange River to Terrytown 500 kV Transmission Line Rebuild. By Janus Research on behalf of FPL. Historic Map Research A review of historic maps, along with aerial photography and satellite imagery indicates that the project parcel remained largely undeveloped throughout history. Deputy Surveyor William Apthorp depicted the property in 1872 as largely devoid of any landmark, trail or features. His map shows much of the region to be wetland (Figure 4.2). By 1958 highways 82 and 29 have been established, and together with the Atlantic Coastal Railroad to the east, are the main routes of travel through the region (Figure 4.3). Aerial photography from 1945 reveals the project tract to be mostly inundated grassland, with few trees (Figure 4.5). By 1987, area drainage and land reclamation efforts has brought more road development as the citrus industry begins to make use of the area (Figure 4.4.). A 1994 Satellite image shows the property fully established as a citrus farm, in a layout that remains virtually unchanged to the modern day (Figure 4.6). 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 4-6 Figure 4.2, Original 1872 survey by Deputy Surveyor William Apthorp 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 4-7 Figure 4.3 USGS 1958 Topographical Map of West Palm Beach Figure 4.4, USGS 1987 Topographic map of West Palm Beach 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 4-8 Figure 4.5 Aerial Photograph of Hendry County (Flidght 1D, 1947) 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 4-9 Figure 4.6 USGS 1994 Satellite Image 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5-1 5. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The fieldwork for this project was preceded by: a review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) to determine the presence of previously recorded cultural resources within the study area; an examination of soil maps; the attainment of familiarity with topographic maps of the project area so that elevation data could be utilized; a review of historic aerial photographs (UFDC); a review of the USGS maps; a review of historic topographic maps from the late 1800s and early 1900s (FCIT 2009; Topoview) and an investigation of previous archaeological research pertaining to the region. For the purpose of conducting a cultural resource investigation, it is important to focus on locations that are conducive to human settlement. The factors that are usually constant in locating sites include: well drained soils, availability of a water source, relative elevation and slope, and hardwood vegetation. While vegetation is usually an important indicator of elevation and soil type, native biotic communities are often not present today, owing to human induced environmental changes. Therefore, knowledge of past environments, coupled with archaeological data specific to a given area, is critical in predicting and interpreting site locations and in the reconstruction of past lifeways. Expected Results Given the size of the project area, and the scarcity of cultural resources in the general vicinity, it was expected that few archaeological deposits would be encountered during the pedestrian inspection and subsurface testing. The property drainage capacity is somewhat poorly to very poorly drained, which suggests a reduced probability. Field Methodology Fieldwork for direct effect area (DEA) consisted of pedestrian inspection coupled with subsurface testing throughout the project area. A 500-foot visual effects area (VEA) was established round the project area and was searched for any structures 50 years or older. Pedestrian Inspection: The walkover survey was conducted along transects spaced at 25 and 50- meter intervals that were aligned north-south and east-west. The pedestrian inspection focused primarily on areas of surface exposure and disturbance such as dirt trail roads, ditches, and agricultural fields. Subsurface Testing: The subsurface testing included the excavation of shovel tests throughout the project area at 25, 50, 100 and 200-meter intervals. Shovel tests (n=168) were square-shaped measuring 50 cm in diameter and extending to one-meter below ground surface whenever possible. All excavated soil was sifted through 6.35 mm (1/4”) mesh mounted upon a portable shaker screen. Locational accuracy in the field was maintained through the use of an aerial map, a compass, and GPS/collector applications. All field notes and maps from this survey were transported to the Terracon laboratory for curation. Historic Resource Survey: A historic resource survey was conducted to locate above ground historic properties within and adjacent to the study tract. The survey included a search of the FMSF database for known historic resources in the general vicinity, in additio n to a search of the Collier County Property Appraiser website. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5-2 Laboratory Methods Materials recovered during the investigation were cleaned, analyzed, and entered in to a database. A standardized catalogue system, initiated during fieldwork, was employed to ensure that provenience data was recorded for all artifacts. This record-keeping method facilitated subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Site Significance In order for a site to be considered a significant resource, it must meet one or more of four specific criteria established in 36 CFR Part 60, National Register of Historic Places, nominations by state and federal agencies, and 36 CFR Part 800, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Protection of Historic Properties. The evaluation of a prehistoric or historic cultural resource for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places rests largely on its research potential, that is, its ability to contribute important information through preservation and/or additional study. The National Register criteria for evaluation are stated as follows: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and; Criterion A: Properties that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our history; Criterion B: Properties that are associated with lives of persons significant in our past; Criterion C: Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and Criterion D: Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information in prehistory or history. While many archaeological sites are recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D, the potential to “yield information important in prehistory and history,” this criterion is rather ill- defined. In order to clarify the issue of site importance, the following attribute evaluations add a measure of specificity that can be used in assessing site significance and NRHP eligibility: a). Site Integrity – Does the site contain intact cultural deposits or is it disturbed? b). Preservation – Does the site contain material suited to in-depth analysis and/or absolute dating such as preserved features, botanical material, faunal remains, or human skeletal remains? 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5-3 c). Uniqueness – Is the information contained in the site redundant in comparison to that available from similar sites, or do the remains provide a unique or insightful perspective on research concerns of regional importance? d). Relevance to Current and Future Research – Would additional work at this site contribute to our knowledge of the past? Would preservation of the site protect valuable information for future studies? While this category is partly a summary of the above considerations, it also recognizes that a site may provide valuable information regardless of its integrity, preservation, or uniqueness. Informant Interviews Locating archaeological sites and gaining familiarity with the history of a project tract is often facilitated through interviewing local citizens that live or spend time within close proximity to the parcel. One individual was encountered during fieldwork who was tending canal locks within the project area. The gentleman had no knowledge of any artifacts being discovered within the property boundary. Procedures to Deal with Unexpected Results Archaeologists frequently encounter unanticipated features that require efforts that exceed the scope of project expectations. In such cases, it is sometimes necessary to reevaluate the research design and/or seek additional funding to address unexpected discoveries. It is our policy to amend a project research design as needed to ensure that proper treatment and evaluation are afforded to unexpected findings. Coordination with the client and the office of the SHPO is a necessary step in such an approach. Unexpected findings might include the discovery of human remains during project construction, which would require additional coordination with the state archaeologist in compliance with Chapter 872.05, Florida Statutes, or a medical examiner if the remains appear less than 75 years old. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6-1 6. RESULTS In November 2020, Terracon conducted a CRAS of the Immokalee Solar Energy Center tract in Collier County, Florida. The goals of the survey were to locate, delineate, identify, and evaluate all cultural resources within the proposed project area, and to assess their significance and potential eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Field methods included a thorough pedestrian inspection coupled with shovel testing (n=168) (Figure 6.1). Pedestrian Inspection: The walkover survey included transects spaced at 25 and 50-meter intervals that were aligned north-south in line with citrus grove planting rows. During the pedestrian inspection, the project tract was noted as having severe soil disturbance through earth moving activities, which occurred mostly via land drainage, reclamation and irrigation practices. The fallow citrus groves are mostly overgrown with area grasses with limited visibility except for tree removal and artificial water management impacts. The citrus grove contains cut irrigation ditches that lead to drainage canals. There is also an underground irrigation system for crop irrigation. Historically the area was once wet prairie grassland. Area drainage was necessary to establish current agricultural land. Subsurface Testing: The subsurface testing consisted of 168 shovel tests dug throughout the project area at 25, 50, and 100-meter intervals. Most of the shovel tests revealed disturbed soils throughout the tract, primarily in the upper layers of the soil’s stratigraphic profile. The disturbance was mostly related to agricultural practices; irrigation ditches or canals that occurred within the property since the mid to late-20th century. The lower stratigraphic layers of 70+ cm below surface are believed to be the original natural surface soil horizon. All of the tests were dug to 100 cm below surface whenever possible or terminating prior to 100 cm below surface due to hydric soils. A typical shovel test profile included the following: Stratum I (0 to 30 cm below surface) light grey sand; and Stratum II (31 to 70 cm below surface) grey sand; Stratum III (70 to 80 cm below surface) white hydric sand; and 80+ hydric. Another sequence was Stratum I (0 to 19 cm below surface) mottled grey brown sand; and Stratum II (19 to 100 cm below surface) very pale brown sand that is hydric in the deeper level. As a result of the subsurface testing and pedestrian inspection, no archaeological sites, isolate artifacts, or historic structural remains were encountered. Historic Structure Review and Indirect APE In addition to the archaeological survey, this study also included a historic resource survey to locate potential historic standing structures within parcels immediately adjacent to the DEA. The VEA was established as 500-feet from the project boundary. A review of the Collier County Property Appraiser revealed no identified structures within the viewshed of the project area. The historic aerial and map review identified only utilities, agricultural-related structures and two modern residential structures within the project area. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6-2 Figure 6.1: Testing Results Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Immokalee Solar Energy Center Collier County, Florida 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7-1 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In November 2020, Terracon conducted a cultural resource assessment survey of the Immokalee Solar Energy Center tract in Collier County, Florida. The goals of the survey were to locate, delineate, identify and evaluate all cultural resources within the proposed project area, and to assess their significance and potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with National Register Criteria (36 CFR 60.4). The fieldwork strategy included a pedestrian inspection coupled with subsurface testing (n=168) throughout the project area. The pedestrian survey included visually inspecting areas of exposed ground surface to locate artifacts and/or historic structural remains. The subsurface testing included the excavation of 168 shovel tests throughout the project area at 25, 50, 100 and 200- meter intervals. As a result of the survey, no archaeological sites, archaeological occurrences or historic structures were encountered. Based on the results of the CRAS, it is Terracon’s recommendation that no historic properties will be affected by the proposed solar project. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar Energy Center ■ Collier County, Florida November 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 207363 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8-8 8. REFERENCES CITED Adams, William R. 1990 Cultural Resources Survey of St. Lucie County, Florida. MS on file, DHR, Tallahassee. Adovasio, J. M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath 1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American Antiquity 55:348-355 Anderson, David G. 1990 The Paleo-Indian Colonization of Eastern America: A View from the Southeastern United States. In Early Paleo-Indian Economies of Eastern North America, edited by B. Isaac and K. Tankersley, pp 163-216. Journal of Economic Anthropology, Supplement 5. Anderson, D.G., and J.C. Gilliam 2000 Paleoindian Colonization of the Americas: Implications from an Examination of Physiology, Demography, and Artifact Distribution. American Antiquity 65(1):43-66 Bense, Judith A 1989 Pensacola Archaeological Survey and Summary of Archaeological Information in Pensacola to 1988. Vol. 1, 2. Pensacola Archaeological Society Publication 2. Pensacola, Florida. 1992 Santa Rosa Swift Creek in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the 49th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Little Rock, Arkansas. 1994a Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Paleoindian to World War I. Academic Press, New York. 1994b Configuration of the Bernath Ring Midden Site (8SR986) near Pensacola, Florida: and Introduction of a new Explanation for Ring Midden Sites. Paper presented at the 51st annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Lexington, Kentucky. Santa Rosa-Swift Creek in Northwestern Florida. In A World Engraved: Archeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot, pp. 247-273. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Benton, Dale G. and Mildred Fryman 1978 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the PGA Resort Community Development. Department of State, Division of Archives. Report on file, DHR Tallahassee. Bradley, B., and D. Stanford 2004 The North Atlantic Ice-edge Corridor: A Possible Paleolithic Route to the New World. World Archaeology 34:459-478 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar References Cited Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8-9 Brooks, H. K. 1981 Physiographic Divisions: State of Florida. Map and Text. Florida Cooperative Extension, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. Bullen, Ripley P. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville. Carbone, Victor A. 1983 Late Quaternary Environments in Florida and the Southeast. Florida Anthropologist 36 (1-2): 3-17. Clausen, Carl J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman and J. J. Stipp 1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203: 609-614. Cockrell, W. A. and Larry Murphy 1978 Pleistocene Man in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North America Vol. 6 Eastern States Archaeological Federation, Newark, Delaware. Coomes, Charles S. 1976 The Old Kings Road of British East Florida. El Escribiano April 1976. Crabtree, Donald 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum No. 28. Pocatello, Idaho. Cumbaa, Stephen 1976 A Reconsideration of Freshwater Shellfish Exploitation in the Florida Archaic. Florida Anthropologist 29:45-59. Daniel, I. Randolph, Michael Wisenbaker, and George R. Ballo 1986 The Organization of A Suwanee Technology: The View from Harney Flats. Florida Anthropologist 39:24-56. Daniel, I. Randolph and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleoindian Site. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., Farmingdale, New York. Dillehay T.D., C. Ramirez, M. Pino, M.B. Collins, J. Rossen, and J.D. Pino-Navarro 2008 Monte Verde: Seaweed, Food, Medicine, and the Peopling of South America. Science 320:784 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar References Cited Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8-10 Dixon, E. James 1993 Quest for the Origins of the First Americans. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque Dunbar, James S. and Ben I. Waller 1983 A Distribution Analysis of the Clovis/Suwanee Paleoindian Sites of Florida: A Geographic Approach. Florida Anthropologist 36(1-2): 18-30. Faught, Michael K. 2008 Archaeological Roots of Human Diversity in the New World: A Compilation of Accurate and Precise Radiocarbon Ages from Earliest Site. American Antiquity 73(4):670-698 Fladmark, K. 1979 Routes: Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America. American Antiquity 44:55-69 FLGenWeb NA Brief History of Collier County. https://sites.google.com/a/flgenweb.net/collier/ Accessed November 2020 Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT) 2002 Exploring Florida Maps: A Social Studies Resource for Students and Teachers. Florida Center for Instructional Technology, College of Education, University of South Florida. Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) 2002 Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual. Department of State, Tallahassee. 2007 Resource Group Form: Version 4.0 1/07. Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida Master Site File. Florida Preservation Services 1987 The Pleasant Street Historic District: A Study for the City of Gainesville, Florida. On File with the FMSF, Survey # 1517. Gannon, Michael, ed. 1996 The New History of Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Goodyear, A.C. 1999 The Early Holocene Occupation of the Southeastern United States: A Geoarchaeological Summary. In Ice Age People of North America: Environment, Origins, and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K.L. Turnmire, pp. 432- 481. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Halligan, et al 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar References Cited Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8-11 2016 Pre-Clovis occupation 14,550 years ago at the Page-Ladson site, Florida, and the peopling of the Americas. Science Advances, vol. 2, no. 5, e1600375; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1600375 Hann, John H. 1991 Missions to the Calusa. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Hemmings, C.A. 2004 The Organic Clovis: A Single Continent-wide Cultural Adaptation. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainseville Hemmings, E. Thomas and Tim A. Kohler 1974 The Lake Kanapaha Site in North Central Florida. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 4:45-64. Johnson, Kenneth W. 1991 The Utina and the Potano Peoples of Northern Florida: Changing Settlement Systems in the Spanish Colonial Period. Ph.D. diss. University of Florida, Gainesville. Johnson, Kenneth W., and Bruce Nelson 1990 The Utina: Seriation and Chronology. Florida Anthropologist 43 (1): 48-62. Kohler, Timothy 1978 The Social and Chronological Dimensions of Village Occupations at a North Florida Weeden Island Period Site. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida. 1991 The Demise of Weeden Island, and Post-Weeden Island Cultural Stability in Non- Mississippianized Northern Florida. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation, pp. 91- 110, ed. By Michael S. Nassaney and Charles R. Cobb. Plenum Press, New York. Locascio, Williams A. Ph.D., 2019 Tree Island Communities of the late Archaic: An Archeological Case from the Everglades Agricultural Area. Loucks, Jill 1993 Spanish-Indian Interaction on the Florida Missions: the Archaeology of Baptizing Spring. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 193-216, University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Mattieson, Gene 2007 Personal Communication with Dr. Brian Marks 10/3/07. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar References Cited Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8-12 McGee, Harold 2007 Personal Communication with Dr. Brian Marks 10/4/07. Milanich, Jerald T. 1971 The Deptford Phase: An Archaeological Reconstruction. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1972 Tacatacuru and the San Pedro de Mocama Mission. Florida Historical Quarterly 41:283-291. 1973 Southeastern Deptford Culture: A Preliminary Definition. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives, History, and Records Management Bulletin 3:51-63. 1978 The Western Timucua: Pattern of Acculturation and Change. In Taccachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia During the Historic Period, pp. 59-88, ed. By J. T. Milanich and S. Proctor. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1994 The Archaeology of Pre-Columbian Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, J.T., A.S. Cordell, V.J. Knight, Jr., T.A. Kohler, and B. Sigler-Lavelle 1984 McKeithen Weeden Island: The Culture of Northern Florida, AD 200-900. Academic Press, New York. Milanich, J. T. and C. H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archeology. Academic Press, New York. Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles Hudson 1993 Hernando deSoto and the Indians of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Miller, George L. 1980 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25:1:1-26. Noel-Hume, Iver 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Knopf, New York. Northen, William J. 1912 Men of Mark in Georgia. AB Caldwell, New York. Paradisecoast.com NA A Quick History of Naples and the Paradise Coast. https://www.paradisecoast.com/article/quick-history-naples-the-paradise-coast Accessed November 2020 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar References Cited Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8-13 Price, Cynthia R. 1979 19th Century Ceramics in the Eastern Ozark Border Region. Monograph Series, Number 1, Center for Archaeological Research, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield. Phillips, John 1992a Bernath Place (8SR986): A Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Site on Mulatto Bayou in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the 49th annual Southeastern Archeological Conference. Little Rock, Arkansas. 1992b Archeological Resource Preservation Plan, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Pickard, Ben ed. 1991 Historic Gainesville: A Tour to the Past. Historic Gainesville, Inc., Gainesville, Florida. Publication and Archival Library and Museum Materials (PALMM) 2020 Florida Aerial Photography Alachua County Accessed. April 2020. https://ufdc.ufl.edu/aerials Sears, William H. 1973 The Sacred and the Secular in Prehistoric Ceramics. In Variation in Anthropology: Essays in Honor of John McGregor, edited by D. Lathrap, pp. 31-42. Illinois Archeological Survey, Urbana. Scarry, John 1980 The Chronology of Fort Walton Developments in the Upper Apalachicola Valley Florida. Southern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22:38-45. Smith, Bruce D. 1986 The Archaeology of the Eastern United States: From Dalton to de Soto, 10,500- 500 BP. Advances in World Archaeology 5:1-93. Smith, Greg C. 2012 Cultural Resources Survey: American Prime II LLC Property, The Estates at Port Labelle LLC Property. New South Associates. Submitted to LG2 Environmental Solutions, Inc. Report on file LG2 Environmental Solution, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida. South, Stanley A. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. Academic Press, New York. Tebeau, Charles 1980 A History of Florida. Seventh printing. University of Miami Press, Miami. 1982 Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida Cherts. Manuscript on file, DHR, Tallahassee 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar References Cited Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8-14 Tesar, Louis O. 1980 Leon County Bicentennial Survey Project: an Archaeological Survey of Selected Portions of Leon County, Florida. Florida Department of State, Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Bureau for Historic Sites and Properties, Miscellaneous Project Report Series 49. Thomas, Prentice M., Jr. and L. Janice Campbell 1985a The Deptford to Santa Rosa/Swift Creek Transition in the Florida Panhandle. The Florida Anthropologist 38 (2): 110-119. 1985b Cultural Resources Investigation at Tyndal Air Force Base, Bay County, Florida. New World Research, Inc. Report of Investigation No. 84-4; Fort Walton Beach 1993 Eglin Air Force Base Historic Preservation Plan: Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resource Investigations at Eglin; Santa Rosa; Okaloosa; and Walton Counties, Florida. 2 vols. New World Research, Inc., Report of Investigations 192. United States Department of Agriculture 1978 Soil Survey of Alachua County, Florida. Soil Conservation, Washington, D.C. United States Fish and Wildlife Department 2007 Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Electronic File: http://www.fws.gov/loxahatchee/ United States Works Project Administration 1940 Spanish Land Grants in Florida. Volume III, Tallahassee. Watts, William A. and Barbara C. S. Hansen 1988 Environments in Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site Archaeology, edited by Barbara Purdy, pp, 307-323. Telford Press, Caldwell NJ. Weaver, Guy G., Jeffrey T. Holland, Patrick H. Garrow, and Martin B. Reinbold 1993 The Gowen Farmstead: Archaeological Data Recovery at Site 40 DV401 (Area D), Davidson County, Tennessee. Garrow and Associates, Inc., Memphis. Weaver, Paul L. 2009 The King’s and Pablo Roads Florida’s First Highways: A Narrative History of Their Construction and Routes in St. John’s County. St. Johns County Growth Management Services. Webb, S. D., J. T. Milanich, R. Alexon, and J. S. Dunbar 1984 A Bison Antiquus Kill Site, Wacissa River, Jefferson County, Florida. American Antiquity 49: 384-392. Weisman, Brent R. 1989 Like Beads on a String. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Immokalee Solar References Cited Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8-15 1991 Archaeology of the Fig Springs Mission, Ichetucknee Springs State Park. Florida Anthropologist 44 (2-4): 187-203). Wiley, Gordon R. 1949 Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 42, New Haven. Williams, John Lee 1962 The Territory of Florida, Sketches of Topography, Civil and Natural History of the Country, the Climate, and Indian Tribes. Facsimile Reproduction of the 1837 Edition, University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Works Project Administration (WPA) 1940 Spanish Land Grants in Florida, Volume II, Confirmed Claims: A-C. State Library Board, Tallahassee. Worth, John E. 1992 The Timucuan Missions of Spanish Florida and the Rebellion of 1656. Ph.D. diss., University of Florida. 1998 Timucuan Chiefdoms of Spanish Florida, Volume 2: Resistance and Destruction. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2012 An Overview of the Suwannee Valley Culture. In Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the edge of the Mississippi World. Edited by K. Ashley and N.M. White, pp. 149-171. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Wright, Jr. J. Leitch 1975 Florida in the American Revolution. University Presses of Florida. 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) APPENDIX A: Survey Log Sheet 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Florida Master Site File / Div. of Historical Resources / R.A. Gray Bldg / 500 S Bronough St., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 HR6E066R0319, effective 05/2016 Rule 1A-46.001, F.A.C. Phone 850.245.6440, Fax 850.245.6439, Email: SiteFile@dos.myflorida.com Page 1 Ent D (FMSF only) __________ Survey Log Sheet Survey # (FMSF only) ___________ Florida Master Site File Version 5.0 3/19 Consult Guide to the Survey Log Sheet for detailed instructions. Manuscript Information Survey Project (name and project phase) Report Title (exactly as on title page) Report Authors (as on title page) 1._______________________________ 3. _____________________________ 2._______________________________ 4. _____________________________ Publication Year __________ Number of Pages in Report (do not include site forms) ___________ Publication Information (Give series, number in series, publisher and city. For article or chapter, cite page numbers. Use the style of American Antiquity.) Supervisors of Fieldwork (even if same as author) Names _____________________________________________________ Affiliation of Fieldworkers: Organization _____________________________________ City ______________________ Key Words/Phrases (Don’t use county name, or common words like archaeology, structure, survey, architecture, etc.) 1.___________________ 3.___________________ 5. ___________________ 7.____________________ 2.___________________ 4.___________________ 6. ___________________ 8.____________________ Survey Sponsors (corporation, government unit, organization, or person funding fieldwork) Name. ____________________________________ Organization. ______________________________________ Address/Phone/E-mail. __________________________________________________________________________ Recorder of Log Sheet _________________________________________ Date Log Sheet Completed ___________ Is this survey or project a continuation of a previous project? q No q Yes: Previous survey #s (FMSF only) _______________ Project Area Mapping Counties (select every county in which field survey was done; attach additional sheet if necessary) 1.___________________________ 3. ____________________________ 5. ___________________________ 2.___________________________ 4. ____________________________ 6. ___________________________ USGS 1:24,000 Map Names/Year of Latest Revision (attach additional sheet if necessary) 1.Name ____________________________ Year_____4.Name _____________________________ Year_____ 2.Name ____________________________ Year_____5.Name _____________________________ Year_____ 3.Name ____________________________ Year_____6.Name _____________________________ Year_____ Field Dates and Project Area Description Fieldwork Dates: Start __________ End __________ Total Area Surveyed (fill in one) ________hectares ________acres Number of Distinct Tracts or Areas Surveyed _________ If Corridor (fill in one for each) Width: _______meters _______feet Length: _______kilometers _______miles 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) Florida Master Site File / Div. of Historical Resources / R.A. Gray Bldg / 500 S Bronough St., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 HR6E066R0718, effective 05/2016 Rule 1A-46.001, F.A.C. Phone 850.245.6440, Fax 850.245.6439, Email: SiteFile@dos.myflorida.com Page 2 Survey Log Sheet Survey #__________ Research and Field Methods Types of Survey (select all that apply): archaeological architectural historical/archival underwater damage assessment monitoring report other(describe):. _________________________ Scope/Intensity/Procedures Preliminary Methods (select as many as apply to the project as a whole) q Florida Archives (Gray Building)q library research- local public q local property or tax records q other historic maps q Florida Photo Archives (Gray Building) q library-special collection q newspaper files q soils maps or dataq Site File property search q Public Lands Survey (maps at DEP) q literature search q windshield surveyq Site File survey search q local informant(s)q Sanborn Insurance maps q aerial photography q other (describe):. ______________________________________________________________________________ Archaeological Methods (select as many as apply to the project as a whole) q Check here if NO archaeological methods were used.q surface collection, controlled q shovel test-other screen sizeq surface collection, uncontrolled q water screenq shovel test-1/4”screen q posthole testsq shovel test-1/8” screen q auger testsq shovel test 1/16”screen q coringq shovel test-unscreened q test excavation (at least 1x2 m) q block excavation (at least 2x2 m) q soil resistivityq magnetometerq side scan sonarq ground penetrating radar (GPR)q LIDAR q other (describe):. _______________________________________________________________________________ Historical/Architectural Methods (select as many as apply to the project as a whole) q Check here if NO historical/architectural methods were used.q building permits q demolition permits q neighbor interview q subdivision mapsq commercial permits q occupant interview q tax recordsq interior documentation q windshield surveyq local property records q occupation permits q unknown q other (describe):. _______________________________________________________________________________ Survey Results Resource Significance Evaluated? q Yes q No Count of Previously Recorded Resources____________ Count of Newly Recorded Resources____________ List Previously Recorded Site ID#s with Site File Forms Completed (attach additional pages if necessary) List Newly Recorded Site ID#s (attach additional pages if necessary) Site Forms Used: q Site File Paper Forms q Site File PDF Forms REQUIRED: Attach Map of Survey or Project Area Boundary SHPO USE ONLY SHPO USE ONLY SHPO USE ONLY Origin of Report: 872 Public Lands UW 1A32 # Academic Contract Avocational Grant Project # Compliance Review: CRAT # Type of Document: Archaeological Survey Historical/Architectural Survey Marine Survey Cell Tower CRAS Monitoring Report Overview Excavation Report Multi-Site Excavation Report Structure Detailed Report Library, Hist. or Archival Doc MPS MRA TG Other: Document Destination: ______________________________ Plotability: ___________________________________________ LIDAR other remote sensing pedestrian survey unknown metal detector other remote sensing Desktop Analysis 22.A.4 Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Immokalee Solar CRAS Report 01-15-2021 (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation Board - February 19, 2021) A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of the Glover Property Project, Collier County, Florida. Project 2013-050 Report 2013.050.2 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of the Glover Property Project, Collier County, Florida. Project 2013-050 Authored by Shawn Keyte, Brandy Norton, M.A., R.P.A., and Maureen Mahoney, M.A., R.P.A. October 2019 Tribal Historic Preservation Office Clewiston, FL 33440 Tel: (863) 983-6549 Fax: (863) 902-1117 www.stofthpo.com Please do not distribute, duplicate, reference, or cite without the permission of the THPO. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Several members of the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) contributed to this project. First, the Seminole Tribe of Florida–Tribal Archaeology Section (STOF - TAS) would like to thank the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Paul Backhouse, THPO Director Anne Mullins, and THPO Assistant Director Juan Cancel. Research Assistant Dave Scheidecker conducted a records search of the Seminole Site Files. Architectural Historian Carrie Dilley reviewed the project for possible impacts to standing structures. The project was supervised by Tribal Archaeologist Maureen Mahoney. Fieldwork was performed by Karen Brunso and Maureen Mahoney (Archaeologists). Former Compliance Review Supervisor Bradley Mueller, Current Compliance Review Supervisor David Echeverry, and Compliance Review Specialist Victoria Menchaca offered insight regarding compliance with the STOF Cultural Resource Ordinance (CRO) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). We also wish to acknowledge the Environmental Resource Management Department (ERMD), for providing essential help and information throughout this project. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation ii MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The Glover Property project (THPO Project Number 2013-050) involves the construction of a governmental building, which includes utilities, water, sewer, cable, and internet (see Appendix 1 for site plan). According to Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Director), no construction will occur around the canal and no new plants will be added; existing plants will remain in that area. The project is receiving funding from the Seminole Tribe of Florida, though it requires a compliance review pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA by United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, investigations and a compliance review are also required pursuant to the STOF CRO (C-01-16). The Glover Property area of potential effect (APE) is rectangular in shape and measures at its greatest extent approximately 135 meters (432 feet) north to south by 61 meters (198 feet) east to west. The total area of the APE is 0.72 hectares (1.8 acres). The 2013-050 APE is located on the Tamiami Trail, Collier County, Florida, within Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 34 East. The APE is bound to the north by a vacant lot, to the east by parking lots, to the south by buildings, and to the west by the Tamiami Trail. In order to investigate the Glover Property APE, the TAS completed both background archival research and a cultural resources field survey. The background archival research was undertaken so as to identify potentially significant resources or previously conducted surveys in proximity to the project’s APE. This research was used to assist in the determination of an appropriate field investigation methodology. Background research identified six sites and two resource features that are located within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the APE. One resource feature, 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal, overlaps the current APE. The other resource feature, 08CR00927, US-41, is within 30 meters (98 feet) of the current APE. Both resource features are eligible for the Tribal Register of Historic Places (TRHP) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A review of the THPO Database also shows that there are six previously completed surveys within 1,000 meters (3,28 feet1) of the APE. None of these surveys overlap the current APE. Field investigations, which included a pedestrian survey and shovel testing, recorded no new sites. However, since 08CR00928 (Tamiami Canal) and 08CR00927 (Tamiami Trail) are within the APE or within 30 meters (98 feet) of the APE, it was necessary to assess these resource features for impacts by the current undertaking. Based on this assessment, the TAS agrees with previous recommendations that both resource features are eligible for the NRHP. Additionally, the TAS recommends that both resource features are eligible for the TRHP. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation iii STOF Cultural Resource Ordinance Recommendation Based on the investigations for the Glover Property project, the TAS recommends that re- source feature 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail, and resource feature 08CR00928, Tamiami Ca- nal, are eligible for listing on the TRHP, under criterion i, a property that the Seminole peo- ple consider important to history. Based on the proposed site plan and conversations with Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Director), neither 08CR00927 nor 08CR00928 will be impacted by the undertaking, because no construction is occurring around the canal or road. Therefore, the TAS recommends a finding of cultural resources not adversely affected. National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Recommendation Based on the investigation of the Glover Property project, the TAS recommends, in con- currence with previous findings by the SHPO, Janus Research, Inc., and Archaeological Consulting, Inc., that resource feature 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail, and resource feature, 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal are eligible for listing on the NRHP, under criteria A, Commu- nity, Planning, and Development, and C, Engineering. Based on the proposed site plan and conversations with Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Direc- tor), neither 08CR00927 nor 08CR00928 will be impacted by the undertaking, because no construction is occurring around the canal or road. Therefore, the TAS recommends a find- ing of historic properties not adversely affected per Section 106 of the NHPA. The TAS finds no other issues of concern regarding cultural resources and recommends that the undertaking, as originally proposed in THPO Project Request Number 2013-050 be permitted to proceed. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation iv CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES vi LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Section 106 Compliance: Assessing Historic Properties 2 1.2.1 Criteria for Evaluation 2 1.2.2 Criteria Considerations 2 1.2.3 Integrity 3 1.3 Seminole Tribe of Florida Cultural Resource Ordinance Compliance: Assessing Cultural Resources 4 1.3.1 Criteria for Evaluation 4 2.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 2.1 Research Design 5 2.2 Archival Research 5 2.3 Architectural Analysis 9 2.4 Seminole Cultural Site Analysis 9 2.5 Archaeological Field Survey 9 2.5.1 Pedestrian Survey Methods 9 2.5.2 Shovel Test Methods 9 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT 3.1 Environmental Context 12 3.1.1 Geomorphology and Soil Assessment 12 3.1.2 Fauna and Vegetation 13 3.2 Cultural Context 15 3.2.1 Paleoindian Period (10,000 –7500 BC) 15 3.2.2 Archaic Period (500 BC - AD 1750) 15 3.2.3 Formative Era (1000 BC–AD 1700) 16 3.2.4 Contact Period to the Seminole Wars 19 3.2.5 Seminole War Period (1816-1858 AD) 25 3.2.6 Post War Seminoles in the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp 26 3.3 The 20th Century in the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades 28 4.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION 4.1 Archival Research Results 33 4.1.1 Probability Zones Assessment 34 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation v 4.2 Architectural Analysis Results 35 4.3 Archaeological Field Survey Results 35 4.3.1 Pedestrian Survey Results 35 4.3.2 Shovel Test Results 35 4.4.3 Resource Feature Results 39 4.4 Field Photographs 64 4.5 Conclusion and Recommendations 66 4.6 Unanticipated Discoveries 68 SURVEY LOG 69 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE FORMS 71 APPENDIX 1 75 REFERENCES CITED 76 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation vi FIGURES Figure 1. 2013 Aerial Photograph of the Glover Property APE. 6 Figure 2. Topographic Map of the Glover Property APE. 7 Figure 3. 1980 Aerial Photograph of the Glover Property APE. 8 Figure 4. Probability Zone Locations within the Glover Property APE. 11 Figure 5. USDA-NRCS Soil Survey of the Glover Property APE. 14 Figure 6. Florida Indigenous Settlements in the early 1700s. 24 Figure 7. 1930 Map of Seminole Camp Locations made by Indian Agent Roy Nash. 32 Figure 8. Shovel Test Locations within the Glover Property APE. 37 Figure 9. Location of Resource Groups Overlapping and within 30 Meters of the Glover Property APE. 38 Figure 10. Map of Resource Feature 08CR00927. 44 Figure 11. Map of Resource Feature 08CR00928. 58 TABLES Table 1. Previous Surveys within 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) of the Glover Property APE. 33 Table 2. Previously Recorded Sites and Resource Features within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the Glover Property APE. 34 Table 3. Shovel Test Descriptions for the Glover Property APE. 36 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation vii PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1. Captain James F. Jaudon. 45 Photograph 2. Blazing a Trail Through Swamps and Everglades. 45 Photograph 3. Tamiami Trail Blazers holding sign. 46 Photograph 4. Barron G. Collier. 46 Photograph 5. Seminole Indians on the courthouse steps in Everglades City during opening of the Tamiami Trail. 47 Photograph 6. Town of Everglades celebrates the opening of the Tamiami Trail. 47 Photograph 7. View down the road along canal. 48 Photograph 8. Two cars running on the road by canal. 48 Photograph 9. Along Tamiami Trails in the Florida Everglades. 49 Photograph 10. Seminole on the Tamiami Trail, Florida. 49 Photograph 11. Osceola’s Gift Shop and Indian Village along the Tamiami Trail. 50 Photograph 12. Seminole Indian John Osceola and his daughter doing the family wash on the Tamiami Trail, 1956. 50 Photograph 13. Two Seminole women at Chestnut Billy’s camp on the Tamiami Trail. 51 Photograph 14. Chestnut Billy’s Mikasuki Indian Camp on the Tamiami Trail. 51 Photograph 15. Aerial view of the Tamiami Trail at Miami-Dade County, Florida. 52 Photograph 16. Seminole Indian village along the Tamiami Trail in Florida. 52 Photograph 17. A dredge at work in the Tamiami Canal, Miami Region, Florida. 59 Photograph 18. Palms along the Tamiami Canal. 59 Photograph 19. Barges on the Tamiami Canal, Tamiami Trail, Florida. 60 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation viii Photograph 20. Seminoles in canal bordering the Tamiami Trail, Everglades. 60 Photograph 21. Seminole woman Nellie Tommie and her son in a wooden canoe. 61 Photograph 22. Seminole Indians in the heart of the Florida Everglades. 61 Photograph 23. Seminole Indian village along Tamiami Trail in Florida. 62 Photograph 24. Indian village on the Tamiami Trail. 62 Photograph 25. Landscape view taken from the Tamiami Trail. 63 Photograph 26. General view of the APE facing north from Shovel Test 1. 64 Photograph 27. General view of the APE facing east from Shovel Test 1. 64 Photograph 28. General view of the APE facing south from Shovel Test 1. 65 Photograph 29. General view of the APE facing west from Shovel Test 1. 65 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ______________________________________ 1.1 Project Description Based on the Seminole Tribe of Florida’s Cultural Resource Ordinance (C-01-16), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800.16 (d), a cultural resources survey must be completed in order to determine if cultural resources or historic properties will be impacted by a proposed undertaking (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). In order to fulfil these requirements, the Tribal Archaeology Section (TAS) conducted a Phase I cultural resource survey and assessment of the Glover Property (THPO Project Number 2013-050) project on June 4, 2013. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d), is “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.” In defining the APE, the full range of possible impacts, both direct and indirect must be considered. This includes effects that may result from the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements on a historic resources setting. The proposed Glover Property project consists of the construction of a governmental building, which includes utilities, water, sewer, cable, and internet (see Appendix 1 for site plan). According to Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Director), no construction will occur around the canal and no new plants will be added; existing plants will remain in that area. The initial project request was submitted by Whitney Sapienza (Environmental Resources Management Department) through the Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Seminole Tribe of Florida (STOF) and was assigned a Project Number of 2013-050 (Figure 1). The APE is rectangular in shape and measures at its greatest extent approximately 135 meters (432 feet) north to south by 61 meters (198 feet) east to west. The total area of the APE is 0.72 hectares (1.8 acres). The 2013-050 APE is located on the Tamiami Trail, Collier County, Florida, within Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 34 East. The APE is bound to the north by a vacant lot, to the east by a parking lot, to the south by buildings, and to the west by the Tamiami Trail. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 2 1.2 Section 106 Compliance: Assessing Historic Properties Cultural resources identified during this survey were evaluated to determine their NRHP eligibility. When conducting this evaluation the following factors are considered (from Na- tional Register Bulletin—How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation). 1.2.1 Criteria for Evaluation The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: a. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or c. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of con- struction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic val- ues, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. 1.2.2 Criteria Considerations Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their orig- inal locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in na- ture, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following cat- egories: a. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic dis- tinction or historical importance; or b. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is primarily significant for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most im- portantly associated with a historic person or event; or c. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life; or 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 3 d. A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of trans- cendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or e. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or f. A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbol- ic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or g. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. 1.2.3 Integrity Properties must also retain integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. The evaluation of integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment, but it must always be grounded in an understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their significance) or they do not. Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. Seven Aspects of Integrity Location Design Setting Materials Workmanship Feeling Association To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 4 1.3 Seminole Tribe of Florida Cultural Resource Ordinance Compliance: Assessing Cultural Resources Cultural resources identified during this survey were evaluated to determine their TRHP eligibility. When conducting this evaluation the following factors are considered (from the Tribal Register of Historic Places Guide). 1.3.1 Criteria for Evaluation a. A property that is an important event in Seminole history. b. A property that is important because of a contributing person or group in Semi- nole history. c. A property that is associated with cultural practices or beliefs of the Seminole Tribe of Florida that are (a) rooted in that Community’s history; (b) important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community; or (c) holds sig- nificant values and embodies the tribe’s cultural identity. d. A property that is associated with human remains (e.g. burial, mortuary complex, cemetery). e. A property that is associated with other significant sites or cultural landscapes in the immediate vicinity. f. A property that is associated with a significant artifact that is unique, diagnostic, ceremonial, or funerary. g. A property that is located in a unique environmental setting for which there is few or no other examples. h. A property with architectural value that is associated with a distinct architectural style, built by a significant tribal member/ architect, displays unique craftsman- ship, age, or significant architectural features. i. A property that the Seminole people consider important to history. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 5 2.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION ______________________________________ 2.1 Research Design The primary goals of the Phase I survey and assessment of the Glover Property project were: To identify cultural resources within the APE; To assist the STOF in preserving their cultural heritage by fulfilling the requirements of the STOF CRO; To, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, identify and evaluate the significance of any district, site, building, structure, or object that maybe be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and To develop recommendations for future management of historic properties based on their significance, as appropriate. The following sections describe methods used to complete the survey and assessment of the Glover Property project, including archival research and field survey. 2.2 Archival Research The TAS conducted archival research for the Glover Property project on May 21, 2013. The research consisted of determining already known site locations, the location of previous surveys, and determining the probability level for identifying additional cultural resources within the APE. In accordance with the standards and guidelines contained in Rule 1A-46, F.A.C., resources utilized for this research included public records on file with the Florida Master Site File (FMSF), the FMSF GIS layer, the STOF - THPO GIS database (Figure 1), the Seminole Site File (SSF), the U.S. Geological Survey (Figure 2), 1980 aerial photography (Figure 3), and the USDA - NRCS soil survey (Figure 4), as well as unpublished cultural resource documents on file at the STOF - THPO. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 6 Figure 1. 2013 Aerial Photograph of the Glover Property APE. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 7 Figure 2. Topographic Map of the Glover Property APE. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 8 Figure 3. 1980 Aerial Photograph of the Glover Property APE. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 9 2.3 Architectural Analysis An architectural analysis is conducted of the project's APE for the presence of historic structures/buildings. Archival and documentary investigations focused on those structures fifty years old or older. Historic physical integrity is determined from background research including site observations, analysis of field data, and examination of photographic documentation. This analysis is performed in consultation with an Architectural Historian. 2.4 Seminole Cultural Site Analysis A Tribal Cultural Advisory analysis is conducted of the project’s APE for the presence of Seminole Cultural Sites (i.e., clan camps, medicinal plant gathering areas, etc.). This analysis is performed in consultation with Tribal advisers. 2.5 Archaeological Field Survey The archaeological field survey included pedestrian walkover and shovel test excavation across the APE. Prior to fieldwork the TAS conducted background research that highlighted cultural and environmental features of the APE, through which the TAS determined that the APE contained both moderate and low probability zones with respect to the likelihood of containing cultural resources (Figure 4). The moderate probability zone was located in the northern portion of the APE due to the presence of a cypress dome in that area and since oral histories suggest that the edges of these regions were used for cleaning animals after hunting. The low probability zone was situated in the southern portion of the APE due to previous development in that region. 2.5.1 Pedestrian Survey Methods The pedestrian survey conducted by the TAS included examination of the ground surface and of any exposed tree roots, tree falls, etc., when moving between shovel test locations. The pedestrian survey serves the dual purpose of identifying cultural material and also determining if there are elevation changes within the APE. Fluctuations in land elevation are usually associated with Tree Island hammocks which are approximately 20 to 30 centimeters (8 to 12 inches) higher than surrounding landforms. Site locations often correlate with these hammocks. 2.5.2 Shovel Test Methods As part of the moderate probability methodology, the TAS field crew excavated shovel tests at 40 meter (131 foot) intervals within the APE. Shovel tests were not excavated in areas that had standing water. No shovel tests were excavated in the low probability zone since it contained previous development and construction fill. Shovel tests measured 50 centimeters (20 inches) in diameter and were excavated to a depth of 100 centimeters (39 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 10 inches) below the ground surface (cmbs) unless bedrock, water, or compact marl/calcium carbonate was encountered. All excavated soils were sifted through 6 millimeter (0.25 inch) wire mesh in order to recover any cultural materials that may be present. Shovel test infor- mation was recorded using standard TAS shovel test forms which provide fields for record- ing data including soil type and color (using Munsell Soil Color Chart Notation), soil strata depth relative to the ground surface, soil disturbance types and extent, artifact content, UTM coordinates (using NAD 83), and local environmental type. All hard-copy forms and related information are stored on the Big Cypress Reservation in the THPO building in the associated project folder, and stored electronically in the THPO Database in its correspond- ing electronic project folder (2013-050). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 11 Figure 4. Probability Zone Locations within the Glover Property APE. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 12 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT ______________________________________ 3.1 Environmental Context To understand and evaluate cultural resources, it is necessary to identify the larger context within which they occur. In this chapter, we present details about the local environment to provide a context to use in assessing cultural resources. 3.1.1 Geomorphology and Soil Assessment The landscape within the area of the Tamiami Trail formed due to successive layers being deposited by periods fluctuating between high and low sea levels. Low sea levels were marked by weathering and erosion. These events created the bedrock and cap rock that abounds near the Tamiami Trail. Further successive sea level changes created the marls that would produce the limestone and fill the solution holes and empty places left by the original deposits. Marl normally occurs in wet prairie plant communities, or as lenses in the organic layer. Due to the accumulation of activity that occurred ca. 5,000 BP, it is probable that the peat deposits began at that time. The date of marl deposit is particularly important since cultural material is often found under the marl. Presently, the Tamiami Trail geology can be described as consisting of undifferentiated Pleistocene/Holocene and shelly Pleistocene deposits (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2001: Florida Geologic Stratigraphy Data, Map Series 146). The landscape of Tamiami Trail crosses through part of the Big Cypress Swamp which constitutes lands directly to the south of Lake Okeechobee. The Trail also crosses through multiple sloughs and marshes which are part of what remains of the Everglades post drainage (McVoy, et al. 2011). Prior to drainage, the Big Cypress Swamp was comprised mostly of inundated areas, though tree island hammocks did abound. These hammocks, or tree islands, generally remained dry due to the fact that they rose 20-40 centimeters (8-16 inches) above the ground surface. The hammocks normally have a “rain-drop shape with a blunt, rounded, up-gradient head and a long, drawn-out, down gradient tail” (Parker 1984: 31). The shape was presumably caused by flooding that frequently occurs in the Big Cypress Swamp. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 13 The USDA-NRCS soil survey indicated that there are two soil types present within the APE: Tamiami and Holopaw Sand (Figure 5). The USDA-NRCS defines the Tamiami series as consisting of very poorly drained organic soils that are moderately deep and deep to limestone. The Holopaw series consists of deep and very deep, poorly and very poorly drained soils formed in sandy marine sediments. 3.1.2 Fauna and Vegetation Due to climate changes the landscape in the area of the Tamiami Trail has undergone numerous vegetation changes. For example, the climate of 18,000 BP consisted of a cooler, drier, and windier weather that led to a largely treeless vegetation (Griffin 2002). Over the course of the next 13,000 years, the climate become wetter. This change brought about a diversity of flora, specifically oak (Quercus virginiana ), myrtle (Quercus mrytifolias), hazelnut, birch (Betula populifolia), ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), willow (Sideroxylon salicifolium), cypress (Taxodium distichum), cattail (Typha latifolia), and elm (Ulmus Americana). By 5,000 BP, the basic modern flora was in place. This flora included some plants with tropical affinities, but for the most part, temperate species dominated and were the most abundant (Griffin 2002). The plant species consist most notably of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), saw palmetto (Serenoa serrulata), citrus trees (Citrus aurantium), wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa), green briar, ivy, pasture grass (Ischnodemus variegatus), soda apple (Solanum viarum), gator flag, and the previously noted species. Normally, tree island hammocks contain palm, palmetto, oak, wild coffee, and citrus. Fauna near the Tamiami Trail included a wide variety of fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals. Griffin (2002:339-348) provides an exhaustive list of the different species. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 14 Figure 5. USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Map of the Glover Property APE. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 15 3.2 Cultural Context 3.2.1 Paleoindian Period (10,000–7500 BC) The first Prehistoric occupants of Florida consisted of the Paleo-Indian population (10000 BC–7500 BC). The earliest documented evidence for human occupation in South Florida comes from the Little Salt and Warm Mineral Springs sites in Sarasota County (central west Florida) where radiocarbon dates of 10000 and 8000 BC have been obtained. The Gulf Coast region’s evidence for the Paleo-Indian occupations presently is limited to a few sites. Excavations at the Harney Flats Site in Hillsborough County have yielded significant data on this little known period. Many Paleo-Indian sites can be found near deep springs, small watering holes, and shallow prairie lakes. Many are today’s modern flowing rivers (Milanich 1994). Proximity to water allowed access to was not only to utilize the water source, but also to be near game, including mega fauna, as a food source. An example of such activity can be seen at sites such as Little Salt Springs. After about 7500 BC glaciers melted and sea levels rose. The climate, therefore, became wetter and provided more water sources around which the Paleo -Indian groups could camp. With the appearance of more water sources for Paleo-Indian camps. Later, Paleo-Indian populations were able to transition from nomadic to semi- nomadic (Milanich 1994). Their campsites tended to be located near water sources, as well as by outcrops of chert-bearing limestone. Paleo-Indian sites can generally be identified by the presence of “lanceolate shaped projectile points and a variety of Plano-convex, steeply flaked, unifacial scrapers” (Milanich 1994). Little evidence has been uncovered for Paleo- Indian occupation of the Big Cypress Reservation. This is primarily because the majority of Paleo-Indian sites are located offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. 3.2.2 Archaic Period (7500-500 BC) Cultural development, sedentary living, and environmental changes characterized the Archaic period, which was brought on by the onset of the Holocene. Within the Archaic period there are three separate periods of cultural activity: Early (7500 BCE–5000 BC), Middle (5000 BC–1600 BC), and Late Archaic (1600 BC–500 BC). The climate was much wetter than before, but drier than the modern climate (Milanich 1995). After 5000 BC, the climate began to ameliorate, becoming more like modern conditions. By the Late Archaic period, the environment of Florida was essentially like the modern climate (Milanich 1995). The archaeological record demonstrates that as the population became less nomadic, the size of settlements increased. Decreases in large game animals and the demand of a large population caused a switch to coastal and riverine resources for a stable food supply. Depending upon the number of resources available, the people started splintering into smaller family groups and tribal bands. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 16 Larger bands that had spent months collecting specific food resources as a single entity now began to divide into smaller units in order to meet demands of their growing bands. This theory is reinforced by the existence of thousands of “small camp sites” throughout Florida dating from the Archaic Period. Due to the changes in faunal populations, many of the projectile points utilized in the Paleo-Indian period were no longer produced in the Archaic period due to large scale changes in faunal population. This was primarily due to the demise of many mega fauna species at the close of the Pleistocene. The tools during the Archaic period seem to have been produced quickly and show use-wear patterns, which imply the usage of tools for mul- tiple tasks. Many bone tools also date to the Archaic period and have been extensively col- lected from Florida rivers. This again illustrates a change to water resources for both foods and tools. The specialization of tools seems to have been perfected during this time period. Pottery making emerged during the Late Archaic period. The Late Archaic peoples inhabit- ed most of Florida’s coasts. Floral and faunal species changed as a result of rising sea levels and a less arid climate. Hardwood forests and savannas were replaced eventually by pine forests. Seasonal exploitation of the food resources resulted from this changing environ- ment. The food resources seem to have included small game, nuts, plants, and marine and freshwater resources. Coastal resources were heavily used during the Archaic period along the Gulf of Mexico. 3.2.3 Formative Era (500 BC – AD 1750) The Formative Era in South Florida is divided into three cultural regions: Okeechobee, Ca- loosahatchee, and Glades. However, many scholars argue that these people shared similar cultural practices (Milanich 1994:77). The location of the Glover Property APE lies within the Glades cultural region. The Glades peoples occupied the Everglades throughout Hendry, Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, and Monroe counties; as well as the Big Cypress Swamp located west of the Ever- glades in Collier County; and the saltwater marshes and mangrove forests in Broward and Dade Counties (Milanich 1994). Glades people relied on both marine and terrestrial species for subsistence.; peoples of this period range widely in settlement patterns. The TAS recognizes the Glades culture as being divided into three distinct periods: Glades I (500 BC – AD 750), Glades II (750 BC – AD 1200), and Glades III (AD 1200 – 1750). These periods are distinguished by the various types of ceramics which appeared throughout the archaeological record. The Glades cultural region was associated with ce- ramics that were shaped by the coiling method. Also, bowls with incurving walls and rims were typically associated with these sites. In some cases, modeled pottery was also found in context with Glades period sites. Motifs for Glades decorative ceramics include linear and curvilinear incision and rim ticking. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 17 The ceramic type Glades Tooled, which appears late in the pre-Columbian period, exhibits elaborate lip treatments, either pitched, folded or dowel impressed (Milanich; 1994). Other decorated pottery types included incised, punctuated, check stamp, and plain wares that were different from one area to the next in tempering and paste. Chert deposits have not been found within the Glades cultural region. Tools were made from imported chert, sedimentary rocks (such as limestone and sandstone), shell, or faunal bone (Milanich 1994). Tools created from sedimentary rocks and shell include: hones, abraders, hammers, plummets, picks, adzes, celts, gouges, chisels, awls, knives, scrapers, cups, and dippers. Tools made from faunal bone include: pins, awls, fids, points, perforators, as well as cutting and engraving tools. The most commonly used resources for utilitarian tools were deer bone or antler, fish spines, stingray tail spines, and shark teeth (Milanich 1994). The extensive use of faunal remains further exemplifies the versatility of the Glades people of South Florida. Glades peoples constructed earthworks along ponds, canals, rivers, borrows, ditches, and mounds. Although regional differences occurred, archaeologists argue that Glades people utilized waterways and constructed complex social groups around these environments. Within the interior of South Florida, Glades peoples inhabited the small tree islands or hammocks. These islands were inhabited for the flora, fauna, and surrounding wetland resources. Glades I Period (500 BC–AD 750) The Glades I period is very well represented in the Big Cypress Swamp (Widmer 1988). The Glades I period can be subdivided into: Glades IA 500 BC–AD 500: No decorated ceramics appear, but the period contains sand-tempered and Glades Plain. Glade IB 500 BC–AD 750: Includes Sanibel Incised, Fort Drum Incised and Punctuated. Ceramic decoration in south Florida was developed by AD 500 (though sand tempered plain ware continued to be used) with the inception of the Fort Drum decorated series. Glades II Period (AD 750–1200) This period can accurately be subdivided into three sub periods based on the frequency of decorated ceramic styles. Glades IIA AD 750-900: Includes the appearance of Key Largo Incised, Opa Locka Incised and Miami Incised. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 18 Glades IIB AD 900-1100: Key Largo incised is still the majority decorated type of pottery; some incisions on rim and lip grooving; Matecumbe Incised appears as does more incurving bowls (Milanich 1994). Glades IIC AD 1100-1200: Decorated ceramics begin to cease in majority. Some ceramics have grooved lips that appear. Plantation Pitched is seen in small amounts. Glades III Period (AD 1200–1750) During the Glades III period, the use of incised decorations returned and trade wares become more prevalent. The emerging prevalence of trade ware reflects a sociopolitical transition. This demonstrates what scholars refer to as a pan-Florida trading network (Widmer 1988). By the end of the Glades III period, European trade goods are also introduced in the region. This time period is associated with many ethnohistorical groups such as the Tequesta, the Key Indians, and the Calusa. Glades IIIA AD 1200-1400: One particular ceramic type of this period is the Surfside Incised, which is similar to Mississippian-like wares present in the north. St. John’s checked stamped also appears during this time. Although less common than other pottery types, the appearance of Safety Harbor Incised symbols and motifs can be found within this period. Glades III AD 1300-1500: This period is marked by a decrease in the decorated ceramic types. The majority of the type present is Glades tooled rims. The bodies of these vessels are undecorated with a shallow bowl appearance (Milanich 1994). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 19 3.2.4 Contact Period to the Seminole Wars The first contact between the indigenous people of Florida and Europeans occurred in 1513 when Ponce de Leon arrived in Florida near present day Tampa. Documentary evi- dence written by Euro-American scholars suggests that, following this arrival, the popula- tions of Florida were decimated by warfare and pathogens to the point that not a single liv- ing person was left (Wright 1986:5). According to Wickman (1999:1), the “aboriginal inhab- itants of Florida were destroyed over the period of 1513 to 1763, the story concludes and the people known today as Seminoles are an indistinct amalgam of survivors from tribes and territories outside of…..Florida.” The people that were later referred to as the Semi- noles were thought of as outsiders, originating elsewhere and coming to Florida in a series of migrations, settling on land and sites that were once occupied by now extinct people (Wright 1986:5). It is problematic for Americans to state that Florida had lost its entire pop- ulation of indigenous groups for two primary reasons. First, this glosses over large amounts of contradictory evidence from oral histories and radiocarbon dates that highlight the an- cestral claim the Seminoles have on Florida. Second, this belief means that the indigenous people who later occupied Florida could have no prior claim on the land, making the area open for settlement by the Europeans and Americans (Wickman 1999:1). Where do the Seminoles come from? In contrast to many American accounts, today’s Seminole people are descendants of pre- contact groups from Florida and other southeastern populations. The people the Spanish encountered belonged to a Mississippian tradition that spanned the United States and in- cluded groups such as the Calusa, Jaega, and Tequesta, who lived on Florida’s coasts. Alt- hough not encountered by the Spanish, the interior of South Florida was also populated at this time with occupants settled on tree islands throughout the Everglades. These people participated in long distance trade and created platform mounds, many of which are still visible on the landscape today. Many oral histories from modern day Seminoles highlight the connection between these people and their ancestors. For example, a recording made at the Green Corn Dance ceremony on the Brighton Reservation in 1932 features songs about the Calusa and reveals an ancestral link (Densmore 1956). The Green Corn ceremony itself suggests a link between the modern and Mississippian people since this ritual has its roots in the platform mounds that were common throughout the Mississippian period (Wickman 1999:30). Seminole Tribe member Marty Bowers was always taught that he was a part of the Calusa, the Tequesta, or the Jaega (Bowers and Brindenstine 2017:25). The belief that these ancestral groups are extinct most likely stems from the cultural changes that each were undergoing during the post-contact period. For Europeans, the Calusa, Tequesta, and other cultural groups were static and non-adaptive, and their cultural makeup could only include what was written about them upon their encounter (Wickman 1999:2). If their cul- tural makeup changed, it meant that the group simply no longer existed. In the 1800s, the United States purposefully went out of their way to make sure that the native people in 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 20 Florida were thought of as outsiders. In order to make use of the fertile soil within Florida, the United States simply declared all indigenous populations in that area to be part of the Creek Nation. Like other native populations at the time, the Creek were labeled as such based on the English word that merely described the environment in which the people lived. In actuality, those labeled as Creeks consisted of at least 150 different linguistic groups (Wright 1986: 2, Wickman 1999:36). These groups were then lumped together as the Creek Nation. From this linguistic group comes the phrase isti Semoli, meaning “those who camp at a distance,” “one who has camped out from the regular towns,” or “free people at distance fires” (Frank 2014:278). In order to classify those individuals living in Florida, as “runaways,” “fugitives,” and “wild people,” the United States government and their Creek allies began to refer to these people as Seminole. By changing the terminology, the United States government modified how these people were viewed, primarily so that land acquisition could occur easily (Frank 2014:278). Although the term Seminole has often been thought to have derived from the Spanish term cimmarron, the meaning and essence of the term is the same and fits the United States’ agenda. As this brief history suggests, the names of the people living in and using the territory of Florida were of European construct and were not created by the native populations themselves. Instead, there were a variety of groups in Florida that were once known by different names and were simply lumped into the broad category of Seminole Creek by the Europeans, the United States, and Creek allies. While these people were comprised of different groups, it is likely that they were all interconnected through lines of communication, trade, warfare, and reciprocity (Wickman 1999:72). Based on the oral histories, it is most likely that today’s Seminole Tribal members are descended from both native pre-contact Floridians as well as people that the Europeans encountered in Georgia, Alabama, and other locations throughout the southeast. Although we now base a population’s location on modern geographical constructs, people in the pre- contact and contact periods came and went freely across state boundaries for thousands of years. People could have been moving during this time because of warfare, trade, communications, hunting, or marriage purposes (Wickman 1999:55). For example, Seminole Tribal member Willie Johns explains “Creek people were in Florida before the fight [Creek War] and Creek leaders have always known the Everglades, they hunted and fished it for decades before the Europeans” (Johns and Brindenstine 2017:4-5). Seminole Tribal member Billy Walker, a fourth generation descendant from those who fought in the Seminole Wars, noted that his clan, Panther Clan, is an older clan and comes from those Creek people who traveled to South Florida and had children with members of the Calusa bands (Walker 2019). He explains that the Calusa “are still their people today.” Furthermore, groups of indigenous people, such as the Shawnee, who now reside outside of Florida, remember the territory once serving as their home (Wickman 1999:37). One Shawnee elder in Ohio recounted in 1819 that he came from West Florida near the Suwanee River and the sea. These accounts demonstrate a stark contrast to previous research that suggests that the Seminoles are not the direct descendants of the pre-contact Florida Natives, simply because they would not have crossed modern geopolitical boundaries (Wickman 1999:11). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 21 Contact Period Settlements Information regarding contact period settlements in the literature is relatively sparse. Sites in South Florida dating prior to the eighteenth century are generally labeled as being related to particular cultural groups, though archaeologists rarely make ties between these groups and the Seminole. Settlements specifically associated with the Seminoles do not emerge in the literature until the eighteenth century and their characteristics are often based on early European accounts. Archaeological evidence of occupations at sites prior to this time and continuing into the eighteenth century would potentially highlight the tie between suppos- edly culturally extinct groups and modern Seminoles. For example, one site on the Brighton Reservation shows continuous occupation from approximately 375 B.C. until at least 1630 AD and highlights that the area was used even after Spanish contact. Due to the lack of in- formation available regarding pre-eighteenth century sites and their ties to modern day Seminole, this cultural summary will primarily focus on the historical documentation of set- tlements beginning in the early 1700s. However, future archaeological work focused on this period will allow us to gain more knowledge about the changing cultures and understand how this is reflected in the settlement make up. Archaeological Evidence of Site Occupation Following Spanish Contact Investigation of contact period sites within South Florida generally focus on Spanish ac- counts of the people living there. Radiocarbon dates from sites in this region show occupa- tion of large sites until roughly 1715 AD, approximately 200 years after the Spanish made contact with this area (Thompson et al 2016). According to Worth (2013:769), the sites of Mound Key and Pineland, both important Calusa centers, continued to be occupied from the time of Spanish contact until potentially the eighteenth century. However, at Pineland, the level of occupation during these latter periods was substantially less than the pre- contact occupations. Archaeologically, the Spanish arrival is noted in the appearance of Eu- ropean cultural material, such as Spanish majolica, though most of these items were only associated with the elite (Worth 2013:777). Although cultural material from this time is clear in the archaeological record, it is not known yet how site settlement patterns and lay- out changed within this period. While the Spanish made definitive contact with those people living along the southwest Florida coasts, it is not clear how the European’s arrival affected settlement choices for in- terior populations. As mentioned previously, one site, 77BR00010, on the Brighton Reser- vation has a clear radiocarbon date from 1630 AD. Two sites on the Big Cypress Reserva- tion, 77BC00056 and 77BC00116, have four dates from faunal bone that date roughly to a similar time period. Site 77BC00056, Waxy Hadjo’s Landing, has three dates that range from 1570 +/- 20 AD to 1640 +/-20 AD. This site also has clear documented use within the 19th century as a trading post for Waxy Hadjo. While there are very few sites within South Florida that have known 18th century radiocarbon dates, there are numerous villages 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 22 and towns in northern Florida that date to that period. However, these later sites are often labeled as Creek towns without thought for any pre-existing Florida populations living within them. Settlements of the 1700s Information regarding settlements in the 1700s is relegated to north and central Florida and predominately relates to people moving from Georgia and Alabama to the Alachua savanna of Florida. According to the STOF THPO GIS Portal (a web based map showing all Semi- nole related sites throughout the world), only three sites are associated with this period (Figure 6). Towns from the early eighteenth century were generally located in oak-hickory uplands, around ponds or lakes, or on ridgelines (Weisman 1989:4). The sites have a low artifact density, contain brushed pottery, and often go undiscovered. However, some of the early sites listed as pioneer cabins may have been inaccurately labeled and were actually in- digenous homesteads from this period (personal communication, Gary Ellis, 2016). By the mid-1700s, the villages encountered by Europeans were large and permanent in na- ture. By 1774, there were a number of documented, autonomously functioning Seminole towns (Weisman 2014:396). The largest of these towns were located on the banks of the Suwanee, the hammocks of the middle St. Johns River, and on the Chocachatti Prairie near Brooksville (Weisman 2014:396) (see Figure 6). During this time, people living in these towns were matrilocal, meaning that married couples resided in domiciles near or with the wife’s mother’s family (Covington 1993). They traced their lineage through matrilineal de- scent, where everything, including social status and clan membership, was inherited through the mother’s heredity line (Covington 1993). The towns each had roughly 20 or more habi- tations, often had outlying settlements, and contained a squareground (Weisman 1989:43). Individual domiciles would also be located around this squareground area. The square- ground in these towns was the center of both the social life and settlements of the Creek and early Seminoles (Covington 1993; Weisman 1989, 1999, 2000a, 2000b). The central squareground was typically surrounded by four pavilions, which were constructed on the north, south, east, and west sides of the square. Usage of the number four, as seen in the construction of the squareground, remained pivotal in later camps; for example, when four logs were used to build the fire. To date, the number four remains important to the Semi- nole Tribe as it is an important piece of their religious functions. This highlights that while construction styles and settlement types changed, the basic cosmographic facets remained relatively constant. Artifacts recovered from these early towns include Lamar and Chatta- hoochee Brushed pottery as well as the Leon-Jefferson series, which is associated with the Florida Mission period. Other artifacts from this time period include British military but- tons, razors, and knives, as well as personal adornments, such as buckles, silver coins, and glass beads. Although the pottery is of utilitarian ware, the metal and glass objects suggest trade with Europeans during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 23 Settlements of the Late 17th and Early 18th Centuries Towards the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the nineteenth century, there is evidence of change in settlement patterns. This new pattern was better-suited for an agro- pastoralist subsistence lifestyle in which both agriculture and livestock were important commodities. This agro-pastoralist settlement style featured domiciles that were more widely dispersed and no longer centered around a squareground. These settlements were situated to maximize the subsistence potential of the land. Ideal land would include well- drained upland soils for crops such as maize, wetlands for rice agriculture, and pasture land for horses and cattle (Covington 1993; McReynolds 1957; Milanich 1995, 1998; Weisman 1989, 1999, 2000a, 2000b). Along with more dispersed domiciles, there were also multiple outbuildings that were historically documented to have been used as corn cribs, stables, dairies, and a ”physic” house, where the sacred medicines were stored, as well as large, cleared agricultural fields (Weisman 2000b:145). A similar type of structure was recorded at the Billy Bowlegs III camp on the Brighton Reservation. This structure, termed a tufto, was round in shape and was once thought to have been used to dry corn and other food, but was also used to store a family’s valuables. Lorene Gopher does not remember seeing this structure at any other camp on Brighton, but stated that her grandmother Lucy had told her that she had a tufto at the camp where she grew up, though this location is unknown (Lorene Gopher, Personal Communication, August 2012). As Martha Jones explains, “all of the older camps once had these structures but they had gone out of fashion over time” (Martha Jones, Personal Communication, December 2012). It is possible that fewer people used these structures during the Seminole war period since camps during that time were constantly being moved due to prolonged warfare. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 24 Figure 5. Florida Indigenous Settlements in the early 1700s (based on the STOF THPO GIS Portal). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 25 3.2.5 Seminole War Period (1816 – 1858) The nineteenth century witnessed three distinct wars fought on Florida soil: the First Seminole War (1816-1818), the Second Seminole War (1835-1842), and the Third Seminole War (1855-1858). It was the second of these wars that split the Seminole people into two separate groups. This war was fought over the Removal of the Seminoles from Florida and into reservation lands in Oklahoma. While this war never actually ended (Weisman [2000a] claims it simply faded away), the Americans removed several thousand Seminoles to Oklahoma over the course of the war. Hundreds more were removed to Oklahoma at the end of the Third Seminole as well, which left only an approximate two hundred Seminole in the Florida Peninsula. Weisman (2000a:302) stated that: By 1860, approximately 200 Seminoles remained in Florida, drastically reduced from an estimated 1821 level of 5,000… Those few Indians that survived in Florida after 1858 are directly ancestral to the contemporary Seminole and Miccosukee peoples… Those deported during the war era, numbering at least 4,000, were the founding population for the federally recognized Seminole [Nation] of Oklahoma. During this time period, there was a great deal of change in Seminole culture, especially during the Second Seminole War. Prior to the Second Seminole War, settlement patterns continued to follow the plantation-style settlements. The war, however, brought a disruption to this pattern. During, as well as after, the war the Seminoles in Florida began following a settlement pattern that was more traditional. This settlement form was based on the Creek huti, which were the matrilocal residences that made up a talwa. Alexander Spoehr (1941) called these istihapo. These clan camps were centered around a square ground (MacCauley 1887; Weisman 1989, 1999). This is clearly a reversion to former traditions. One change from the older squareground pattern was that rather than utilizing framed domiciles, the use of the famous Seminole chickee gains popularity. These constructions greatly resemble the buildings that surround the actual square ground in the traditional Creek talwa settlements in that they are a thatched roof over a wooden platform (these would have been wooden benches in the construction that surrounded the talwa squareground. Another of these reversions lies in the realm of material culture. Prior to the Second Seminole War the Seminole used European and American ceramics in overwhelming percentages over their indigenous brushed form of pottery. During and after the war, however, European and American ceramics are completely lacking from Seminole archaeological sites, while Seminole brushed pottery is found in abundance (Weisman 2000a). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 26 During the war we see the rise to prominence many of the miccos such as Micanopy and Coacoochee, as well as war leaders such as Asi Yahola. The tradition of changing leadership during times of war and peace persisted during this time. Scholars agree that during this time a singular authority arose among the Seminole peoples in Florida. There were several miccos operating during this time (each one associated with a specific clan), but they deferred to a paramount micco, who during the war was Micanopy (Covington 1993; MacCauley 1887; Mahon 1967; McReynolds 1957; Missall and Missall 2004; Porter 1996; Weisman 1999). This continued in Florida throughout the remainder of this temporal period. While the Green Corn Dance was practiced before and after the wars, it provided the Seminoles with a sense of group cohesion which meant a larger pool of warriors to draw from for the conflict. While there are no descriptions of the actual ceremonies that took place during the war years, it is known that “Billy Bowlegs hosted at least one… in the Big Cypress” (Weisman 1999:63). Weisman further states that there were likely to have been many more held throughout the state. Directly after the war, however, there were additions to the ceremony. They added the use of medicine bundles. This was unique among the groups of the Southeast that practiced this ceremony (Hudson 1975; Weisman 1999). According to Weisman (1999), these medicine bundles were utilized in ceremony to give warriors supernatural powers in war. The end date for the Third Seminole War is used to determine the resolution of this period in history. In March 1858, Billy Bowlegs gathered with white officials to discuss removal of the Seminoles to what is known today as Oklahoma, yet no treaty was signed (Missall and Missall 2004). While research shows that there was a period of nearly unbroken violence from 1680 to 1858, the Seminole Wars, according to historians, started in 1816 with the First Seminole War (Missall and Missall 2004). The year 1856 marks the time during the Third Seminole War when the Florida Governor increased the number of federal troops to protect the Florida settlers (Covington 1993). 3.2.6 Post War Seminoles in the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp After the end of the Seminole Wars in 1858, the remaining indigenous populations, consisting of what are now called Seminole, Miccosukee, and Traditionalists/Independents, continued to live in isolation. They made their camps around Lake Okeechobee and in the dense thickets of the Big Cypress Swamp and the Everglades. The Seminoles that settled in the swamps used elevated areas usually containing clumps of palm or oak trees called tree island hammocks. “These tree islands offered refuge and forage for animals, as well as camp sites for Indians traversing the ‘glades” (Kersey Jr. 1935). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 27 Camp Life Seminole camps consisted of a “number of palm-thatched open-sided houses built around the outer zone of a clearing, with a cook house in the center” (Covington 1993:205). Each family in the camp had its own house. This dwelling served as sleeping quarters, a storage place for clothes, food, bedding, and other equipment in the house. According to Covington (1993:205), the equipment included mosquito nets, sewing machine, and in some cases, lard cans, and portable phonograph and records. The members of the permanent camps cultivated small plots during the summer and hunted from temporary camps for skins and meats during the winter. These Seminole camps contained garden plots that had potatoes, squash, corn, pumpkins, and bananas. All members of a clan lived in the same camp, except the married men who, due to the matrilineal kinship organization practiced by the Tribe, had gone to live in their wives’ camps (Covington 1993: 149). The only time these camps came together was for occasions such as the Green Corn Dance and the Hunting Dance. The location of the Seminole camps made it difficult for anyone other than a Seminole to find the camp. One ethnographer, Clay MacCauley (1884), wrote that he had difficulty finding the Seminole people because of the “ignorance prevailing even in Florida of the locations of the homes of the Seminole and also to the absence of routes of travel in Southern Florida.” Furthermore, he explains that even when one did stumble upon Seminole camps or individual Seminoles, very few spoke English, making conversations scarce. For this reason, very few settlers, including MacCauley, reached and communicated with the Seminoles. Although reaching Seminole Camps was difficult, some ethnographers, such as MacCauley, were able to still garner information about the Seminole camps and life ways. MacCauley states: The Florida Indians are not nomads. They have fixed habitations: settlements in well-defined districts, permanent camps, houses or wigwams which, remain from year to year the abiding places of their families, and gardens and fields which for indefinite periods are used by the same owners [1884:25]. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 28 3.3 The 20th Century in the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades The 20th Century brought drastic changes to the Big Cypress Swamp and the Everglades region. There were plans in motion to drain the Everglades, a land boom was occurring on the east coast of Florida, and the railroad had found its way to Miami. People had been moving down the west coast of Florida as well, and trading posts started popping up to accommodate the influx of settlers. This meant that there was more access than ever before to the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp which allowed white settlers the opportunity to hunt and fish in the same areas that the Seminoles had been using. In the early 1900s, the Seminoles continued to live their traditional way of life deep in the heart of the Big Cypress and Everglades swamps. They had several camps set up throughout the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades. Some were permanent in the dryer areas, while others were temporary hunting and fishing camps used to process fish and game before heading back to their primary camps. They had mastered the art of travel in the swamp lands by making shallow-draft dugout canoes from cypress trees which allowed them to travel several miles outside of their immediate camp area. They used miles of paths cut through the sawgrass to access remote areas of the swamp which allowed them to find the most productive areas to gather the resources needed to survive (Kersey Jr. 1935). By the 1910s the large influx of white settlers that had moved on to the fringes of the swamp needed a place to sell and trade their goods for supplies. Small trading posts began to pop up to accommodate the needs of the local population. Places like Smallwood’s Store located in Chokoloskee, on the southwest edge of the Big Cypress Swamp, became popular spots for the Seminoles to bring furs, pelts, and plumes to trade. Opening in 1906, Smallwood’s Store was the main Indian trading post in the region for decades. The owner of the store, Ted Smallwood, was very accommodating to the Seminoles and over time he had earned the trust of the Seminoles. They would leave their money there and Mr. Smallwood would keep it safe until their next visit. Mr. Smallwood’s daughter, Thelma, recollects what it was like having the Seminoles frequent the store in an interview with Charlton Tebeau of the Chokoloskee Bay Country newspaper: To the store the Indians brought mostly alligator hides and other skins. Father’s account books show that in 1914, for example he was buying alligator hides from Miami Billy, Little Jim Dixie, Little Charlie Jumper, Little Boy Jim, Jim Tiger, Charlie Billie, Charlie Doctor and Jack Osceola. The way the account is kept shows he might have been advancing them supplies and crediting them with the hides they brought in. Seven foot hides are marked at from ninety cents to a dollar a piece. Indians kept the islanders supplied with fresh venison and wild turkeys. Sometimes they tanned deer hides and brought in the buckskin. In season 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 29 they might bring in such wild fruits as huckleberries. Billy Jim used to sit at his camp near the shore on the beach and carve small canoes of wood, charging from twenty-five cents to a dollar depending on the size. Father sold to the Indians hand sewing machines, sewing thread and needles, yards of calico, phonographs and records and accordions. For food he sold them mostly sugar, flour and grits. Their principle item of food was sofkee which they liked to make from coarse grits and cook for hours. Formerly, they had grown their own corn and prepared it with mortar and pestle to make the sofkee. When we first knew them they would often roast garfish or turtles or bear meat at their camp fires, but more and more as time went on they bought grits and boiled the sofkee (Kersey Jr. 1935). For the Seminoles, the trips to the trading post may have been some of the only friendly encounters with white folks they had ever had. They generally kept their distance from whites while out in the swamp, but that was becoming more and more difficult as the local population grew. By the 1920s, the Seminoles were in direct competition for resources with some of the white settlers that had also mastered the art of survival in the swamp. These new white settlers were referred to as the “Gladesmen.” The Gladesmen The Gladesmen were a group of early settlers that lived on the outskirts of the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades in pioneer homesteads. Before they were given the term Gladesmen, they were referred to as Florida Crackers. They came to Florida in the early 1800s from neighboring states like Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee, in search of fertile land to farm. It is believed that the term “Florida Cracker” originated from the practices used to herd cattle and the cracking sound their whips made. These early set- tlers relied mainly on agriculture for their livelihood by herding free range cattle left behind by the Spanish in the early 1820s (Denham 1994). In the early 1900s, white settlers, or at that time Florida Crackers had begun to move south with the understanding that the Everglades was to be drained. They planned on raising live- stock and farming the rich soil left once the water level dropped. Realizing that their new environment could provide a source of income and sustain their way of life, many aban- doned their free range cattle practices and begun to rely on the environment to survive. They lived in pioneer homesteads on the dry land and set up temporary hunting camps throughout the swamps and wetlands for hunting and fishing. Like the Seminoles, the Gladesmen traded their hides, pelts, and bird plumes at nearby trading posts, tended gar- dens at their homesteads, and were completely self-sufficient (Smith 2011). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 30 The Tamiami Trail and Tourism In 1928 the first paved road through the Everglades was completed connecting the east and west coasts of Florida. The road started in Tampa and continued down the west coast, turning east at Naples, then across the Everglades in to Miami, hence the name, Tamiami Trail. The Tamiami Trail initially had a negative effect on the Seminoles because it cut across their canoe trails and impeded their traditional manner of travel (West 1998:84). However, the completion of the Tamiami Trail and Tamiami Canal led to an increase in tourism in south Florida, as well as a subsequent increase in the number of Seminole men who became owners of tourist camps and trading posts, such as Mike Osceola’s Indian Village Gator Jungle (Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum website). Other Seminoles with camps along the Tamiami Trail included William McKinley Osceola, Josie Billie, Chestnut Billie, Corey Osceola, John- ny Osceola, Ingram Billie, and Robert Billie (West 1998:84). Use of these camps was a good way for the Seminoles to trade with coastal towns and the villages replaced the white- owned exhibition villages (Sturtevant and Cattelino 2004:438). The tourist camps were also important because they marked an “increased economic independence for these Native Americans separate from the white-operated attractions in the city” (West 1998:85). Semi- noles charged admission and sold patchwork clothing, dolls, sweetgrass baskets, and wood carvings (Sturtevant and Cattelino 2004:438). One of the earliest Indian owned and operat- ed tourist attractions established on the Tamiami Trail was run by Effie and Ingraham Bil- lie; Billie was a traditional councilman, doctor, and medicine bundle carrier (West 1998:82). The Tamiami Canal was also convenient for travel in dugout canoes. The Tamiami Trail also led to many Seminoles being hired as hunting guides or to being contracted to procure games for clients, because the Seminoles did not have to acquire a license to hunt and could hunt year round (West 1998:88). Those Seminoles living along the Tamiami Trail could also supplement their income through seasonal crop picking (West 1998:92). Additionally, the Tamiami Trail helped to integrate groups that were previously separated by geography, and many villages along the Tamiami Trail were used as off-season abodes for those who living in Big Cypress of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale region (West 1998:92-93). According to West (1998:85), Tamiami Trail villages were typically surrounded by an 8-foot fence made of palmetto fronds with a modest selection of crafts and clothing for sale; visi- tors entered through a chickee where an attendant collected the entrance fee. In 1930 Roy Nash made a map showing the locations of Seminole Camps located throughout Florida (Figure 7). Roy Nash was an Indian agent who visited with the Seminoles in the 1930s to try and learn more about them in order to advise the government on how to help them as- similate in to the white man’s way of life. Of the camps he recorded in south Florida, sever- al of the Seminoles from those camps were regular traders at Smallwood’s Store: Josie Bil- lie, Ingraham Billie, Doctor Tiger, Charlie Cypress, Charlie Tommie, and Charlie Jumper, all 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 31 had camps that can be found on Nash’s 1930 map. There are some traditionalists that still, to this day, live along the Tamiami Trail and surrounding areas in chickees and practice tra- ditional Seminole ways. National Parks While development and settlers certainly affected the landscape of the Everglades and Big Cypress swamp, the creation of the Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve further shaped how people used and occupied this region. Everglades National Park In 1947, the National Park Service set aside 1.5 million acres of land and created the Ever- glades National Park in order to help protect the largest sub-tropical wilderness in the Unit- ed States (National Geographic 2009). Overdevelopment and draining had caused serious harm to the flora and fauna of the Everglades and altered the flow of water causing irre- versible damage. An agreement between the Miccosukee Tribe and the Federal Govern- ment allowed the Miccosukee to settle in the areas along the Tamiami Trail, and also allows both the Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes to continue to utilize the Everglades for their traditional cultural purposes. The creation of the park also helped to protect the remaining Everglades ecosystems and environment and to preserve what remains of the native land- scape that the Seminole and Miccosukee Indians call home. Big Cypress National Preserve The Big Cypress National Preserve is a 720,000-acre preserve located in southwest Florida, on the northwestern corner of the Everglades. The Big Cypress National Preserve was es- tablished in 1974, along with Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas, as the first national preserves in the National Park System (National Park Service 2018). The preserve was created to prevent development and urban sprawl from destroying the many ecosystems that make up the Big Cypress swamp. Originally, the Big Cypress swamp was supposed to part of Everglades National Park, but those that utilized the swamp for recreation or cultural practices, like the Seminole and Miccosukee Indians, didn’t want Big Cypress to fall under the auspices of the National Park Service. With the creation of a na- tional preserve, those who wanted were allowed to continue accessing Big Cypress for spe- cific activities legislated by Congress for things like hunting, camping, hiking, and using rec- reational vehicles. More importantly, this allowed the Seminole and Miccosukee Indians to continue using the land for recreational and traditional cultural purposes (National Park Service 2018). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 32 Figure 7. 1930 Map of Seminole Camp Locations made by Indian Agent Roy Nash. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 33 4.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION ______________________________________ 4.1 Archival Research Results The TAS reviewed the THPO GIS geodatabases which indicated that six cultural resource surveys have been previously completed within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the APE (Table 1). None of these surveys overlap the Glover Property APE. SHPO Survey Number Report Title Publication Date Author #Old\New Identified Sites\ Structures Sponsoring Survey 1108 Historical/Architectural Survey of Collier County, Florida 1986 Florida Preser- vation Services 120 Newly Identified Sites Collier County 427 The Big Cypress National Preserve Archaeological Survey, Phase I, II and III, Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida 1978 Robert Carr, John Ehrenhard, Rob- ert Taylor N\A National Park Service 1278 The Big Cypress National Preserve Archaeological Survey, Season 3, Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida 1980 John Ehrenhard, Robert Taylor 63 Previously Recorded Sites, 4 Newly Identified Sites National Park Service 734 The Big Cypress National Preserve Archaeological Survey, Season 4, Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida 1980 John Ehrenhard, Robert Taylor, Gregory Komara N\A National Park Service 10451 A Phase One Assessment of the Proposed House Site, Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier County, Florida 2003 John Beriault 1 Newly Identified Site Seminole Tribe of Florida 18271 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey U.S. 41 Bridge Guardail Retrofit and Shoulder Improvements, Collier, Florida; Financial Project ID NO: 417248-4 -52-01 2011 Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 8 Previously Recorded Sites, 46 Newly Identified Sites FDOT District 1 Table 1. Previous Surveys within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the Glover Property APE. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 34 A review of the Florida Master Site File and Seminole Site File indicates that six sites and two resource features have been discovered within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the APE (Table 2). One of the resource features, CR00928, Tamiami Canal, overlaps the current APE (Figure 9). The other resource feature, CR00927, US-41, is within 30 meters (98 feet) of the current APE. This review included National Register Listed Properties, Pending National Register Nominations and National Historic Landmarks. Florida Master Site File # Site Name Site Type Cultural Period Site Evaluation 08CR00161 Paolitta Station Seminole 1716-present Not evaluated by SHPO 08CR00162 Seminole Camp Seminole Camp 1716-present Not evaluated by SHPO 08CR00256 NN (BICY 115) Prehistoric Midden Glades I-II Eligible 08CR00292 NN (BICY 203) Prehistoric Camp Site Glades Eligible 08CR00377 NN (BICY 256)/ Hunter’s Hammock Seminole Camp 1716-present Eligible 08CR001148 US41 Lights on Canal Bridge Historic 1949 Ineligible 08CR00927 US-41 Historic 1928-present Eligible 08CR00928 Tamiami Canal Historic 1928-present Eligible Table 2. Previously Recorded Sites and Resource Features within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the Glover Property APE. 4.1.1 Probability Zones Assessment Based on the background information, the TAS labeled the APE as containing both moder- ate and low probability zones. The moderate probability zone was located in the northern portion of the APE due to the presence of a cypress dome in that area and since oral histo- ries suggest that the edges of these regions were used for cleaning animals after hunting. The low probability zone was situated in the southern portion of the APE due to previous development in that region. While the southern portion of the APE does contain 8CR00928, the Tamiami Canal, this is a linear, built up resource in which further shovel testing would not aid in it’s assessment. Rather, the TAS completed archival research to as- sess this resource feature. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 35 4.2 Architectural Analysis Results Archival and documentary architectural investigations were conducted on April 30, 2013 by Carrie Dilley (Architectural Historian, THPO). The document analysis focused on those structures fifty years old or older. Historic physical integrity was determined from back- ground research including examination of photographic documentation and previously completed field analyses. The architectural historian determined that no historic structures or buildings are present within the APE and therefore no historic structures will be impact- ed by the undertaking. 4.3 Archaeological Survey Results The fieldwork portion of the Glover Property investigations included pedestrian walkover and subsurface shovel testing components. 4.3.1 Pedestrian Survey Results The pedestrian survey revealed that the APE is located in an area of total disturbance due to the previous construction of multiple buildings, a driveway, utilities, and construction fill. Vegetation within the APE consists of melaleuca and grasses. No cultural resources were discovered during the pedestrian survey. 4.3.2 Shovel Test Results The TAS excavated 2 shovel tests as part of the 2013-050 project (Figure 8). Of these shov- el tests, both were negative for cultural material. The shovel testing revealed the presence of one stratigraphic layer within the APE (Table 3). The layers of stratigraphy consisted of brown and very dark brown sands and fill. The shovel tests ranged in depth from 20 centimeters (8 inches) below the ground surface (cmbs) to 29 cmbs (11 inches). These shovel tests were terminated prior to reaching 100 cmbs (39 inches) due to encountering water. Disturbance within the APE was total due to the previous construction of buildings. Both shovel tests were offset due to standing water. No shovel tests could be excavated in the northwestern portion of the APE due to standing water. No shovel tests could be excavated in the southern portion of the APE due to devel- opment and dense construction fill. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 36 Shovel Test Number Stratum Designation, Munsell Number and Color Depth (cmbs) Reason for Termination Shovel Test Results 1 I: 10YR2/2 Very Dark Brown Sand and Fill 0-20 Water Negative 2 I: 10YR5/3 Brown Sand 0-29 Water Negative Table 3. Shovel Test Descriptions for the Glover Property APE. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 37 Figure 8. Shovel Test Locations within the Glover Property APE. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 38 Figure 9. Location of Resource Groups Overlapping and within 30 Meters of the Glover Property APE. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 39 4.3.3 Resource Feature Results 08CR00927 Resource Feature Number: 08CR00927 Resource Feature Name: Tamiami Trail Components: Historic Road Cultural-Temporal Affiliation: American 20th Century Resource Feature Type: Historic Road Quadrangle: Royal Palm Hammock, Ochopee, Burns Lake, Gator Hook Swamp, Monroe Station, Fifty Mile Bend, FL (1983), 7.5’, USGS TOPO UTM Coordinates (Z17, NAD83): At central portion of resource feature - N 2862286 E 476144 Resource Feature Size and Shape: The resource feature is linear in shape and measures 101,970 meters (334,547 feet) long by 7 meters (24 feet) wide. The total area of the resource feature is 71 hectares (176 acres). Soils: Basinger, Boca, Ft. Drum, Malabar, Hallandale, Holopaw, Hilolo, Jupiter, Immokalee, Riviera, Oldsmar, Pineda, Udorthents, and Urban Land Fine Sands; Durbin and Wulfert Muck; Estero and Peckish Soils; and Kesson Muck Vegetation: Vegetation within the resource feature boundary consists of plants commonly found in the Everglades environment, which may include palm, palmetto, oak, pine, mela- leuca, wild coffee, Brazilian pepper, smilax, ivy, muscadine grape, beauty berry, grasses, Caesar’s weed, and ferns. Surface Visibility: 0% due to the presence of asphalt Previous Disturbance: Disturbance within the resource feature boundary is total in places where the road has been widened and intersections and guardrails have been added. Previous Investigations In 2008, the SHPO determined that the portion of the Tamiami Trail which starts from the north boundary of Collier-Seminole State Park running eastward to CR-92 was potentially eligible for the NRHP (Figure 10). The SHPO also noted that the eligibility status possibly continued east of CR-92. Investigations by Janus Research Inc. in 2005 and 2006, as well as by Archaeological Consulting, Inc. (ACI) in 2011 and 2014 determined this portion of the Trail was eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A in the area of Community, Planning, and Development for the critical role the Trail played in the development of Florida by linking two of its major cities (Tampa and Miami), as well as for historic associations with Barron Collier and James Jaudon (Hooks 2011). Further, the Tamiami Trail is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C in the area of Engineering for its pioneering efforts in the dredge- and-fill practices to traverse the Everglades, as well as South Florida waterway management (Hooks 2011). Based on the FMSF documents, no shovel tests have been excavated in the resource fea- ture boundary. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 40 Resource Feature History ACI identified the period of significance for the Tamiami Trail as being 1913-1928 which covers the time from the initial surveys for the Tamiami Trail through its completion (Hooks 2011). In 1913, a Miami developer named James F. Jaudon (Photograph 1) came up with the idea of constructing a roadway that would cut through the Everglades and run from Miami to Fort Myers (Hooks 2011). A Tampa businessman, E.P. Dickey, suggested this route be extended to Tampa and this inspired the name “Tamiami” for this route (Hooks 2011). Surveying for the Tamiami Trail began in 1915 and was led by Seminole guides (Johnston n.d.:87-90). The total cost of this undertaking would end up costing $13 million (Hooks 2011). In 1917, twenty thousand acres of land in the Everglades was purchased by Jaudon and two other businessmen, L.T. Highleyman and R.R. McDonald, from the Internal Improvement Board (Hooks 2011). Funding was provided by J.B. McCrary Co. of Atlanta, Georgia, and the bid to begin the work of building the first paved road through the Everglades was awarded to the Morgan Paving Co. (Hooks 2011). The work encountered some difficulties in 1918, when the Morgan Paving Co. had to halt work due to fluctuations in water level as well as financial difficulties caused by World War I (Hooks 2011). However, Jaudon was not deterred and continued surveying and in 1923, he organized a motorcade, known as the “Trail Blazers,” to support his claim of the viability of the Tami- ami Trail (Photographs 2-3) (Gaby 1993:63). The expedition was problematic but ultimately successful and it managed to generate enough publicity to get the Tamiami Trail completed, even though the completion was under new leadership, with new funding, and across new lands that were acquired by the state’s largest landowner, millionaire tycoon Barron Gift Collier (Photograph 4) (Hooks 2011). Construction resumed under Collier, who owned over a million acres in Lee County (Hooks 2011). In 1923, Collier guaranteed the Tamiami Trail would be completed as long as that the road would be re-routed through a new coun- ty that would be established and named after him (Burnett 1988:41-44). Jaudon was not happy about the re-routing because it superseded his original Chevalier Bay tract (Hooks 2011). Collier hired D. Graham Copeland as the chief engineer of his firm, Alexander, Ramsey, & Kerr, Inc. in order to complete the Tamiami Trail (Hooks 2011). It took five years and forty thousand pounds of dynamite to remove the limestone rock which was used to support the adjacent roadway (Hooks 2011). Once the Tamiami Trail was completed on April 26, 1928, it became the only reliable east- west transportation route across South Florida (Photographs 5-8) (Taylor 2006). The Tami- ami Trail made transportation across state, as well as the transportation of goods, easier; it also encouraged settlement in the region and provided scenic views of the Everglades for travelers and tourists (Taylor 2006). Over time, changes were made to the original Tamiami Trail. For example, according to the USACE and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), in 1946, the state of Florida 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 41 funded the construction of several bridges so that water could pass beneath the Tamiami Trail. In 1951, these bridges were removed and culverts were placed under the road to al- low water to flow underneath the Tamiami Trail. Hooks (2011) added that 41 bridges had construction dates originating from 1941 to the mid-1950’s with reconstruction dates show- ing a bridge maintenance pattern in 1949, 1956, and 1965. Reconstruction of the bridges included modifications of the original form, features, and details; the bridges were main- tained in situ and some of the bridges original components remained intact (Hooks 2011). Furthermore, the 41 bridges and one culvert are considered non-contributing resources as they replaced the wooden bridge from 1928, and, therefore do not date to the period of sig- nificance for the Tamiami Trail (Hooks 2011). The Tamiami Trail passes through Old Florida towns such as Ochopee and Carnestown. The roadsides feature views of the Everglades, as well as a few commercial establishments which support ecotourism. The Tamiami Trail also passes through areas with Native Amer- ican villages and natural preserves (Hooks 2011) (Photographs 9-10). The Tamiami Trail initially had a negative effect on the Seminoles because it cut across their canoe trails and impeded their traditional manner of travel (West 1998:84). However, the completion of the Tamiami Trail and Tamiami Canal led to an increase in tourism in south Florida, as well as a subsequent increase in the number of Seminole men who became owners of tourist camps and trading posts, such as Mike Osceola’s Indian Village Gator Jungle (Ah-Tah-Thi- Ki Museum website). Other Seminoles with tourist camps along the Tamiami Trail included William McKinley Osceola, Josie Billie, Chestnut Billie, Corey Osceola, Johnny Osceola, Ingram Billie, and Robert Billie (West 1998:84) (Photographs 11-16). Use of these camps was a good way for the Seminoles to trade with coastal towns and the villages replaced the white-owned exhibition villages (Sturtevant and Cattelino 2004:438). The tourist camps were also important because they marked an “increased economic independence for these Native Americans separate from the white-operated attractions in the city” (West 1998:85). Seminoles charged admission and sold patchwork clothing, dolls, sweetgrass baskets, and wood carvings (Sturtevant and Cattelino 2004:438). One of the earliest Indian owned and operated tourist attractions established on the Tamiami Trail was run by Effie and Ingra- ham Billie; Billie was a traditional councilman, doctor, and medicine bundle carrier (West 1998:82). The Tamiami Canal was also convenient for travel in dugout canoes. The Tamiami Trail also led to many Seminoles being hired as hunting guides or to being contracted to procure games for clients, because the Seminoles did not have to acquire a license to hunt and could hunt year round (West 1998:88). Those Seminoles living along the Tamiami Trail could also supplement their income through seasonal crop picking (West 1998:92). Additionally, the Tamiami Trail helped to integrate groups that were previously separated by geography and many villages along the Tamiami Trail were used as off-season abodes for those who living in Big Cypress of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale region (West 1998:92-93). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 42 According to West (1998:85), Tamiami Trail villages were typically surrounded by an 8 foot fence made of palmetto fronds with a modest selection of crafts and clothing for sale; visi- tors entered through a chickee where an attendant collected the entrance fee. According to Taylor (2006): There is a noticeable change in the character, setting, and feeling of the road at the northern boundary of the Collier-Seminole State Park, which also marks the begin- ning of the Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway and National Scenic Byway. The 50-mile Scenic Highway and Byway travels east through the Picayune Strand State Forest, the Fakahatchee Stand State Preserve, and the Big Cypress Natural Preserve. In this section, the roadway and canal travel through natural areas with scenic vistas that continue to convey a sense of the past. Within this portion of the Tamiami Trail, modem development disappears, the road narrows, and a canopy of vegetation en- gulfs the road. Outside of this area, the Tamiami Trail and Tamiami Canal “no longer convey the appear- ance, setting, or feeling of a rural road through unspoiled wilderness...modern housing de- velopments increasingly encroach into the setting, and in places, the Canal is no longer readily visible” (Taylor 2006). Resource Feature Components Historically, the Tamiami Trail was composed of shellrock and/or limestone and had no barriers flanking the road (Taylor 2006). The subtropical environment around the Tamiami Trail has been replaced in many areas by development. Today, the Tamiami Trail is approx- imately 443 kilometers (275 miles) in length and 7 meters (24 feet) wide and consists of two 4 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (2 feet) shoulders. The Tamiami Trail was initially only 6 meters (20 feet) wide, but has expanded due to the addition of shoulders and guardrails in 1968. The Tamiami Trail is now paved with asphalt and flanked with metal guardrails on both sides of the road that also separate it from the Tamiami Canal (Taylor 2006). Intersec- tions and turn lanes have been added, along with traffic lights (Taylor 2006). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 43 TAS Recommendation The TAS recommends that resource feature 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail, is eligible for list- ing on the TRHP under criterion i, a property Seminole people consider important to histo- ry due to its role in shaping Seminole involvement in the tourist industry. ACI’s work, along with the SHPO, recommended that a portion of resource feature 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail, is eligible for listing on the NRHP under criterion A, Community, Planning, and De- velopment, for the critical role it played in the development of Florida by linking two of its major cities, Tampa and Miami, as well as for its historical associations with Barron Collier and James Jaudon. Resource feature 08CR00927 is also eligible under criterion C in the area of engineering for its pioneering effort in dredge-and-fill practices in order to traverse the Everglades. This technique became an adopted and responsible technique that was vital to Everglades and South Florida waterway management. The portion of 08CR00927 which is eligible for listing on the NRHP stretches from the north boundary of the Collier-Seminole State Park eastward to CR-92. The TAS agrees with the above stated previous recommen- dations of ACI and the SHPO. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 44 Figure 10. Map of Resource Feature 08CR00927. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 45 Photograph 1. Captain James F. Jaudon. Florida Memory Site. Photograph 2. Blazing a Trail through Swamps and Everglades. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 46 Photograph 4. Barron G. Collier. Florida Memory Site. Photograph 3. Tamiami Trail Blazers holding sign, Tamiami Trail, Florida. 1923. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 47 Photograph 6. Town of Everglades celebrates the opening of the Tamiami Trail, 1928. Florida Memory Site. Photograph 5. Seminole Indians on the courthouse steps in Everglades City during open-ing of the Tamiami Trail, ca 1928. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 48 Photograph 7. View down the road along canal, Tamiami Trail, Florida, 1927. Florida Memory Site. Photograph 8. Two cars running on the road by canal, Tamiami Trail, Florida, 1927. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 49 Photograph 9. Along Tamiami Trail in the Florida Everglades, 1945. Florida Memory Site. Photograph 10. Seminole on the Tamiami Trail, Florida,192-. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 50 Photograoh 11. Osceola's Gift Shop and Indian Village along the Tamiami Trail, 195-. Florida Memory Site. Photograph 12. Seminole Indian John Osceola and his daughter doing the family wash on the Tamiami Trail, 1956. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 51 Photograph 13. Two Seminole women at Chestnut Billy's camp on the Tamiami Trail, 191-. Florida Memory Site. Photograph 14. Chestnut Billy's Mikasuki Indian Camp on the Tamiami Trail. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 52 Photograph 16. Seminole Indian village along the Tamiami Trail in Florida, 1954. Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum Collection. Photograph 15. Aerial view of the Tamiami Trail at Miami - Dade County, Florida, 1947. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 53 08CR00928 Resource Feature Number: 08CR00928 Resource Feature Name: Tamiami Canal Components: Historic Canal Cultural-Temporal Affiliation: American 20th Century Resource Feature Type: Canal Quadrangle: Royal Palm Hammock, Ochopee, Burns Lake, Gator Hook Swamp, Monroe Station, Fifty Mile Bend, FL (1983), 7.5’, USGS TOPO UTM Coordinates (Z17, NAD83): At central portion of resource feature - N 2862286 E 476144 Resource Feature Size and Shape: The resource feature is linear in shape and measures 101,970 meters (334,547 feet) long by 18 meters (59 feet) wide. The total area of the re- source feature is 184 hectares (454 acres). Soils: Basinger, Boca, Ft. Drum, Malabar, Hallandale, Holopaw, Hilolo, Jupiter, Immokalee, Riviera, Oldsmar, Pineda, Udorthents, and Urban Land Fine Sands; Durbin and Wulfert Muck; Estero and Peckish Soils; and Kesson Muck Vegetation: Vegetation within the resource feature boundary consists of plants commonly found in the Everglades environment, which may include palm, palmetto, oak, pine, mela- leuca, wild coffee, Brazilian pepper, smilax, ivy, muscadine grape, beauty berry, grasses, Caesar’s weed, and ferns. Surface Visibility: 0% due to the presences of water. Previous Disturbance: Disturbance within the resource feature boundary is moderate in places where dredging has occurred. Previous Investigations In 2008, the SHPO determined that the portion of the Tamiami Canal which starts from the north boundary of Collier-Seminole State Park and runs eastward to CR-92 was potentially eligible for the NRHP (Figure 11). The SHPO also noted that the eligibility status possibly continued east of CR-92. Investigations by Janus Research Inc. in 2005 and 2006, as well as by Archaeological Consulting, Inc. (ACI) in 2011 and 2014, determined this portion of the Tamiami Canal was eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A in the area of Community, Planning, and Development for the critical role the Trail played in the development of Flor- ida by linking two of its major cities (Tampa and Miami), as well as for historic associations with Barron Collier and James Jaudon (Hooks 2011). Further, the Tamiami Canal is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C in the area of Engineering for its pioneering efforts in the dredge-and-fill practices to traverse the Everglades, as well as South Florida waterway man- agement (Hooks 2011). Based on FMSF documents, no shovel tests have been excavated in the resource feature boundary. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 54 Resource Feature History ACI identified the period of significance for the Tamiami Canal as being 1913-1928 which covers the time from the initial surveys for the Tamiami Canal through its completion (Hooks 2011). The construction of the Tamiami Canal is inextricably linked to the con- struction of the Tamiami Trail. Materials dredged from the canal were used to form the roadbed of the Tamiami Trail. In 1913, a Miami developer named James F. Jaudon came up with the idea of constructing a roadway that would cut through the Everglades and run from Miami to Fort Myers (Hooks 2011). A Tampa businessman, E.P. Dickey, suggested this route be extended to Tampa and this inspired the name “Tamiami” for this route (Hooks 2011). Surveying for the Tamiami Trail began in 1915 and was led by Seminole guides (Johnston n.d.:87-90). The total cost of this undertaking would end up costing $13 million (Hooks 2011). In 1917, twenty thousand acres of land in the Everglades was purchased by Jaudon and two other businessmen, L.T. Highleyman and R.R. McDonald, from the Internal Improvement Board (Hooks 2011). Funding was provided by J.B. McCrary Co. of Atlanta, Georgia, and the bid to begin the work of building the first paved road through the Everglades was awarded to the Morgan Paving Co. (Hooks 2011). The work encountered some difficulties in 1918, when the Morgan Paving Co. had to halt work due to the environment as well as financial difficulties caused by World War I (Hooks 2011). However, Jaudon was not deterred and continued surveying and, in 1923, he organized a motorcade, known as the “Trail Blazers,” to support his claim of the viability of the Tami- ami Trail (Gaby 1993:63). The expedition was problematic, but ultimately successful and it managed to generate enough publicity to get the Trail completed, even though the comple- tion was under new leadership, with new funding, and across new lands that were acquired by the state’s largest landowner, millionaire tycoon Barron Gift Collier (Hooks 2011). Con- struction resumed under Collier, who owned over a million acres in Lee County (Hooks 2011). In 1923, Collier guaranteed the Tamiami Trail would be completed as long as the road was re-routed through a new county that would be established and named after him (Burnett 1988:41-44). Jaudon was not happy about the re-routing because it superseded his original Chevalier Bay tract (Hooks 2011). Collier hired engineer D. Graham Copeland as the chief engineer of his firm, Alexander, Ramsey, & Kerr, Inc. in order to complete the Tamiami Trail (Hooks 2011). It took five years and forty thousand pounds of dynamite to remove the limestone rock which was used to support the adjacent roadway (Hooks 2011). Hooks noted that “when the Trail opened on April 26, 1928, it marked the unofficial end to the pioneer period in Collier County and indeed South Florida, as the real estate boom failure precipitated a recession followed by the Great Depression” (2011). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 55 Once the Tamiami Trail was completed, it became the major east-west transportation route across South Florida (Photographs 17-19) (Taylor 2006). The Tamiami Trail made trans- portation across state, as well as the transportation of goods, easier; it also encouraged set- tlement in the region and provided scenic views of the Everglades for travelers and tourists (Taylor 2006). Over time, changes were made to the original Tamiami Trail. For example, according to the USACE and FDOT, in 1946, the state of Florida funded the construction of several bridges so that water could pass beneath the Tamiami Trail. In 1951, these bridges were removed and culverts were placed under the road to allow water to flow underneath the Tamiami Trail. Hooks (2011) added that 41 bridges had construction dates originating from 1941 to the mid-1950’s with reconstruction dates showing a bridge maintenance pattern in 1949, 1956, and 1965. Reconstruction of the bridges included modifications of the original form, features, and details; the bridges were maintained in situ and some of the bridges original components remained intact (Hooks 2011). Furthermore, the 41 bridges and one culvert are considered non-contributing resources as they replaced the wooden bridge from 1928, and, therefore do not date to the period of significance for the Tamiami Trail (Hooks 2011). The Tamiami Trail passes through Old Florida towns such as Ochopee and Carnestown. The roadsides feature views of the Everglades, as well as a few commercial establishments which support ecotourism. The Tamiami Trail also passes through areas with Native Amer- ican villages and natural preserves (Hooks 2011). The Tamiami Trail initially had a negative effect on the Seminoles because it cut across their canoe trails and impeded their traditional manner of travel (West 1998:84). However, the completion of the Tamiami Trail and Tami- ami Canal led to an increase in tourism in south Florida, as well as a subsequent increase in the number of Seminole men who became owners of tourist camps and trading posts, such as Mike Osceola’s Indian Village Gator Jungle (Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum website). Other Seminoles with tourist camps along the Tamiami Trail included William McKinley Osceola, Josie Billie, Chestnut Billie, Corey Osceola, Johnny Osceola, Ingram Billie, and Robert Billie (West 1998:84). Use of these camps was a good way for the Seminoles to trade with coastal towns and the villages replaced the white-owned exhibition villages (Sturtevant and Catteli- no 2004:438). The tourist camps were also important because they marked an “increased economic independence for these Native Americans separate from the white-operated at- tractions in the city” (West 1998:85). Seminoles charged admission and sold patchwork clothing, dolls, sweetgrass baskets, and wood carvings (Sturtevant and Cattelino 2004:438). One of the earliest Indian owned and operated tourist attractions established on the Tami- ami Trail was run by Effie and Ingraham Billie; Billie was a traditional councilman, doctor, and medicine bundle carrier (West 1998:82). The Tamiami Canal was also convenient for travel in dugout canoes. The Tamiami Trail also led to many Seminoles being hired as hunting guides or to being contracted to procure games for clients, because the Seminoles did not have to acquire a license to hunt and could hunt year round (West 1998:88). Those Seminoles living along the 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 56 Tamiami Trail could also supplement their income through seasonal crop picking (West 1998:92). Additionally, the Tamiami Trail helped to integrate groups that were previously separated by geography, and many villages along the Tamiami Trail were used as off-season abodes for those who living in Big Cypress or the Miami-Fort Lauderdale region (West 1998:92-93). According to West (1998:85), Tamiami Trail villages were typically surrounded by an 8 foot fence made of palmetto fronds with a modest selection of crafts and clothing for sale; visi- tors entered through a chickee where an attendant collected the entrance fee. According to Taylor (2006): There is a noticeable change in the character, setting, and feeling of the road at the northern boundary of the Collier-Seminole State Park, which also marks the begin- ning of the Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway and National Scenic Byway. The 50-mile Scenic Highway and Byway travels east through the Picayune Strand State Forest, the Fakahatchee Stand State Preserve, and the Big Cypress Natural Preserve. In this section, the roadway and canal travel through natural areas with scenic vistas that continue to convey a sense of the past. Within this portion of the Tamiami Trail, modem development disappears, the road narrows, and a canopy of vegetation en- gulfs the road. Outside of this area, the Tamiami Trail and Tamiami Canal “no longer convey the appear- ance, setting, or feeling of a rural road through unspoiled wilderness...modern housing de- velopments increasingly encroach into the setting, and in places, the Canal is no longer readily visible” (Taylor 2006). Resource Feature Components The Tamiami Canal itself is approximately 161 kilometers (100 miles) long (Hooks 2011). Historically, the Tamiami canal was directly adjacent to the Tamiami Trail and there was no separation guardrail or berm (Hooks 2011). The original crossings over the waterways were wooden trestle bridges. These were all replaced with modern structures which are mostly concrete slab bridges (Hooks 2011). Furthermore, the Tamiami Canal has been dredged multiple times over the years, causing a gradual widening, as well as the berms to the north and south the Tamiami Trail (Hooks 2011). The berm to the north was created from the dredge spoil in the early to mid-1960’s (Kenneally 2005). Today, the Tamiami Canal is 6 meters (20 feet) wide, although in places it widens with changes in vegetation along the cor- ridor (Hooks 2011). Metal guardrails have also been added along the length of the south side of the Tamiami Canal (Hooks 2011). The Tamiami Canal currently provides a naviga- ble waterway for ecotourism activities in the area (Hooks 2011). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 57 TAS Recommendation The TAS recommends that resource feature 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal, is eligible for list- ing on the TRHP under criterion i, a property Seminole people consider important to histo- ry because of the increase in tourism money brought in by the Tamiami Canal. This in- crease in money helped lead Tribal members to economic independence from the U.S. gov- ernment. ACI’s work, along with the SHPO, recommended that a portion of resource fea- ture 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal, is eligible for listing on the NRHP under criterion A, Community, Planning, and Development, for the critical role it played in the development of Florida by linking two of its major cities, Tampa and Miami, as well as for its historical associations with Barron Collier and James Jaudon. Resource feature 08CR00928 is also eli- gible under criterion C in the area of engineering for its pioneering effort in dredge-and-fill practices in order to traverse the Everglades. This technique became an adopted and re- sponsible technique that was vital to Everglades and South Florida waterway management. The portion of 08CR00927 which is eligible for listing on the NRHP stretches from the north boundary of the Collier-Seminole State Park eastward to CR-92. The TAS agrees with the above stated previous recommendations of ACI and the SHPO. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 58 Figure 11. Map of Resource Feature 08CR00928. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 59 Photograph 17. A dredge at work in the Tamiami Canal, Miami Region, Florida, 1921. Florida Memory Site. Photograph 18. Palms along the Tamiami Canal. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 60 Photograph 19. Barges on the Tamiami Canal, Tamiami Trail, Florida, 1920 or 1921. Florida Memory Site. Photograph 20. Seminoles in canal bordering the Tamiami Trail, Everglades, Florida, 192-. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 61 Photograph 21. Seminole woman Nellie Tommie and her son in a wooden canoe, 1956. Florida Memory Site. Photograph 22. Seminole Indians in the heart of the Florida Everglades, 1938. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 62 Photograph 23. Seminole Indian village along Tamiami Trail in Florida, Tamiami Trail, Florida. Florida Memory Site. Photograph 24. Indian village on the Tamiami Trail,195-. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 63 Photograph 25. Landscape view taken from the Tamiami Trail, Everglades, Florida, 1952. Florida Memory Site. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 64 4.4 Field Photographs The following photographs depict current conditions within the APE. Photograph 26. General view of the APE facing north from Shovel Test 1. Photograph 27. General View of the APE facing east from Shovel Test 1. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 65 Photograph 28. General view of the APE facing south from Shovel Test 1. Photograph 29. General view of the APE facing west from Shovel Test 1. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 66 4.5 Conclusion and Recommendations The Glover Property project (THPO Project Number 2013-050) involves the construction of a governmental building, which includes utilities, water, sewer, cable, and internet (see Appendix 1 for site plan). According to Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Director), no construction will occur around the canal and no new plants will be added; existing plants will remain in that area. The project is receiving funding from the Seminole Tribe of Florida, though it requires a compliance review pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA by United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, investigations and a compliance review are also required pursuant to the STOF CRO (C-01-16). The Glover Property area of potential effect (APE) is rectangular in shape and measures at its greatest extent approximately 135 meters (432 feet) north to south by 61 meters (198 feet) east to west. The total area of the APE is 0.72 hectares (1.8 acres). The 2013-050 APE is located on the Tamiami Trail, Collier County, Florida, within Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 34 East. The APE is bound to the north by a vacant lot, to the east by parking lots, to the south by buildings, and to the west by the Tamiami Trail. In order to investigate the Glover Property APE, the TAS completed both background archival research and a cultural resources field survey. The background archival research was undertaken so as to identify potentially significant resources or previously conducted surveys in proximity to the project’s APE. This research was used to assist in the determination of an appropriate field investigation methodology. Background research identified six sites and two resource features that are located within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the APE. One resource feature, 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal, overlaps the current APE. The other resource feature, 08CR00927, US-41, is within 30 meters (98 feet) of the current APE. Both resource features are eligible for the Tribal Register of Historic Places (TRHP) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A review of the THPO Database also shows that there are six previously completed surveys within 1,000 meters (3,28 feet1) of the APE. None of these surveys overlap the current APE. Field investigations, which included a pedestrian survey and shovel testing, recorded no new sites. However, since 08CR00928 (Tamiami Canal) and 08CR00927 (Tamiami Trail) are within the APE or within 30 meters (98 feet) of the APE, it was necessary to assess these resource features for impacts by the current undertaking. Based on this assessment, the TAS agrees with previous recommendations that both resource features are eligible for the NRHP. Additionally, the TAS recommends that both resource features are eligible for the TRHP. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 67 STOF Cultural Resource Ordinance Recommendation Based on the investigations for the Glover Property project, the TAS recommends that re- source feature 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail, and resource feature 08CR00928, Tamiami Ca- nal, are eligible for listing on the TRHP, under criterion i, a property that the Seminole peo- ple consider important to history. Based on the proposed site plan and conversations with Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Director), neither 08CR00927 nor 08CR00928 will be impacted by the undertaking, because no construction is occurring around the canal or road. Therefore, the TAS recommends a finding of cultural resources not adversely affected. National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Recommendation Based on the investigation of the Glover Property project, the TAS recommends, in con- currence with previous findings by the SHPO, Janus Research, Inc., and Archaeological Consulting, Inc., that resource feature 08CR00927, Tamiami Trail, and resource feature, 08CR00928, Tamiami Canal are eligible for listing on the NRHP, under criteria A, Commu- nity, Planning, and Development, and C, Engineering. Based on the proposed site plan and conversations with Harvey Rambarath (STOF Planning and Development Assistant Direc- tor), neither 08CR00927 nor 08CR00928 will be impacted by the undertaking, because no construction is occurring around the canal or road. Therefore, the TAS recommends a find- ing of historic properties not adversely affected, per Section 106 of the NHPA. The TAS finds no other issues of concern regarding cultural resources and recommends that the undertaking, as originally proposed in THPO Project Request Number 2013-050 be permitted to proceed. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 68 Should future activities in this APE uncover any archaeological remains, activity in the im- mediate area must be stopped until a professional archaeologist from the TAS can evaluate the discovery. In the event that human remains are found during construction or mainte- nance activities, the STOF maintains compliance with provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). If human remains, funerary objects, or sacred objects are discovered inadvertently, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), Tribal Bioarchaeologist, and the Seminole Police Department must be notified immediately by telephone and all further activity ceased. Additionally, a reasonable effort must be made to leave the discovery in place. 4.6 Unanticipated Discoveries 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 69 SURVEY LOG ______________________________________ SURVEY LOG Page 1 Ck«r'«nt V«um Survey Log SheetEnt0IFMSFonly)Survey #ff MSF only) Florida Mester Site File Version b.O 3/19 Consult Gtttde to the Surrey Log Sheet lor detailed instruct ions. Manuscript InloriiMlinn Surrey Project (name and project phase) [clover Property Report Thte (aracdy »w wl»papa) A Phage t Oaltural Resource Survey and Assessment of the Clover Property Project,Collier County , Florida* Report Authors las on Me pagel 1 ,si-.aeti Kwte 2,Brandy Norton Publication Year 2019 HI unter of Pages in Report Ida not mcludB ate forms) Pliilicalintl Inhwnatian IGiuo sena;numbu «I SBnes,puMstior and oty.Far article or duple cite Wi>'enters,Use itn style ol Amerigo AittKihly.I Tribal Historic Preservation Office,Report 2013 3.Hauraen Hah-i--1 4, 81 Clewlaton,FL Supervisors ol Fieldwork (even it same as author)names hui-.-m Alliliation ol Fieldrvorlicrs OrgmuatiMi irtu-i-r 1:013 Key Words/Phrases (Deal use county nami,»r common eoids In •ttclmolr^y,simcten.utter,itcletectsie.alt.) 5.Tamlaml Canal I . 1.3,-'•_.;.yei Pi 1 ry 1,1 imj -.ml Trill M TY;te of Ploiliti 2.THP3 Survey Sponsois Icorpoiotion fownmnl unit organiratitn.or tor son funong fieldwoit I IflrnB i 1-;IllLe .,f Ft .r 1 -hi 4ddr»S3,P»Bto,F<n»l Recorder ol Log Sheet j t and]Hog j t g Is this survey or project a continuation of a previous project? 6.6. .•i*lucniot ViftiM Organization ?"foei*>1 1 1 a Hi-jfi**1!'lwf !<i PL )>«••> Dale Log Sheet Corrpleled H No DYes:Previous survey ft iFMSf oafj) Projecl A run Mapping Counties Istfoct ovary county n ninth fnltl suney »*s dona:attach additanil shoot if nottssaty) t.II:-'3.5. I 4.0. USDS 1 :24,000 Map Names,'Year of Latest Revision [attach additional sheet if necessary! Vim ism1.Nano FimmtLE BEKD A.fanu Ywi_ 5.IVfetnn2.Witriii You Tint 3.Nifim 6.tallBfan fine fndd Da Ins and Project Area Oascnplbn Fieldwork Dates'Start a :n End _>f : Number of Ovstinct Tracts or Areas Surveyed If Corridor (HI in oea for eechl Width: Total Area Surveyed liiiinmn)1 - hectares acres l Lengthfeet kilometers trilesmeters l«t«0()fllU3l»,H«lnn 010*18 ii j.mvHiini.r »c lie*Bale »*•I *f On.«l Hmoiai fe»unm !«.»M,„,B<|I MB S I Si .liMnw.II.-.P 1V3UV anil »•on vis ie«i.in nuns iw:s.inn s,uii*.v..i<riin.ii 69 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 70 Survey Log SheetPage2 Survey f Research and Field Methods Types of Survey (»i«i ail ma apdr):H==haeofogicai damage assessment Blarctitectural mamtetlng repait Sisloticalfarchrpal underwater otheildasstiliaj: ScopellntensityiProcedures 50 cm diameter shovel tests were excavated to probability zones created by THPO All shovel tests nta screened using 1/4*scresn.Modsrat.a probability zones sxcavatsd at 40m intervals Preliminary Methods Iselect as many as apply to the project as a wholel Honda Aithlvaa IGray Ssldmgl wary research Atca/pvAfr Honda Photo Archives (Gray Buldngl DihrsryspKial cotocbon Butts File propinv saarc-i OAUli:lands Sunny hups at BEPI Eliiia File sis*t ec search Otcsl intcrmardtsl DcMr Iflatcrrbel: tea!property a tlx records Dewspapsr tier tcersfira if art Sanborn Intuarca maps Qcrlur Inst oit raps lIDAH so-s maps or data Dther nmote Strang BwndstiPd sunsy Bsmal photogiapby Archaeological Methods (select as many as apply to the project as a whole) Chock here il NO archaeological meihodt wera used. Qjj lata coSectton.co-muled sjrlaca cotaction,ugcontroded Bm:.ol last 1 il'sciein stw.al test 1 iB scrsen Qdhowltast li'16'pcresn Oncol last urvsooirsd Dsctisr Idescrbel: Qnetai datacloe Qulhr rinsta larrang Bsdrxtrisn survey D*inorvn shovei lass or lift street sia water strain post hob lists au|ei tests connj est ticavaeion Ian least 1 «2 rnl lutt excavation (aI least 2x2 ml »l restttivtty epnesomita* Ds.de scan sonar D'o-rd peretratrg rBdar lEPftl UOAR HistoricaUArchileclural Methods (select as many as apply larhapiojeci as a whole) Chech hate il NO Fistoricallaichrtectuial nethede wate used. derrclilmn parims windshield surrey seal property records B-"»r Petri del:S "i *•*1 *•**-* Duitont petmes Dommarcial perims Dntirw documentation Dephbor inter new Dccupent riervte* occupation permits subd vision nap: tax tecoids Drknown Survey Results Resource Significance Evaluated?BYcs QMo Count of Previously Recorded Resources List Previously Recorded Site IO#s with Site Fife Forms Cumulated (attach additional pages if necassaiy) 08CR00927,08CR0092B Count of Newly Recorded Resources o .ist Newly Recorded Site IDtfs (attach additional pages if necessatyl N/'A Site Forms Used:Site File Paper Forms BSne File PDF Farmp REQUIRED:Attach Map of Survey or Project Area Boundary SHPO USE ONLY SHPO USE ONLY SHPO USE ONLY Ongin ol Report:D872 DUili:lands *U37J. Glare (Voiact J QAcanamc Dor-era::Dkvrcaeimal Comtdatei Hivtaw:CRA1 ) T vpo ot Document:ArthieotegitU Scrray Distmuai.'Atthrticheal &e*ny DMame Survey Dell Tower CRAS MOTtonng heport Overview Dcmikii Report Wih Sita :iteration Ripat Sttuctura Oetetlid Ratmrt Dlsrwr.t*sl .a Atthi'jp Dec Desktop Analysis CJMPS QMRA CJT G Otnat: Oocunent Destination:l i '•-afcla Pro met a Rctsbilily: ii«»nmiiiiw in.ntMiM shot)in lllfr*1A46.Q0l.r-AC t tn.itr Wait*Situ Ida I Dry at llarn.lfl hewiXM I It A C<«>llUg I bOO S ft utnqh St .UlrlHIsW.IkllMH 1719t)n?!0 Ptwra 860.345 PMU,(n8S(l74i843Mnnl SHI t»4»Pit wyt»ii>l«r«n 70 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 71 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE FORM ______________________________________ 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 72 Site #8 CR00927RESOURCECROUPFORMPag*2 Ommt O—enptaw vwuaTJHISTORY&DESCRIPTION approximately Dyear listed or earlier Dyear I isted or late' Bidder Unknown Construrton Year 1928 Architect/Designer itit?py ji L-ijartnurir kio1: Total number of indvKtual resources induded in ths Resource Group #of contitwbng Time penod(S)Of Stgnficance Ichoow a panod from lira Inl OI type in Uate iar>»»|s|,eg 1.WW I ft Aftermath 1917-1920 #of non-contributingii i 2.Boom Tlmtta 1921-1929 4 See Supplemental Sheets RESEARC H METHODS (chick all Ihut apply) BBFMSF record search (sites/surveys) BFL State Archtvesrphoto cdlection property appraiser /lax records ctihiral resource survey olher methods (specify) Bibliographic References (gw fmsf Mmrnsnpt#!rebut) FMSF#14901,16250.18371.31188 Bibrary research txnldng permits cccapantfowier interview neighbor Interview interior inspection Sanborn maps pat maps Public Lands Survey (DEP) HABS/HAER record search city directory newspaper files Bhisloric photos ciw stgmfi.OIMMON OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Pctentialy eligible individually for National Register of Hstonc Places?Hy«D»On«A«t inbtmmon Potentiady eligible as contributor to a National Register distnct? Explanation Of Evaluation (teq.«e<l eeeWePwrelgegglyaofciln iMp 48-49 Al»c*i ronger iHternem i needed on separate sheet ) See Supplemental Sheets [xl .-rtrc rtniiUrogrt mbttnaeon Area(s)Of Hslorical Significance [see Na#arre/rieguhr8islbj»;IS,p 8 for rate gases •g 'architec&n'"ottinc hertage"•ctnrmmihr planting 4 devebfmnt",etc ) 1.Community planning ft develop™3 2 Engineering 64 Clear DoneeenUUeo Vetu«4 JDOCUMENTATION Accessible Documentation No<Filed witti tfie Site Fde ncbdngMdnrte*.recti.photos,ptam another rwtant docintms Document type r ti :^-qraphflM Docimenl deocnpOon ~.Dociment type Field net*e Document de$:npbon Martanng orgarcaifton SoWnole Tnbe of Floods i)f rte of pttePMon #i Mirtanng organcalBn Semnote Tnbe of Floods FSeoc eceeiriondfi REC ORDER INFORMATION Recorder Name Brand','Norton Recorder Contact Information -•jo*i«am..hv.i,fl 53440 1 .>?*.i:jm-tn *2:m-hj,..-:,ua.vr>t»iL-..»«. (Pddreet I phone /fa /*mai) AffliatlOn SetmtoleTnhe oT Ronde O PHOTOCOPY OF USGS 7.5'MAP WITH DISTRICT BOUNDARY CLEARLY MARKED O URGE SCALE STREET,PUT OR PARCEL MAP WITH RESOURCES MAPPED &UBELED ©TABUUTION OF ALL INCLUDED RESOURCES -indude name,FMSF #,contributing?Y/N resource category,street address or other location informalon If no address O PHOTOS OF GENERAL STREETSCAPE OR VIEWS (Optional:aerial photos,views of typical resources) When submitting images they must be induded in digital AND hard copy format (plan paper g>apcab acceotafcia) Digital images must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels ?4-bit cdor,jpeg cr tiff Required Attachments 72 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 73 SfcflH CROP 928 Feld Dale 6-4-2013 Form Date a-2-2019 Recorder# # Pag*1 RESOURCE GROUP FORM FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Version 5.0 3/19 Original H'indale Consul ItiaGuWe fo ate Freaoues Group torn la »<UUonl instiudions NOTE.Use this form to document districts,landscapes,building complexes and linear resources as deicnbed in he box below Culture:resoires conlnbuing lo the Resource Group should afeo be documented indrmdua '/al he Sle Fie Do not use this form for National Register multiple property submissions (MPSs)National Register IWSs are treated as Sri©Fit?manuscripts and are associated wlh The individual resources included under the MPS cover using the Site F le manuscript number Check ONE box that best describes the Resource Group Historic district (IT?category 'dslnrf)build rigs and hP slruclures orty NO aichaeologcal sites Archaeological district (NRcate'xry'dislrcn archaeolugral sites orly NO burings or NR structure Mixed district (NR category 'dtskxf j inciides more than one type of cultural resource (example archaeological sites bubngsi Building complex (NR category usually 'buildng(s)")multiple buldngs in close spatal 222 functional association Designed historic landscape NR category usuaty"is.tr»:r x-'hiie')can inciudenvlkpte resources |seeNaMu?*l Register Butktin 818.page 2 for more delated definiicnand examples e g parks,golf corses,campuses,resorts,etc] Rural historic landscape (NR category usuely 'dsktcr or'sle")can nclucte multipe rescijrces and resourtes not brmally designed (see National Register Bo delta #30,Guidelines tor Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes br more detailed detnlicm and examples e g farmsteads,fish camps,lumber camps,traditional ceremonial sites,etc ) 53 Linear resource (MR catej ory usuatty "slru:lure'l Lr>ar retou c-.-s are a speciu type of structure r historic landscape ax'can include canals ,ralways roads,etc Resource Group Name Tamiantl Canal Protect Name Plover Property National Regster Category ir*«*cm*on*)•jiMingp)slruclu.Blotncl Dsl»Oot>t«d o—*=- Lrv?ar Resource Type irawati*]Ekanal Drailwray Doad Qilher (deacnbe) Ownership QyvwU^proM f"T •valr-Jiffip<'WI sTvetemdlndial Q'-'.xlcxi«iicerf.O-rly O .unly 8 I.I-Dilative American D •-ir imlrvxar M.iipfe Lislng [DFR only] FM5F Survey t) LOCATION &MAPPING "et'te 'rtl-t 'Ifir- US-41/Tamiajsi Trail 11*1 if,-fyt..'|<wpfn Address City,Town |wr»n J miKe)Ochopee/Ca me s town County or Counties bkmauun-xael collier Name of Pubic Tract («a part) 1)Township 525 Range 29E 2)Township F2S Range 308 3)Township _F3S_Range _3]E_ 4i Township S3S Ranne 32E USGS 7 5'Map(s)it Name ochopee 2)Name BTONS LAKE Plat,Aenal,or Other Map (mep't neme.gniinaling or«wfl.lg«Up|i)»»OW Six*nil,Ifewaa stafcia.mi Xltty Wla g«va 1»» Lartdgranl Verbal Description of Sounder e;lownphcn !:»:n«itc*x*main mut SR 90/CS-4l/Tamiaml Tlaii post 13 .So 4 to ciile post 44 .151 In Current City Ljmrts?Qyes Di™Dun-mown 'i section Ov.Q f '1 Irregular name:Section Sec:on1 u 'iseckon DNW DSW 0/F.DIE Section'x ""'A section DNW dSW DSE DIE Sec-ion*'*"*i reckon D'/iS QSW DF D'E USGS Lfcte 198 J USGS Date 199 ? Township,Range.Section Continued Township 51S ,Range 33/34E Sections 11-10/17-18.21-22,26.36 OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLYDHRUSEONLY NR L«D«t»StP!Appan to ma«|(inland for latng Qy Ql.QiraiiVmnt into KEEPER -Determned elidible Oveo Cho I tfl GnlenBlorEvakiafcon De Qo ;OJ (see WaftvMf WegBfe'Safteih ti.f-2) Dal*Irwt Dth Curier Objection msEcermstv aiwin.two* A*txxtwl f AC FlaWfa Mivftf*31.FH.low.al K4aa4H.«u»IR A Or<y Bdg 1 141 S Branaugh 3.TAhaaaM,Fl H1B*2H (Vox.IEI.24S.i4ac 111-IH.24i.C411 1 Eg ••SSaFaagdauayMMdaaaa. 73 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 74 Sto#5 CRO 092 8RESOURCEGROUPFORMPage2 HISTORY &DESC R1PTION .,\a .'j.;i Constructor Year 1928 ^approximately Qyear listed or earlier Dyear listed or later AfCflllOCt/Designef;State Road Department /FDOT Bulder 'nlcnown Total number of indvidual resources included in this Resource Group #of contributing 1 #of non-contributing Time penod(S)of Significance (chooio a panod fTwr.tin lift or typa r oua ranga(a)a j 1 895-f 925) 1 Twentieth C American 19 4 Narrative Descnption [ntnomi fotwtw a^iVd"ic-u pp 33-34 m*in auppwnaritary w»wh <needed) See Supplemental Sheets RI.SKARC II METHODS (cluck all III Jl apply) BFMSF record search (sitesfsuiveys) BF_State Archives/photo cdlection property appraiser /tax records Bcultural resource survey other methods (specify) Bibiographc References i>ve fMSFMara,ioe*#rftaie«rt) PMSF#14901,18250.18271.21188 Bibrary research a ty directory newspaper fles Bhistoric pholos bul ding permits occupant/owner interview neighbor interview interior inspection Sanborn maps Cfc>at maps Public Lands Survey (DEP) KABS/HAER record search OPINION OE RESOl Rt E SIOMFIC ANC I Potentiay eligide indwdually for National Register of Historic Races?E).c-.»muisno™-nfemmnn Potenbay eligibe as contributor to a National Register dstnct? Expanalion of EvaiuabC'l |r«qj>Kl Vj.Viim.l'eji-jIffSuWn-'?Mp 484S AltacMangei rtjlarienl f needed,on separate sheet ) See Supplemental Sheets EJn»-»rauffiiient nfoinuOon Alea(s)ol Historical Significance (sea NetwwiReguterfoJMni Ti p 8 lor categories a g "archtactum eltimc tientage'"tornmunrr,plarmrg 4 dc.a-opniant ate ) 1.Community planning &developm J 2,Engineering 4 6 DOCUMENTATION GHE2 4*4 Accessde Documentation Not Filed Wlttl the Site Re -mending Wd nota&analysis rotas prntot plans and ether mportarl docunarti _Martunrg orgarcyatnr Saminob Tribe of Honda Fie oi accession Hartamrg orgmeaton Saminola Trit*of Ftooda Doc urnant typa t i nj-Ti-j D Document description Oocin enl type Fi-li t Document dasenptoon 2) Ffa or accessor Mi REC ORDER INFORMATION Affiliation Sanwwle Tuba ot FlondeRecorderName.Brandy tortcn Recorder Contact tnformaton '.ik Em hw:f->*4 .•i^i"-aim.,-e-m i>.m/.i.u (address (phono /fax /a<naiO O PHOTOCOPY OF USGS 7.5'MAP WITH DISTRICT BOUNDARY CLEARLY MARKED ©LARGE SCALE STREET,PLAT OR PARCEL MAP WITH RESOURCES MAPPED &LABELED ©TABULATION OF ALL INCLUDED RESOURCES •indude name.FMSF #.contributing''YIN resource category street address or other location information if no address O PHOTOS OF GENERAL STREETSCAPE OR VIEWS (Optional:aerial photos,views ot typical resources) When submitting images,they must be induded in dry Id AMD hard copy formal (plan »k*>graywaie acteoutte) Q^jtehmage^justb^nMsM600iM200pixel^2^jtcororjpe^Miff Required Attachments 74 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 75 ADDENDUM 1: Proposed Site Plan ______________________________________ 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 76 REFERENCES CITED ______________________________________ Advasio, J.M., and Jake Page 2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit of Archaeology’s Greatest Mystery. Random House, New York. Almy, Marion, Lee Hutchinson, and Kim Hinder 2001 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey State Road 50 PD&E Study Lake and Orange Counties, Florida. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Florida Department of Transportation, District Five by Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Copies available from Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida. Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum Website. n.d. A Timeline for Survival: 500 Years of Seminole History. https:// www.semtribe.com/STOF/history/timeline. Accessed August 20, 2019. Austin, Robert 2005 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Proposed Oakland Development Property, Orange County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historic Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. Bowers, Marty and Stephen Bridenstine 2017 “Bending and Not Breaking”: Seminole History and the Tribal Historic Preservation Office, the Miccosukee Perspective. In We Come for Good: Archaeology and Tribal Historic Preservation at the Seminole Tribe of Florida, edited by Paul N. Backhouse, Brent R. Weisman, and Mary Beth Rosebrough, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Bullen, Ripley 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville, Florida. Bullen, Ripley P., and Laurence E. Beilman 1973 The Nalcrest Site, Lake Weohyakapka, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 26:1-22. Burnett, G.M. 1988 Florida’s Past, Volume 2: People and Events that Shaped the State. Pineapple Press: Sarasota, Florida. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 77 Butler, David 2008 The Blueberry Site Phase I Excavation: A Case Study in Goal Oriented Public Archaeology. Report prepared for Anne Reynolds and Reynolds Fruit Company, Inc., by Earthmovers Archaeological Consultants, LLC. Copies available from Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida. Chance, Marsha 1988 The Phase I Archaeological Assessment of a Florida Gas Transmission Company Proposed Corridor Expansion Project. Report prepared for Florida Gas Transmission Company. On file, Seminole Tribe of Florida-Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Clewiston, Florida. Covington, James W. 1993 The Seminoles of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Dunbar, James S., and C. Andrew Hemmings 2004 Florida Paleo-Indian Points and Knives. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by Bradley Lepper and Robson Bonnichsea. Denham, James M. 1994 The Florida Cracker Before the Civil Wat as Seen Through Traveler’s Ac- counts. The Florida Historical Quarterly LXXII:453-468. Densmore, Frances 1956 Recording for the Bureau of Music, Smithsonian Institution, Bulletin No. 161, Washington DC. Ellis, Gary 2016 Personal Communication with THPO Tribal Archaeologist Maureen Ma- honey. Florida Memory Site n.d. Florida Memory Site. State Archives of Florida. Accessed August 1 and 2, 2019. Frank, Andrew 2014 Creating a Seminole Enemy: Ethnic and Racial Diversity in the Conquest of Florida. FIU Law Review, 9(2). Gaby, Donald C. 1993 The Miami River and its Tributaries. The Historical Association of South Florida: Miami. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 78 Gallagher, Peter B. 2013 Blazing a Trail Through Swamps and Everglades. The Seminole Tribune. July 22, 2013. http://seminoletribune.org/blazing-a-trail-through-swamps-and- everglades/. Accessed August 1, 2019 Garbarino, Merwyn S. 1972 Brighton: A Changing Seminole Community. Hold, Rinehart and Winston Inc., New York, NY. Goodyear, Albert C., Sam B. Upchurch, Mark J. Brooks, and Nancy N. Goodyear 1983 Paleo-Indian Manifestations in the Tampa Bay Region, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 36 (1-2):40-66. Gopher, Lorene 2012 Personal Communication with THPO Tribal Archaeologist Maureen Ma- honey. Griffin, John W. 2002 Archaeology of the Everglades. Edited by Jerald T. Milanich and James T. Miller. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. History Miami. n.d. http://everglades.fiu.edu/reclaim/bios/jaudon.htm Accessed August 1, 2019. Hooks, Kisa 2011 US 41 Tamiami Trail Bridge Guardrail Retrofit and Shoulder Improvements. Archaeological Consultants, Inc.: Sarasota, Florida. Hudson, Charles. 1976 Southeastern Indians. University of Knoxville, Tennessee. Janus Research 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of Florida’s Turnpike Mainline PD&E Study: From US 192 to SR 50 (Clermont), Orange and Osceola Counties. Report prepared for Florida Department of Transportation Turnpike Enterprise by Janus Research. Copies available from Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida. Jaudon, James Franklin 1924 Letter to the Editor of the Miami Daily News and Metropolis. July 14, 1924. James Franklin Jaudon Papers, Box 11, Folder 6. On file at the Historical Museum of Southern Florida, Miami. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 79 Johns, Willie and Stephen Bridenstine 2017 “When is Enough, Enough?”: Willie Johns on Seminole History and the Tribal Historic Preservation Office, the Creek Perspective. In We Come for Good: Archaeology and Tribal Historic Preservation at the Seminole Tribe of Florida, edited by Paul N. Backhouse, Brent R. Weisman, and Mary Beth Rosebrough, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Johnston, Sidney n.d. Florida’s Historic Roads and Trails: NRHP. Multiple Property Document Form. Deland: Bland & Associates, Inc. Jones, Martha 2012 Personal Communication with THPO Tribal Archaeologist Maureen Mahoney. Kersey Jr., Harry A. 1935 Pelts, Plumes, and Hides: White Traders among the Seminole Indians 1870- 1930. University Press of Florida: Gainesville. 1996 An Assumption of Sovereignty: Social and Political Transformation among the Florida Seminoles 1953-1979. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. Kenneally, Michael 2005 CRAS of US-41 from Collier Boulevard to San Marco Drive. Janus Research, Inc.: Tampa, Florida. Klein, Rebecca, Christopher Rayle, Martin Dickinson and Lucy Wayne 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment, Hull Island, Orange County, Florida. Report prepared for Land Water Consulting, Inc., by Southarc, Inc. Copies available from Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida. MacCauley, Clay 1887 The Seminole Indians of Florida. Smithsonian Institution-Bureau of Ethnology. Dodo Press. Mahon, John K. 1967 History of the Second Seminole War 1835-1842. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. McCudden, Anne C., Billy L. Cypress, W.S. Steele, and Rick Trnka 2004 Brighton Seminole Indian Reservation Jones Loop Road Improvements, Glades County, Florida. Report Prepared by the Seminole Tribe of Florida, Tribal Historic Preservation Office. On file, Seminole Tribe of Florida-Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Clewiston, Florida. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 80 McReynolds, Edwin 1957 Seminoles. University of Oklahoma Press. McVoy, Christopher W., Winifred Park Said, Jaynatha Obeysekera, Joel A. Van Arman, and Thomas W. Dreschel 2011 Landscapes and Hydrology of the Predrainage Everglades. University Press of Florida: Gainesville, Florida. Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Pre-Columbian Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. 1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. 1998 Florida’s Indians from Ancient Times to the Present. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Miller, Susan A. 2003 Coacoochee’s bones: a Seminole Saga. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Missall, John, and Mary Lou Missall 2004 The Seminole Wars: America’s Longest Indian Conflict. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. National Geographic. 2009 Everglades National Park. November 5, 2009. www.nationalgeographic.com. Accessed August 26, 2019. National Park Service. 2018 Big Cypress. September 26, 2018. www.nps.gov. Accessed August 28, 2019. National Parks Conservation Association. n.d. Find a Park. Www.npca.org. Accessed August 28, 2019. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 81 Parker, Garald G. 1984 Hydrology of the Predrainage System of the Everglades in Southern Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past II, edited by P.J. Gleason, pp.28-37. Miami Geological Society Coral Gables. Porter, Kenneth Wiggins 1996 The Black Seminoles: History of a Freedom-Seeking People. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Spoehr, Alexander 1941 Camp, Clan, and Kin among the Cow Creek Seminole of Florida. Field Museum of Natural History Anthropological Series 22(1):1-27. Smith, G.C. 2011 “You Just Can’t Live Without It”: Ethnographic Study and Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties of the Modern Gladesmen Culture. Compre- hensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Southern Florida. New South Associ- ates: St. Augustine, Florida. Stanford, Dennis, and Bruce Bradley 2004 The North Atlantic Ice-Edge Corridor: A Possible Palaeolithic Route to the New World. World Archaeology, 36(4): 459-478. Ste. Claire, Dana 1990 The Archaic in East Florida: Archaeological Evidence for Early Coastal Adaptations. Florida Anthropologist 43, pp 189-197. Steele, W.S. 1997 Archaeological and Historical Perspectives of the Brighton Indian Reservation. Paper presented at Florida Anthropological Society Meeting. Steele, W.S., and Robert S. Carr 1995 An Archaeological Survey of Brighton Seminole Reservation, Glades County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #116. Report prepared for the Seminole Tribe of Florida, by the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc., Miami, Florida. Steiner, Mary C. et al. 1995 Differential Burning, Recrystallization, and Fragmentation of Archaeological Bone. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22: pp 223-237. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 82 Sturtevant, William C. and Jessica R. Cattelino 2004 Florida Seminole and Miccosukee. In Handbook of North American Indi- ans, vol. 14, Southeast. Raymond D. Fogelson, vol., ed. Pp. 429-449. Wash- ington: Smithsonian Institution. Taylor, Rob 2006 CRAS of US 41 from Collier Boulevard to San Marco Drive. Janus Re- search: Tampa, Florida. Thompson, Victor D., William H. Marquardt, Alexander Cherkinsky, Amanda D. Roberts Thompson, Karen J. Walker, Lee A. Newsom, Michael Savarese 2016 From Shell Midden to Midden-Mound: The Geoarchaeology of Mound Key, an Anthropogenic Island in Southwest Florida, USA. Plos One 11(4). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2013 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html, accessed May 17, 2013. Walker, Billy 2019 Oral History with Justin Giles, Jack Chalfant, Shawn Keyte, and Brandy Norton. Recording on File with the Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum, Clewiston, Florida. Weisman, Brent 1989 Like Beads on a String: A Cultural History of Seminole Indians in Northern Peninsular Florida. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 1999 Unconquered People: Florida's Seminole and Miccosukee Indians. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 2000a Archaeological Perspectives on Florida Seminole Ethnogenesis. In Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 299-317. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 2000b The Origins of the Seminole Plantation System and its Role in Florida's Colonial Economy. In Colonial Plantations and Economy of Florida, edited by Jane Landers. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 2014 The Background and Continued Cultural and Historical Importance of the Seminole Wars in Florida. FIU Law Review, 9(2). 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation 83 West, Patsy 1998 The Enduring Seminoles: From Alligator Wrestling to Ecotourism. Univer- sity Press of Florida: Gainesville, Florida. Wickman, Patricia 1999 The Tree that Bends: Discourse, Power, and the Survival of the Maskoki People. University of Alabama Press, Birmingham, Alabama. Widmer, Randolph J. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Non-Agricultural Chiefdom of the Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tusculoosa, Alabama. Worth, John E. 2013 Pineland during the Spanish Period. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50-1710, edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Wright, J. Leitch Jr. 1986 Creeks and Seminoles: The Destruction and Regeneration of the Musco- gulge People. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. 22.A.5 Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for Government Services Buiding (15160 : Historical Archaeological Preservation COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD PROJECT NAME: ACTIVE ITEMS 1 Interlocal Agreement with the City of Marco Island N/A N/A 6/8/11 Pending Pending Pending Pending ON HOLD N/A Will provide update next meeting. 2 Rosemary Cemetery Historic Designation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2/19/21 N/A Museum Director willl give an upadate. 3 Horse Creek Estates Historic Marker & Designation N/A HD N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10/19/01 2/15/12 9/18/13 N/A The HAPB Chairman will coordinate with local residents to place an updated historic marker. 4 Margood Harbor Park cottages COA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Melissa Hennig and Amanda Townsend are working on this and will have news possibly for HAPB in March. 5 Immokalee Solar Farm Cultural Assessment PL202000 01865 CU 2/19/21 6 Seminole Trail Government Center Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment PL201900 00360 CU 2/19/21 7 Indian Hill Site on Marco Island N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A The HAPB indicated that this site is a good example of why an interlocal agreement would be helpful. COMPLETED PROJECTS 1 Roberts Ranch COA N/A Application is pending. 2 Historic Guide 2019/2020 Update N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A The printed copied have been delivered. Staff is working to distribute ot other County agencies. 3 Rivergrass Village SRA (Formally Town of Rural Lands West) PL201900 00044 SRA (Village)2/7/19 03/07/19 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2/25/20 Overview on next meeting. 4 Historic Guide N/A N/A Done Done Done Done Done 12/19/12 N/A Completed; Distributing Copies from the second printing 5 Pepper Ranch Hunting Lodge PL- 20160000 438 HD N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1/20/16 12/12/17 The HABB recommended approval of the historic designation application. The BCC designated the structure historic with the adoption of Resolution 17-248 6 The Bula Mission AR-2008- 12981 HD 2/29/08 3/14/08 3/15/08 N/A N/A 11/21/07 5/13/08 The BCC approved Resolution No: 08-139. The HAPB subsequently issued a COA to demolish the structure since it was deemed unsafe. The mission was demolished in 2011. PROJECT & ACTIVITY TRACKING LOG (Revised on 1/29/2021 ) PETITION NUMBER PETITION TYPE ACCEPTED DATE REVIEW DUE DATE COMMENT LETTER SENT RESUB DATE SECOND REVIEW BCC DATE HAPB/STAFF COMMENTS HAPB HEARING DATES 22.A.6 Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: HAPB Project Tracking Spreadsheet (2-19-2021) (15160 : Historical Archaeological COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD 7 JT's Island Store AR-2008- 12980 HD 2/29/08 3/14/08 3/15/08 N/A N/A 11/21/07 5/13/08 The BCC approved Resolution No: 08-138 8 Nehrling's Tropical Garden AR-2007- 11828 HD 6/5/07 6/19/07 9/19/2007 N/A N/A 3/21/07 10/28/08 The BCC approved Resolution No: 08-317 9 Hart Cottage on Keewaydin Island [Fascher House] AR-2006- 10449 HD COA 9/7/06 9/21/06 9/22/2006 4/18/2007 5/2/2007 11/15/06 7/18/12 6/12/07 The BCC approved Resolution No: 07-150; The HAPB voted to approve a COA allowing the owner to demolish the subject condemed historic structure. 10 North Naples Country Club AR-2003- 4796 HD 2/29/03 3/29/03 3/29/03 4/6/2003 4/16/2003 4/16/03 5/21/03 The HAPB voted 4 to 0 to reject the application for Historic Designation 11 Robert's Ranch (Tract D)AR-2001- 0404 HD 1/19/01 5/8/01 The BCC approved Resolution No: 01-180 12 Stewards of Heritage Award N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A The Florida Archaeological Council award to HAPB 13 Old Marco Inn HD-98-1 HD 3/10/98 3/10/1998 N/A N/A 4/17/98 8/10/98 The City of Marco Island approved Resolution Number: 98- 24. 14 Old Marco Inn Redevelopment Plans COA-2018- 01 COA 3/18/18 4/18/2018 N/A N/A 4/18/18 N/A A site visit was held on 3-21-18 and the HAPB subsequantely approved a COA for the proposed changes to the inn. 15 Morris Property - 151 Smallwood Drive (Initiated by the HAPB) HD-97-02 HD 05/29/97 6/20/97 9/22/97 N/A N/A 10/24/97 1/27/98 The BCC denied the request by the HAPB to designate an archaeological shell work as locally significant because the site was previously impacted by development and the property opposed designation. 16 Roberts Ranch (Tract E)HD-97-01 HD 06/02/97 7/2/97 7/3/97 N/A N/A 5/9/97 9/16/97 The BCC approved Resolution No: 97-358 17 Captain John Horr's Residence HD-95-1 HD 2/10/95 3/13/95 3/13/95 10/3/1995 11/3/1995 3/13/95 1/16/96 The BCC approved Resolution No: 96-20. The site was also placed on the National Register of Historic Places. 18 Ochopee Post Office HD-94-1 HD 6/16/94 7/16/94 7/20/94 N/A N/A 8/17/94 9/27/94 The BCC approved Resolution Number: 94-706 19 Rosemary Cemetery HD-93-3 HD 11/8/93 11/23/93 11/23/93 N/A N/A 9/10/93 12/21/93 The BCC approved Resolution Number: 93-614 20 Margood Park Historic Designation AR-2006- 10679 HD 10/18/06 11/15/06 12/20/06 1/17/2007 2/28/2007 6/18/14 1/13/15 The BCC designated as an historic site with the adoption of Resolution Number: 2015-15 21 Ted Smallwood's Store HD-93-2 HD 6/22/93 7/15/93 8/4/93 N/A N/A 8/13/93 9/13/93 The BCC approved Resolution Number: 93-387 22 Weaver's Station HD-93-1 HD 9/10/93 9/15/93 5/15/93 N/A N/A 5/25/93 6/8/93 The BCC approved Resolution Number 93-230; A COA was approved to allow a museum addition but the structure was destroyed by Hurricane Andrew. 23 318 Mamie Street Historic Designation (Initiated by the HAPB) N/A HD HAPB Notice Letter N/A N/A N/A N/A 5/20/15 N/A The HAPB voted not to recommend that the subject property be designated since the property owner opposed the designation and because the site was previously impacted by development. The applicant has been informed of this decision. 24 Update the H/A Probability Maps - 2020 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1/17/20 N/A The HAPB approved the updated maps during their 1/17/20 meeting 22.A.6 Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: HAPB Project Tracking Spreadsheet (2-19-2021) (15160 : Historical Archaeological COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD 25 Add H/A Probability Maps to the County's GIS - Update Maps N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/19/14 & 2019 N/A The H/A Probability Map data has been added to the GIS database for staff use. Map updated to include Florida Master Site data. 22.A.6 Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: HAPB Project Tracking Spreadsheet (2-19-2021) (15160 : Historical Archaeological