HAPB Agenda 05/20/2022
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD WILL MEET AT 9:30
AM, FRIDAY, May 20, 2022 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: March 18, 2022
5. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Interlocal Agreement with the City of Marco Island
B. Rosemary Cemetery (Plot W) historic designation
C. Vacancy status
6. NEW BUSINESS:
A. CLG Evaluation; Good Standing Letter; training opportunity
B. Waiver Request from Historical and Archaeological Survey and Assessment
C. Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of Williams Farms PUD
7. REVIEW OF PROJECT AND ACTIVITY LOG:
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
9. HAPB COMMENTS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Staff summary of HAPB commentary on Active Items (Revised on 5/2/2022)
Active Item HAPB
Hearing
Dates
HAPB/Staff Comments
1 Interlocal
Agreement
with the
City of
Marco
Island
9/18/20
11/20/20
2/19/21
3/19/21
4/16/21
8/20/21
10/15/21
12/17/21
1/21/22
2/18/22
3/18/22
At March HAPB, vote was received to submit the letter and it will be
signed by Austin Bell and proper offices, and then it will be submitted.
Zoning Manager stated the Attorney's office will start on it. At April
HAPB, Mr. Bellows confirmed that the letter has been submitted to the
City and we are waiting for their response. At August HAPB, Mr. Bell
noted a letter (attached in this meeting's packet) had been sent from
the Marco Island Historical Society to the Marco Island City Council
providing alternatives for the assessment of Marco's historical
resources, specifying the benefits of an agreement. Mr. Erjavec
mentioned the meetings he had with Marco Island staff and City
Council regarding preservation. Mr. Bellows elaborated on the
procedures supporting such an agreement. At September HAPB, Mr.
Bellows reported that the agreement will likely need participation with
County Manager. At October HAPB, Board discussed how this will
need to satisfy the City's and County's expectations for processing land
use applications and how the City's Probability Map may need to be
updated. They also spoke of how existing Interlocal Agreements,
including Everglades City could be used as a reference. Mr. Bellows
mentioned inviting a representative of the City as this is driven by it.
At December HAPB, there was discussion between the Chair, Board
members, County Attorney, and Planning & Zoning Division Director
regarding this issue, on why reaching an agreement is necessary, how
it can be reached and why the attendance of a representative from the
City is instrumental for its progress. The attendance of a
representative for this meeting was cancelled due to a conflict of
scheduling. The City is not a Certified Local Government (CLG) – a
government with a historic preservation ordinance. At January HAPB,
staff from City of Marco Island were in attendance, including the City
Manager, Director of Community Affairs, and an Environmental
Planner. The County’s Director of Zoning was also present. HAPB
Chair voiced concerns about the area’s needing preservation.
Members focused toward the agreement. City staff noted their review
process and comprehensive plan update. City and County staff and
HAPB members discussed objectives and mechanisms of an agreement
and its advantages. County Zoning Director acknowledged the
framework being discussed as reasonable, recognizing it was up to the
City to initiate it. At February HAPB, planning staff reported that they
had spoken with Marco Island’s Director of Community Affairs and
HAPB may become more involved with historic sites on Marco Island,
but the City will need to take next steps to determine the difference
between HAPB’s and the City’s role. Chair mentioned the City’s need
to update their probability map. At March HAPB, planning staff
reported that they had spoken with Marco Island’s Director of
Community Affairs again. They spoke of zoning actions to implement
historical regulations, the process to deal with archaeological sites, the
role of the County’s HAPB with the City, and the possibility of the City
creating their own preservation board. Chairman Erjavec inquired
whether he or other HAPB members could participate or listen in on
these discussions.
2 Rosemary
Cemetery
at
Goodlette
/Pine Ridge
Road (Plot
W) Historic
Designation
11/20/20
2/19/21
3/19/21
4/16/21
5/21/21
8/20/21
10/15/21
12/17/21
1/21/22
2/18/22
3/18/22
At March HAPB, Museum Director (Ms. Townsend) reported there is
no real movement, but had a conversation with with County Attorney.
She says they would consider a quit claim to transfer the property and
that the County owns Plot B and are trying to get ownership of Plots W
and N. At April HAPB, it has been determined that County Attorney is
comfortable moving forward with a quit claim deed. Museum Director
stated their next task is to create a business plan for the County
Manager's review. At May HAPB, Museum Director reported the
existence of a cemetery now largely developed and under private
ownership. The County owns Unit B (Plot W) and is trying to obtain
title to Units W and N. The last historical record was a survey
conducted in 1966. At August HAPB, this item was continued to the
next meeting. At September HAPB, Ms. Townsend reported they are
moving forward with building a case for the acquisition of the property
and discussed funding for property surveys, fencing, and repair of
headstones. At October HAPB, Ms. Townsend reported the ownership,
management, land, cost estimates for the work, and known history of
the cemeteries. A member of the local NAACP attended and provided
a letter expressing support. At December HAPB, Museum Director
was not in attendance but left a message which was read giving an
update of the BCC’s recent approval in concept of Plots W and N in
December. The museums will work with real estate services for
acquisition, and then will need a second BCC approval. At January
HAPB, the subject was mentioned regarding the public’s involvement,
the County’s recognition of the NAACP’s points, and actions of
Museums. At February HAPB, Museum Director remarked that this
has received media attention and real estate services had prepared a
quit-claim deed. She also mentioned, at request of Board, about the
maintenance of the property, its heirs, and the title. At March HAPB,
Board members mentioned Museum Director’s diligence on the
matter, that it’s reached its legal phase, how the NAACP was reported
on by local news on their desire for it to be designated a burial site,
and the trials on resolving real estate issues and ownership.
3 Vacancy 12/17/21
1/21/22
2/18/22
3/18/22
James Bennett (Engineering) Board member resigned prior to
December HAPB. Vacancy has been posted and the Board will review
applications at the next meeting. By January HAPB, no applications
were made. By February HAPB, no applications were made. By March
HAPB, no applications were made. Members discussed possible ways
to attract applicants.
Inactive
Item
HAPB
Hearing
Dates
HAPB/Staff Comments
1 Indian
Hill Site
on Marco
Island
3/19/21
4/16/21
5/21/21
8/20/21
10/15/21
12/17/21
1/21/22
2/18/22
In March, The HAPB indicated that this site is a good example of why
an interlocal agreement would be helpful. Chair stated they are
attempting to organize what they can do with the status. It is a burial
ground which has had many disturbances. There is a lot of activity and
it is getting bigger. The damage is done and now they need to decide
how to proceed with preservation. Will attempt to have conversations
with nonprofits about how to preserve it. At April HAPB, Mr. Erjavec
noted why the site is of historic significance. Mr. Bellows suggested to
contact the City to see what can be done from a growth management
standpoint. Mr. Erjavec agreed to do this and suggested the Board
pursue it at next HAPB. At May HAPB, Chairman Erjavec provided an
update, noting a 2,000 year old burial site as well as other sites with
historic relics. HAPB will wait on City of Marco Island's response to the
agreement letter before pursuing preservation. At August HAPB, Mr.
Erjavec noted he visited the site with representatives of Audubon of
the Western Everglades. He remarked that City of Marco Island has
recognized the need to preserve the area. At September HAPB, Mr.
Erjavec noted the site has been proposed for acquistion through the
Conservation Collier program. At October HAPB, it was recognized that
these preservation efforts are supported by environmental advocates
and Council Member Rich Blonna. Actions for acquisition of the
properties are being pursued. At December HAPB, there was
discussion of the roles of Conservation Collier and the Audubon
Society with their interests of properties on Marco. This item is
affected by the results of the Interlocal Agreement with the City. At
January HAPB, recent BCC acquisition actions were discussed. At
February HAPB, Board recognized Conservation Collier may acquire
the land and to table the discussion meanwhile.
March 18, 2022
1
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD
March 18, 2022
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Historic/Archaeological
Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:30 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier
County Growth Management Division – Planning and Regulation, Conference
Room #610, 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: Eugene Erjavec
Elizabeth Perdichizzi
Barry O’Brien
Patricia Sherry (excused)
George Thompson
Austin Bell
ALSO PRESENT: Andy Youngblood, Operations Analyst
Sean Kingston, Senior Planner
Timothy Finn, Principal Planner
Derek Perry, Deputy County Attorney
March 18, 2022
2
Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio
recording from the Collier County Growth Management Department.
1. Roll Call/Attendance:
Chairman Erjavec called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Roll call was taken, and a
quorum of three was established; a fourth Board member joined four minutes later.
2. Additions to Agenda
None
3. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Thompson moved to approve the agenda. Ms. Perdichizzi seconded it. The motion was
carried unanimously, 3-0.
4. Approval of Minutes: Feb. 18, 2022
Chairman Erjavec said some changes were needed in the minutes. Page 4, under New Business,
where it says “Mound B,” it’s actually “Mound A.” Where it says “Conservation Collier” in the
second paragraph, “They have an agreement with Conservation Collier,” it should say the
“Conservancy of Southwest Florida.” The university should be changed to “University of Florida
Foundation Inc.” And on page 6, the first paragraph should say “Mound A,” not “Mound B.”
Mr. Thompson moved to approve the Feb. 18, 2022, minutes, as amended. Second by
Chairman Erjavec. The motion was carried unanimously, 3-0.
Assistant County Attorney Derek Perry later advised the Board to use strikethroughs on the
minutes they signed. They can bring back fully revised minutes at the next meeting. He said they
also could tack the minutes from this meeting onto those minutes to reflect the changes.
5. Old Business
A. Interlocal Agreement with the City of Marco Island
Mr. Finn said he and Ray had discussions with Marco Island (Director of Community Affairs)
Dan Smith and the lead planner there a week ago. What he needs to discuss and what they talked
about at the City’s last Planning Board meeting in February was that they need to think about
potential comprehensive planning and zoning amendments to implement historical regulations.
They also have been talking about what their overall process would be to deal with
archaeological sites. They’ve been opening up discussions about that. What they need to do is to
define what role the County’s preservation board, HAPB, would have with the City. They might
even consider creating their own preservation board. This is all in early discussions. He wasn’t
certain when their Board met this month, but Dan Smith said they’ll be talking about this.
[Mr. Bell joined the meeting at 9:34 a.m.]
Chairman Erjavec said they talked about our role, their role and perhaps MIHS (Marco Island
Historical Society) and a Board member participating in some of those meetings. Can we get an
invite if I or anyone else wants to go to and listen in on those discussions?
Mr. Finn said that’s one thing they didn’t talk about. But when it comes back on Monday, he’ll
mention it.
March 18, 2022
3
B. Rosemary Cemetery (Plot W) historic designation
Chairman Erjavec said (Museums Director) Amanda Townsend has been working diligently
on it and it’s up to the legal phase. Was there any addition to that?
Mr. Finn said he and Sean Kingston hadn’t heard anything new from Amanda Townsend.
Chairman Erjavec noted that it takes time and she mentioned something being in the media.
He asked what that was.
Mr. Thompson said there were a couple of blurbs on local television stations showing that the
NAACP was interested in making sure it was designated and was recognized as a burial site.
Chairman Erjavec said that takes a long time and we’ve been going through that process.
Mr. Thompson said where there are multiple errors, trying to resolve real estate issues and
ownership and who can deed to the County can get very, very complicated and can take a long
time to locate the heirs to make sure that everybody is covered, so there’s no question in the title
in the future.
C. Vacancy status
Mr. Finn said that as of now, no one has applied. He and Ray spoke about it briefly yesterday
and were hoping HAPB members could recommend someone.
Chairman Erjavec said they’d probably like to have somebody in architecture and engineering,
which would come in handy, someone with that expertise. He said everyone would continue to
look and asked other Board members if they could think of anyone.
Mr. O’Brien said he put it in his report to the Board of Directors of the Historical Society, but
hasn’t heard anything.
Ms. Perdichizzi asked if it would be advertised again.
Mr. Finn said it’s already advertised.
Ms. Perdichizzi said if no one has responded, maybe they should consider an article in the
newspaper about the HAPB, what it does, a little promotion.
Chairman Erjavec said it’s a very busy season. Maybe it’s not a good time for the locals. He
asked Board members to make an effort to try to bring somebody on. He said he’d try to talk
about it with friends and would be at the museum tomorrow and could try to recruit someone.
6. New Business
None
7. Review of Project and Activity Log
The Board reviewed the Project & Activity Log.
March 18, 2022
4
Chairman Erjavec said the log shows that things are moving forward. He noted that they
discussed many of the matters already. Indian Hill – we’re going to see what happens with it.
We’ve talked about it and said all we can. Vacancy status – we’ll try to recruit. He’s hoping
everybody cooperates on the Marco Island Interlocal Agreement so they can figure out who’s
responsible for doing what, how people are going to participate, whether they use this Board, or
if they develop their own board or an ordinance. That would all be great. He wasn’t sure Marco
Island’s Comprehensive Plan was approved yet, but noted Marco Island officials discussed it last
August.
8. Public Comments:
None
9. HAPB Comments
Ms. Perdichizzi noted that tomorrow, March 19, is Archaeology Day at the County Museums.
Chairman Erjavec said it would be held from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. He was asked to be at a booth to
entertain questions about the City of Marco Island since he’s done extensive work there over the
past couple of decades. He’s participated before and called it a fun, family oriented and
educational event.
Mr. Kingston noted that May is Historic Preservation Month.
Ms. Perdichizzi said that would be a good time to advertise and promote the HAPB and the
vacant position.
10. Adjournment
The next HAPB meeting will be held on April 15, at 9:30 a.m.
Mr. O’Brien made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second by Ms. Perdichizzi. The motion
was carried unanimously, 3-0.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chairman at 9:16 a.m.
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD
__________________________________
Chairman, Eugene Erjavec
These meeting notes were approved by the board on ___________________, as presented
(check one) _______, or as amended__________.
FronroR DspanrMsNr o Sranp
RON DESANTIS
Governor
LAUREL M. LEE
Secretary of State
4pil20,2022
Mr. Timothy Finn
Principal Planner, Collier County
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: Collier County Certified Local Govemment Evaluation
Dear Mr. Finn,
Your Certified Local Govemment program was recently evalualed by the Florida Division of Historical
Resources. Florida is required to perform evaluations of its Certified Local Govemments, per the
requirements of the Federal Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual, Chapter g- CertiJied Local
Governments and the Florida Certified Local Govemment Guidelines. Our review was based on the
information contained in annual reports and meeting minutes submitted by your local govemment during
the period October l, 2018 through September 30,2021 .
Based on our evaluation (enclosed) your Certified Local Govemment is in good standing and currently
meeting the requirements ofthe Florida Certified Local Government guidelines. Your historic
preservation board and local govemment staff are to be commended for their continued efforts to preserve
Florida's historic resources and for their active participation in the Certified Local Govemment progmm.
Please feel free to contact me at 850-245-6341 or mariah justice@dos.myflorida.com ifyou have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Mariah Justice
Certifred Local Govemment Coordinator
Enclosures
Dlvlsion of Historlcal Reaources
R.A. Gray Buildtng. 5OO South Bronough Street. Tallahasaee, Florida 32399
850.245.6300 . 850,245.6436 (Fax; . Ftr11"6art"."o-
@
Community: Collier County
Date Evaluated: 04.O4.2022
Pursuant to the Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual Chapter 9, 1.2 and the Florida CLG Guidelines
C.2.b, the Florida State Historic Preservation Office is required to conduct a review, at least once every
four years, of Certified Local Governments to assure that each government is meeting the requirements
for certification. A notice preceding the evaluation was sent to your com munity on Decembe t !,2o2!.
This evaluation is based upon the duties listed in the CLG Agreement, Section 3, as signed by your
community upon initial certification.
The current local legislation meets requirements of Florida CLG Guidelines B.1:
Yes
No
Comment:
Current historic preservation review Commission meets requirements of Florida CLG Guidelines 8.2:
Yes
No
Comment: Commission well represented with diverse experience.
x
tr
x
!
TOCAT TEGISLATION
SYSTEM OF SURVEY
The community has established a process to identify historic properties within its jurisdiction:
Yes
No
x
tr
Comment: System of survey tied to development per LDC 2.03.07.E.
Page 1 of 4
Florida Division of Historical Resources. Bureau of Historic Preservation
500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399
Florida GLG Program
Community Evaluation
October 1,2018 - Septembet 30,2021
Community: Collier County
Date Evaluated : 04.04.2022
Most recent inventory materials provlded to the Florida Master Site File:
202r
CLG inventory materials available for public inspection:
Comment: Designated historic properties and description included on HAPB website. cuide to
historic sites is wonderful.
All Commission meetings publically announced and open to public:
Yes
No
Yes
No
x
!
Comment: Announcement can be found via website.
All Commission decisions given in public forum:
Yes
No
Comment: Decisions recorded via meeting minutes
Applicants given written notification of Commission decisions:
Yes
No
Comment:
a
tr
x
tr
PUBI.IC PARTICIPATION
REPORTING RECORDS
Annual reports received:
2018 - 2019
20L9 - 2020
2020 - 20zr
Comment: Tha nk you!
Page 2 of 4
Florida Division of Historical Resources . Bureau of Historic preservation
500 South Bronough Street . Tallahassee, FL 32399
a
x
a
x
tr
Community: Collier County
Date Eva luated: 04.o4.2022
Meeting minutes and agendas received:
2018 - 2019
20t9 - 20zo
2020 - 2021
Comment: Thank you !
Minimum of four Commission meetings per year:
Yes
No
Comment:
Ordinance amendments provided to SHPO for review and comment prior to adoption:
Yes
No
N/A
Comment:
Last documented Commission training:
2003 - Request per most recent annual report for updated training.
Recent DHR grant awards:
N/A
DHR grant project(s) completed:
Yes
No
Pursuant to the Historic preservation Fund Grants Manual chapter g, 1.4.a and the Florida cLG
Guidelines C.2.h, if the Florida State Historic Preservation Office evaluation of the Certified Local
Government determines an inadequate performance, the State Historic Preservation Office shall
document the inadequate performance and provide suggestions to improve performance within a
specified time frame.
Page 3 of 4
Florida Division of Historical Resources . Bureau of Historic preservation
500 South BronouBh Street.Tallahassee, FL 32399
tr
x
x
x
tr
!
DETICIENCIES AND ACTION ITEMS
Comment: N/A
x
tr
n
x
Community: Collier County
Date Eva luated: 04.O4.2022
lf deficiencies were noted, please find deficiency or deficiencies listed below along with suggested action
and specified time frame in which to remedy each:
Deficiency Action required Date Action Due
Please keep us updated about the interlocal agreement with city of Marco lsland. As a cLG, with an
agreement with a municipality, Collier county wall be responsible for decisions/actions taken by city of
Marco lsland in regards to CLG status. lf there are any questions about this please reach out!
Per your request by the most recent annual report, we would love to schedule upcoming training for
your board and staff. We're having our virtual CLG Roundtable on tax programs on May 12th, and can do
more in depth training on local/federal historic preservation tax programs. lf there are any other topics
or areas you would like us to focus on, please let us know.
Wonderful project for historic marker on Tamiami Trail. We'd love more info about this.
Thank you so much for your hard work in preserving Florida's historic and natural resources.
Page 4 of 4
Florida Division of Historical Resources . Bureau of Historic preservation
500 South Bronough Street.Tallahassee, FL 32399
No Deficiencies Found X Deficiencies Noted !
ADDITIONAT COMMENTS
Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 1
COLLIER COUNTY
WAIVER APPLICATION FROM THE REQUIRED HISTORICAL AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
DATE SUBMITTED: _______________ PLANNER:
PETITION NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAIVER: _____________________
(To Be Completed By Zoning and Land Development Review Staff)
PROJECT NAME: 5175 Maple Lane Rezone
LOCATION: (Common Description) 5175 Maple Lane
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF WAIVER REQUEST: Proposed rezone of a 5.3+/- acre parcel from the
Agricultural Zoning District to the RSF-4 Zoning District to allow a maximum of 16 single
family residential dwelling units. The applicant requests a waiver from conducting an
archeological assessment due to the prior development which has occurred on-site. No
excavation activities are proposed at this time.
(Properties located within an area of Historical and Archaeological Probability but with a low
potential for historical/archaeological sites may petition the Community Development &
Environmental Services Administrator County Manager or designee to waive the requirement
for a Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment. Once the waiver application has been
submitted, it shall be reviewed and acted upon within five (5) working days. The waiver
request shall adequately demonstrate that the area has low potential for
historical/archaeological sites.)
SECTION ONE: APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DATA
A.Name of applicant (s) (if other than property owner, state relationship such as option
holder, contract purchaser, lessee, trustee, etc.): Wolfgang Gilles
Mailing Address: C/O German Services 3960 Radio Road, Naples, Florida 34104
Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08
2
Phone: 239-213-8614 FAX: _______________________
E-Mail: jhgnaples@comcast.net
B. Name of agent(s) for applicant, if any: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP
Mailing Address: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita
Springs, Florida 34134
Phone: 239.947.1144 FAX: 239.947.0375
E-Mail: warnold@gradyminor.com
C. Name of owner(s) of property: Same as Applicant
Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________
Phone: ( ) _____________________________ FAX: ___________________
E-Mail: _____________________________________________________________
Note: If names in answers to A and/or B are different than name in C, notarized
letter(s) of authorization from property owner (C) must be attached.
SECTION TWO: SUBJECT PROPERTY DATA (Attach copy of the plat book page
(obtainable from Clerk’s Office at the original scale) with subject property clearly marked.)
A. Legal description of subject property. Answer only 1 or 2, as applicable.
1. Within platted subdivision, recorded in official Plat Books of Collier County.
Subdivision Name: Myrtle Cove Extension (unrecorded)
Plat Book N.A. Page N.A. Unit N.A. Block N.A. Lot N.A.
Section 30 Township 50 S Range 26 E
2. If not in platted subdivision, a complete legal description must be attached which
is sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property on County maps or aerial
photographs. The legal description must include the Section, Township and
Range. If the applicant includes multiple contiguous parcels, the legal description
may describe the perimeter boundary of the total area, and need not describe each
individual parcel, except where different zoning requests are made on individual
parcels. A boundary sketch is also required. Collier County has the right to reject
any legal description, which is not sufficiently detailed so as to locate said
property, and may require a certified survey or boundary sketch to be submitted.
Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 3
B.Property dimensions:
acres Area: 230,868± __ square feet, or 5.3+/-
Width along roadway: 357± feet (Maple Lane)
Depth: 677+/- feet
C.Present use of property: Residential and lawn maintenance (nursery)
D.Present zoning classification: A, Agricultural
SECTION THREE: WAIVER CRITERIA
Note: This provision is to cover instances in which it is obvious that any archaeological or
historic resource that may have existed has been destroyed. Examples would be
evidence that a major building has been constructed on the site or that an area has been
excavated.
A.Waiver Request Justification.
1.Interpretation of Aerial Photograph Photo shows existing structures and
equipment
2.Historical Land Use Description: Single family residence.
3.Land, cover, formation and vegetation description: Improved property, sparce
vegetation, parcel has been disturbed.
4.Other: No excavation activities are proposed for the site. None of the structures
are historic in nature and improvements have been constructed onsite since late
1960s.
B. The County Manager or designee may deny a waiver, grant the waiver, or grant the
waiver with conditions. He shall be authorized to require examination of the site by an
accredited archaeologist where deemed appropriate. The applicant shall bear the cost
of such evaluation by an independent accredited archaeologist. The decision of the
County Manager or designee regarding the waiver request shall be provided to the
applicant in writing. In the event of a denial of the waiver request, written notice shall
be provided stating the reasons for such denial. Any party aggrieved by a decision of
the County Manager or designee regarding a waiver request may appeal to the
Preservation Board. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Preservation Board
regarding a waiver request may appeal that decision to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 4
SECTION FOUR: CERTIFICATION
A.The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this
application. Any time delays or additional expenses necessitated due to the submittal
of inaccurate or incomplete information shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
B.All information submitted with the application becomes a part of the public record and
shall be a permanent part of the file.
C.All attachments and exhibits submitted shall be of a size that will fit or conveniently
fold to fit into a legal size (8 ½” x 14”) folder.
Signature of Applicant or Agent
D. Wayne Arnold, AICP
Printed Name of Applicant or Agent
=====================================================================
-TO BE COMPLETED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION-
SECTION FIVE: NOTICE OF DECISION
The County Manager or designee has made the following determination:
Approved on: _____________ By:______________________________
Approved with Conditions on: ____________ By: _____________________________
(see attached)
Denied on: _______________ By: ______________________________
(see attached)
M a p le L N
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
5175 Maple Lane
Location Map .
110 0 11055 Feet
Legend
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Document Path: G:\Planning\PROJ - PLANNING\MLRZ-21 5175 Maple Lane Rezone (PL20210002449)\Drawings\GIS\AerialLocationMap(ci).mxd
SUBJECT PROPERTY
500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile
850.245.6440 ph | 850.245.6439 fax | SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us
This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a
project review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master
Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical
Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical
Resources at CompliancePermits@dos.MyFlorida.com for project review information.
March 30, 2022
Sharon Umpenhour
Senior Planning Technician
Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
In response to your request on March 30, 2022, the Florida Master Site File lists no cultural resources
recorded at the designated parcel found in Section 30, Township 50S, Range 26E, Collier County.
When interpreting the results of our search, please consider the following information:
x This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures
or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources.
x Because vandalism and looting are common at Florida sites, we ask that you limit
the distribution of location information on archaeological sites.
x While many of our records document historically significant resources, the
documentation of a resource at the Florida Master Site File does not necessarily
mean the resource is historically significant.
x Federal, state and local laws require formal environmental review for most
projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls
under these laws, you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the
Division of Historical Resources at CompliancePermits@dos.MyFlorida.com.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search.
Sincerely,
Eman M. Vovsi, Ph.D.
Florida Master Site File
Eman.Vovsi@DOS.MyFlorida.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY
OF WILLIAMS FARMS PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT (PUD),
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Prepared for:
J.R. Evans Engineering
9351 Corkscrew Road, Suite 201
Estero, Florida 33928
Prepared by:
Florida’s First Choice in Cultural Resource Management
Archaeological Consultants, Inc.
8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A
Sarasota, Florida 34240
(941) 379-6206
March 2022
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY
OF WILLIAMS FARMS PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT (PUD),
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Prepared for:
J.R. Evans Engineering
9351 Corkscrew Road, Suite 201
Estero, Florida 33928
By:
Archaeological Consultants, Inc.
8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A
Sarasota, Florida 34240
Maranda Kles - Project Manager
Jean Lammie - Project Archaeologist
Justin Winkler - Archaeologist
March 2022
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey
(CRAS) of the 168-acre Williams Farms Planned Urban Development (PUD) in Collier County, Florida
for J.R. Evans Engineering, LLC. The property is located on the south side of Lake Trafford Road, less
than one kilometer (km) from the eastern shore of Lake Trafford. The project will involve construction
of a residential planned urban development. The survey, completed in February 2022, was conducted
at the request of the Collier County Zoning Department in anticipation of permitting.
The purpose of this investigation was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the
project Area of Potential Effects (APE) and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As defined in 36 CFR Part § 800.16(d), the APE
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.” Based on the scale and nature
of the activities, the project has a limited potential for any indirect (visual or audible) or cumulative
effects outside the immediate footprint of construction. Therefore, because of the project type and
location of the proposed work, the archaeological and historical APE are limited to the existing
boundaries of the project. All work was carried out in accordance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-655, as amended), as implemented by 36 CFR 800
(Protection of Historic Properties, effective August 2004), as well as Chapters 267 and 373, Florida
Statutes (FS), Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code, and the Florida Coastal Management
Program. All work was performed in accordance with the standards and guidelines contained in the
Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual: Module 3 (FDHR 2003). The
Principal Investigators meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (48
FR 44716) for archaeology, history, architecture, architectural history, or historic architecture.
Background research indicated that there are two archaeological sites within the APE
(8CR00725 (Buried Tin) and 8CR01065 (Lake Trafford Canoes). Neither of these sites have been
evaluated by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for listing in the NRHP. There are four
additional sites within one mile of the APE. Based on the environmental setting the APE was considered
to have moderate aboriginal archaeological potential. None of the soils have a significant correlation
with sites, but there are water sources available and numerous pre-Contact habitation and burial sites
within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile). There is a moderate potential for a historic site as there was a residence
on the tract since at least 1941, but it is no longer extant. The investigations, which included the
excavation of 81 shovel tests, found no evidence of the two previously recorded precontact sites, nor
any evidence of other (precontact or historic) sites within the APE.
Historical background research, including a review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) and
NRHP, indicated that no historic resources are located within or adjacent to the APE. The Collier
County property appraiser data indicated no historic structures within the APE, and none were evident
on the aerial photos of the area (Skinner 2022; USDA 1944, 1958, 1963, 1980). The field investigations
confirmed the absence of historic resources within the APE.
Based on the background research and survey results, including the excavation of 81 shovel
tests on this 168.4-acre parcel, no evidence of the previously recorded sites was encountered; therefore,
no revisions were made to the existing site file forms. No evidence of new sites or historical resources
was recovered. It is the opinion of ACI that the proposed undertaking will have no effect on any cultural
resources that are listed, determined eligible, or that appear potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Location and Setting .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Geology and Geomorphology ................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Soils and Vegetation .................................................................................................. 2-3
2.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations .......................................................................... 2-3
3.0 CULTURE HISTORY ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Paleoindian ................................................................................................................ 3-2
3.2 Archaic ...................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 Formative .................................................................................................................. 3-4
3.4 Ten Thousand Islands ................................................................................................ 3-6
3.5 Colonialism ............................................................................................................... 3-6
3.6 Territorial and Statehood ........................................................................................... 3-7
3.7 Civil War and Aftermath ........................................................................................... 3-9
3.8 Twentieth Century ................................................................................................... 3-11
3.9 APE Specifics .......................................................................................................... 3-12
4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS ..................................................... 4-1
4.1 Background Research and Literature Review ........................................................... 4-1
4.2 Archaeological Considerations .................................................................................. 4-1
4.3 Historic/Architectural Considerations ....................................................................... 4-5
4.4 Field Methodology .................................................................................................... 4-6
4.5 Unexpected Discoveries ............................................................................................ 4-6
4.6 Laboratory Methods/Curation ................................................................................... 4-7
5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 5-1
5.1 Archaeological Results .............................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Historical Results ...................................................................................................... 5-3
5.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 5-3
6.0 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................... 6-1
APPENDIX A: Survey Log
iii
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTOGRAPHS
Figure
Figure 1.1. Location of the Williams Farms PUD APE. .................................................................. 1-2
Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the APE. ................................................................................. 2-2
Figure 3.1 Florida Archaeological Regions with APE marked. ...................................................... 3-1
Figure 3.2. 1873 plat showing the APE. ........................................................................................... 3-9
Figure 3.3. 1958 quad map showing the APE. ............................................................................... 3-13
Figure 3.4. Historic Ives Map of Peninsular Florida showing locations of Seminole War forts
and Seminole camps. .................................................................................................... 3-14
Figure 3.5. 1930 Nash survey of historic Seminole Camps in the Big Cypress Swamp. ............... 3-15
Figure 3.6. 1953 and 1980 aerials of the APE showing a stream and unimproved construction
area within the APE...................................................................................................... 3-16
Figure 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological site within one mile of the APE. ........................... 4-3
Figure 5.1. Location of shovel tests and archaeological sites within the APE. ................................ 5-2
Table
Table 2.1. Soil types within the APE .............................................................................................. 2-3
Table 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within the project vicinity. ............................ 4-1
Table 4.2. CRAS Projects Within One Mile of the APE. ................................................................ 4-2
Photo
Photo 2.1. General environmental within the APE.......................................................................... 2-1
Photo 2.2. Wetland pastures in the APE. ......................................................................................... 2-1
Photo 5.1. Typical stratigraphy in southeast areas of the APE. ....................................................... 5-1
Photo 5.2. Stratigraphy in the northeast area of the APE. ............................................................... 5-1
Photo 5.3. High water table in center of APE. ................................................................................ 5-1
Photo 5.4. Stratigraphy in southwest portion of the APE. ............................................................... 5-1
Photo 5.5. Stratigraphy in the northwest area of the APE. .............................................................. 5-3
ACI 1-1
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey
(CRAS) of the 168-acre Williams Farms Planned Urban Development (PUD) in Collier County, Florida
for J.R. Evans Engineering, LLC. The property is located on the south side of Lake Trafford Road, less
than one kilometer (km) from the eastern shore of Lake Trafford (Figure 1.1). The project will involve
construction of a residential planned urban development. The survey, completed in February 2022, was
conducted at the request of Collier County Zoning Department in anticipation of permitting.
The purpose of this investigation was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the
project Area of Potential Effects (APE) and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As defined in 36 CFR Part § 800.16(d), the APE
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.” Based on the scale and nature
of the activities, the project has a limited potential for any indirect (visual or audible) or cumulative
effects outside the immediate footprint of construction. Therefore, because of the project type and
location of the proposed work, the archaeological and historical APE are limited to the existing
boundaries of the project. All work was carried out in accordance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-655, as amended), as implemented by 36 CFR 800
(Protection of Historic Properties, effective August 2004), as well as Chapters 267 and 373, Florida
Statutes (FS), Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code, and the Florida Coastal Management
Program. All work was performed in accordance with the standards and guidelines contained in the
Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual: Module 3 (FDHR 2003). The
Principal Investigators meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (48
FR 44716) for archaeology, history, architecture, architectural history, or historic architecture.
Background research preceded the field survey, serving to provide both an informed set of
expectations concerning the kinds of cultural resources that might be anticipated to occur, and a basis
for evaluating any new sites discovered.
ACI 1-2
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Figure 1.1. Location of the Williams Farms PUD APE.
ACI 2-1
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental factors such as geology, topography, relative elevation, soils, vegetation, and
water resources are important in determining where precontact and historic period archaeological sites
are likely to be located. These variables influenced what types of resources were available for utilization
in a given area. This, in turn, influenced decisions regarding settlement location and land use patterns.
Because of the influence of the local environmental factors upon the indigenous inhabitants, a
discussion of the effective environment is included.
2.1 Location and Setting
The Williams Farms PUD APE is located in Township 46 South, Ranges 28 East and 29E,
Sections 31 and 36, in Collier County, Florida (United States Geological Survey [USGS] Immokalee,
Fla. 1958) (Figure 2.1). The APE is located east of Immokalee Road (CR 846) off Lake Trafford Road,
approximately one-half kilometer from the eastern shore of Lake Trafford. Today, the vast majority of
the Williams Farm is pasture in the northern portion of the APE with wetlands in the south and west
portions of the APE (Photo 2.1 and Photo 2.2).
Photo 2.1. General environmental within the
APE.
Photo 2.2. Wetland pastures in the APE.
2.2 Geology and Geomorphology
Physiographically, the APE is located within the distal peninsular zone on the Immokalee Rise
which is part of the Caloosahatchee River drainage into the Big Cypress Swamp to the south (Drew
1985). The low relief, numerous water bodies (which hold temperatures steady), and low latitude
combine to create the mild subtropical climate of the region. The climatic pattern is characterized by
mild, dry winters and long, wet summers. The surficial hydrology of the Big Cypress Basin is dictated
by the regional climate and topography. The subtropical climate is characterized by distinct wet (May-
October) and dry (November-April) seasons. Over 60% of annual precipitation falls during the wet
season (Drew 1985). The near level and very gently sloping topography within the Basin results in slow
sheetwash runoff. Water discharges to the Gulf of Mexico via the Ten Thousand Islands (Drew 1985),
and during the wet season inundation is common to depths of between a few centimeters to more than
a meter (Weeks and Bates 1998). During the dry season, water is ponded in the numerous sloughs of
the area.
ACI 2-2
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the APE.
ACI 2-3
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
2.3 Soils and Vegetation
The APE includes soils from more than one soil association group. The northern portion of the
APE is part of the Holopaw-Wabasso-Winder association. Soils of this association are nearly level,
poorly drained, and occur in sloughs and on flatwoods (USDA 1998). The natural vegetation of the
flatwoods soils includes saw palmetto, scattered areas of south Florida slash pine, scrub cypress and
cabbage palm with an understory of saw palmetto, waxmytle, sand cordgrass, pineland threeawn, and
chalky bluestem. The central portion of the APE is part of the Boca Riviera-Copeland association.
These soils are typically poorly drained. Vegetation includes bald cypress with an understory of
pickerelweed, maidencane, and sawgrass. The southern portion of the APE falls within the Winder-
Riviera-Chobee association of poorly drained soils. The vegetation associated with these soils includes
Florida Willow with an understory of maidencane, fireflag, and sawgrass (USDA 1998). The specific
soils found within the APE are shown on Figure 2.2 and detailed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. Soil types within the APE (USDA 1998)
Soil Type and Slope Drainage Location
Immokalee fs, 0-2 Poor Flatwoods
Holopaw Poor Broad low flats, poorly to well defined drainage
ways, depressional areas
Pineda-Riviera Poor Low broad flats and flats on marine terraces
Riviera fs, limestone substrate poor Broad flats, flatwoods, depressions
Tuscawilla fs Poor Flatwoods
Soils play a significant role in determining what plant and animal species are available in the
region. The vegetation map of Florida depicts this area as being primarily swampy forests and pine
flatwoods (Davis 1980). The soil survey of the county provides information on the soil’s ability to
support various wildlife habitats. These include openland, woodland, and wetland. Openland consists
of cropland, pasture, meadows, and areas overgrown with grasses, herbs, shrubs, and vines. This area
attracts bobwhite quail, dove, field sparrow, cottontail, red fox, armadillo, and sandhill crane. The
woodland wildlife habitat consists of areas of deciduous and/or coniferous plants with associated
legumes, grasses, and herbaceous plants. Wildlife attracted to these locales includes turkey, thrushes,
woodpeckers, owls, squirrels, gray fox, raccoon, deer, and bobcat. The wetland habitats are open,
marshy, or swampy shallow water areas. Wildlife associated with these locales includes ducks, herons,
shore birds, mink, beaver, egrets, and alligator.
2.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations
The early environment of the region was different from that seen today. Sea levels were lower,
the climate was arid, and fresh water was scarce. An understanding of human ecology during the earliest
periods of human occupation in Florida cannot be based on observations of the modern environment
because of changes in water resources, botanical communities, and faunal resources. Indigenous
inhabitants adapted in response to the environmental changes taking place, which were then reflected
in settlement patterns, site types, artifact forms, and subsistence economies.
Due to the arid conditions between 16,500 and 12,500 years ago, the perched water aquifer and
potable water supplies were absent. Palynological studies conducted in Florida and Georgia suggest
that between 13,000 and 5000 years ago, this area was covered with an upland vegetation community
of scrub oak and prairie (Watts 1969, 1971, 1975). However, the environment was not static. Evidence
recovered from the inundated Page-Ladson Site in north Florida has clearly demonstrated that there
ACI 2-4
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
were two periods of low water tables and dry climatic conditions and two episodes of elevated water
tables and wet conditions (Dunbar 2006). The rise of sea level reduced xeric habitats over the next
several millennia.
Figure 2.2. Soils within the APE.
ACI 2-5
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
By 5000 years ago, a climatic event marking a brief return to Pleistocene climatic conditions
induced a change toward more open vegetation. Southern pine forests replaced the oak savannas.
Extensive marshes and swamps developed along the coasts and subtropical hardwood forests became
established along the southern tip of Florida (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Northern Florida saw an
increase in oak species, grasses, and sedges (Carbone 1983). At Lake Annie, in south central Florida,
wax myrtle and pine dominated pollen cores. The assemblage suggests that by this time, a forest
dominated by longleaf pine along with cypress swamps and bayheads existed in the area (Watts 1971,
1975). Surface water was plentiful in karst terrains and the level of the Floridan aquifer rose to 1.5 m
(5 ft) above present levels. With the establishment of warmer winters and cooler summers than in the
preceding early Holocene, the fire adapted pine communities prevailed. These depend on the high
summer precipitation caused by the thunderstorms and the accompanying lightning strikes to spark the
fires (Watts et al. 1996; Watts and Hansen 1994). The increased precipitation also resulted in the
formation of the large swamp systems such as the Okefenokee and Everglades (Gleason and Stone
1994). After this time, modern floral, climatic, and environmental conditions began to be established.
ACI 3-1
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
3.0 CULTURE HISTORY
A discussion of the culture history is included to provide a framework within which the local
historical and archaeological record can be examined. Archaeological and historic sites are not
individual entities, but rather are part of once dynamic cultural systems. Thus, individual sites cannot
be adequately examined or interpreted without reference to other sites and resources in the general area.
In general, archaeologists summarize the culture history of a given area (i.e., an archaeological region)
by outlining the sequence of archaeological cultures through time. These are defined largely in
geographical terms but also reflect shared environmental and cultural factors. The project area is in the
Central Peninsular Gulf Coast archaeological region, which extends from north of Tampa Bay
southward to the northern portion of Charlotte Harbor (Figure 3.1) (Milanich 1994; Milanich and
Fairbanks 1980). Within this zone, the Paleoindian, Archaic, Formative, and Mississippian stages have
been defined based on unique sets of material culture traits such as stone tools and ceramics as well as
subsistence, settlement, and burial patterns. These broad temporal units are further subdivided into
culture phases or periods.
Figure 3.1 Florida Archaeological Regions with APE marked.
The local history of the region is divided into four broad periods based initially upon the major
governmental powers. The first period, Colonialism, occurred during the exploration and control of
Florida by the Spanish and British from around 1513 until 1821. At that time, Florida became a territory
of the U.S. and 21 years later became a State (Territorial and Statehood). The Civil War and
Aftermath (1861-1900) period deals with the Civil War, the period of Reconstruction following the
war, and the late 1800s, when the transportation systems were dramatically increased and development
throughout the state expanded. The Twentieth Century includes subperiods defined by important
historic events such as the two World Wars, the Florida Land Boom of the 1920s, and the Great
Depression. Each of these periods evidenced differential development and utilization of the region, thus
effecting the historic site distribution.
ACI 3-2
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
3.1 Paleoindian
The Paleoindian stage is the earliest known cultural manifestation in Florida, dating from
roughly 12,000 to 7500 BCE (Before Common Era) (Milanich 1994). Archaeological evidence for
Paleoindians consists primarily of scattered finds of diagnostic lanceolate-shaped projectile points. The
Florida peninsula at that time was quite different than today. In general, the climate was cooler and
drier with vegetation typified by xerophytic species with scrub oak, pine, open grassy prairies, and
savannas (Milanich 1994:40). When human populations were arriving in Florida, the sea levels were
still as much as 40 to 60 m (130-200 ft) below present levels and coastal regions of Florida extended
miles beyond present-day shorelines (Faught 2004). Thus, many sites have been inundated (Faught and
Donoghue 1997).
The Paleoindian period has been subdivided into three horizons based upon characteristic tool
forms (Austin 2001). Traditionally, it is believed that the Clovis Horizon (10,500-9000 BCE) represents
the initial occupation of Florida and is defined based upon the presence of the fluted Clovis points.
These are somewhat more common in north Florida. Research suggests that Suwannee and Simpson
points may be contemporary with or predate Clovis (Dunbar 2006, 2016; Stanford et al. 2005). The
Suwannee Horizon (9000-8500 BCE) is the best known of the three Paleoindian horizons. The
lanceolate-shaped, unfluted Simpson and Suwannee projectile points are diagnostic of this time (Bullen
1975; Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987; Purdy 1981). The Suwannee tool kit includes a variety of scrapers,
adzes, spokeshaves, unifacially retouched flakes, and blade-like flakes as well as bone and ivory
foreshafts, pins, awls, daggers, anvils, and abraders (Austin 2001:23).
Following the Suwannee Horizon is the Late Paleoindian Horizon (8500-8000 BCE). The
smaller Tallahassee, Santa Fe, and Beaver Lake projectile points have traditionally been attributed to
this horizon (Milanich 1994). However, many of these points have been recovered stratigraphically
from late Archaic and early Woodland period components and may not date to this period at all (Austin
2001; Farr 2006). Florida notched or pseudo-notched points, including the Union, Greenbriar, and
Hardaway-like points may represent late Paleoindian types, but these types have not been recovered
from datable contexts and their temporal placement remains uncertain (Dunbar 2006:410).
Archaeologists hypothesize that Paleoindians lived in migratory bands and subsisted by
hunting and gathering, including the now-extinct Pleistocene megafauna. In addition, they likely
trapped smaller animals such as mink, muskrat, and rabbit for their fur and medium sized mammal such
as deer for food as well as raw materials for bone tools (Dunbar 2016; Dunbar and Vojnovski 2007). It
is likely that these nomadic hunters traveled between permanent and semipermanent sources of water,
such as artesian springs, exploiting the available resources. These watering holes would have attracted
the animals, thus providing food and drink. In addition to being tethered to water sources, most of the
Paleoindian sites are close to quality lithic resources. The settlement pattern consisted of the
establishment of semipermanent habitation areas and the movement of the resources from their sources
of procurement to the residential locale by specialized task groups (Austin 2001:25).
Although the Paleoindian period is generally considered to have been cooler and drier, there
were major variations in the inland water tables resulting from large-scale environmental fluctuations.
There have been two major theories as to why most Paleoindian materials have been recovered from
inundated sites. The Oasis theory, put forth by Wilfred T. Neill, was that due to low water tables and
scarcity of potable water the Paleoindians and the game animals upon which they depended clustered
around the few available water holes that were associated with sinkholes (Neill 1964). Whereas Ben
Waller postulated that the Paleoindians gathered around river crossings to ambush the large Pleistocene
animals as they crossed the rivers (Waller 1970). This implies periods of elevated water levels. Based
ACI 3-3
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
on the research along the Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, it appears that both theories are correct,
depending upon what the local environmental conditions were at that time (Dunbar 2006, 2016). As
such, during the wetter periods, populations became more dispersed because the water resources were
abundant and the animals that they relied on could roam over a wider range.
Some of the information about this period has been derived from the underwater excavations
at two inland spring sites in Sarasota County: Little Salt Spring and Warm Mineral Springs (Clausen et
al. 1979). Excavation at the Harney Flats Site in Hillsborough County has provided a rich body of data
concerning Paleoindian life ways. Analysis indicates that this site was used as a quarry-related base
camp with special use activity areas (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). It has been suggested that
Paleoindian settlement may not have been related as much to seasonal changes as generally postulated
for the succeeding Archaic period, but instead movement was perhaps related to the scheduling of tool
kit replacement, social needs, and the availability of water, among other factors (Daniel and Wisenbaker
1987:175). Investigations along the Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, as well as other sites within the north
Florida rivers, have provided important information on the Paleoindian period and how the indigenous
adapted to their environmental setting (Webb 2006). Studies of the Pleistocene faunal remains from
these sites clearly demonstrate the importance of these animals not for food alone, but as the raw
material for their bone tool industry (Dunbar and Webb 1996).
3.2 Archaic
Climatic changes occurred, resulting in the disappearance of the Pleistocene megafauna and
the demise of the Paleoindian culture. The disappearance of the mammoths and mastodons resulted in
a reduction of open grazing lands, and thus, the subsequent disappearance of grazers such as horse,
bison, and camels. With the reduction of open habitat, the more solitary woodland browser, the white-
tailed deer, replaced the herd animals (Dunbar 2006:426). The intertwined data of megafaunal
extinction and cultural change suggests a rapid and significant disruption in both faunal and floral
assemblages. The Bolen people represent the first culture adapted to the Holocene environment (Carter
and Dunbar 2006). This included a more specialized tool kit, and the introduction of chipped stone
woodworking implements.
Due to a lack of excavated collections and the poor preservation of bone and other organic
materials in the upland sites, our knowledge of the Early Archaic artifact assemblage is limited (Carter
and Dunbar 2006; Milanich 1994). Discoveries at the Page-Ladson, Little Salt Spring, and Windover
sites indicate that bone and wood tools were used (Clausen et al. 1979; Doran 2002; Webb 2006). The
archaeological record suggests a diffuse yet well-scheduled pattern of exploiting both coastal and
interior resources. Because water sources were much more numerous and larger than previously, the
Early Archaic peoples could sustain larger populations, occupy sites for longer periods, and perform
activities requiring longer occupations at a specific locale (Milanich 1994:67).
Marked environmental changes, which occurred some 6500 years ago, had a profound
influence upon human settlement and subsistence practices. Among the landscape alterations were rises
in sea and water table levels that resulted in the creation of more available surface water. In addition to
changed hydrological conditions, this period is characterized by the spread of mesic forests and the
beginnings of modern vegetation communities including pine forests and cypress swamps. Humans
adapted to this changing environment and regional and local differences are reflected in the
archaeological record (Russo 1994a, 1994b; Sassaman 2008).
The Middle Archaic archaeological record is better understood than the Early Archaic. The
material culture inventory included several stemmed, broad blade projectile point types including the
ACI 3-4
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Newnan, Levy, Marion, and Putnam types (Bullen 1975). Population growth, as evidenced by the
increased number of Middle Archaic sites and accompanied by increased socio-cultural complexity, is
assumed for this time (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Site types included large base camps, smaller
special use campsites, quarries, and burial areas. The most common sites are the smaller campsites,
which were most likely used for hunting or served as special use extractive sites for such activities as
gathering nuts or other botanical materials. At quarry sites, indigenous populations mined stone for
their tools. They usually roughly shaped the stone prior to transporting it to another locale for finishing.
A larger artifact assemblage and a wider variety of tool forms characterize base camps.
During the Late Archaic period, population increased and became more sedentary. The broad-
bladed, stemmed projectile styles of the Middle Archaic continued to be made with the addition of
Culbreath, Lafayette, Clay, and Westo types (Bullen 1975). A greater reliance on marine resources is
indicated in coastal areas. Subsistence strategies and technologies reflect the beginnings of an
adaptation to these resources. Around 4000 years ago, evidence of fired clay pottery appears in Florida.
The first ceramic types, tempered with fibers (Spanish moss or palmetto), are referred to as the Orange
series. Initially, it was thought that they lacked decoration until about 1700 BCE, when they were
decorated with geometric designs and punctations. Research has called this ceramic chronology into
question; accelerator mass spectrometry dates from a series of incised Orange sherds from the middle
St. Johns River Valley have produced dates contemporaneous with the plain varieties (Sassaman 2003).
Milanich (1994:86-87) suggests that while there may be little difference between Middle and
Late Archaic populations, there are more Late Archaic sites, and they were primarily located near
wetlands. The abundant wetland resources allowed larger settlements to be maintained. It is likely that
the change in settlement patterns was related to the environmental changes. By the end of the Middle
Archaic, the climate closely resembled that of today and the vegetation changed from those species
which preferred moist conditions to pines and mixed forests (Watts and Hansen 1988). Sea levels rose,
inundating many sites located along the shoreline. The adaptation to this environment allowed for a
wider variety of resources to be exploited and a wider variation in settlement patterns. No longer were
the scarce waterholes dictating the location of sites. Shellfish, fish, and other food sources were now
available from coastal and freshwater wetlands resulting in an increased population size.
The Late Archaic Transitional stage refers to that portion of the ceramic Archaic when sand
was mixed with the fibers as a tempering agent. The same settlement and subsistence patterns were
being followed. It has been suggested that during this period there was a diffusion of cultural traits
because of the movement of small groups (Bullen 1959, 1965). This resulted in the appearance of
several different ceramic and lithic tool traditions, and the beginning of cultural regionalism.
3.3 Formative
The Formative stage is comprised of the Manasota and Weeden Island-related cultures (ca. 500
BCE to 800 CE [Common Era]). Settlement patterns consisted of permanent villages located along the
coast with seasonal forays into the interior to hunt, gather, and collect those resources unavailable along
the coast. Most Manasota sites are shell middens found on or near the shore where indigenous villagers
had easiest access to fish and shellfish (Milanich 1994). The subsistence economy focused on the
coastal exploitation of maritime resources, supplemented by hunting and gathering inland resources
(Luer and Almy 1982). Investigations at the Shaw’s Point, Fort Brook Midden, Yat Kitischee, and
Myakkahatchee sites have provided a wealth of information on site formation, subsistence economies,
and technology and their changes over time (Austin 1995; Austin et al. 1992; Luer et al. 1987;
Schwadron 2002). The major villages were located along the shore with smaller sites being located up
to 19-29 kilometers (km) (12-18 miles) inland. These inland sites, which probably served as seasonal
ACI 3-5
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
villages or special use campsites, were often located in the pine flatwoods on elevated lands proximate
to a source of freshwater where a variety of resources could be exploited (Austin and Russo 1989; Luer
and Almy 1982). Hardin and Piper (1984) suggest that some of the larger inland sites may be permanent
or semipermanent settlements as opposed to seasonal campsites.
Manasota is characterized by a wide range of material cultural traits such as a well-developed
shell and bone tool technology, sand tempered plain ceramics, and burials within shell middens (Luer
and Almy 1982). Much of the shell and bone technology evolved out of the preceding Archaic period.
Through time, the burial patterns became more elaborate, with burials being placed within sand burial
mounds located near the villages and middens. The early burial patterns consisted of primary flexed
burials in the shell middens, while later sites contained secondary burials within sand mounds.
Temporal placement within the Manasota period can be determined based upon diagnostic
ceramic rim and vessel forms (Luer and Almy 1982). The early forms (ca. 500 BCE to 400 CE) are
characterized as flattened globular bowls with incurving rims and chamfered lips. Pot forms with
rounded lips and inward curving rims were utilized from about 200 BCE until 700 CE. Deeper pot
forms with straight sides and rounded lips were developed around 400 CE and continued into the Safety
Harbor period. Simple bowls with outward curving rims and flattened lips were used from the end of
the Late Weeden Island period (ca. 800 CE) into the Safety Harbor period. Vessel wall thickness
decreased over time.
The lithic assemblage of the Manasota culture was scarce along the coast especially in the more
southern portions of the region where stone suitable for tool manufacture was absent. Projectile point
types associated with the Manasota period include the Sarasota, Hernando, and Westo varieties (Luer
and Almy 1982).
Influences from the Weeden Island “heartland,” located in north central Florida, probably
resulted in the changes in burial practices. These influences can also be seen in the increased variety of
ceremonial ceramic types through time. The secular, sand tempered ware continued to be the dominant
ceramic type. Manasota evolved into what is referred to as a Weeden Island-related culture. The
subsistence and settlement patterns remained consistent. Hunting and gathering of the inland and
coastal resources continued. The ceramic types and other exotic artifacts present within the burial
mounds indicate a widespread trade network.
Ceremonialism and its expressions, such as the construction of complex burial mounds
containing exotic and elaborate grave offerings, reached their greatest development during this period.
Similarly, the subsistence economy, divided between maritime and terrestrial animals and perhaps
horticultural products, represents the maximum effective adjustment to the environment. Many Weeden
Island-related sites consist of villages with associated mounds, as well as ceremonial/burial mound
sites. The presence of Weeden Island ceramic types distinguishes the artifact assemblage. These are
among some of the finest ceramics in the Southeast; they are often thin, well fired, burnished, and
decorated with incising, punctations, complicated stamping, and animal effigies (Milanich 1994:211).
Coastal sites are marked by the presence of shell middens, indicating a continued pattern of exploitation
of marine and estuarine resources. Interaction between the inland farmer-gatherers and coastal hunter-
gatherers may have developed into mutually beneficial exchange systems (Kohler 1991:98). This could
account for the presence of non-locally made ceramics at some of the Weeden Island-related period
sites. There is no definitive evidence for horticulture in the coastal area (Milanich 1994:215).
ACI 3-6
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
3.4 Ten Thousand Islands
Glades I - Beginning around 500 BCE, fiber tempered and semi fiber tempered pottery of the
Late Archaic period was replaced by sand tempered pottery (Glades plain). This change in tempering
agent marks the beginning the Glades cultural tradition. For 700 years, sand tempered plain pottery
dominated the assemblage, but from 200 CE (Common Era) and lasting until 800 CE, Gordon’s Pass
Incised, Sanibel Incised, and an, as of yet unclassified decorated pottery type, were the predominant
decorated types (Carr and Beriault 1984; Griffin 1988). The tremendous increase in Glades I sites
within the Big Cypress indicates a dramatic increase in the usage of the area during this time (Widmer
1988), and the geographic extent of the Glades I diagnostics indicates a considerable degree of
interchange and interaction (Griffin 1988).
Glades II - The Glades II era (800 to 1200 CE) is marked by a tremendous diversity in
decorated ceramic types. Goggin (n.d.) described the decorations as being “neatly and cleanly cut and
apparently made with swift cutting strokes while the clay is partially dry.” Glades IIa (750-900 CE) is
identified by the presence of Key Largo Incised, Opa Locka Incised, and Miami Incised. During Glades
IIb (900-1100 CE), Key Largo Incised remained the primary decorated ware. The number of sites
increased, and the period would appear to be one of “relative stability in technology and subsistence”
(Griffin 1988:140). From ca. 1100 to 1200 CE there is conspicuous absence of decorated pottery and
the number of sites drops dramatically (Griffin 1988:142). This cultural hiatus has been correlated to
the Neoatlantic warm period and associated with high sea levels (Fairbridge 1984:431; Gleason et al.
1984:321).
Glades III - The Glades III era begins with the reintroduction of decorated ceramics; however,
the motifs and techniques are noticeably different from the previous styles. Glades IIIa (1200-1400 CE)
is identified by the appearance of Surfside Incised, St. Johns Check Stamped, and Safety Harbor wares.
There is an accompanying increase in bone ornaments. Then again, ca. 1400 CE, ceramic decoration
ceases with the exception of tooled rim types (Griffin 1988). Griffin hypothesizes that this ceramic style
might have been associated with increasing Calusa influence in the area (Griffin 1988:142).
Whereas the earlier cultural periods of the Glades era are defined exclusively by the
archaeological record, historical documents provide greater information, including tribal names, for the
peoples of the terminal Glades III period. Much of the early historical ethnographic information is
derived from the account of Hernando de Escalante Fontaneda, a Spanish captive of the Calusa (True
1944). During his 17-year captivity, Fontaneda learned of the political structure, economy, social
hierarchy, and religion of the indigenous south Florida people.
3.5 Colonialism
The Timucuan Indians are the historic counterparts of the Safety Harbor people. In the Tampa Bay
area, they are referred to as the Tocobaga, extending from roughly Tarpon Springs southward to the
Sarasota area (Bullen 1978). The Tocobaga consisted of several small chiefdoms whose leaders
frequently waged war against each other. The most powerful chiefdom was Tocobaga, located at the
head of Old Tampa Bay at the Safety Harbor site; other major chiefdoms included the Mococo (at the
mouth of the Alafia River) and Ucita (at the mouth of the Little Manatee River) (Hann 2003).
The cultural traditions of the native Floridians ended with the advent of European expeditions
to the New World. The initial events, authorized by the Spanish crown in the 1500s, ushered in
devastating European contact. After Ponce de Leon’s landing near St. Augustine in 1513, Spanish
explorations were confined to the west coast of Florida; Panfilo de Narvaez is thought to have made
ACI 3-7
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
shore in 1528 in St. Petersburg and Hernando de Soto’s 1539 landing is commemorated at Desoto Point
on the south bank of the Manatee River. The Spaniards briefly established a fort and garrison at
Tocobaga in the 1560s. In 1568, the Tocobaga killed all of the soldiers; when a Spanish supply ship
arrived, the Tocobaga left, and the Spanish burned the village (Hann 2003).
The area that now constitutes the State of Florida was ceded to Great Britain in 1763 after two
centuries of Spanish possession. Britain governed Florida until 1783 when the Treaty of Paris returned
Florida to Spain; however, Spanish influence was nominal during this second period. Prior to American
settlement, portions of the Muskogean Creek, Yamassee, and Oconee tribes moved into Florida and
repopulated the demographic vacuum created by the decimation of the original indigenous inhabitants.
These migrating groups of Native Americans became known to English speakers as Seminole. They
had an agriculturally based society, focusing upon cultivation of crops and the raising of horses and
cattle. The material culture of the Seminole remained like the Creek; the dominant indigenous pottery
type being Chattahoochee Brushed. British trade goods were common. Their settlement pattern
included villages located near rich agricultural fields and grazing lands.
Their early history can be divided into two basic periods: Colonization (1716-1767) when the
initial movement of Creek towns into Florida occurred, and Enterprise (1767-1821) which was an era
of prosperity under the British and Spanish rule prior to the American presence (Mahon and Weisman
1996). The Seminole formed at various times loose confederacies for mutual protection against the
American Nation to the north (Tebeau 1980:72). The Seminole crossed back and forth into Georgia and
Alabama conducting raids and welcoming escaped slaves. This resulted in General Andrew Jackson’s
invasion of Florida in 1818, which became known as the First Seminole War.
3.6 Territorial and Statehood
Florida became a U.S. Territory in 1821 due in part to the First Seminole War and the signing
of the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819. Andrew Jackson, named provisional governor, divided the territory
into St. Johns and Escambia Counties. At that time, St. Johns County encompassed all of Florida lying
east of the Suwannee River. Escambia County included the land lying to the west. The first territorial
census in 1825, recorded some 5077 living east of the Suwannee River; by 1830, that number had risen
to 8956 (Tebeau 1980:134).
Even though the First Seminole War was fought in north Florida, the Treaty of Moultrie Creek
in 1823, at the end of the war, was to affect the settlement of the entire state. The Seminole relinquished
their claim to the whole peninsula in return for occupancy of an approximately four million acre
reservation south of Ocala and north of Charlotte Harbor (Mahon 1985). The reservation was found to
be nearly barren, with poor soils, few good hammocks, and frequently covered with water during the
rainy season (Knetsch 2008:8). The treaty never satisfied the native peoples nor the incoming settlers.
The inadequacy of the reservation and desperate situation of the Seminole living there plus the
mounting demand of the settlers for their removal soon produced another conflict.
In 1824, Cantonment (later Fort) Brooke was established on the south side of the mouth of the
Hillsborough River, in what is now downtown Tampa, by Colonel George Mercer Brooke for
overseeing the angered Seminole. Frontier families followed the soldiers, and the settlement of the
Tampa Bay area began. This caused problems for the military as civilian settlements were not in accord
with the Treaty of Moultrie Creek (Guthrie 1974:10). By 1830, the Department of War established a
military reserve around Fort Brooke with boundaries extending 16 miles to the north, west and east of
the fort (Chamberlin 1968:43) The 256 square mile military reservation included a guardhouse,
barracks, storehouse, powder magazine, and stables.
ACI 3-8
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Hillsborough County was established in 1834 by the Territorial Legislature of Florida because
of the instrumental efforts of Augustus Steele, who arrived in 1832 (Piper and Piper 1982). At that time,
the county reached north to Dade City and south to Charlotte Harbor, encompassing eight future
counties covering an area that today comprises Pasco, Polk, Manatee, Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte,
Highlands, Hardee, Pinellas, and Hillsborough counties. The county was named for the “river which
ran through it and the bay into which the river flowed” (Bruton and Bailey 1984:18; Robinson 1928:22).
Due to its isolated location, Hillsborough County was slow to develop. The Tampa Bay post office was
closed at this time and reestablished as “Tampa” on September 13, 1834 (Bradbury and Hallock 1962).
As settlement in the area increased, so did hostilities with Native Americans. The growing threat of the
Seminole to the civilians near the fort propelled them to sign a petition asking for military protection.
By 1835, the Second Seminole War was underway, triggered by an attack on Major Francis
Langhorne Dade as he led a company of soldiers from Fort Brooke to Fort King (now Ocala). As part
of the effort to subdue hostilities in Florida, military patrols moved into the wilderness in search of any
Seminole concentrations. As the Second Seminole War escalated, attacks on isolated settlers and
communities became more common. To combat this, the combined service units of the army and navy
converged on southwest Florida. This joint effort attempted to seal off the southern portion of the
Florida peninsula from the estimated 300 Seminole remaining in the Big Cypress Swamp and
Everglades (Covington 1958; Tebeau and Carson 1965).
In 1837, Fort Brooke became the headquarters for the Army of the South and the main garrison
for the Seminole wars. The fort also served as a haven for settlers who had to leave their farms and seek
protection from the warring Seminole (Piper et al. 1982). Several other forts were established around
the area during the Seminole War years. Their uses varied from military garrisons to military supply
depots; others were built to protect the nearby settlers during uprisings. These included Fort Alabama
(later Fort Foster), Fort Thonotosassa, and Fort Simmons (Bruton and Bailey 1984).
The Second Seminole War ended in 1842 when the federal government withdrew troops from
Florida. Some of the battle-weary Seminoles were “persuaded” to relocate west where the federal
government had set aside land for native resettlement. However, those who wished to remain were
allowed to do so but were pushed further south into the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp, which
became the last Seminole stronghold (Mahon 1985:321).
In 1840, the population of Hillsborough County was 452, with 360 of those residing at Fort
Brooke (HT/HCPB 1980:7). Encouraged by the passage of the Armed Occupation Act in 1842,
designed to promote settlement and protect the Florida frontier, settlers moved south through Florida.
The Act made available 200,000 acres outside the already developed regions south of Gainesville to
the Peace River, barring coastal lands and those within a two-mile radius of a fort. It stipulated that any
family or single man over 18 able to bear arms could earn title to 160 acres by erecting a habitable
dwelling, cultivating at least five acres of land, and living on it for five years. During the nine months
that the law was in effect, 1184 permits were issued totaling some 189,440 acres (Covington 1961:48).
On March 3, 1845, the Florida was admitted to the Union as the 27th state with Tallahassee as
its capital. Ten years later, Manatee County, which at that time included the APE, was carved from
portions of Hillsborough and Mosquito Counties with the village of Manatee as the county seat (Marth
1973). In 1872, W.L. Apthorp and M.H. Clay surveyed the exterior lines of Township 46 South, Range
28-29 East (State of Florida 1843c, 1843b, 1843a, 1849). No historic features were depicted on the plat
or mentioned in the field notes within the Township (State of Florida 1850; 1873) (Figure 3.2). The
section lines around the east, north, and west lines of Section 33 were described as 3rd rate pine and
3rd rate prairie (State of Florida 1849:335, 341, 380).
ACI 3-9
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Figure 3.2. 1873 plat showing the APE.
3.7 Civil War and Aftermath
On January 10, 1861, Florida followed South Carolina and Mississippi and seceded from the
Union as a prelude to the American Civil War. Florida had much at stake as evidenced in a report
released from Tallahassee in June of 1861. It listed the value of land in Florida as $35,127,721 and the
value of the slaves at $29,024,513 (Dunn 1989:59). Although the Union blockaded the coast of Florida
during the war, the interior of the state saw very little military action. Florida became one of the major
contributors of beef to the Confederate government (Shofner 1995:72). Jacob Summerlin, “King of the
Crackers,” originally had a contract with the Confederate government to market thousands of heads a
year at eight dollars per head. However, by driving his cattle to Punta Rassa and shipping them to Cuba,
he received 25 dollars per head (Grismer 1946:83). To limit the supply of beef transported to the
Confederate government, Union troops stationed at Ft. Myers conducted several raids into the Peace
River Valley to seize cattle and destroy ranches. In response, Confederate supporters formed the First
Battalion, Florida Special Cavalry, more famously known as the Confederate “Cow Cavalry,”
consisting of nine companies under the command of Colonel Charles J. Munnerlyn (Akerman 1976).
Many local inhabitants were impacted by the unfolding events, including Jesse Knight, who
had been established in Hillsborough County since 1852; Knight and his family moved to Manatee
County during the war to protect his cattle from the marauding Union soldiers (McCarthy and Dame
1983). The cattlemen and the farmers in the state lived simply. The typical home was a log cabin
without windows or chinking, and settlers’ diets consisted largely of fried pork, corn bread, sweet
potatoes, and hominy. The lack of railway transport to other states, the federal embargo, and the
enclaves of Union supporters and Union troops holding key areas such as Jacksonville and Ft. Myers
prevented an influx of finished materials. Thus, settlement remained limited until after the war.
ACI 3-10
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Immediately following the war, the South underwent a period of Reconstruction to prepare the
former Confederate states for readmission to the Union. Administered by Congress, on July 25, 1868
Florida officially regained statehood (Tebeau 1980). Congress passed the Homestead Act of 1866,
enticing union loyalists and freedmen into Florida to establish farms. In most of the early settlements,
development followed the earlier pattern with few settlers, one or two stores, and a lack of available
overland transportation. Those communities along the coast developed a little faster due to the
accessibility of coastal transportation.
In 1866, the Manatee County seat was moved from the village of Manatee to Pine Level, and
the community of Miakka developed along the Pine Level Road which connected the two communities.
The early settlers included the Hancock, Vanderipe, and Chapman families as well as Augustus
Williams, Garrett Murphy, Bill Rawls, Mr. Webb and Mr. Summeralls (Deming et al. 1989). In 1875,
the first church and school building were constructed; four years later the post office was established
(Bradbury and Hallock 1962:53). The Hancocks, Murphys, and Knights maintained large herds of cattle
that were tended to by Peter and Marion Carlton, among others (Zilles 1976). The Crowleys moved to
the area in the 1880s and John Crowley established a blacksmith shop. In 1885, they dug a drainage
channel through their property to control flooding along the Myakka River (Hutchinson 2005). In
addition to cattle ranching, farming and citrus production were important economic activates. Crops
included rice, tomatoes, corn, and sugar cane.
Florida faced a fiscal crisis involving title to public lands in the early 1880s. By Act of Congress
in 1850, the federal government turned over to the states for drainage and reclamation all “swamp and
overflow land.” Florida received approximately 10 million acres. To manage that land and the
5,000,000 acres the state had received on entering the Union, the state legislature in 1851 created the
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund. In 1855, the legislature established the actual fund
(the Florida Internal Improvement Fund), in which state lands were to be held. The fund became mired
in debt after the Civil War, and under state law, no land could be sold until the debt was cleared. In
1881, the Trustees started searching for a buyer capable of purchasing enough acreage to pay off the
fund’s debt and permit the sale of the remaining millions of acres that it controlled. Hamilton Disston,
a member of a prominent Pennsylvania saw manufacturing family contracted with the State of Florida
in 1881 to purchase four million acres of swamp and overflow land for one million dollars. In exchange,
he promised to drain and improve the land. This transaction, known as the Disston Purchase, enabled
the distribution of land subsidies to railroad companies, inducing them to begin construction of new
lines throughout the state.
During the early 1880s, the Florida Southern Railway acquired the old railroad charter and land
grant of the Gainesville, Ocala, and Charlotte Harbor Railroad which was due to expire in 1885. To
hold this charter and secure lands, immediate railroad construction was necessary. Construction started
in the Bartow area of Polk County and continued southward to Punta Gorda. In November 1885, the
Southern was absorbed by the Plant System, which eventually became the Atlantic Coastline Railroad
(Pettengill 1952). The Jacksonville, Tampa, and Key West Railway Company was deeded the land
within the APE in 1884 (State of Florida n.d.:149). With the railroad as a catalyst, the 1880s witnessed
a sudden surge of buying land for speculation, agriculture, and settlement in Manatee County, which
prompted the creation of DeSoto County in 1887 from eastern Manatee County.
The Disston Purchase, although technically legal, was extremely generous with the designation
“swamp and overflow land.” Grismer (1946) estimated that at least half of the acreage was “high and
dry.” Disston’s purchase effectively removed four million acres of public lands from would be
homesteaders. Settlers in the Sarasota area, most of whom had settled their land under the Homestead
Act of 1862, were disgruntled with the sale of the swamp and overflowed land to Disston, which
included nearly 700,000 acres in Manatee County. In response, Sarasota area residents established the
ACI 3-11
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Vigilance Committee to retaliate against land speculators. In 1884, two men suspected of cooperating
with the developers were murdered. The resulting trial in the county seat of Pine Level divided the
county. Tax records reveal that most of the 700,000 acres in Manatee County was sold to eight
companies, including three railroad companies and the Florida Mortgage & Investment Co. established
by Sir Edward James Reed of Britain, which is credited with founding the town of Sarasota (Marth
1973; Tischendorf 1954). Disston had sold half of his contract to the British Florida Land and Mortgage
Company in 1882 to cover the second payment on the Purchase since Disston’s assets had been tied up
in the drainage contract (Tischendorf 1954).
In 1885, the first group of colonists from Scotland arrived in what is today Sarasota. John
Hamilton Gillespie, the son of the Florida Mortgage & Investment Company’s president, oversaw
developing a community. Despite a downturn following the financial panic of 1893, the Great Freeze
of 1894-95, and war with Spain in 1898, the community continued to develop as a winter resort
advertising Sarasota’s warm weather, white beaches, plentiful fishing, golf course, and blue oceans
(FWP 1939; Grismer 1946; Marth 1973; Matthews 1997).
3.8 Twentieth Century
The turn of the century prompted optimism and excitement about growth and development. In
1902, the United States & West Indies Railroad & Steamship Co., a subsidiary of the Seaboard line,
started laying track from Tampa through Bradenton into Sarasota. The first train arrived in March 1903,
and the track was extended into Venice by 1912 (Marth 1973).
In 1910, Mrs. Bertha Honore Palmer, widow of Chicago financier Potter Palmer, traveled to
Sarasota accompanied by her brother Adrian Honore and her sons Potter Jr. and Honore. The quartet
was so taken with the area that they established companies that would ultimately come to hold a quarter
of the land in present day Sarasota County (Matthews 1997). Mrs. Palmer established a showplace
estate along Little Sarasota Bay, a 30,000-acre cattle ranch, the Palmer Experimental Farms, and the
Bee Ridge Farms, Bee Ridge Homesites, and Sarasota-Venice real estate ventures (Matthews 1997). In
1911, Mrs. Palmer purchased 26,000 acres east of Sarasota, in the Fruitville vicinity, which were
developed into farms and modified for producing celery. The development also included road building,
ditching and clearing property, expert farm supervision, and cooperative marketing facilities (FWP
1939:270). In the Miakka area, her cattle ranch was named Meadowsweet Pastures. She was ahead of
her times in terms of cattle management by being one of the first to fence in her cattle, grow corn for
supplemental feed, and to begin “dipping” her cattle to eliminate ticks from her herd (McCarthy and
Dame 1983).
The investment in infrastructure contributed to the Florida Land Boom of the early 1920s along
with the growing number of tourists, greater use of the automobile, national post-First World War
prosperity, and, perhaps most importantly, the promise by the state legislature never to pass state
income or inheritance taxes. Growing populations necessitated more governmental facilities and in
1921 Sarasota County was formed from southern Manatee County. These halcyon days were short
lived, however, and during 1926-27, the Florida real estate market collapsed. The wild land speculation
that preceded the land “bust” resulted in banks finding it impossible to track loans or property values.
The hurricanes of 1926 and 1928, the Mediterranean fruit fly invasion and subsequent paralysis of the
citrus industry, the October 1929 stock market crash, and the onset of the Great Depression only
worsened the situation. Sarasota County, along with the rest of Florida, was in a state of economic
stagnation.
ACI 3-12
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
To combat the economic hardships, the Murphy Act was passed in 1931. As early as 1928,
landowners had stopped paying taxes on their property. The Murphy Act stated, “if taxes were
delinquent, any man could pay taxes for two years on the land and get a quit claim deed on it. Then if
the former owner did not claim the land for another two years the new owner could pay for two more
years of taxes and get a deed that would stand up in court” (Zilles 1976:12). Much of the land in the
rural areas of Sarasota County was acquired during this period. In 1933, ranchers began dipping their
cattle and livestock to fight the cattle tick infestation and soon after, fencing laws were established; by
1935, the open ranges were gone (Zilles 1976).
By the mid-1930s, federal programs implemented by the Roosevelt administration provided
jobs for the unemployed who could work. The programs were instrumental in the construction of parks,
bridges, and public buildings. The Public Works Administration was responsible for the construction
of an airport hangar at Albee Field in Venice, a soft water treatment plant and municipal auditorium in
Sarasota, a waterworks extension to Sarasota Heights, and the repairing and paving of a section of U.S.
41 (Wise 1995:102). In 1934, the Myakka River State Forest was formed from roughly 17,000 acres of
land that originally belonged to Mrs. Potter. Over 250 men working for the Civilian Conservation Corps
developed the park by building roads, bridges, pavilions, restrooms, and cabins (Grismer 1946).
Following the Second World War, car ownership increased making the American public more
mobile and vacations less expensive. Many of the service members stationed in the area returned with
their families. This influx of young families resulted in the development of small tract homes in new
subdivisions. In 1954, Arthur Frizzell sold massive tracts in Sarasota (approximately 72 square miles)
and Charlotte Counties to Florida West Coast Land Development Company of Miami (Matthews
1983:150). Part of this acreage encompassed both the Myakka River and Big Slough. The General
Development Corporation paid $2.5 million in 1959 for the 80,000 acres that became North Port and
Port Charlotte.
In the late 1950s, an inland navigation route along Florida’s west coast from Tarpon Springs
south to Punta Rassa was planned. The West Coast Inland Navigation District constructed the
intracoastal waterway. In 1961, the Tamiami Trail, originally constructed in the 1920s, was widened to
four lanes (Matthews 1983:160). During the same period, agricultural practice in the rural parts of
Sarasota contended with residential development, and flooding became a frequent problem. Historic
canals were excavated to reduce pasture flooding and irrigate agricultural land. The 1958 Immokalee
quad map shows no significant development in the APE during this period (Figure 3.3).
3.9 APE Specifics
A review of the historic Ives 1856 map (Ives 1856) showed some trails around the APE and
possibly in the vicinity of Fort Simon Drum (Figure 3.4). The 1930 Roy Nash map (Nash 1930)
suggests that there are no known Seminole camps in the area of the APE (Figure 3.5). The aerial
photographs of the APE from 1953 and 1980, available from the Publication of Archival Library
& Museum Materials (PALMM), and the 1958 Immokalee quad map were examined (USDA
1953, 1963; USGS Immokalee 1958) (Figure 3.6). They show little development within the APE
at least through the mid-20th century. The northern most portion of the parcel was utilized as grove
land and the northeastern boundary of the APE is partially defined by a stream feeding into the wetlands
in the southern portion of the APE. There are multiple ponds and sinks in the southwest portion of the
parcel and streams or tributaries in the southeast.
ACI 3-13
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Figure 3.3. 1958 quad map showing the APE.
ACI 3-14
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Figure 3.4. Historic Ives Map of Peninsular Florida showing locations of Seminole War forts and
Seminole camps.
ACI 3-15
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Figure 3.5. 1930 Nash survey of historic Seminole Camps in the Big Cypress Swamp.
ACI 3-16
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Figure 3.6. 1953 and 1980 aerials of the APE showing a stream and unimproved construction area
within the APE.
ACI 4-1
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS
4.1 Background Research and Literature Review
A review of archaeological and historical literature, records and other documents and data
pertaining to the project area was conducted. The focus of this research was to ascertain the types of
cultural resources known in the project area and vicinity, their temporal/cultural affiliations, site
location information, and other relevant data. This included a review of sites listed in the NRHP, the
Florida Master Site Files (FMSF), cultural resource survey reports, published books and articles, aerial
photographs, unpublished manuscripts, and maps. In addition to the NRHP and FMSF, other
information relevant to the historical research was obtained from the files of ACI. The FMSF data in
this report were obtained in February 2022, which is the most recent edition. However, according to
FMSF staff, input may be a month or more behind receipt of reports and site files. No individuals with
knowledge of historic or prehistoric activities specific to the APE were encountered during this project;
thus, no informant interviews were conducted.
4.2 Archaeological Considerations
The background research indicated that two archaeological sites, 8CR000725 (Buried Tin) and
8)1065 Lake Trafford Canoes are located within the APE (Figure 4.1). Buried Tin is pre-Contact
mound with pottery; however, the initial report speculated that this mound may be natural and not
cultural in origin (AHC 1991). The Lake Trafford Canoes is a Caloosahatchee II (500-800 C.E.) series
of canoe fragments recovered as part of a Lake Trafford Survey conducted by Janus Research Inc. in
2008 (Janus 2008). There are four additional sites are located within 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 mile). Two
of the sites outside the APE are potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP, according to the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The remainder of the sites have not been evaluated by the SHPO.
Data on these sites are presented in Table 4.1 and the sites within the APE are highlighted.
Table 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within the project vicinity.
FMSF# Site Name Site Type Associated
Cultures Reference SHPO
Evaluation
8CR00828 Arrowhead
Midden
Campsite (precontact);
procurement site;
precontact midden
Glades, 1000 B.C.-
A.D. 1700
Beriault,
John 2002
Potentially
Eligible
8CR00703 Williamson
Mound 1 Precontact burial mound Glades, 1000 B.C.-
A.D. 1700
Beriault,
John 2002
Potentially
Eligible
8CR00704 Williamson
Site 2 Precontact mound(s) Glades, 1000 B.C.-
A.D. 1700
Carr, Robert
S. 1989
Not
Evaluated
8CR00725 Buried Tin Precontact mound(s) Precontact with
pottery AHC 1991 Not
Evaluated
8CR01065
Lake
Trafford
Canoes
Log Boat - Historic or
Prehistoric
Caloosahatchee IIa
and IIb, A.D. 500-
1200
Not
Evaluated
8CR01066 Lake
Trafford
Campsite (precontact);
midden (precontact);
Artifact scatter-low density
(< 2 per sq meter)
Archaic, 8500
B.C.E.-1000 C.E.;
Glades, 1000
B.C.E.-1700 C.E.
Art
Engineering
2004
Not
Evaluated
ACI 4-2
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Eleven CRAS projects have been conducted within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the APE. Table 4.2
provides details on these projects.
Table 4.2. CRAS Projects Within One Mile of the APE.
Survey
# Title Reference # New
Sites
# Old
Sites
1108 Historical/architectural survey of Collier County, Florida
Florida
Preservation
Services 1986
120
2458 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Part of the
Williamson Property, Collier County, Florida
Carr, Robert S.
1989 2
2934 Collier County Survey AHC 1991
6605
Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Lake Trafford
Environmental Restoration Critical Project Area, Collier
County, Florida
Banguilan, Alvin
J. and Charles
Cantley 2000
7228 An Archaeological and Historical Assessment of the
Arrowhead Parcel, Collier County, Florida
Beriault, John G.
2002 2 1
11715
Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the FPL Collier-
Orange River # 3, 230 KV Transmission Line: Segment D,
Collier County
Janus Research
2005 1 0
14587 Lake Trafford Critical Restoration Project - Aquascan
Radar Survey Report
ART Engineering,
LLC 2004 2 0
15050 Littoral Survey of Lake Trafford, Collier County Hoffman,
Kathleen S. 2008 1 0
15935 Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey for the Esperanza Place
Property, Collier County, Florida
White, Matthew
2008 0 0
26023
Phase I Archaeological Survey Letter for Trileaf
Corporation, Trileaf Project 644668 (Little League
Road/FL-0128), Immokalee, Collier County, Florida
Heller, Abigail
2019
27342
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Lake
Trafford Aquatic Enhancement Project, Immokalee,
Collier County, Florida
Burns, Jason et al.
2020
Based on these data, and other regional site location predictive models (ACI 1992, 1999, 2014a,
2014b; Austin 1987; Bellomo and Fuhrmeister 1991; Dickel 1991; Smith 2008) and informed
expectations concerning the types of sites likely to occur within the project APE, as well as their
probable environmental settings, was generated. As archaeologists have long realized, indigenous
populations did not select their habitation sites and activity areas in a random fashion. Rather, many
environmental factors had a direct influence upon site location selection, including soil drainage,
distance to water, topography, and proximity to resources. It should be noted that the settlement pattern
noted below cannot be applied to sites of the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, which precede the
onset of modern environmental conditions.
Analysis of the data for the 32 indigenous archaeological sites, with known locations in the
Immokalee Rise physiographic region of Collier County that is outside of National Park Service (NPS)
lands, was conducted. The NPS lands were not included as there is not a modern soil survey for that
area. Historic archaeological sites and indigenous archaeological sites that were plotted “per vague
verbal description” were deleted from this analysis. Although this is a small sample size, it can give us
clues as to which areas were preferred.
ACI 4-3
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Figure 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological site within one mile of the APE.
ACI 4-4
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Proximity to water is an important site location feature. Over 96% of the sites are located within
100 m (328 ft) of a water source, and only one of the sites greater than 200 m (656 ft) from a water
source (Table 4.2). Ninety percent of the sites are proximate to a wetland or swamp, while three sites
are associated with a lake.
Table.4.2. Distribution of sites by water type and distance.
Type ≤100 m (356 ft) ≤200 m (656 ft) ≤300 m (984 ft) Total
Cnt % Cnt % Cnt % Cnt %
Lake 3 9.38% 0.00% 0.00% 3 9.38%
Swamp/wetland 28 87.50% 0.00% 1 3.13% 29 90.63%
Total 31 96.88% 0 0.00% 1 3.13% 32 100.00%
Soil types and their drainage characteristics can also be used to assess the likelihood for
indigenous site occurrence (Almy 1978). There are 45 soil types within this study area; of which 36
have recorded archaeological sites (Table 4.3). Many of the sites occurred on more than one soil type.
This analysis only includes the four types covering the greatest acreage for each site, which totaled 352
soil type occurrences. The column “1”, indicates that this soil type had the greatest area of the site, and
so on down the line, so that the “4” column had the smallest site acreage. However, this analysis may
not prove an accurate representation of the site distribution. While we know the percentage of sites on
the various soil types, we do not have an accurate assessment as to how much of each soil type has been
surveyed for archaeological sites.
Table 4.3. Distribution of sites by drainage and soil types.
DRAINAGE/Soil Type, % slopes % of
Area 1 2 3 4 Total % of
Sites difference
MODERATELY WELL DRAINED
Pomello fine sand, 0-2% 0.95% 1 0 1 2.44% 1.49%
Total 0.95% 1 0 1 2.44% 1.49%
POORLY DRAINED
Basinger fine sand, 0-2% 5.79% 0 0.00% -5.79%
Boca fine sand, 0-2% 1.52% 2 2 4.88% 3.35%
Ft. Drum and Malabar, high, fine sands 1.34% 0 0.00% -1.34%
Hallandale and boca fine sands 0.06% 0 0.00% -0.06%
Hallandale fine sand, 0-2% 0.04% 0 0.00% -0.04%
Hilolo, Jupiter, and Margate fine sands 0.80% 6 6 14.63% 13.83%
Holopaw fine sand, 0-2% 4.44% 2 2 4.88% 0.44%
Holopaw fine sand, limestone
substratum (ls) 0.25% 0 0.00% -0.25%
Immokalee fine sand, 0-2% 19.19% 1 1 2.44% -16.75%
Malabar fine sand, 0-2% 4.50% 4 4 9.76% 5.26%
Myakka fine sand, 0-2% 1.44% 0 0.00% -1.44%
Oldsmar fine sand, 0-2% 12.71% 0 0.00% -12.71%
Oldsmar fine sand, ls 0.99% 1 1 2.44% 1.45%
Pennsuco silt loam 0.06% 0 0.00% -0.06%
Pineda and Riviera fine sands 3.67% 2 1 1 4 9.76% 6.08%
Pineda fine sand, ls 0.23% 0 0.00% -0.23%
Riviera fine sand, ls 0.65% 0 0.00% -0.65%
Riviera, ls-Copeland fine sands 1.02% 1 1 2.44% 1.42%
Tuscawilla fine sand 4.30% 2 2 4 9.76% 5.45%
Wabasso fine sand, 0-2% 5.40% 2 2 4.88% -0.52%
POORLY DRAINED Total 68.41% 22 4 1 0 27 65.85% -2.55%
ACI 4-5
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
DRAINAGE/Soil Type, % slopes % of
Area 1 2 3 4 Total % of
Sites difference
VERY POORLY DRAINED
Boca, Riviera, ls, and Copeland fine
sands, depressional (depr) 7.11% 3 1 4 9.76% 2.64%
Chobee, ls, and Dania mucks, depr 0.21% 0 0.00% -0.21%
Chobee, Winder, and Gator soils, depr 6.94% 1 1 2 4.88% -2.06%
Holopaw and Okeelanta soils, depr 1.19% 0 0.00% -1.19%
Winder, Riviera, ls, and Chobee soils,
depr 13.13% 2 2 4 9.76% -3.38%
Total 28.59% 6 4 0 0 10 24.39% -4.20%
OTHER
Urban land 0.01% 0 0.00% -0.01%
Urban land-Holopaw-Basinger complex 0.01% 0 0.00% -0.01%
Urban land-Immokalee-Oldsmar, ls,
complex 0.95% 0 0.00% -0.95%
Urban land-Matlacha-Boca complex 0.02% 0 0.00% -0.02%
Water 1.07% 3 3 7.32% 6.25%
Total 2.05% 3 0 0 3 7.32% 5.27%
Grand Total 100.00% 32 8 1 0 41 100.00% 0.00%
This portion of Collier County is damp and soggy as evidenced by the fact that 68% of the soils
are poorly drained and another 29% of the soils are very poorly drained. The moderately well drained
soils do not even make up 1% of the area. Water and urban land underlie the remaining portion (2%)
of the study area.
Those soils that have a higher percentage of sites as compared to area (2% or greater) are
marked in red on the table, while those that seem less likely to be used (-2% or less) are marked in blue.
There are six preferred soil types; in order of preference are: Hilolo, Jupiter, and Margate fine sands;
Pineda and Riviera fine sands; Tuscawilla fine sand; Malabar fine sand 0-2% slopes; Boca fine sand,
0-2% slopes; and Boca, Riviera, limestone substratum, and Copeland sands, depressional. The last soil
type may have been chosen as a water hole as opposed as a camping area. There are three soils that
appear to have been avoided. In order of avoidance, they area Immokalee fine sand, 0-2% slopes;
Oldsmar fine sand, 0-2% slopes; and Basinger fine sand, 0-2% slopes.
Soils within the APE have low correlations with sites, especially the Immokalee fine sands that
characterize the northern portion of the APE. The Boca-Riviera with limestone substratum and the
Winder-Riviera also have low correlations with sites. However, the APE is less that one kilometer from
Lake Trafford, a large fresh water source. Additionally, there are numerous precontact habitation and
burial sites within one mile (1.6km). Based on this analysis the APE is considered to be of moderate
probability for the discovery of indigenous sites.
4.3 Historic/Architectural Considerations
Historical background research, including a review of the FMSF and NRHP, indicated that no
historic resources are located within or adjacent to the APE. The Collier County Property Appraiser
data indicated no historic structures within the APE, and none were evident on the aerial photos of the
area (Skinner 2022; USDA 1944, 1958, 1963, 1980).
ACI 4-6
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
4.4 Field Methodology
The FDHR’s Module Three, Guidelines for Use by Historic Professionals, indicates that the
first stage of archaeological field survey is a reconnaissance of the project area to “ground truth,” or
ascertain the validity of the predictive model (FDHR 2003). During this part of the survey, the
researcher assesses whether the initial predictive model needs adjustment based on disturbance or
conditions such as constructed features (i.e., parking lots, buildings, etc.), underground utilities,
landscape alterations (i.e., ditches and swales, mined land, dredged and filled land, agricultural fields),
or other constraints that may affect the archaeological potential. Additionally, these Guidelines indicate
that non-systematic “judgmental” testing may be appropriate in urbanized environments where
pavement, utilities, and constructed features make systematic testing unfeasible; in geographically
restricted areas such as proposed pond sites; or within project areas that have limited high and moderate
probability zones, but where a larger subsurface testing sample may be desired. While predictive
models are useful in determining preliminary testing strategies in a broad context, it is understood that
testing intervals may be altered due to conditions encountered by the field crew at the time of survey.
Archaeological field survey methods consisted of surface reconnaissance combined with
systematic subsurface testing. Shovel tests were placed at 25 m intervals in high probability areas near
previously recorded sites, 50 m intervals in moderate probability areas, and 100 m intervals in low
probability areas within the APE. An additional seven test pits were conducted judgmentally near the
wetlands. All tests measured approximately 50 cm (19.6 inch) in diameter by 100 cm (39.4 inch) depth,
unless impeded by water intrusion or impenetrable substrate. Soils were screened through .64 cm (1/4
inch) mesh hardware cloth. The location of all tests was recorded using the data collection application
by ESRI, Collector, with a Trimble R2 with sub-meter module GNSS receiver.
Historic field methodology consisted of a survey of the project APE to determine the location
of all historic resources believed to be 50 years of age or older, and to ascertain if any resources within
the project APE could be eligible for listing in the NRHP. If found, an in-depth study of each identified
historic resource would have been conducted, photographs taken, and the information needed for the
completion of FMSF forms gathered. In addition to architectural descriptions, each historic resource
would have been reviewed to assess style, historic context, condition, and potential NRHP eligibility.
4.5 Unexpected Discoveries
Occasionally, archaeological deposits, subsurface features or unmarked human remains are
encountered during the course of development, even though the project area may have previously
received a thorough and professionally adequate cultural resources assessment. Such events are rare,
but they do occur. In the event that human remains are encountered during the course of development,
the procedures outlined in Chapter 872, FS must be followed. However, it was not anticipated that such
sites would be found during this survey.
In the event such discoveries are made during the development process, all activities in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery will be suspended, and a professional archaeologist will be
contacted to evaluate the importance of the discovery. The area will be examined by the archaeologist,
who, in consultation with staff of the Florida SHPO, will determine if the discovery is significant or
potentially significant. In the event the discovery is found to be not significant, the work may
immediately resume. If, on the other hand, the discovery is found to be significant or potentially
significant, then development activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery will continue to be
suspended until such time as a mitigation plan, acceptable to SHPO, is developed and implemented.
ACI 4-7
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Development activities may then resume within the discovery area, but only when conducted in
accordance with the guidelines and conditions of the approved mitigation plan.
4.6 Laboratory Methods/Curation
No cultural materials were recovered; therefore, no lab methods were utilized.
Curation of project files (i.e., background research, field notes, photos, etc.) will be at
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. in Sarasota (ACI Project No. P22022), unless the client requests
otherwise.
ACI 5-1
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Archaeological Results
Archaeological field survey included both ground surface reconnaissance and the excavation
of 81 shovel test pits (Figure 5.1). No cultural materials were collected from any shovel tests during
the survey. Tests within and on the boundaries of the previously recorded sites within the APE were
shovel tested at 25 m intervals. Despite the high probability testing no evidence of these sites was
recovered. The lack of evidence of Buried Tin, 8SO00725 supports the ACH (1991) position that this
may be a natural mound. The remainder of the APE was tested at 50 m and 100 m intervals based on
soil type and wetland proximity. There were several notable stratigraphies within the APE.
Southeast: 0-20 centimeters below surface (cmbs) dark gray sand; 20-60 cmbs pale brown
sand; 60-100 grayish brown clay (Photo 5.1).
Northeast: 0-20 cmbs dark gray sand, 20-100 cmbs gray sand (Photo 5.2).
Disturbed Southern Hammock: 0-30 cmbs dark brown sand/muck; water at 30 cmbs (Photo
5.3).
Southwest: 0-100 cmbs gray sand (Photo 5.4)
Northwest: 0-20 cmbs dark gray sand, 20-50 cmbs gray sand, 50-60 cmbs dark brown sand,
60-90 cmbs light brown sand, 90-100 cmbs gray clay (Photo 5.5)
Photo 5.1. Typical stratigraphy in southeast
areas of the APE.
Photo 5.2. Stratigraphy in the northeast area of
the APE.
Photo 5.3. High water table in center of APE.
Photo 5.4. Stratigraphy in southwest portion of
the APE.
ACI 5-2
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Figure 5.1. Location of shovel tests and archaeological sites within the APE.
ACI 5-3
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
A reasonable and good faith effort was made per the regulation 36 CFR § 800.4(b) (1)
(Advisory Council on Historic Preservation n.d.) to test all areas of the project APE.
Photo 5.5. Stratigraphy in the northwest area of the APE.
5.2 Historical Results
Historical background research, including a review of the FMSF and NRHP, indicated that no
historic resources are located within or adjacent to the APE. The Collier County Property Appraiser
data indicated no historic structures within the APE, and none were evident on the aerial photos of the
area (Skinner 2022; USDA 1944, 1958, 1963, 1980). The field investigations confirmed the absence of
historic resources within the APE.
5.3 Conclusions
Based on the background research and survey results, including the excavation of 81 shovel
tests on this 168.4-acre parcel, no evidence of the previously recorded sites was encountered, therefore
no changes were made to existing site file forms. No evidence of new sites or historical resources was
recovered. It is the opinion of ACI that the proposed undertaking will have no effect on any cultural
resources that are listed, determined eligible, or that appear potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP.
ACI 6-1
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
6.0 REFERENCES CITED
Almy, Maranda M.
1978 The Archaeological Potential of Soil Survey Reports. The Florida Anthropologist
31(3):75-91.
2001 The Cuban Fishing Ranchos of Southwest Florida 1600-1850s. Unpublished Honors
Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville
Almy, Marion M. and George M. Luer
1993 Guide to the Prehistory of Historic Spanish Point in Southwest Florida. Gulf Coast
Heritage Association, Sarasota.
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI)
1992 Mapping of Areas of Historical/Archaeological Probability in Collier County, Florida.
Manuscript on file, Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota.
1999 Update Historic/Archaeological Probability Maps and Data Sheets for Collier County
Florida. Archaeological Consultants Inc., Sarasota.
2014a Cultural Resources Avoidance Model Nobles Grade 3D Seismic Survey Big Cypress
National Preserve Collier County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota.
2014b Cultural Resources Predictive Model Tellus 3D Seismic Survey Collier and Hendry
Counties, Florida. ACI, Sarasota.
ART Engineering
2004 Lake Trafford Critical Restoration Project – Aquascan Radar Survey Report, Collier
County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Austin, Robert J.
1987 An Archaeological Site Inventory and Zone Management Plan for Lee County, Florida.
Janus Research, Inc., Tampa. MS# 1561.
1995 Yat Kitischee: A Prehistoric Coastal Hamlet 100 B.C.-A.D. 1200. Manuscript on File,
Janus Research, Tampa.
Austin, Robert J. and M. Russo
1989 Limited Excavations at the Catfish Creek Site (8SO608), Sarasota, Florida. Manuscript
on File, Janus Research, Tampa.
Barron Collier Company
2007 Hogan Conceptual Master Plan (prepared by WilsonMiller) and Hogan Land Use
Tabulations. December 18.
Bellomo, Randy V. and Charles Fuhrmeister
1991 1992 Update of an Archaeological and Zone Management Plan for Lee County,
Florida. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa. MS# 3145.
Bradbury, Alford G. and E. Storey Hallock
1962 A Chronology of Florida Post Offices. Handbook 2. The Florida Federation of Stamp
Clubs.
ACI 6-2
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Bruton, Q. G. and D.E. Bailey
1984 Plant City: Its Origins and History. Hunter Publishing Co. Fort Lee, N.J., Hunter
Publishing Co.
Buchheister, Carl W.
n.d. “The Acquisition and Development of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, 1952-1967”.
http://www.corkscrew.audubon.org/Information/Buchheister.html
Bullen, Ripley P.
1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville.
1978 Tocobaga Indians and the Safety Harbor Culture. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians
of Florida and Southeastern Georgia During the Historic Period, ed. J.T. Milanich
and S. Proctor. Gainesville, University Press of Florida.
Carbone, Victor
1983 Late Quaternary Environment in Florida and the Southeast. The Florida
Anthropologist 36 (1-2):3-17.
Carr, Robert S. and John G. Beriault
1984 Prehistoric Man in South Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Present and
Past, Revised Edition, edited by P.J. Gleason, pp. 1-14. Miami Geological Society
Memoir 2, Miami.
Carter, B.C. and J.S. Dunbar
2006 Early Archaic Archaeology. First Floridians and Last mastodons: The Page-Ladson
Site in the Aucilla River, ed. S.D. Webb. New York, Springer.
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.
Collier County Museum
2010a Everglade: New Directions. Collier County Museum, Naples.
http://colliermuseums.com/history/everglades_new_directions.php
2010b One Man's Vision: Barron Gift Collier. Collier County Museum, Naples.
http://colliermuseums.com/history/barron_collier.php
Covington, James W.
1958 Exploring the Ten Thousand Islands: 1838. Tequesta 18:7-13.
1961 The Armed Occupation Act of 1842. Florida Historical Quarterly 40(1):41-53.
Daniel, Randy and Michael Wisenbaker
1987 Harney Flats. Baywood Publishing Company, Farmingdale.
Davis, George B., Leslie J. Perry, Joseph W. Kirkley
1891-1895 “The Official Military Map of the Civil War”, compiled by Capt. Calvin D. Cowles,
23rd Infantry. Government Printing Office, Reprinted by Fairfax Press, New York.
Davis, J.H.
1980 General Map of Natural Vegetation of Florida. Collection: Circular 1980. Agriculture
Experiment Station, University of Florida.
ACI 6-3
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Delcourt, P. A., and H. R. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 yr. B.P. to the Present. In
Geobotany II, edited by R. C. Romans. Plenum Publishing Corporation.
Dickel, David N.
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Collier County, Florida. AHC Technical Report 38.
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Davie. MS# 2934.
Doran, Glen H.
2002 Windover, Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Period Cemetery.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Drew, Richard D.
1985 An Ecological Characterization of the Caloosahatchee River/Big Cypress Watershed.
Electronic Version, State University System of Florida. Original Manuscript
Published in 1985 by Minerals Management Services, Metairie. Electronic version
available online,
http://fulltext10.fcla.edu/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=feol&idno=UF00000112&format=pdf
Dunbar, James S.
2006 Pleistocene-Early Holocene Climate Change: Chronostratigraphy and Geoclimate of
the Southeast US. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in
the Aucilla River. Edited by S. David Webb, pp. 103-155. Springer, The Netherlands.
2016 Paleoindian Societies of the Coastal Southeast. Gainesville, University Press of
Florida.
Dunbar, James S. and P.K. Vojnovski
2007 Early Floridians and Late Mega-Mammals: Some Technological and Dietary Evidence
from Four North Florida Paleoindian Sites. In Foragers of the Terminial Pleistocene
in North America, ed. R.B. Walker and B.N. Driskell. Omaha, University of Nebraska
Press.
Dunn, Hampton
1989 Back Home: A History of Citrus County, Florida. Citrus County Historical Society,
Inverness. 2nd edition.
Fairbridge, Rhodes W.
1984 The Holocene Sea Level Record in South Florida. In Environments of South Florida:
Present and Past II. Edited by Patrick J. Gleason, pp. 427-436. Miami Geological
Society, Coral Gables.
Farr, G.
2006 A Reevaluation of Bullen’s Typology for Preceramic Projectile Points. M.A. Thesis,
On File, Florida State University.
Faught, M.K
2004 The Underwater Archaeology of Paleolandscapes, Apalachee Bay, Florida. American
Antiquity 69(2):275-289.
ACI 6-4
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Faught, M.K. and J. Donoghue
1997 Marine Inundated Archaeological Sites and Paleofluvial Systems: Examples from a
Kart-controlled Continental Shelf Setting in Apalachee Bay, Northeastern Gulf of
Mexico. Geoarchaeology 12:417-458.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
1999 Project Development and Environmental Manual Part 2, Chapter 12, “Archaeological
and Historical Resources.” On file, FDOT, Tallahassee.
Florida Division of Forestry
2002 www.fl-dof.com
Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR)
n.d. Florida Historical Markers Program: Sunniland Oil Field.
http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/bhp/markers/markers.cfm?ID=collier, Accessed November
5, 2003.
2003 Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual. On file, Florida
Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources
1990 Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. Tallahassee.
Florida Parks Service
n.d. Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. www.abfla.com/parks/Fakahatchee
Strand/fakahatchee.html. Accessed November 10, 2003. Florida Preservation Services
n.d. Collier County Historic Survey. Manuscript on file, Florida Preservation Services,
Tallahassee.
1985 Collier County Historic Survey. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historical
Resources, Tallahassee.
Florida Preservation Services
1986 Historic/Architectural Survey of Collier County, Florida. Manuscript on File, FPS, St.
Augustine.
Fontaneda, Hernando d’Escalante
1944 Memoir of Do. d’Escalante Fontaneda respecting Florida. Written in Spain ca. 1575.
Translated by Buckingham Smith, edited by D.O. True. University of Miami and
Historical Association of Southern Florida, Miami.
Gleason, Patrick and Peter Stone
1994 Age, Origin, and Landscape Evolution of the Everglades Peatland. In Everglades: The
Ecosystem and It’s Resotrations, ed. S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogden. St. Lucie Press
Gleason, Patrick J., Arthur D. Cohen, William Smith, H. Kelly Brooks, Peter A. Stone, Robert
Goodrick, and William Spackman, Jr.
1984 The Environmental Significance of Holocene Sediments from the Everglades and
Saline Tidal Plain. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past II. Edited by
Patrick J. Gleason, pp. 297-351. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables.
ACI 6-5
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Goggin, John M.
n.d. The Archaeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida. Manuscript on File,
Southeastern Archaeology Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.
Griffin, John W.
1988 The Archaeology of Everglades National Park: A Synthesis. National Park Service,
Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee.
Grismer, Karl H.
1946 The Story of Sarasota. Florida Grower Press, Tampa.
Guthrie, S.W.
1974 Land of Promise, Land of Change: An Examination of the Population of Hillsborough
County, Florida. M.A. Thesis, Emory University.
Hann, John
2003 Indians of Central and South Florida, 1513-1763. . University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
Hutchinson, B.
2005 Flowing Along through Time. Sarasota Herald Tribune, February 27.
Ives, Lieutenant J.C.
1856 Military Map of the Peninsula of Florida South of Tampa Bay. U.S. War Department,
Washington D.C.
2005 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the FPL Collier-Orange River #3 230 KV
Transmission Line: Segment E, Collier County. Manuscript on file, Janus Research,
Knetsch, Joe
2008 Fear and Anxiety on the Florida Frontier: Articles on the Second Seminole War.
Seminole Wars Foundation.
Kohler, T.A.
1991 The Demise of Weedon Island and Post-Weedon Island Cultural Stability in Non-
Missippianized North Florida. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The Late
Woodland Southeast, ed. M. Nassaney and C.R. Cobb. New York, Plenum Press.
Luer, G.M. et al
1987 The Myakkahatchee Site (8SO0397), A Large Multi-Period Inland from the Shore Site
in Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 40(2):137-153.
Luer, G.M. and Marion Almy
1982 A Definition of Manasota Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 35(1):34-58.
Mahon, John K.
1985 History of the Second Seminole War 1835-1842. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville. Revised edition.
Mahon, John K. and Brent Weisman
1996 Florida’s Seminole and Miccosukee Peoples. In The New History of Florida, ed.
Michael Gannon. Gainesville, University Press of Florida.
ACI 6-6
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Marth, D.
1973 Yesterday’s Sarasota. E.A. Seeman Publishing, Inc.
Matthews, J.S.
1997 Journey to Centennial Sarasota. Sesquicentennial Productions, Inc.
McCarthy J. and G. Dame
1983 A History of the Myakka River, Sarasota County, Florida. Manuscript on File, Sarasota
County History Center, Sarasota.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
1998 Florida’s Indians from Ancient Times to the Present. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles H. Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Nash, Roy
1930 Survey of the Seminole Indians of Florida. Office of Indian Affairs, Department of
the Interior, Washington, D.C. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/FS00000029/00001/3j.
National Archives
n.d. Historical Information Relating to Military Posts and Other Installations ca. 1700-
1900, Roll 2 Volumes C-E. National Archives Microfilm Publication, Microcopy No.
661. National Archives and Records Service, Washington.
Neill, Wilfred T.
1964 Trilisa Pond, An Early Site in Marion County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
17:187-200.
Parsons, Timothy A.
2021 Letter to Southwest Florida Water Management District, November 1. RE: DHR
Project File No.: 2021-6194, Application No.: 832149, Parkview Multi-family Blount
Development at Millennium Park, Sumter County. FDHR, Tallahassee.
Pettengill, G.W.
1952 The Story of the Florida Railroads 1834-1903. Bulletin 1952. Manuscript on File, The
Railway and Locomotive Historical Society.
Piper, Harry et al
1982 Cultural Responses to Stress: Patterns Observed in American Indian Burials of the
Second Seminole War. Southeastern Archaeology 1(2).
Purdy, Barbara
1981 Florida’s Prehistoric Stone Tool Technology. Gainesville, University Press of Florida.
Robinson, E.L.
1928 History of Hillsborough County. The Record Company Printers.
ACI 6-7
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Russo, Michael
1994a A Brief Introduction to the Study of Archaic Mounds in the Southeast. Southeastern
Archaeology 13(2):89-92.
1994b Why We Don't Believe in Archaic Ceremonial Mounds and Why We Should: The
Case from Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 13(2):93-108.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
2003 New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery from the Middle St. John’s
Valley and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast Florida. Florida
Anthropologist 56(1):5-13
2008 The New Archaic, It Ain't What It Used to Be. The SAA Archaeological Record 8 (5):
6-8.
Schwadron, Margo
2002 Archaeological Survey of the New Addition Lands, Big Cypress National Preserve,
Florida. Manuscript on File: Southeastern Archaeology Center, National Park Service,
Talahassee.
Seminole Tribe of Florida
n.d. “Survival in the Swamp.” www.seminoletribe.com (November 11, 2003).
Shofner, Jerrell H.
1995 History of Brevard County. Brevard County Historical Commission, Stuart.
Smith, Buckingham
1944 Memoir of Do. d'Escalante Fontaneda Respecting Florida. Written in Spain about the
Year 1575. (English translation by Smith. Edited by David O. True). University of
Miami and Historical Association of Florida, Miami.
Smith, Greg C.
2008 Cultural Resources Overview and Survey Strategy: Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, GA.
Stanford, D. et al
2005 Paleamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis, ed. R. Bonnichsen et al. Center for the Study of the First
Americans.
State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection
1872 Field Notes. Volume 222.
n.d. Tract Book Volume 25:48.
State Mapping Office
1993 General Highway Map, Collier County, Florida.
Tampa Tribune
1955 “Pioneer Florida”, January 2.
ACI 6-8
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Tebeau, Charlton W.
1966 Florida’s Last Frontier: The History of Collier County. University of Miami Press,
Coral Gables.
1971 A History of Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.
Tebeau, Charlton W. and Ruby Leach Carson
1965 Florida From Indian Trail to Space Age. Southern Publishing Company, Delray
Beach.
Tischendorf, A.P.
1954 Florida and the British Investor 1880-1914. Florida Historical Quartertly 33(1): 120-
129.
True, David O., Ed.
1944 Memoir of D. Escalante Fontaneda Respecting Florida. University of Miami and
South Florida Historical Society, Miami.
U.S. Census
2008 State and County QuickFacts: Collier County, Florida. Online,
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12001.html. Last revised 1/2/08.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1954 Soil Survey Collier County, Florida. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington,
D.C.
1998 Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida. USDA Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Maps
1958a Corkscrew SE, Fla. Photorevised 1973.
1958b Corkscrew SW, Fla. Photorevised 1987.
Watts, William A.
1969 A Pollen Diagram from Mud Lake, Marion County, North-Central Florida. Geological
Society of America Bulletin 80:631-642.
1971 Post Glacial and Interglacial Vegetational History of Southern Georgia and Central
Florida. Ecology 51:676-690.
1975 A Late Quaternary Record of Vegetation from Lake Annie, South-Central Florida.
Geology 3:344-346.
Watts, William and B.C.S. Hansen
1988 Environments in Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site Archaeology,
ed B.A. Purdy. Telford, PA, Telford Press
1994 Pre-Holocene and Holocene Pollen Records of Vegetation History for the Florida
Peninsula and the Climatic Implications. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology 109:163-167.
Watts, William et al
1996 Mid-Holocene Forest History of Florida and the Coastal Plain of Georgia and South
Carolina. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, ed. K. E. Sassaman and D.G.
Anderson. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
ACI 6-9
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
Webb, S.D.
2006 Mastodon Tusk Recovery. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page -Ladson
Site in the Aucilla River, ed. S.D. Webb. New York, Springer.
Webb, S.D. and J.S. Dunbar
2006 Carbon Dates. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the
Aucilla River, ed. S.D. Webb. New York, Springer.
Weeks, Don and Christine Bates
1998 “The Big Cypress Hydrology Program.” Park Science, Volume 18(1). Also
www.nature.nps.gov/parksci/vol18(1)/13weeks.htm.
Widmer, Randolph J.
1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Non-Agricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida
Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.
Zilles, J.
1976 A History of Sarasota County Agriculture Fair Association and Sarasota County
Historical Society. Manuscript on File, Sarasota.
ACI
CRAS Williams Farms PUD, Collier Co. P22022
APPENDIX A
Survey Log
Florida Master Site File / Div. of Historical Resources / R.A. Gray Bldg / 500 S Bronough St., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 HR6E066R0 , 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 /1
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 (GRQot 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 _________B End _B________ Total Area Surveyed (fill in one) _____BB_hectares BB______acres
Number of Distinct Tracts or Areas Surveyed _________
If Corridor (fill in one for each) Width: ___B___meters ___B___feet Length: __B____kilometers ____B__miles
Williams Farms PUD, Phase I
Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of Williams Farms Planned Urban Development (PUD), Collier
County, Florida
Maranda Kles
Jean Louise Lammie
2022 48
ACI (2022) Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Williams Farm in Collier County, Florida.
Conducted for J.R. Evans Engineering, LLC, Estero by ACI, Sarasota. P22022
Kles, Maranda
Archaeological Consultants Inc Sarasota
J.R. Evans Engineering, LLC
9351 Corkscrew Road STE 201 Estero, FL 33928
Jean Louise Lammie 3-4-2022
Collier
IMMOKALEE 1958
2-21-2022 2-24-2022 168.00
Florida Master Site File / Div. of Historical Resources / R.A. Gray Bldg / 500 S Bronough St., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 HR6E066R0, 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 data
q Site File property search q Public Lands Survey (maps at DEP) q literature search q windshield survey
q 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 size
q surface collection, uncontrolled q water screen
q shovel test-1/4”screen q posthole tests
q shovel test-1/8” screen q auger tests
q shovel test 1/16”screen q coring
q shovel test-unscreened q test excavation (at least 1x2 m)
q block excavation (at least 2x2 m)
q soil resistivity
q magnetometer
q side scan sonar
q JURXQGSHQHWUDWLQJUDGDU *35
q /,'$5
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 maps
q commercial permits q occupant interview q tax records
q interior documentation
q ZLQGVKLHOGVXUYH\
q 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: ________________________BB____ Plotability: ___________________________________________
/,'$5
RWKHUUHPRWHVHQVLQJ
SHGHVWULDQVXUYH\
XQNQRZQ
PHWDOGHWHFWRU
RWKHUUHPRWHVHQVLQJ
'HVNWRS$QDO\VLV
N=81;Shovel tests were placed at 25 m intervals in high probability areas near previously recorded
sites, 50 m intervals in moderate probability areas, and 100 m intervals in low probability areas
within the APE.
Plottable Projects
Williams Farm Property
Township 46 South, Range 28 East, Section 36; Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Section 31
USGS Immokalee
Collier County, Florida