2015063-10.1
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS REPORT FOR THE APPLICATION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT FOR THE PRESERVE AT BLUE RUN PROJECT SITE, MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
Submitted to:
Mr. Cliff Ondercin Southwest Florida Water Management District Tampa Service Center 7601 US Highway 301 Tampa, Florida 33637-6759 Phone: (813) 985-7481
Through:
Farner Barley and Associates, Inc. 4450 N.E. 83rd Road Wildwood, Florida 34785 Phone: (352) 748-3126
On behalf of:
Mr. Mark Penfield Rainbow River Ranch, LLC 18141 Nalle Road Fort Myers, Florida 33917
February 25, 2016
Submitted by:
______Jonathan R. McCurry, M.S., C.W.B. W. Jeffrey Pardue, C.E.P., M.S., M.B.A. Associate Scientist III Senior Vice President
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ...... ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 3
2.0 ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ...... 6
2.1 Vegetative Communities ...... 6 2.2 Uplands ...... 9 2.3 Wetlands and Surface Waters ...... 10 2.4 Soils ...... 11 2.5 Protected Wildlife and Plants...... 11
3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 25
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT REVIEW AND ISSUANCE CRITERIA ...... 28
4.1 Environmental Conditions for Issuance ...... 28 4.2 Elimination or Reduction of Impacts ...... 31 4.3 Fish, Wildlife, Protected Species, and Their Habitats ...... 31
4.3.1 Habitat Review Factors ...... 32
4.4 Water Quantity ...... 33 4.5 Public Interest Test ...... 33 4.6 Water Quality ...... 36 4.7 Secondary Impacts ...... 36 4.8 Cumulative Impacts ...... 37
APPENDIX A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE PRESERVE AT BLUE RUN PROJECT SITE MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPENDIX B HISTORICAL AERIALS FOR THE PRESERVE AT BLUE RUN PROJECT SITE MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPENDIX C U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE
APPENDIX D TABLE 1 FROM FORM 62-330.060(1) SECTION C AND BOTH THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT HANDBOOK VOLUME I, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2013 (HANDBOOK) AND THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT INFORMATION MANUAL IMPLEMENTED OCTOBER 1, 2013 (MANUAL)
APPENDIX E ARCHEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS, INC CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESEMENT SURVEY, JULY 2005, FOR THE PRESERVE AT BLUE RUN PROJECT SITE MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
i
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1.0-1 Location of the Preserve at Blue Run Project Site, Marion County, Florida...... 4
Figure 2.0-1 Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System Map for the Preserve at Blue Run Project Site, Marion County, Florida...... 7
Table 2.1-1 Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System, Representative Acreage and Percent Cover for the Preserve at Blue Run Project Site, Marion County, Florida...... 8
Figure 2.4-1 Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils Map for the Preserve at Blue Run Project Site, Marion County, Florida...... 12
Table 2.5-1 Protected Plants and Animals with Potential for Occurrence on the Preserve at Blue Run Project Site, Marion County, Florida...... 13
Figure 3.0-1 Proposed Development Plan for the Preserve at Blue Run Project Site, Marion County, Florida...... 26
Figure 3.0-2 Wetland Map for the Preserve at Blue Run Project Site, Marion County, Florida...... 27
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Preserve at Blue Run project site (Site) is planned to prepare the site for development and stormwater management system (SWMS) construction to support development of the Site primarily for residential use. The Site consists of approximately 261.64 acres located north of C.R. 484 and east of S.R.41
adjacent to the Rainbow River, in Sections 25 and 36 Township 16 Range 18 E and Section 30 Township
16 Range 19 E, Marion County, Florida (Figure 1.0-1). An aerial photograph depicting the Site boundary
has been included as Appendix A. A major modification to Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No.
43032697.000 is being sought through the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) in
order to carry out the proposed project.
The Site has been reviewed by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates, Inc. (BDA) scientists to evaluate existing
conditions. The review consisted of on-site assessment of the vegetative communities, hydrologic
conditions on the Site, and wildlife utilization of the Site, as well as a review of maps, and ancillary documents, to include the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils map, U.S. Geological
Survey topographic map, and aerial photography. A review of existing databases (species of wildlife and plants listed for protection under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 USC § 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, 1976 – 1982, 1984, and 1988) and Florida rule (Chapter 68A-
27.0001- 27.007, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]) was also conducted to document the occurrence of wildlife or plant species listed as Threatened or Endangered (T&E) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and wildlife listed as State Threatened (ST) or State Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
3 Copyright:©2013National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Legend Boundary
Sources:Esri, HERE, DeLormUSGS, e, Interm ap,
0 1,000 2,000 Feet 1 inchfeet1 2,000 = Source:Project boundary from Farner Barley USAAssoc.,& Topographic 10/14/2015. Maps National©2008ESRI, Geographic Society. !°
FIGU RE1.0-1 BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. LOCATIONOFTHE PRESERVE ATBLU RU E NPROJECT SITE Environmental Consultants MARIONCOU NTY,FLORIDA W.330CantonBDA WinterAv 407-677-1882 e., Park,FL 32789 •
BN • 10/26/2015 • P:\ATG\2015063\Perm•BN 10/26/2015• it_Use\ERP_201510\ARCGIS\Location_A.mxd
The extent of SWFWMD jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters were delineated and field-flagged in accordance with the Florida Unified Wetland Delineation Methodology as stated in Chapter 62-340,
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). A total of 32.39 acres of wetlands and 2.32 acres of surface waters potentially subject to regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 62-340 F.A.C. have been identified within the Site.
The Site consists of construction of the SWMS and infrastructure for commercial and residential areas on the Site. Wetland and surface water impacts were avoided to the extent practicable in project design.
This application provides an overview of the Site with documentation of the current environmental conditions, including soils and hydrologic information, and the occurrence or potential for occurrence of
T&E and plant species, in support of the design and engineering information prepared by Farner, Barley and Associates, Inc. (FBA).
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
5
2.0 ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
BDA scientists reviewed the Site in order to gather information relative to potential wetland jurisdictional limits, the vegetative community structure on the Site, and existing conditions in wetlands, with respect to hydrologic functions and habitat characteristics. Data were also collected regarding wetland and upland habitat conditions and the occurrence and/or likelihood of occurrence for fish, wildlife, and T&E species on the Site.
The on-Site land use and vegetative cover types were classified by BDA scientists through aerial photo- interpretation followed by selective ground-truthing during field investigations to characterize the habitats and provide the basis for an assessment of the occurrence or potential for occurrence of listed wildlife and plant species. The characterization of the vegetative communities and land use types was based on the
Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Florida Department of Transportation
[FDOT], January 1999) (Figure 2.0-1). The following describes the general composition and conditions of the various community types identified within the Site. Botanical nomenclature (scientific names), as presented in this report, is per Wunderlin (Wunderlin, Richard P. and Bruce F. Hansen. 2003. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida, second edition. University Press of Florida. 787 pp.).
2.1 Vegetative Communities
Upland communities on the Site comprise approximately 226.93 acres (86.7%) of the Site and wetlands and surface waters comprise 34.71 acres (13.3%) of the Site. Land use type, classification, approximate acreage, and percent areal coverage of the Site are presented in Table 2.1-1.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
6 630 630 630 530 110 212
630 434
211 630
630 110 510
212 630 434
630
Source:DigitalGlobEsri, Geo e, Eye,i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getma pping,Aerogrid, swisstopo, IGP, IGN , and theGISUser Com m unity
Legend
Boundaac (261.64 ry ) Unimproved - 212 Pastures ac (14.16 ) LandCover Classific ation Hardwo - 434 Coniferous o d- Mixed ac (22.61 ) 110 - Residential, - 110 Low Density (Less tha nTwo Strea m- 510 sand Wa terwaac ys (2.69 ) DwellingUnits acacper (4.56 ) re) Sources:HERE,Esri, 530 - Reservoirs - 530 ac (1.64 ) DeLorme,USGS, Interma p, 211 - Improved - 211 Pastures ac (186.29 ) 630 - Wetland - 630 Forested Mixed ac (29.70 ) 0 500 1,000 Source:Projec bo t undaand ry wetlands from Farner Barley AdditionaAsso& 10/14/2015. c ., vegetative l delinea tionba sedon Feet pho tointerpretationand selec groundtruthing tive byArcGIS BDA,Online 10/2015. Wo rldIma gery,©[i-cubed,ESRI, USDA FSA, inc1 feet1,000 h= USGS,AEX,Geo Eye,Getma pping],1/2011. !°
FIGUR2.0-1 E BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. FLOR IDALAND USE,COVER AND FOR MSCLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) FOR Environmental Consultants THEPR ESER VEATBLUE RUN PR OJECTMARSITE, IONCOUNTY, FLOR IDA W.330CantonBDA WinterAve., Park FL32789407-677-1882• ,
BN • 1/19/2016 • P:\ATG\2015063\Permit_Use\ERP_201510\ARCGIS\FLUCFCS_A.mxd•BN 1/19/2016 • Table 2.1-1. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System, Representative Acreage and Percent Cover for the Preserve at Blue Run Project Site, Marion County, Florida.
Code FLUCFCS1 Text Acreage Percent Cover
110 Residential Low Density 4.55 1.8%
211 Improved Pastures 186.29 71.2%
212 Unimproved Pastures 14.16 5.4%
434 Hardwood-Coniferous Mixed 22.61 8.6%
510 Streams and Waterways 2.69 1.0%
530 Reservoirs 1.64 0.6%
630 Wetland Forested Mixed 29.70 11.4%
Total 261.64 100%
1 Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\Table 2.1-1.doc
2.2 Uplands
The upland vegetation cover and land use types consisted of Residential, Low Density (Less than Two
Dwelling Units per Acre) (110), Improved Pastures (211), Unimproved Pastures (212), and Hardwood
Conifer Mixed (434).
Improved Pasture (211) was the dominant cover type on the Site and contained a predominance of bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum). Additional taxa noted included beggarticks (Bidens alba), bermudagrass
(Cynodon dactylon), carpetgrass (Axonopus sp.), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), and blackberry
(Rubus sp.) with scattered occurrences of live oak (Quercus virginiana), Chinaberrytree (Melia azedarach), and Hercules’-club (Zanthoxylum clava-herculis).
The Residential, Low Density (Less than Two Dwelling Units per Acre) (110) areas were situated within the improved pastures and contained similar vegetation.
The Unimproved Pasture (212) was located primarily on the western portion of the Site with a small piece in the northeastern corner and contained the following vegetation bahiagrass, dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), cogongrass, ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), broomsedge bluestem (Andropogon virginicus), Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), Mexican tea
(Chenopodium ambrosioides), sandspur (Krameria lanceolata), pawpaw (Asimina sp.), cottonweed
(Froelichia floridana), senna (Senna sp.), hairy indigo (Indigofera hirsuta), common persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), blackberry, and pricklypear (Opuntia humifusa) with scattered occurrences of live oak.
The Hardwood Conifer Mixed (434) was located on the western portion of the Site and contained the following vegetation live oak, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), turkey oak (Quercus laevis), slash pine
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
9
(Pinus elliottii), and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), cabbage palm
(Sabal palmetto), water oak (Quercus nigra), hickory (Carya sp.), American beautyberry (Callicarpa
americana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Herbaceous vegetation within this cover type was
scattered and mimicked the adjacent unimproved pasture.
2.3 Wetlands and Surface Waters
The wetland vegetation cover and use type included Wetland Forested Mix (630), Streams and Waterways
(510), and Reservoirs (530).
The Wetland Forested Mix (630) and Streams and Waterways (510) intertwined along the edge of the
Rainbow River. The canopy and subcanopy consisted of red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum, slash pine,
dahoon (Ilex cassine), cabbage palm, swamp bay (Persea palustris), bald-cypress (Taxodium distichum),
American elm (Ulmus americana), camphortree (Cinnamomum camphora), laurel oak, common persimmon, and pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana). Herbaceous and shrub taxa included netted chain fern
(Woodwardia areolata), Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), rattan
vine (Berchemia scandens), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), wild taro (Colocasia esculenta), wedelia (wedelia
sp.), common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), cattail (Typha sp.), American beautyberry, grape
(Vitis sp.) vine, common water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), water spangles (Salvinia minima),
Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), spadeleaf (Centella asiatica),
blackberry, cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and manyflower marshpennywort (Hydrocotyle
umbellata),
Reservoirs (530) the interior of the pond consisted solely of spatterdock (Nuphar advena). The edge
vegetation consisted of manyflower marshpennywort, bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus),
alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), falsefennel (Eupatorium leptophyllum), false reinorchid
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
10
(Habenaria sp.), maidencane, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), soft rush (Juncus effusus), Chinese tallowtree (Sapium sebiferum).
2.4 Soils
Soils on the Site are depicted on Figure 2.4-1. The Soil Survey Geographic database created by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, NRCS for Sumter County, Florida, identifies the following soil types as occurring within the Site: Adamsville sand, 0 to 5% slopes (02), Anclote sand depressional (03), Arent 2 to 5% slopes (07), Arents steep (08), Candler sand, 1 to 5% slopes (22), Candler sand, 5 to 12% slopes
(23), Candler clay overwash 1 to 2% slopes (24), Gainesville loamy fine sand 5 to 8% slopes (36),
Pomona sand (61), Taveres fine sand, 0 to 5% slopes (69), Water (99).
2.5 Protected Wildlife and Plants
Species of wildlife and plants protected under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
16 United States Code 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976 – 1982, 1984, and 1988 (ESA) and Florida rule (68A-27.0001- 27.007, F.A.C.) and known to occur within Marion County, Florida, are represented in Table 2.5-1. (Note: The FWC adopted new rules for listing imperiled wildlife species effective on November 8, 2010. Species previously classified as Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) were approved for reclassification as T in June 2011. Final reclassifications for SSC to T or removal from the list and for E or T that were recommended for removal from the list are pending development and approval for implementation of management plans for each species). The likelihood of occurrence, listed within this table, is based on a comparison of known general habitat requirements by these species with the habitats found on or near the Site, the quantity, quality, and adjacency of these habitats, as well as any observations of these species during field study. The likelihood of occurrence for protected species was rated as high, moderate, low, unlikely, or not applicable based on knowledge of a species’
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
11 61 02 36
36 61 22 22 24 07 08
24 02
02 23
99 69
23 03 69 22
69
99 69
Source:DigitalGlobe, Esri, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getma pping,Aerogrid,swisstopo, andIGP, IGN the , GISUser Com m unity
Leg e n d Boundaac) (261.64 ry CAN - 23 DLERSAN TOPERCEN D/512 SLOPES T ac) (9.65 S o ils CAN - 24 DLERCLAY/OVERW ASH/1TOPERCEN2 SLOPES T ac) (31.55 02 - ADAMSVILLE - 02 SAN TOPERCEN D/05 SLOPES T ac) (9.41 GAINESVILLE - 36 LOAMY FINE SAN TOPERCEN D/58 SLOPES T ac) (5.11
03 - AN - 03 CLOTE SAN D/DEPRESSIONac) AL(24.72 POMON - 61 SAN A ac) D(20.14
07 - AREN - 07 TOPERCEN TS/25 SLOPES T ac) (1.03 TAVARES - 69 SAN TOPERCEN D/05 SLOPES T ac) (7.86 Sources:HERE, Esri,
08 - AREN - 08 TS/STEEPac) (12.55 WATER - 99ac) (3.68 DeLorme,USGS, Interma p,
22 - CAN - 22 DLERSAN TOPERCEN D/15 SLOPES T ac) (135.95 0 500 1,000 Feet Source:USDA, NRCS, SSURGO Projectda boundapub. 07/03/2002. taba2.2, V. Ma sefromforFL, ry Farner Barley rion, & inchfeet1 1,000 = Assoc., 10/14/2015. ArcGIS Online 10/14/2015. Assoc., World Ima gery,©[i-cubed,ESRI, USDA FSA,USGS, AEX,GeoEye, Getma pping],1/2011. !°
FIGURE2.4-1 BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. NATURALRES OURCESCONS ERVATIONSERVICE (NRCS SOILS ) FOR THE Environmental Consultants PRES ERVEATBLUE RUN PROJECT MARIONSITE, COUNTY, FLORIDA W.330CantoBDA nAveWinter FL32789 ., 407-677-1882•Park,
BN • 1/19/2016 • P:\ATG\2015063\Permit_Use\ERP_201510\ARCGIS\Soils_A.mxd•BN 1/19/2016 • Table 2.5-1 Protected Plants and Animals with Potential for Occurrence on the Preserve at Blue Run Project Site, Marion County, Florida.
Designated Likelihood 1 Species Habitat of Occurrence of Status Occurrence USFWS2 DACS3 PLANTS Bonamia grandiflora Scrub, dry pinelands. N/A T __ Florida bonamia Dicerandra cornutissima Sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub. N/A — — longspurred mint Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium Sandhill, scrub. N/A — — scrub buckwheat Nolina brittoniana Scrub, sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, xeric hammock. N/A E __ Britton’s beargrass Polygala lewtonii Xeric oak scrub, sandhill. N/A E __ Lewton’s polygala Designated Likelihood 4 Species Habitat of Occurrence of Status Occurrence USFWS5 FWC67 FISH Acipenser brevirostrum Rivers, estuaries. Low E FE shortnose sturgeon
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\Marion Protected.doc
Updated August 17, 2015 Table 2.5-1 Continued.
Designated Likelihood 4 Species Habitat of Occurrence of Status Occurrence USFWS5 FWC67 Cyprinodon variegates hubbsi Lakes. N/A — SSC Lake Eustis pupfish Ethostoma olmstedi maculaticeps Streams. N/A — SSC southern tessellated darter Pteronotropis welaka Blackwater rivers and streams, spring runs. Low — SSC bluenose shiner AMPHIBIANS Ambystoma cingulatum Pine flatwoods, cypress swamp. Unlikely T FT flatwoods salamander Lithobates capito Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill, upland hardwoods, pine flatwoods, freshwater marsh. Low — SSC gopher frog
REPTILES Alligator mississippiensis Freshwater marsh, cypress swamp, mixed hardwood swamp, shrub swamp, bottomland hardwoods, lakes, ponds, rivers, Moderate T(S/A) FT(S/A) American alligator streams.
Drymarchon corais couperi Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill, pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, tropical hardwood hammock, hydric Low T FT eastern indigo snake hammock, wet prairie, mangrove swamp.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\Marion Protected.doc
Updated August 17, 2015 Table 2.5-1 Continued.
Designated Likelihood 4 Species Habitat of Occurrence of Status Occurrence USFWS5 FWC67 Gopherus polyphemus Sandhill, sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub, coastal strand, xeric hammock, dry prairie, pine flatwoods, mixed Observed — ST gopher tortoise hardwood–pine forests, ruderal. Neoseps [=Plestiodon] reynoldsi Rosemary scrub, sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub, scrubby flatwoods, xeric hammock. N/A T FT sand skink Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill, scrubby pine flatwoods, old fields on former sandhill and scrub sites. Unlikely — SSC Florida pine snake Pseudemys concinna suwanniensis Rivers, large streams, spring runs, and associated backwaters and impoundments. Moderate — SSC Suwannee cooter Stilosoma extenuatum Sandhill, xeric hammock, sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub. N/A — ST short-tailed snake BIRDS Aphelocoma coerulescens Xeric oak scrub. Unlikley T FT Florida scrub-jay Aramus guarauna Freshwater marsh, mixed hardwood swamp, rivers, streams, spring runs, lake margins, ruderal. Moderate — SSC limpkin Athene cunicularia Sandhill, dry prairie, pastures, ruderal. Moderate — SSC burrowing owl
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\Marion Protected.doc
Updated August 17, 2015 Table 2.5-1 Continued.
Designated Likelihood 4 Species Habitat of Occurrence of Status Occurrence USFWS5 FWC67 Egretta caerulea Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, lakes, streams, salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats. Moderate — SSC little blue heron Egretta thula Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, streams, lakes, salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, Moderate — SSC snowy egret impoundments, ditches. Egretta tricolor Salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, tidal creeks, tidal ditches, freshwater marsh, various types of forested Moderate — SSC tricolored heron wetlands, lakes and ponds. Eudocimus albus Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, ruderal. Moderate — SSC white ibis Falco sparverius paulus Sandhill, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, pasture, old field. High — ST southeastern American kestrel Grus canadensis pratensis Dry prairie, freshwater marsh, pasture. Moderate — ST Florida sandhill crane Mycteria americana Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, ponds, salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, lagoons, Moderate T FT wood stork flooded pastures. Picoides borealis Sandhill, pine flatwoods. N/A E FE red-cockaded woodpecker
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\Marion Protected.doc
Updated August 17, 2015 Table 2.5-1 Continued.
Designated Likelihood 4 Species Habitat of Occurrence of Status Occurrence USFWS5 FWC67 MAMMALS Podomys floridanus Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill. Low — SSC Florida mouse Sciurus niger shermani Sandhill, pine flatwoods, pastures. Moderate — SSC Sherman’s fox squirrel Trichechus manatus latirostris Estuarine bays and lagoons, seagrass beds, rivers, spring runs. N/A E FE Florida manatee
1 Federal Designations: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; T(S/A) = Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance; State Designations: ST = State-designated Threatened; SSC = State Species of Special Concern; ST(S/A) = State-designated Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance; FE = Federally-designated Endangered; FT = Federally-designated Threatened; FT(S/A) = Federally-designated Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance. 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3 Species are listed as “Federally-designated endangered or threatened species” on the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species list but regulatory authorizations for take are only provided by the federal agency administering the species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. These state classifications are pending reclassification in accordance with revisions to Rules 68A- 27.003, 68A-27.005, 68A-27.0012 and 68A-27.0021, Florida Administrative Code, for managing imperiled species as adopted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on September 1, 2010, effective November 15, 2010. 4 Federal Designations: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; T(S/A) = Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance; State Designations: ST = State-designated Threatened; SSC = State Species of Special Concern; ST(S/A) = State-designated Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance; FE = Federally-designated Endangered; FT = Federally-designated Threatened; FT(S/A) = Federally-designated Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance. 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 6 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 7 Species are listed as “Federally-designated endangered or threatened species” on the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species list but regulatory authorizations for take are only provided by the federal agency administering the species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. These state classifications are pending reclassification in accordance with revisions to Rules 68A- 27.003, 68A-27.005, 68A-27.0012 and 68A-27.0021, Florida Administrative Code, for managing imperiled species as adopted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on September 1, 2010, effective November 15, 2010.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\Marion Protected.doc
Updated August 17, 2015
habitat preference and Site conditions. A likelihood of occurrence given as “unlikely” indicates that no,
or very limited, suitable habitat for this species exists on the Site, but the Site is within the documented
range of the species; “not applicable” indicates that the habitat for this species does not exist on or
adjacent to the Site and/or the Site is not within the documented range of the species.
The Marion County Federally Listed Species database, located on the USFWS Critical Habitat portal
website, and the USFWS’s publication County Lists of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate
Species of the Southeast United States (The Redbook) indicate that no critical habitat for listed species has
been designated in Marion County, Florida. No federally listed plant species were observed on the Site
during the field investigation.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): The bald eagle is protected by the USFWS under provisions of
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (effective August
9, 2007). Recovery goals have been achieved for this species; therefore, the bald eagle is no longer listed
or protected as a “Threatened” species under the ESA of 1973, as amended. The USFWS has
implemented National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (National Guidelines) (May 2007) to assist
private landowners and others to plan land-use activities in proximity to active bald eagle nests by measures that will minimize the likelihood of causing “disturbance” to nesting bald eagles, as defined under the BGEPA. The FWC also removed the bald eagle from classification and protection as a
“Threatened” species under Florida Rule and implemented the Florida Bald Eagle Management Plan
(Florida Plan) (effective May 9, 2008). The Florida Plan includes Florida Bald Eagle Management
Guidelines (Florida Guidelines) and permit provisions.
The FWC bald eagle nest database was reviewed to determine the locations of all nests that occur on or in
close proximity to the Site. There are no active bald eagle nests located on the Site. The nearest recorded
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
18 active nest is Nest No. MR166, located 1.0 miles southeast of the Site. Project activities occurring beyond 660 feet from active bald eagle nests will be in compliance with both the National Guidelines and the Florida Guidelines. Given there are no recent records of bald eagle nests within 660 feet of the Site, activities occurring on Site are not expected to adversely affect bald eagles.
Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) (ST, FWC): Two subspecies of American kestrels occur in Florida, the eastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius sparverius) and the southeastern
American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus). The eastern American kestrel winters in Florida, arriving in
September and leaving in the early spring months of March-April. Kestrels (Falco spp.) were observed on Site. Since the American kestrel (Falco sparverius) and the southeastern American kestrel are virtually indistinguishable while on wing, it is not certain if one or both were observed on the Site. No suitable nesting cavities where observed during the field review. Should land clearing be necessary during the nesting season (April-August) a survey for nesting southeastern American kestrels will be conducted. Should any nesting southeastern American kestrels be documented on Site, coordination/permitting with the FWC will be conducted as required based on survey results and the development plan.
Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) (ST, FWC): The Florida sandhill crane is a resident, breeding, non-migratory subspecies of sandhill cranes. The Site is within the range of Florida sandhill cranes. The greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida) also occurs in Florida as a wintering migrant, arriving in Florida during October and November and beginning spring migration in late
February. Florida sandhill cranes nest in shallow, emergent palustrine wetlands, particularly those dominated by pickerelweed and maidencane. They feed in a variety of open, upland habitats, primarily prairies but also human-manipulated habitats such as sod farms, ranchlands, pastures, golf courses, airports, and suburban subdivisions. No Florida sandhill crane nesting was observed on the Site and no
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
19
suitable nesting habitat occurs on the Site. However, the Site consists of predominantly pasture which is suitable foraging habitat. Foraging habitat is abundant in the region and since some suitable habitat will be available in the post-development condition (edges of ponds, open areas), no adverse impacts to this species are expected to occur as a result of Site development.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) (SSC): The Site falls within the range of the Florida burrowing owl. No burrowing owls or their burrows were observed during the field review. A 100% survey of the
Site will be conducted prior to Site development. If any burrowing owls or their burrows are documented, coordination/permitting with the FWC should be initiated to address any potential impacts that may occur. If active owl burrows are found to be present a Migratory Bird Nest removal permit will need to be obtained from the FWC to in order to authorize collapsing inactive burrows. Burrows can only be collapsed if no eggs or flightless young are present in the nest. During construction any active burrowing owl will be protected with a 200-foot radius buffer maintained while the nest is active.
Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) (State Threatened [ST], FWC): The gopher tortoise is listed as ST by the FWC but is not listed as T or E by the USFWS. Presence of this species on the Site is based on the observations of active burrows that were documented during the field investigation. The presence of gopher tortoises on the Site requires development of a management plan for the species if impacts are anticipated. An application for a relocation permit will be submitted to the FWC to authorize Site development plan prior to any type of work to prepare the Site for development. Any gopher tortoises excavated from the Site will be relocated on site or offsite to an FWC permitted recipient site.
Sherman’s Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) (SSC, FWC): Sherman’s fox squirrels range throughout the Florida peninsula south to the Caloosahatchee River. Optimal Sherman’s fox squirrel habitat has been characterized as mature, fire-maintained longleaf pine-turkey oak sandhills and
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
20
flatwoods. Preferred habitat has also been described as mature and open pine and pine-hardwood
associations. Sherman’s fox squirrels are diurnal, solitary animals whose home ranges may overlap, but
separate core home range areas are maintained. Suitable nesting habitat for the Sherman’s fox squirrels
occurs on the Site. A survey for active nests will be conducted prior to Site development and
coordination/permitting with FWC will be conducted as necessary.
Gopher Frog (Rana capito) (SSC): The Site is within the range of the gopher frog. Given the presence
of gopher tortoise burrows and wetlands on Site, there is a moderate likelihood that gopher frogs may be
present on the Site. The management plan1 adopted by the FWC along with the relocation permit guidelines2 for gopher tortoises provides guidance for conservation of commensals associated with
gopher tortoise burrows such as the gopher frog.
Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (T/FT): Eastern indigo snakes have not been
observed on the Site, and occurrence is considered unlikely. However, they have potential to occur based
on the presence of a mix of habitats on and adjacent to the Site and the presence of gopher tortoise
burrows. The FWC has adopted a management plan and relocation permit guidelines for gopher tortoises,
which provides guidance for conservation of commensals associated with gopher tortoise burrows such as
the eastern indigo snake. By following these guidelines, it is possible to relocate eastern indigo snakes
encountered within gopher tortoise burrows.
In order to determine whether development may have an effect on the eastern indigo snake, the USFWS
developed the Eastern Indigo Snake Programmatic Effect Determination Key. The key uses site
characteristics and pre-construction protocol implementation to determine whether development will have
1 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2012. Gopher tortoise management plan: Gopherus polyphemus. Technical report, September 2012. FWC, Tallahassee, FL. 2 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2015. Gopher tortoise permitting guidelines: Gopherus polyphemus. Technical report, February 2015. FWC, Tallahassee, FL.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
21
an effect on the eastern indigo snake. Utilizing the key, development of this Site will “Not Likely
Adversely Affect” the eastern indigo snake based the following site characteristics: the Site contains less
than 25 acres of xeric habitat (scrub, sandhill, or scrubby flatwoods), less than 25 active and inactive
gopher tortoise burrows, and the USFWS standard protection measures for the eastern indigo snake will
be implemented (Appendix C).
Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) (T/FT): There are no records of a wood stork rookery on the Site
based on the most recent FWC statewide survey in 1999 and based on data available from the USFWS
through 2014. The nearest reported wood stork rookery, No. 611004A, was reported 12 miles southeast
of the Site. This rookery is listed in the FWC 1999 data but not in the USFWS 2014 data. Wood storks typically return to the same rookery sites each year to nest, and will travel up to 18.6 miles from rookeries to forage in wetlands and return food to incubating adults and nestlings during the nesting season.
Wetlands within 15 miles of known rookeries are considered by USFWS to comprise core foraging areas for nesting wood storks in this area of central Florida. Given that the Site was not reported by the
USFWS (2014) the Site is not within the core foraging area of any wood stork rookeries that have been active within the last ten years and no wetland impacts are proposed for the Site. Therefore, development would not have any adverse effects on wood storks.
Wading Bird Rookeries (1999): The FWC wading bird rookery database from the 1999 statewide
survey contains no records of rookeries used by other species of wading birds on the Site, but the database
contains records of six wading bird rookeries within 9.3 miles of the Site. Listed species (including
limpkin [Aramus guarauna], little blue heron [Egretta caerule], snowy egret [Egretta thula], tricolored
heron [Egretta tricolor], and white ibis [Eudocimus albus]) of wading birds, other than wood storks, will
fly up to approximately 9.3 miles from the nesting site to forage in wetlands and return food to incubating
adults and nestlings. Wetlands within 9.3 miles of the rookeries of listed species of wading birds are
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
22 considered important to wading bird nesting success. No wetland impacts are proposed for the Site, therefore development is not expected to adversely affect listed wading bird species.
Sand skink (Neoseps [=Plestiodon] reynoldsi) (T/FT): Sand skinks are small (< 5”) fossorial reptiles which are known from interior peninsular Florida. This species is most commonly associated with habitat dominated by xeric vegetation, with a mosaic of open sandy patches of soil interspersed among forbs, shrubs, and trees. The sand skink is listed as T by the USFWS. The USFWS posted the revised
Peninsular Florida Species Conservation and Consultation Guide for Sand and Bluetail Mole Skinks
(Guidelines) on February 7, 2012. The Guidelines establish a consultation area for the sand skink and bluetail mole skink (Eumeces [=Plestiodon] egregius lividus) that includes the seven counties in which the documented range exists for those species. Marion County is one of those counties; therefore, the Site is within the consultation area. The USFWS sand skink survey protocol lists the three most important factors in determining the presence of sand skinks which are location, elevation, and suitable soils. The
Site does not meet the threshold elevation criteria of 82 feet. In addition the Site does not provide open sandy areas. It is not expected that sand skinks occur now on the Site therefore no adverse effects are expected.
Suwannee cooter (Pseudemys concinna suwanniensis) (SSC): The Suwannee cooter is one of the largest turtles in the Family Emydidae. It is an aquatic species, and usually only appears on land to nest.
This species is found in blackwater, alluvial, and spring-fed rivers, and they can also survive in some impoundments. Key habitat features are moderate current, ample aquatic vegetation for feeding, and appropriate surfaces for basking. The Suwannee cooter is listed as SSC by the FWC.
According to the October 2015 draft Imperiled Species Management Plan (ISMP), the Suwannee cooter will no longer be listed as a species of special concern. The FWC met in November 2015 to consider approval of the ISMP and to allow the FWC to advertise propose rules including the rule to delist certain
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
23 species including the Suwannee cooter. At this time final action to delist the Suwannee cooter has not been made, however, given that FWC intends to delist the Suwannee cooter and no wetland impacts are proposed we submit that a minimum 15 ft. average 25 ft. upland buffer landward of OHWL of the
Rainbow River, will provide reasonable assurance that no adverse impacts will occur to the Suwannee cooter as a result of the project. BDA requests that Specific Condition 14 in Permit No. 43032697.000 be revised to eliminate the restrictions with the 100 ft. upland buffer.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
24
3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is for development, supporting infrastructure and the SWMS construction to support residential and some commercial use of the Site (Figure 3.0-1).
The 1.64 acre surface water (530) (SW-1) will be eliminated (Figure 3.0-2). Based on historical aerial photography (Appendix B), this feature was excavated between 1967 to 1973. The excavation of this feature was conducted prior to any regulatory jurisdiction over such activities. Functions provided by this
man made surface water will be more than fully offset by the stormwater management system in the post
development condition therefore no mitigation is proposed.
Other than SW-1, the project will not directly impact any other jurisdictional wetlands and secondary wetland impacts will be prevented by providing a minimum 15-foot, 25-foot average upland buffer adjacent to the wetlands.
The engineering and stormwater management design has been prepared by FBA as part of this ERP application and provides complete detail on the proposed project and SWMS. Table 1 from Form 62-
330.060(1) Section C and both the ERP Handbook Volume I, effective October 1, 2013 (Handbook) and the SWFWMD Permit Information Manual implemented October 1, 2013 (Manual) is included as
Appendix D.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
25 SourceEsri, DigitalGlobe, : GeoEye, i-cubed USDA, USGS, , AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, swiss IGP, IGN, and the topo, GISUse r Comm unity
Legend Boundac) (261.64 ary Develop mentPlan Lot Line Lot s SourceEsri, sHER : E, DeLormUSGS, e Interm , ap, Pond 0 500 1,000 R oad Fee t SourceProjec : bound t aryand de ve lopmeplan nt from Farne Barley rArcGIS Ass& Online 10/14/2015. oc., World Image ©ESR ry, I, inc1 fe1,000 h= e t [i-cubedUSDA , FSA,USGS, AEX,Ge oEye,Ge tmapping],1/2011. !°
FIGU RE3.0-1 BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PRESERVE ATBLU RU E N Environmental Consultants PROJECTMARIONSITE, COU NTY,FLORIDA W.330CantoBDA nWinterAve., FL32789407-677-1882•Park,
BN • 1/19/2016 • P:\ATG\2015063\Permit_Use•BN 1/19/2016 • \ER P_201510\AR CGIS\DevPlan_ A.mxd W1 W2 0.48 ac 0.48 3.86 ac 3.86 SW1 W3 1.64 ac 1.64 0.16 ac 0.16
W4 0.65 ac 0.65
W5 8.62 ac 8.62
W7 0.45 ac 0.45 SW2 2.69 ac 2.69
W6 13.32 ac13.32
W8 2.16 ac 2.16
SourcEsri,DigitalGlobe e : GeoEye , i-cub , eUSDA, d USGS, , AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, swisstopo,andIGP, IGN, the GISUser Comm unity
Legend Boundac) ary (261.64
SurfaceWatersac) (4.32 SourcEsri,HERE, e s: Weac) tland (29.70 s DeLormUSGS, e Interm , ap, 0 500 1,000 SourcProjec e : bound t aryand wetland from s Farne AddBarley r 10/14/2015. itionalAssoc., &vege de tative line ationbased on Fee t photointerpreand tation selec ground tive truthingbyArc BDA, 10/2015. GISOnline World Image ©[i-cub ry,ESRI, eUSDA d , FSA, inc1 fee1,000 h= t USGS,AEX,GeoEye Getmapping], , 1/2011. !°
FIGURE3.0-2 BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. WETLANDMAP FOR THE PRESERVE AT BLUE RUN PROJECT SITE, Environmental Consultants MARIONCOUNT FLORIDA Y, W.330CantonBDA WinterAve., Park,FL32789 407-677-1882•
BN • 1/19/2016 • P:\ATG\2015063\P•BN 1/19/2016 • e rm it_Use\ERP _201510\ARCGIS\We tland s_A.mxd
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT REVIEW AND ISSUANCE CRITERIA
4.1 Environmental Conditions for Issuance
The Handbook (Section 10.1.1) lists seven conditions for the issuance of an ERP. The applicant provides, through this permit application, reasonable assurances that all seven conditions will be met.
1. A regulated activity will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife and listed species, including aquatic and wetland-dependent species, by wetlands and other surface waters.
Development of the Site will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, and listed species, including aquatic and wetland-dependent species. Impacts to listed species are discussed in
Section 2.5. The only proposed impacts are to 1.64 acres of surface waters. The wetland system remaining on the Site will be protected by a 15-foot minimum, 25-foot average, upland buffer adjacent to the wetland and will continue to provide habitat for species that can utilize these areas for feeding, loafing, breeding, and/or nesting.
The proposed SWMS will more than offset the functions lost as a result of impacts to the 1.64 acres of surface water habitat for aquatic and wetland-dependent species. Therefore, no adverse impact and/or a potential increase in habitat value for species such as the Florida sandhill crane, little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), and wood stork (Mycteria americana) may be expected post-development.
2. A regulated activity located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such an activity significantly degrades or is located within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), that the regulated activity will be clearly in the public interest.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
28
The project has been designed to meet local standards, comply with all local regulations, and the
stormwater management criteria of the SWFWMD. No impacts are located within an
Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) and the project will not significantly degrade an OFW.
3. A regulated activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-3, 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522 and 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of Sections 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), 62- 4.242(2) and (3), and 62-302.300 and any special standards for OFWs and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in Sections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated.
Development of the Site will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The appropriate
pollution abatement, storm water attenuation, and any need for flood control will be provided
pursuant to the storm water management criteria of the SWFWMD. In addition, any special water
quality standards pertaining to OFWs will be met. Appropriate best management practices will
be applied to prevent any offsite discharges that could result in adverse effects to water quality
standards. The Site is located within the Withlacoochee watershed; the engineering submittal
from FBA will provide the SWMS and the appropriate engineering calculations and details.
4. A regulated activity located in, adjacent to or in close proximity to Class II waters or located in waters classified by the Department as approved, restricted, or conditionally restricted for shellfish harvesting pursuant to Chapter 16R-7, F.A.C., will comply with the additional criteria in Section 10.2.5 of the Handbook.
The Site is not adjacent to, or in close proximity of, a Class II water, nor is it located within areas
utilized for shellfish harvesting.
5. The construction of vertical seawalls in estuaries and lagoons will comply with the additional criteria in Section 10.2.6 of the Handbook.
The construction plans for the Site do not include any vertical seawalls. Furthermore, the Site is
not located within an estuary or lagoon.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
29
6. A regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources.
Development of the Site will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources. The
project’s storm water design will meet the SWFWMD’s criteria for pollution abatement and
storm water attenuation as well as the standards and design criteria for the SWFWMD. The
physical, chemical, and biological treatment processes for stormwater discharge will occur within
the proposed stormwater ponds. Consequently, no adverse impacts to water quality are expected
to occur as a result of the proposed development.
Other Best Management Practices (BMPs) including, but not limited to, the construction of
swales, erosion and sediment control structures, and turbidity barriers will be used to ensure
sedimentation pollution will either be eliminated or maintained within acceptable limits, please
refer to plan submittal by FBA. The contractor shall be responsible for providing these temporary
erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction or until final controls become
effective.
All wetlands post development will be protected by an upland buffer that will meet the
SWFWMD criteria (minimum 15-foot width, 25-foot width average); therefore, secondary
impacts to adjacent wetland systems are not anticipated to occur as a result of the construction of
the project (per Handbook Section 10.2.7).
7. A regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Development of the Site is not anticipated to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands.
No wetland impacts are proposed for the Site. The impacts to the 1.64 acre surface water feature
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
30
will be offset by the proposed SWMS. The SWMS will meet all water quality and quantity
criteria of the SWFWMD to prevent any cumulative impacts to the receiving waters.
4.2 Elimination or Reduction of Impacts
Pursuant to Section 10.2.1 of the Handbook, the following factors are considered in determining whether an application will be approved by the Agency: the degree of impact to wetland and other surface water functions caused by a proposed activity; whether the impact to these functions can be mitigated; and the practicability of design modifications for the Site that could eliminate or reduce impacts to these functions, including alignment alternatives for a proposed linear system. The Site is planned as a primarily for residential development with construction of the SWMS to support development. The wetlands on Site were avoided and will be protected by a minimum 15-foot average 25-foot upland buffer adjacent to the wetland. The only regulated impact is to 1.64 acres of surface waters. The SWMS for the
Site will more than offset functions lost as a result of climinating this surface water.
4.3 Fish, Wildlife, Protected Species, and Their Habitats
Pursuant to the criteria stated in Section 10.2.2 of the Handbook, the project provides reasonable assurance that development of the Site will not cause adverse impacts to:
(a) The abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife, listed species, and the bald eagle (Halieaeetus
leucocephalus), which is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C.
668-668d (April 30, 2004); and
(b) The habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species.
As discussed in Section 2.5 of this report, appropriate measures have been taken to minimize impacts to listed wildlife species. The wetlands remaining will continue to provide suitable habitat for wetland-
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
31
dependent and listed species of wildlife post-development as well as fisheries resources. Therefore, it is not expected that development activities of the Site will affect fish, wildlife or listed species.
4.3.1 Habitat Review Factors
Section 10.2.2.3 of the Handbook provides five criteria for the SWFWMD to consider when assessing the value of functions that any wetland or other surface water provides to fish, wildlife, and listed species.
Responses to the five criteria are summarized below and demonstrate the proposed project will not impact the values of wetlands or other surface waters so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance, diversity, and habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species.
A. Condition — Development of the Site will occur primarily in upland communities. The only
impacts are to a 1.64 acre surface water feature and the SWMS for the Site will more than offset
functions lost as a result of eliminating this surface water. The wetlands on Site are generally in
good condition with low levels of nuisance and exotic vegetation.
B. Hydrologic Connection — The wetlands and surface waters are connected to the Rainbow River.
C. Uniqueness — The wetlands and surface waters are not considered a unique vegetative
community within Marion County or the region. There are no unique floral or faunal components
to the wetlands or surface waters.
D. Location — The wetlands and surface waters are adjacent to the Rainbow River. The surface
water that is proposed for impacts is hydrologically connected during wet conditions via a ditch
to thewetlands adjacent to the Rainbow River. The wetlands and surface water are currently
surrounded by agricultural activities and the Site was historically used for mining activities. The
Site is located in an area of increasing urban and residential development within Marion County.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
32
The adjacent land uses include county roads and residential and commercial development from
the city of Dunnellon.
E. Fish and Wildlife Utilization — The wetlands and surface waters provide habitat for resting,
feeding, breeding, nesting or denning by fish and wildlife, but it does not provide critical habitat
for listed wildlife species. There are no wetland impacts proposed therefore the wetlands will
continue to provide these functions. Impacts are proposed to surface water SW1. However, the
construction of the stormwater ponds as part of the SWMS will mora than offset functions lost as
a result of eliminating this surface water.
4.4 Water Quantity
Pursuant to Section 10.2.2.4 of the Handbook, the development of the Site will not result in any adverse impacts to water quantity characteristics of the remaining wetlands. The SWMS will be utilized to maintain and further establish the Site’s drainage and provide floodwater storage. The engineering submittal prepared by FBA provides appropriate geotechnical and civil engineering analysis as the basis for reasonable assurance there will not be any adverse impacts to the water quantity characteristics of wetlands/surface waters.
4.5 Public Interest Test
Section 10.2.3 of the Handbook provides seven criteria for the SWFWMD to determine whether a project is not contrary to the public interest or, if such an activity significantly degrades or is within an OFW, that the regulated activity is clearly in the public interest. Summarized below are responses to the seven criteria, which demonstrate the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest.
1. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
33
The project has been designed to meet all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
Therefore, development of the Site will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or
the property of others.
2. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats.
During on-site investigations, observations were made to determine which wildlife species utilize
the Site, and which species have the potential to occur on the Site. The results of these
observations are discussed in Sections 2.5 and 4.1 of this report. Permits will be obtained and
appropriate management strategies will be implemented for any listed species of wildlife as
necessary and in coordination with the USFWS and/or FWC.
3. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling.
No impacts to navigable water bodies are proposed for the Site. This project has been designed in
accordance with SWFWMD permitting criteria, which require post-development water volumes
and flows to be equal to pre-development water volumes and flows. No harmful erosion or
shoaling should occur as a result of the development of the Site. Therefore, this project will not
adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling.
4. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity.
Water quality, flows, and volumes for the Site have been designed to meet all applicable state
permitting criteria. This project has been designed to provide water quality treatment to ensure
no degradation of off-site waters occurs. In addition, there will be no significant adverse changes
in flows and volumes of water for the Site, as required by the SWFWMD permitting criteria.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
34
This Site is in private ownership with no public access and has been in active agricultural use.
The Site is inland and there are no marine productivity functions provided. No impacts are
proposed to the Rainbow River wetlands. Therefore, this project will not adversely affect the
fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the subject property.
5. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature.
Development of the project will be of a permanent nature.
6. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S.
Archeological Consultants, Inc conducted a review of the Site in July 2005. A report of their
findings is attached as Appendix E. Their review resulted in the documentation of an old
cemetery in the northeast portion of the Site. No construction will occur within 15 meters of the
cemetery to insure no remains will be disturbed. In addition, should any objects be revealed
during construction having historical or archeological value, the Florida Department of State,
Division of Historical Resources (DHR) will be immediately notified. Therefore, this project is
not expected to adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources.
7. The current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity.
The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect the value of functions provided to fish,
wildlife, and listed species, including aquatic and wetland-dependent species. The proposed
development will not result in wetland impacts.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
35
4.6 Water Quality
Pursuant to Section 10.2.4 of the Handbook, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance the regulated activity will not violate water quality standards in areas where water quality standards apply. The SWMS to be constructed for the proposed project will meet the requirements and standards of the SWFWMD,
and BMPs will be utilized to ensure that discharges off-site do not cause violations of water quality criteria. These factors are addressed in the stormwater management plan prepared by FBA.
4.7 Secondary Impacts
Section 10.2.7 of the Handbook provides four criteria for the SWFWMD to determine whether a
regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource. Responses to the four
criteria are summarized below and demonstrate the development of the Site will not cause adverse
secondary impacts to the water resource.
1. Impacts to Water Quality
The proposed project will comply with all water quality design criteria and therefore should
provide reasonable assurance there will not be any secondary impacts to the water quality
functions of the remaining wetlands adjacent to the project area resulting from the construction of
the project. BMPs will be utilized to ensure water quality criteria will not be violated during the
short-term construction and long-term operation of the SWMS on the Site.
2. Impacts to Upland Habitat for Aquatic and Wetland-Dependent Listed Species
Development of the Site should not cause adverse impacts to the foraging, denning, or nesting
sites of wildlife species. No species listed in Table 10.2.7-1 of the Handbook were observed on
the Site. The wetlands with associated upland buffers will remain following Site development
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
36
and suitable upland habitat will remain in the region. Therefore, the development of the Site will
not cause adverse secondary impacts to the upland habitat for aquatic and wetland-dependent
listed species.
3. Impacts to Historical and Archaeological Resources
Archeological Consultants, Inc conducted a review of the Site in July 2005. A report of their
findings is attached as Appendix E. Their review resulted in the documentation of an old
cemetery in the northeast portion of the Site. No construction will occur within 15 meters of the
cemetery to insure no remains will be disturbed. In addition, should any objects be revealed
during construction having historical or archeological value, the Florida Department of State,
Division of Historical Resources (DHR) will be immediately notified. Therefore, this project is
not expected to adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources.
4. Impacts to Wetland and Surface Water Functions as a Result of Future Phases or System Expansions
This is not a phased project. At this time, no additional phases or expansion of the proposed
SWMS beyond what is currently proposed is anticipated; therefore, adverse secondary impacts of
this type are not anticipated.
4.8 Cumulative Impacts
Pursuant to Section 10.2.8 of the Handbook, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and surface waters in the drainage basin. There are no wetland impacts as a result of Site development. 1.64 acres of surface waters are proposed, however the water quality/water quantity functions will be maintained by the approved SWMS that will meet the design specifications of the SWFWMD. Stormwater design criteria
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
37 and calculations provided by FBA will provide reasonable assurance that all water quality and quantity standards will be met and that there will not be any cumulative impacts.
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
38
APPENDIX A
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE PRESERVE AT BLUE RUN PROJECT SITE MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
Source:Esri,Dig italGlobe,GeoEye,USDA, i-cubed, USGS, AEX, GetmappingAerog swisstopo, , IGP, IGN, rid, andGISUserthe Com m unity Legend Boundary
Sources:Esri,HERE, DeLormUSGS, e, Interm ap,
0 500 1,000 Feet Source:Project boundary from ArcGISFarner Online Barley10/14/2015. Assoc., & World USDAImagery, ©[i-cubed, ESRI,FSA, inchfeet1 1,000 = U SGS,AEX,GeoEye, Getmapping 1/2011. ], !°
APPENDIXA BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. AERIALPHOTOGRAPHY OFTHE PRESERVE ATBLU RU E NPROJECT SITE Environmental Consultants MARIONCOU NTY,FLORIDA W.330CantoBDA Winter Ave., n Park,FL32789 407-677-1882•
BN • 10/26/2015 • P:\ATG\2015063\Permit_U • 10/26/2015 BN • se\ERP_201510\ARCGIS\Aerial_A.mxd
APPENDIX B
HISTORICAL AERIALS FOR THE PRESERVE AT BLUE RUN PROJECT SITE MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
Legen d
Boundary Sources:HERE,Esri, DeLorme,USGS, Intermap,
0 500 1,000
Source:froHistoricalAerials Departmentm Florida Transportationof Univers andMapFlorida Library. of ity Feet Locationsappro ximatedBDA.by !° feet1,000 = inch 1
APPENDIXOF3) B(1 BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1940AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FOR THE PRES ERVEATBLUE Environmental Consultants RUNPROJECT MARIONSITE, COUNTY, FLORIDA W.330CantoBDA nAveWinter ., Park,FL32789407-677-1882•
BN • 1/19/2016 • P:\ATG\2015063\Permit_Use\ERP_201510\ARCGIS\HistoricalAerial_A_Series.mxd•BN 1/19/2016 • Legen d
Boundary Sources:HERE,Esri, DeLorme,USGS, Intermap,
0 500 1,000
Source:froHistoricalAerials Departmentm Florida Transportationof Univers andMapFlorida Library. of ity Feet Locationsappro ximatedBDA.by !° feet1,000 = inch 1
APPENDIXOF3) B(2 BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1967AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FOR THE PRES ERVEATBLUE Environmental Consultants RUNPROJECT MARIONSITE, COUNTY, FLORIDA W.330CantoBDA nAveWinter ., Park,FL32789407-677-1882•
BN • 1/19/2016 • P:\ATG\2015063\Permit_Use\ERP_201510\ARCGIS\HistoricalAerial_A_Series.mxd•BN 1/19/2016 • Legen d
Boundary Sources:HERE,Esri, DeLorme,USGS, Intermap,
0 500 1,000
Source:froHistoricalAerials Departmentm Florida Transportationof Univers andMapFlorida Library. of ity Feet Locationsappro ximatedBDA.by !° feet1,000 = inch 1
APPENDIXOF3) B(3 BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1973AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FOR THE PRES ERVEATBLUE Environmental Consultants RUNPROJECT MARIONSITE, COUNTY, FLORIDA W.330CantoBDA nAveWinter ., Park,FL32789407-677-1882•
BN • 1/19/2016 • P:\ATG\2015063\Permit_Use\ERP_201510\ARCGIS\HistoricalAerial_A_Series.mxd•BN 1/19/2016 •
APPENDIX C
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 12, 2013
The eastern indigo snake protection/education plan (Plan) below has been developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Florida for use by applicants and their construction personnel. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall notify the appropriate USFWS Field Office via e-mail that the Plan will be implemented as described below (North Florida Field Office: [email protected]; South Florida Field Office: [email protected]; Panama City Field Office: [email protected]). As long as the signatory of the e-mail certifies compliance with the below Plan (including use of the attached poster and brochure), no further written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS is needed and the applicant may move forward with the project.
If the applicant decides to use an eastern indigo snake protection/education plan other than the approved Plan below, written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS that the plan is adequate must be obtained. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall submit their unique plan for review and approval. The USFWS will respond via e- mail, typically within 30 days of receiving the plan, either concurring that the plan is adequate or requesting additional information. A concurrence e-mail from the appropriate USFWS Field Office will fulfill approval requirements.
The Plan materials should consist of: 1) a combination of posters and pamphlets (see Poster Information section below); and 2) verbal educational instructions to construction personnel by supervisory or management personnel before any clearing/land alteration activities are initiated (see Pre-Construction Activities and During Construction Activities sections below).
POSTER INFORMATION
Posters with the following information shall be placed at strategic locations on the construction site and along any proposed access roads (a final poster for Plan compliance, to be printed on 11” x 17” or larger paper and laminated, is attached):
DESCRIPTION: The eastern indigo snake is one of the largest non-venomous snakes in North America, with individuals often reaching up to 8 feet in length. They derive their name from the glossy, blue-black color of their scales above and uniformly slate blue below. Frequently, they have orange to coral reddish coloration in the throat area, yet some specimens have been reported to only have cream coloration on the throat. These snakes are not typically aggressive and will attempt to crawl away when disturbed. Though indigo snakes rarely bite, they should NOT be handled.
SIMILAR SNAKES: The black racer is the only other solid black snake resembling the eastern indigo snake. However, black racers have a white or cream chin, thinner bodies, and WILL BITE if handled.
LIFE HISTORY: The eastern indigo snake occurs in a wide variety of terrestrial habitat types throughout Florida. Although they have a preference for uplands, they also utilize some wetlands 1
and agricultural areas. Eastern indigo snakes will often seek shelter inside gopher tortoise burrows and other below- and above-ground refugia, such as other animal burrows, stumps, roots, and debris piles. Females may lay from 4 - 12 white eggs as early as April through June, with young hatching in late July through October.
PROTECTION UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW: The eastern indigo snake is classified as a Threatened species by both the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. “Taking” of eastern indigo snakes is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act without a permit. “Take” is defined by the USFWS as an attempt to kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or engage in any such conduct. Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for criminal offenses, if convicted.
Only individuals currently authorized through an issued Incidental Take Statement in association with a USFWS Biological Opinion, or by a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the USFWS, to handle an eastern indigo snake are allowed to do so.
IF YOU SEE A LIVE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE:
• Cease clearing activities and allow the live eastern indigo snake sufficient time to move away from the site without interference; • Personnel must NOT attempt to touch or handle snake due to protected status. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • If the snake is located in a vicinity where continuation of the clearing or construction activities will cause harm to the snake, the activities must halt until such time that a representative of the USFWS returns the call (within one day) with further guidance as to when activities may resume.
IF YOU SEE A DEAD EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE:
• Cease clearing activities and immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Thoroughly soak the dead snake in water and then freeze the specimen. The appropriate wildlife agency will retrieve the dead snake.
Telephone numbers of USFWS Florida Field Offices to be contacted if a live or dead eastern indigo snake is encountered:
North Florida Field Office – (904) 731-3336 Panama City Field Office – (850) 769-0552 South Florida Field Office – (772) 562-3909
2
PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
1. The applicant or designated agent will post educational posters in the construction office and throughout the construction site, including any access roads. The posters must be clearly visible to all construction staff. A sample poster is attached.
2. Prior to the onset of construction activities, the applicant/designated agent will conduct a meeting with all construction staff (annually for multi-year projects) to discuss identification of the snake, its protected status, what to do if a snake is observed within the project area, and applicable penalties that may be imposed if state and/or federal regulations are violated. An educational brochure including color photographs of the snake will be given to each staff member in attendance and additional copies will be provided to the construction superintendent to make available in the onsite construction office (a final brochure for Plan compliance, to be printed double-sided on 8.5” x 11” paper and then properly folded, is attached). Photos of eastern indigo snakes may be accessed on USFWS and/or FWC websites.
3. Construction staff will be informed that in the event that an eastern indigo snake (live or dead) is observed on the project site during construction activities, all such activities are to cease until the established procedures are implemented according to the Plan, which includes notification of the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The contact information for the USFWS is provided on the referenced posters and brochures.
DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
1. During initial site clearing activities, an onsite observer may be utilized to determine whether habitat conditions suggest a reasonable probability of an eastern indigo snake sighting (example: discovery of snake sheds, tracks, lots of refugia and cavities present in the area of clearing activities, and presence of gopher tortoises and burrows).
2. If an eastern indigo snake is discovered during gopher tortoise relocation activities (i.e. burrow excavation), the USFWS shall be contacted within one business day to obtain further guidance which may result in further project consultation.
3. Periodically during construction activities, the applicant’s designated agent should visit the project area to observe the condition of the posters and Plan materials, and replace them as needed. Construction personnel should be reminded of the instructions (above) as to what is expected if any eastern indigo snakes are seen.
POST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Whether or not eastern indigo snakes are observed during construction activities, a monitoring report should be submitted to the appropriate USFWS Field Office within 60 days of project completion. The report can be sent electronically to the appropriate USFWS e-mail address listed on page one of this Plan.
3
APPENDIX D
TABLE 1 FROM FORM 62-330.060(1) SECTION C AND BOTH THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT HANDBOOK VOLUME I, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2013 (HANDBOOK) AND THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT INFORMATION MANUAL IMPLEMENTED OCTOBER 1, 2013 (MANUAL)
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
TABLE ONE: PROJECT WETLAND (WL) AND OTHER SURFACE WATER (SW) SUMMARY.
WL & WL & WL & SW TEMPORARY WL & SW IMPACTS PERMANENT WL & SW IMPACTS WL & MITIGATION SW SW NOT SW ID ID TYPE SIZE IMPACTED WL & SW IMPACT IMPACT WL & SW IMPACT IMPACT TYPE SIZE CODE TYPE SIZE CODE Wetland 1 630 0.48 0.48 ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ Wetland 2 630 3.86 3.86 ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ Wetland 3 630 0.16 0.16 ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ Wetland 4 630 0.65 0.65 ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ Wetland 5 630 8.62 8.62 ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ Wetland 6 630 13.32 13.32 ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ Wetland 7 630 0.45 0.45 ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ Wetland 8 630 2.16 2.16 ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ No Mitigation SW 1 530 1.64 0.00 ─ ─ ─ 530 1.64 F Required SW 2 510 2.69 2.69 ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ Project 34.03 32.39 1.64 Totals
Comments:
Codes (multiple entries per cell not allowed): Wetland Type: From an established wetland classification system. Impact Type: D = dredge; F = fill; N = change hydrology; S = shading; C = clearing; O = other.
Form #62-330.060(1) - Joint Application for Environmental Resource Individual Permit/ Authorization to Use State-Owned Submerged Lands/ Federal Dredge and Fill Permit Incorporated by reference in subsection 62-330.060(1), F.A.C. (October 1, 2013)
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\Appendix D-Table One.docx
APPENDIX E
ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSESEMENT SURVEY, JULY 2005, FOR THE PRESERVE AT BLUE RUN PROJECT SITE MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
P:\Admin\Projects\2015063\ERP\PBR_ERP-App.doc
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY PRESERVE AT BLUE RUN MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
Prepared for:
Conservation Land Group, LLC 18501 Murdock Circle, Suite 404 Port Charlotte, Florida 33948
By:
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A Sarasota, Florida 34240
Project Manager – Marion Almy Project Archaeologist – Elizabeth A. Horvath Archaeologist – Nelson Rodriguez
July 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) performed a cultural resource assessment survey of the proposed Preserve at Blue Run development site in Marion County. The purpose of this survey was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the parcel and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Findings
Archaeological: Background research and a review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) indicated no previously recorded prehistoric archaeological sites were within the tract. However, a review of the relevant site location data from the surrounding region indicated a high to moderate probability for archaeological sites. These sites would most likely be small to medium sized lithic and/or artifact scatter sites, and they would tend to be located proximate to a freshwater source. As a result of field survey, four aboriginal archaeological sites and two archaeological occurrences were identified. The sites (8MR3312-3315) consist of four low-density artifact scatters located along the margins of the Rainbow River. They date from the Archaic, Orange, and Weeden Island periods and most likely represent limited activity campsites established to exploit the locally available resources. The archaeological occurrences both consist of isolated pieces of lithic debitage. The sites and archaeological occurrences are not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP due to the low density and diversity of the assemblages, lack of subsurface features, and generally low research potential. As such, no additional investigations of these sites are warranted.
The review of the FMSF revealed the presence of the Blue Run Cemetery (8MR2752) in the northeast portion of the project area, as well as an Abandoned Railroad Grade (8MR3270) along the western and northern boundary of the project area. Subsurface testing was conducted outside of the cemetery with negative results, however, the archaeological testing extended only to a depth of one meter below surface. In addition, there was no evidence of grave depressions outside the cemetery. However, due to the possibility of unmarked burials outside of the currently marked cemetery, it is recommended that a 15 m (50 ft) buffer be maintained around the cemetery. If during development, any subsurface disturbances below a meter (3.3 ft) in depth occur in this area, an archaeological monitor should be present to ensure that no gravesites are disturbed. The cemetery is not considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP due to a lack of association with important individuals. As part of the cultural resource assessment survey, the Abandoned Railroad Grade Site was expanded to include those portions of the grade within the Preserve at Blue Run tract, but the site is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP due to the low research potential and common occurrences in the area.
i
The archaeological survey also resulted in the recording of one historic archaeological site, the Rainbow River Ranch Mine (8MR2228). Based on available data, it appears to be a phosphate mine dating from the turn of the century, during the “Boom” of the phosphate industry. But like other recorded phosphate mine sites in the project vicinity it is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP due to the commonality of this type of site in the region, the lack of ancillary features, and the low research potential.
Historical: Background research and a review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) indicated no previously recorded historic structures within the Preserve at Blue Run. As a result of field survey, no historic structures are located within the tract.
Based on these results, it is the opinion of ACI that development of the Preserve at Blue Run will have no effect on any cultural resources listed, determined eligible, or potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP, and no future work is recommended.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...... 2-1 2.1 Location and Environment...... 2-1 2.2 Geomorphology and Geology...... 2-1 2.3 Soils...... 2-3 2.4 Botanical and Faunal Resources ...... 2-4 2.5 Water Resources...... 2-5 2.6 Lithic Resources...... 2-5 2.7 Paleoenvironmental Considerations...... 2-7 3.0 CULTURAL OVERVIEW...... 3-1 3.1 Paleo-Indian ...... 3-1 3.2 Archaic...... 3-4 3.3 Formative ...... 3-6 3.4 Mississippian/Acculturative...... 3-8 3.5 Contact and the Colonial Period ...... 3-9 4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODOLOGIES ...... 4-1 4.1 Background Research and Literature Review...... 4-1 4.2 Archaeological Considerations...... 4-1 4.3 Field Methodology...... 4-5 4.4 Unexpected Discoveries...... 4-6 4.5 Laboratory Methods and Curation...... 4-6 5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS...... 5-1 5.1 Archaeological ...... 5-1 5.1.1 8MR2752 – Blue Run Cemetery...... 5-1 5.1.2 8MR3270 – Abandoned Railroad Grade ...... 5-3 5.1.3 8MR2228 – Rainbow River Ranch Mine ...... 5-5 5.1.4 8MR3312 – Rainbow River Ranch I ...... 5-7 5.1.5 8MR3313 – Rainbow River Ranch II ...... 5-8 5.1.6 8MR3314 – Pennsylvania Avenue...... 5-10 5.1.7 8MR3315 – Hendrix Drive ...... 5-11 5.1.8 Archaeological Occurrences...... 5-13 5.2 Historic Structures...... 5-13 5.3 Conclusions...... 5-13 6.0 REFERENCES CITED...... 6-1
APPENDICES A: Original and Updated Florida Master Site File (FMSF) Forms B: Newly Recorded FMSF Forms C: Survey Log Sheet
iii
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTOGRAPHS
Page
Figure
Figure 1.1. Location of the Preserve at Blue Run Tract...... 1-2
Figure 2.1. Environmental Setting of the Preserve at Blue Run Project Area...... 2-2
Figure 2.2. Location of the Project Area Relative to the Quarry Clusters...... 2-6
Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions...... 3-2
Figure 4.1. Location of the Archaeological Sites Within Two Miles of the Preserve at Blue Run Tract...... 4-2
Figure 5.1. Location of the Shovel Tests, Archaeological Sites, and Archaeological Occurrences within the Preserve at Blue Run Tract...... 5-2
Figure 5.2. Workers at the Dunnellon Phosphate Mine # 2 (Colby 1890)...... 5-6
Table
Table 2.1. Soil Types within the Preserve at Blue Run Property (USDA 1979)...... 2-4
Table 3.1. Cultural Chronology and Traits...... 3-3
Table 3.2. Original Property Owners of the Preserve at Blue Run Tract...... 3-13
Table 4.1. Archaeological Sites Within Two Miles of the Preserve at Blue Run Property...... 4-3
Photo
Photo 2.1. Looking East in the Western Portion of the Preserve at Blue Run Tract. ..2-1
Photo 2.2. Looking North at the Rainbow River...... 2-3
Photo 5.1. Looking North at the Blue Run Cemetery, 8MR2752...... 5-3
Photo 5.2. Close-up of the Railroad Grade, 8MR3270...... 5-4
Photo 5.3. Looking North at the Railroad Grade (8MR3270)...... 5-4
iv
Photo
Photo 5.4. Looking North Down into the Mine...... 5-6
Photo 5.5. Looking West at 8MR3312...... 5-7
Photo 5.6. Looking East at 8MR3313...... 5-9
Photo 5.7. Looking South at 8MR3314...... 5-10
Photo 5.8. Looking Northwest at 8MR3315...... 5-12
v 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) performed a cultural resource assessment survey of the Preserve at Blue Run tract in Marion County to locate and identify any archaeological sites and historic structures, and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Figure 1.1). This cultural resource assessment survey was undertaken as due diligence and the survey and resulting report meet the requirements set forth in Chapters 267 and 373, Florida Statutes, and implementing state regulations regarding possible impact to significant historic properties. All work was carried out in conformity with the standards contained in the Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual (FDHR 2002). The resulting report meets specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code. The survey described in this report was conducted in June 2005.
P05081/July 2005 1-2
N
Project Location
0 2 4 miles 0 2 4 kilometers
Figure 1.1. Location of the Preserve at Blue Run Tract, Marion County, Florida (State Topograophic Office 1995). 2-1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Location and Environment
The Preserve at Blue Run project area is located in Sections 25 and 36 in Township 16 South, Range 18 East and Section 30 in Township 16 South, Range 19 East (USGS Dunnellon, Fla. 1991) (Figure 2.1). The project area is bordered to the north and west by the Rainbow River and on the south by East Pennsylvania Avenue. The area is open pastureland with a scattering of oaks, and a denser tree canopy along the river (Photos 2.1 and 2.2).
Photo 2.1. Looking East in the Western Portion of the Preserve at Blue Run Tract.
2.2 Geomorphology and Geology
The project area is within the mid-peninsular or central physiographic zone (White 1970) and more specifically within the Dunnellon Gap. This gap allows egress of the Withlacoochee River to the Gulf of Mexico through the Brooksville Ridge. Geologically the general area is underlain by undifferentiated sediments of the Pleistocene/Holocene (Scott 2001; Scott et al. 2001). The surface lithology of the region consists of limestone covered by several feet of sands and clay with residual limestone boulders (Knapp 1978). There are a couple of depressions or sinkholes depicted on the soil survey map for this area (USDA 1979).
P05081/July 2005 2-2
N
Project Location R18E R19E
0 .5 1 mile 0 .5 1 kilometer
Figure 2.1. Environmental Setting of the Preserve at Blue Run Project Area, Sections 25 and 36, Township 16 South, Range 18 East and Section 30, Township 16 South, Range 19 East (USGS Dunnellon, Fla. 1991). 2-3
Photo 2.2. Looking North at the Rainbow River.
The area is within the ancient marine terraces, referred to as the Penholoway (13- 21 m/42-70 ft ) and the Wicomico Terrace (21-30 m/70-100 ft), is located north and south of the project area (Healy 1975). The Pamlico Terrace (2-8 m/8-25 ft) does not enter the Dunnellon Gap, but rather cuts straight across the valley of the Withlacoochee River along the west flank of the Brooksville Ridge (White 1958). This terrace and shoreline are two of the best-developed landform features of the peninsula because they have been least modified by erosional processes (Healey 1975). In general, the topography of the project area ranges between 9 to 21 m (30 to 70 ft) above mean sea level. The lowest elevations are associated with the Rainbow River.
2.3 Soils
The project area is within two soil associations: Lynne-Pomona-Pompano and Candler-Apopka (USDA 1979). The Lynne-Pomona-Pompano association is classified as nearly level poorly drained soils. The landscape of this association consists of nearly level pine and palmetto flatwoods with occasional cypress ponds, swamps and small, grassy depressions. The Candler-Apopka association is classified as nearly level to strongly sloping, excessively drained sandy soils. The landscape is one of broad rolling sandhills and swamps, small ponds, and a few sand-bottomed lakes. Table 2.1 presents the specific soils types within the project area.
P05081/July 2005 2-4
Table 2.1. Soil Types within the Preserve at Blue Run Property (USDA 1979). SOIL TYPE & DRAINAGE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SLOPE flatwoods & along the lower slopes of sandy Adamsville sand, 0-5% somewhat poor uplands small areas on low flats, in depressions, and Anclote sand very poor along drainageways in flatwoods Candler sand, 0-5% excessive sandy ridges in uplands Candler sand, 5-12% excessive sandy ridges in uplands Candler clay, overwash, small areas along lower parts of slopes and in well 0-2% slight depressions Gainesville loamy well uplands sand,5-8% flatwoods & next to wet depressions on sandy Pomona sand poor ridges broad sandy flatwoods & along lowers slopes of Tavares sand, 0-5% moderately well deep sandy uplands mixed material, smoothed & shaped from mine Udalfic Arents, 0-5% n/a spoil Udalfic Arents, 15-60% n/a mixed, unconsolidated mine spoils
2.4 Botanical and Faunal Resources
With the onset of the modern environmental conditions, numerous micro- environments were available to the aboriginal inhabitants. By 4000 years ago, ground water had reached current levels, and the shift to warmer, moister conditions saw the appearance of hardwood forests, bayheads, cypress swamps, prairie, and marshlands. The General Map of Natural Vegetation of Florida (Davis 1980) indicates that the project area is within a hardwood swamp forest.
The excessively drained soils support turkey, bluejack, post, and sand live oak with an understory of pineland threeawn and lichens. Slash, longleaf, and loblolly pine, live, laurel, post, and water oak, sweetgum, hickory, dogwood, magnolia, maple, and holly occur on the well-drained soils. The moderately well drained soils support longleaf and slash pine, turkey, post, live, water, and bluejack oak with an understory of native grasses. The natural vegetation associated with the somewhat poorly drained soils includes slash and longleaf pine, live and water oak, with an understory of low growing native shrubs and grasses. The poorly drained soils support a mixture of longleaf and slash pine with an understory of sawpalmetto, waxmyrtle, gallberry, runner oak, and native grasses. The very poorly drained soils support cypress, bay, gum, palm, ash, and maple (USDA 1979).
Soils play a major role in determining what plant and animal species are available in the region. They affect the kind and amount of vegetation that is available to the wildlife as food and cover. The kind and abundance of wildlife depend largely on the amount and distribution of food, cover, and water (USDA 1979). Three general wildlife
P05081/July 2005 2-5
habitat regimes have been identified: openland, woodland, and wetland. The openland habitat includes open areas, pastures, meadows, and areas overgrown with grasses, herbs, vines, and shrubs. The wildlife associated with these areas includes bobwhite quail, dove, meadowlarks, field sparrows, cottontail, and red fox. None of the soils within the project area is classified as good for this habitat type. The following soil series are characterized as fair: Candler, Gainesville, Pomona, and Tavares. The woodland habitat requires areas of deciduous and/or coniferous plants associated with legumes, grasses and herbaceous plants. These areas produced animals such as turkey, woodcock, thrushes, woodpeckers, squirrels, gray fox, raccoon, deer, and bear. All of the soils are considered fair in terms of woodland wildlife habitat. The wetland habitats are open, marshy, or swampy shallow water areas. Wildlife associated with these locales includes ducks, geese, herons, egrets, shore birds, otter, mink, and beaver. Anclote sand was rated as good and Pomona sand was rated as fair for this habitat.
2.5 Water Resources
The main source of water in the general vicinity is the Rainbow River, which forms the northern and western boundaries of the tract. Some of the sinkholes/depressions located in the southwest portion of the tract may have held water, if only on a seasonal basis.
2.6 Lithic Resources
Two kinds of lithic raw material were utilized by aboriginal populations in this part of Florida: silicified limestone, known by geologists and archaeologists as chert, and silicified coral. Over the past several decades, researchers have attempted to isolate and identify the origins of specific chert types based on physical properties such as trace elements, chemical, mineralogical, and petrological properties (Purdy 1981; Purdy and Blanchard 1973; Upchurch et al. 1982). The most successful efforts have been produced by Upchurch and his students whose work focused on the identification of quarry clusters. These are defined as geographical areas containing outcrops of chert which are uniform in fabric, composition, and fossil content and which were visited and utilized by early humans (Upchurch et al. 1982). Nineteen quarry clusters have been identified in the state, as well as several sub-areas within individual quarry clusters (Goodyear et al. 1983; Upchurch et al. 1982).
The identification of quarry clusters has allowed archaeologists to recognize variation in regional cherts and place them into a spatial framework with respect to location of archaeological sites. Austin (1997) has suggested that several of the clusters be combined into 16 mega-clusters due to the lack of unambiguous criteria for assigning cherts derived from silica replacement of the Ocala Limestone to specific source areas (Austin and Estabrook 2000:16). Estabrook (2005), however, suggests that more research needs to be done to better define the usable quarry sources. The project area lies outside
P05081/July 2005 2-6
2 1 5 6 4 7 N 3 9
8 10
11 QUARRY CLUSTERS
1 Wrights Creek 13 12 2 Marianna 14 3 Wacissa 15 4 Upper Suwannee 16 5 Alapaha River 19 6 Swift Creek Swamp 17 7 White Springs 18 8 Lower Suwannee 9 Santa Fe 10 Gainesville 11 Ocala 12 Lake Panasoffkee 13 Inverness 14 Brooksville 15 Upper Withlacoochee 16 Caladesi 17 Hillsborough River 18 Turtlecrawl Point 19 Peace River
0 50 100 miles (After Upchurch et al. 1982: Figure 1). 0 50 100 kilometer
Figure 2.2. Location of the Project Area Relative to the Quarry Clusters. 2-7
of any defined quarry cluster (Upchurch et al. 1982) (Figure 2.2). The Brooksville, Inverness, and Lake Panasoffkee Quarry Clusters are to the south and southeast, the Ocala is to the east, and the Lower Suwannee is to the northwest.
2.7 Paleoenvironmental Considerations
The prehistoric environment of Marion County and the surrounding area was different from that which is seen today. Sea levels were much lower, the climate was drier, and potable water was scarce. Given the changes in water resource availability, botanical communities, and faunal resources, an understanding of human ecology during the earliest periods of human occupation in Florida cannot be founded upon observations of the modern environment. Aboriginal inhabitants would have developed cultural adaptations in response to the environmental changes taking place. These alterations would then be reflected in prehistoric settlement patterns, site types, artifact forms, and variations in the resources used.
Dunbar (1981:95) notes that due to the arid conditions during the period 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 5,000 years ago, this area was covered with an upland vegetation community of scrub oak and prairie (Watts 1969, 1971, 1975). The rise of sea level severely reduced xeric habitats over the next several millennia.
By 5,000 years ago, southern pine forests were replacing the oak savannahs. 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, pollen cores are dominated by wax myrtle and pine. 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). Roughly five millennia ago, surface water was plentiful in karst terrains and the level of the Floridan aquifer rose to five feet above present levels. After this time, modern floral and climatic and environmental conditions began to be established (Watts 1975).
P05081/July 2005 3-1
3.0 CULTURAL OVERVIEW
A discussion of the regional prehistory is presented here to provide a framework within which to examine the local archeological resources. Aboriginal populations have inhabited Florida for at least 14,000 years. The earliest cultural stages are similar throughout the Southeast. Cultural regionalism began to develop approximately 4000 years ago with the advent of fired clay pottery, and was evident by 500 B.C.
In general, archaeologists summarize the prehistory of a given area (i.e., an archaeological region) by outlining the sequence of archaeological cultures through time. These cultures are defined largely in geographical terms, but also reflect shared environmental and cultural traits. The project area is located within the North Peninsula Gulf Coast archeological region as defined by Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:22). This area extends from Pasco County northward to the Apalachee Bay region (Figure 3.1). Within this zone, Milanich and Fairbanks (1980) and, more recently, Milanich (1994) have defined the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Formative, and Mississippian/Acculturative stages on the basis of unique sets of material cultural traits such as characteristic stone tool forms and ceramics, as well as subsistence, settlement, and burial patterns (Table 3.1). These broad temporal units are further subdivided into culture periods or phases: Paleo-Indian, Archaic (Early, Middle, and Late), Orange, Florida Transitional, Deptford, Weeden Island, and Safety Harbor. The historic aboriginal culture is Seminole. A brief summary of these periods follows.
3.1 Paleo-Indian
The Paleo-Indian stage is the earliest known cultural manifestation in Florida, dating from roughly 12,000 to 7500 B.C. (Milanich 1994). Archaeological evidence for Paleo-Indians consists primarily of scattered finds of diagnostic lanceolate-shaped projectile points. The Florida peninsula at this time was quite different than today. The climate was cooler and drier. Vegetation was typified by xerophytic species with scrub oak, pine, open grassy prairies, and savannas being the most common (Milanich 1994:40). When human populations were arriving in Florida, the sea levels were still as much as 115 feet below present levels and coastal regions of Florida extended miles beyond present-day shorelines (Milliman and Emery 1968). Greater exploration and better marine technologies are resulting in the documentation of these early sites (Dunbar et al. 1989, 1991; Faught 1996, 2004; Karklins 1970; Ruppé 1980).
Archaeologists hypothesize that Paleo-Indians lived in migratory bands and subsisted by gathering and hunting, including the now-extinct Pleistocene megafauna. Since the climate was cooler and much drier, it is likely that these nomadic bands traveled between permanent and semi-permanent sources of water, exploiting seasonally available resources. This has been referred to as the Oasis hypothesis (Dunbar 1991).
P05081/July 2005 3-2
1
2
3 5 4
1 Northwest 2 North 3 North-Central 4 East and Central 5 North Peninsular Gulf Coast 6 Central Peninsular Gulf Coast 7 Caloosahatchee 6 8 Okeechobee Basin 8 9 Glades
7
9
0 100 miles
Post- 500 B.C. regions of precolumbian Florida
Figure 3.1 Florida Archaeological Regions (Milanich 1994:xix). The project area ( ) is in the North Peninsular Gulf Coast Region. 3-3
Table 3.1. Cultural Chronology and Traits. Culture Period and Cultural Traits Time Frame Paleo-Indian Migratory hunters and gatherers traveling between permanent and semi- 12,000 - 7500 B.C. permanent sources of potable water; Oasis model; Suwannee and Simpson projectile points; unifacial scrapers. Early Archaic Hunters and gatherers; less nomadic; sites found in a variety of locations; 7500 - 5000 B.C. stemmed projectile points such as Arredondo, Hamilton, and Kirk varieties; increase in population size and density; burials in wet environment cemeteries; fabric and cordage available. Middle Archaic More evidence of coastal utilization; increased sedentism; increased variety of 5000 - 3000 B.C. site types; burials occurring within midden deposits; stemmed broad bladed projectile points such as the Newnan; increased use of thermal alteration and silicified coral for stone tool manufacture. Late (Ceramic) Archaic Preceramic and ceramic sites; point types include Culbreath, Clay, and 3000 - 500 B.C. Lafayette; Orange series ceramics are initially fiber tempered and molded; plain type early on, by 1650 B.C. geometric designs and punctations decorate the vessels; increased use of estuarine resources and occupation along the coastal lagoons. Deptford Primarily a coastal manifestation with inland extractive camps; ceramics were 500 B.C. - A.D. 200 sand tempered and decorated with simple, check, and linear check stamping; focused on the exploitation of the marine resources; permanent residences along the coast; increased complexity in burial practices. Weeden Island-related Ceramics tempered with sand or limestone (Pasco wares); most coastal shell A.D. 200 – 900 middens made from oyster; farming may have occurred at inland sites; village ceramics were primarily plain; riverine and freshwater marsh environments also fairly heavily exploited; many burial mounds were continuously used. Safety Harbor Most sites are still along the coast, but some are inland; most village pottery is (Precolumbian) undecorated Pasco Plain; mound sites have decorated ceramics; hunter A.D. 900 – 1500 fisherfolk utilizing the estuarine resources; dispersed settlements; Southeast Ceremonial Complex influences though no intensive agricultural pursuits were undertaken. Safety Harbor European artifacts appear at the sites; settlement and subsistence patterns (Columbian) similar to Precolumbian period until disease and warfare disrupt the aboriginal A.D. 1500 – 1725 social system and decimate the population.
These watering holes would have attracted the animals that the Indians hunted, thus providing both food and drink.
Excavations at the Harney Flats Site in Hillsborough County (8HI507) have provided a rich body of data concerning Paleo-Indian lifeways (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). It has been suggested that Paleo-Indian 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 or water,” among other factors (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:175). During the late Paleo-Indian period, the large lanceolate-shaped Suwannee and Simpson points may have been replaced by the smaller Tallahassee, Santa Fe, and Beaver Lake types (Milanich 1994:53). Austin (2001:27), however, has noted that most of these point types have been recovered in stratigraphic contexts from late Archaic and/or early Woodland period components.
P05081/July 2005 3-4
A few Paleo-Indian campsites have been found in North Central Florida. These are concentrated along the Ocala Lime Rock Ridge (Dunbar and Waller 1983). River crossings, sink holes, spring caverns, or other karst features are the most common site locations. Sites containing Paleo-Indian points and the bones of now-extinct mammals have been found at the bottom of the Withlacoochee River at the Marion/Citrus County line, Silver Springs and Silver Glen Springs in Marion County, and Bennett’s Creek 2 and Hearts Path I in Citrus County (Bennett et al. 2001; FMSF; Hemmings 1975; Neill 1958, 1964). The Colorado Site (8HE241) along SR 50 in Hernando County, has yielded Suwannee/Simpson preforms indicative of the Paleo-Indian period (ACI 1999).
3.2 Archaic
The Archaic stage (7500-500 B.C.) has been divided into three periods: Early Archaic (7500-5000 B.C.), Middle Archaic (5000-3000 B.C.), and Late Archaic (3000- 500 B.C.) (Milanich 1994). Bullen (1959; 1970; 1972) separates the Orange (2000-1000 B.C.) and the Transitional (1200-500 B.C.) periods from the Late Archaic. Milanich (1994:35), however, suggests that even with the advent of fired clay pottery, the basic lifestyles of the aboriginal occupations of the Late Archaic remained relatively unchanged.
The beginning of the Archaic is denoted by interrelated environmental and cultural changes. The environmental changes associated with the end of the Pleistocene necessitated modification of the extant prehistoric settlement patterns and subsistence strategies. Whereas the Paleo-Indians depended more heavily upon the Pleistocene megafauna and the relatively limited number of freshwater sources, Archaic populations hunted smaller game and learned to exploit their environment more effectively. These adaptive changes resulted in an increase in the number and types of archeological sites, such as marine and freshwater shell middens. The effects of the changing environment can be seen by the variation in site locations. Although Early Archaic materials are often found in association with Paleo-Indian deposits, especially around water sources, other Early Archaic sites are located in areas devoid of Paleo-Indian components.
Early Archaic sites are recognized by the presence of Dalton and/or Bolen points as well as the Kirk varieties. Milanich (1994:64) notes that there are no well-documented Early Archaic coastal or riverine shell midden sites. This may be due to sea level rise as opposed to avoidance of these areas. The lithic tool assemblage has a wider variety of tool types than during the previous period. Early Archaic populations continued to locate their sites around available water sources. However, as water sources became more numerous, larger populations could be sustained. This resulted in larger sites that were occupied for longer periods. The Rainbow Springs 3, Beverly Hills, and Citrus Hill sites have evidence for occupation during the Early Archaic period (Chance 1981; FMSF; Stokes 2003).
During the Middle Archaic, wetter conditions prevailed. Sea levels began to rise and pine forests and swamps began to emerge. The climate was changed to one of more
P05081/July 2005 3-5
pronounced seasonality. Settlement became focused within coastal and riverine locales (Milanich 1994). Subsistence was based on hunting, fishing, shellfish collecting, and plant gathering. The previously proposed theory that Archaic populations practiced a seasonal migration pattern between the interior and the coast has been called into question. Evidence from Horr’s Island, located along the southwest Florida coast, indicates that this Middle Archaic site was occupied during all seasons of the year (Russo 1991).
Milanich (1994:84) suggests that Early and Middle Archaic peoples used aquatic environments for burial. The Early Archaic Windover Site, located near Titusville, contained primary and flexed burials within a peat pond. These were held in place with wooden stakes and the interments included grave goods such as textiles and worked bone, shell, and wood (Adovasio et al. 2002; Andrews et al. 2002; Dickel 2002; Penders 2002). The Gauthier cemetery was situated within a slough between a pond and Lake Poinsett. These burials were also primary and flexed (Carr and Jones 1981; Sigler-Eisenberg 1984). Underwater interments also have been recovered from the Middle Archaic Bay West, Republic Groves, and Nona sites (Beriault et al. 1981; Luer 2002; Wharton et al. 1981). These burial sites, like Windover, have an adjacent land site evidenced by a midden. Burials within freshwater shell midden deposits have been identified at the Tick Island Site within the St. Johns River basin.
The large stemmed projectile points, especially the Newnan type, often characterize Middle Archaic sites. Other point types include Hillsborough, Levy, Putnam, Alachua, and Marion (Bullen 1975a). In addition, silicified coral was more prevalent as a lithic raw material for tool manufacture (Milanich 1994), and thermal alteration of the stone became more common (Ste. Claire 1987). The Sand Spur Ridge, Inferno, and Circle Square Ranch # 2 sites date from this time (Dunbar and Newman 2003; ESI 1994; Janus Research 2000).
The Middle Archaic sites recorded throughout the state include large base camps, smaller special-use campsites, quarries, and burial areas. The most common sites are the smaller campsites that were most likely used for hunting or served as special use extractive sites for such activities as gathering nuts or other botanical materials. Nut and fruit collecting stations would have been used seasonally. Aboriginal populations mined stone for their tools at quarry sites. They usually roughly shaped the item prior to transporting to another locale for finishing. Base camps are defined by the larger artifact assemblage and wider variety of tool forms present.
By about 2000 B.C., the firing of clay pottery made its appearance in Florida. The first ceramics had fibers (Spanish moss or palmetto) as the tempering agents within the clay. These wares are referred to as the Orange or Norwood series. Initially, it was believed that the ceramics lacked decoration until about 1650 B.C. when they became decorated with geometric designs and punctations. In addition, the introduction of the St. Johns series of ceramics, a chalky feeling ceramic, occurred late in this period. Recent research, however, has called the entire Orange chronology into question (Sassaman 2003). Based on a series of AMS dates on soot from Orange Incised sherds from the
P05081/July 2005 3-6
middle St. Johns Valley and from radiocarbon dates on oyster and charcoal in association with Orange ceramics near the mouth of the river, all the various Orange ceramic types occur within the time span of roughly 4100-3600 B.P. In addition, research by Cordell (2004) has documented the presence of sponge spicules in the Orange ceramic paste (the diagnostic trait of St. Johns wares) which suggest that the St. Johns ceramic tradition extends back to the beginning of the ceramic technology in the region (Sassaman 2003:11). The projectile points used by the Late Archaic populations were virtually the same as those utilized during the Middle Archaic period with the inclusion of the Clay, Culbreath, and Lafayette stemmed and corner-notched varieties.
Milanich (1994:86-87) indicates that there is little difference between Middle and Late Archaic populations except that there are more Late Archaic sites and the density of sites is higher. The Late Archaic settlements were primarily located near wetland locales. The abundance of resources located in and near the wetlands permitted larger settlements. This change in settlement patterns may be related to environmental changes. By the end of the Middle Archaic, the climate closely resembled that of today; vegetation changed from those species that preferred moist conditions to pines and mixed forests (Watts and Hansen 1988). Sea levels rose, inundating sites located along the shore line (Ruppé 1988). The adaptation to this environment allowed for a wider variety of resources to be exploited and a wider variation in settlement patterns. No longer was site location tied to the proximity of scarce waterholes. Shellfish, fish, and other food sources were now available from coastal and freshwater wetlands resulting in an increased population size. Late Archaic/Orange period sites in the region include Sink #1, Weaving Fool, Hilltop Hammock, Angler’s Village, Slough’s Edge, and Moose Lodge (Denson et al. 1997; Dunbar and Newman 2003; Janus Research 2000; Johnson 1994, 1995)
During the Transitional stage of the Late Archaic, regional differences in cultural adaptation developed. For example, along Florida’s west coast, sand was mixed with the fibers as a tempering agent, whereas the manufacture of a temperless paste (St. Johns ware) characterized the St. Johns region, and limestone-tempered ceramics (Pasco wares) dominated the Citrus/Hernando/Pasco County area. Nonetheless, because the same basic settlement and subsistence patterns were being followed, Bullen (1959, 1965) suggests that there was a diffusion of cultural traits as a result of the movement of small groups. Among the sites that date to this period are the Hernando Beach 1 and Stokes Ferry Road Sites (ACI 2001; Ellis et al. 1995).
3.3 Formative
The Formative stage in the North Peninsular Gulf Coast archaeological region is comprised of the Deptford and Weeden Island-related periods, circa 500 B.C. to A.D. 900. The Deptford period (500 B.C. to A.D. 200) has been well documented as a coastal culture along the Gulf and Atlantic shorelines. The sites tend to be located in live oak- magnolia hammocks immediately adjacent to saltwater marshes. Sea level rise has inundated some sites (Bullen 1975b) and formed islands out of others. Smaller inland sites, probably for hunting, also are known, but less well understood. Deptford
P05081/July 2005 3-7 subsistence strategies were based on hunting and gathering with an emphasis on the coastal resources. Coastal sites, often located in saltwater marshes, are easily identified by the presence of shell middens. Archaeologists believe the Deptford people spent most of the year along the lagoons and salt marshes. Seasonally, small groups may have moved inland and up the rivers to exploit the riverine and hammock resources (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:72).
Deptford pottery is easily identified and is characterized by linear patterns of small rectangles or squares on the outside of pots. Simple stamp, linear check stamp, and check stamp patterns were applied by pressing a carved wooden paddle into the moist clay prior to firing. Other pottery was decorated by wrapping the wooden paddle with a cord and pressing it into the moist clay. Spanish moss was replaced by better tempering agents such as sand and grit.
Some archaeologists believe maize horticulture was probably introduced to the Deptford people by about 200 B.C. (Milanich 1971). The beginning of food production ushered in a more complex culture. Burial mounds and other ceremonial mounds were constructed. There is some evidence that around 200 A.D., soils better suited to cultivation were sought inland by the expanding Deptford populations (Kohler 1991). The Crystal River, VFW, Withlacoochee Bend, and Drake Ranch I Sites (Bennett et al. 2001; Bullen 1953; Johnson 1987; Johnson 1994) have components which dates from this time period.
The Weeden Island-related cultures (A.D. 200 - 900) evolved out of the preceding Deptford period. 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. In general, Weeden Island period sites are found along the coast, on bay shores, or on streams, and nearly all are marked by shell refuse with burial mounds of sand situated near the middens (Willey 1949).
Many Weeden Island sites consist of villages with associated mounds, as well as ceremonial/burial mound sites. The artifact assemblage is distinguished by the presence of Weeden Island ceramic types. These are among some of the finest ceramics in the Southeast; they are often thin, well-fired, burnished, and decorated with incising, punctation, 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 period sites. There is no definitive evidence for horticulture (e.g., charred cobs, kernels, or beans) in this coastal area (Milanich 1994:215).
P05081/July 2005 3-8
In the North Peninsula Gulf Coast archaeological region, sites from this period are often described as “Weeden Island-related” because Weeden Island ceramics are not the dominant wares. There is a higher percentage of plain ceramics as well as an increased prevalence of St. Johns series of pottery. Weeden Island sites have been identified both on the coast and in proximity to the more productive agricultural soils of the inland areas of the region (Kohler and Johnson 1986). Burial mounds are present at the Bayport, Indian Bend, and Sand Slough sites (Dunbar and Newman 2003; Moore 1903). Shell midden sites dating from this time period include the Palm Grove Gardens and First Garden (Ferguson 1976). Other regional sites include the Magic Farms, Goethe, and Seaboard Line 1 sites (ACI 2001; Johnson et al. 1991).
3.4 Mississippian/Acculturative
The final aboriginal cultural manifestation in the North Peninsular Gulf Coast archaeological region is Safety Harbor, named for the type-site in Pinellas County. Archaeologists believe that, over time, the Weeden Island-related cultures evolved into another culture -- Safety Harbor (A.D. 900-1725). This period has been divided into four phases: Englewood (A.D. 900-1100), Pinellas (A.D. 1100-1500), Tatham (A.D. 1500- 1567), and Bayview (A.D. 1567-1725) (Mitchem 1989a). The first two phases are Precolumbian. These temporal divisions are based upon radiocarbon dates associated with certain ceramic types during the Precolumbian phases and datable European artifacts during the colonial phases. The project area is within the Northern Safety Harbor region. Safety Harbor components have been identified at the Bayport and Weeki Wachee burial mounds and the Pot Drop and Genton sites (Denson et al. 1993; Johnson 1994; Mitchem 1989b; Mitchem et al. 1985; Moore 1903; Willey 1949).
As with the preceding Weeden Island period, the utilitarian village wares tend to be devoid of decoration. Pasco Plain is the most common type recovered from village and campsites (Milanich 1994:392). Sand-tempered Plain, St. Johns Plain, St. Johns Check Stamped, and cord marked pottery also are recovered from these sites. It is, however, the decorated ceramics, recovered from burial mound contexts, which allow for easy dating of a site. The projectile points most commonly associated with this period are the Pinellas, Ichetucknee, and Tampa varieties. The other tool types are similar to those of the previous periods.
Most settlements, including the residential sites and isolated burial mounds, are dispersed (Milanich 1994:392). Sites within this Northern Safety Harbor region tend to be located along the coast, as evidenced by oyster shell middens, and within the Cove of the Withlacoochee, as evidenced by freshwater shell middens. The relationship between the coastal and interior Safety Harbor sites is poorly understood. In the Circum-Tampa Bay area, the sites tend to be nucleated villages with associated mounds. There is a possibility that the Crystal River Site may reflect this more southern settlement pattern.
The subsistence economy of the Safety Harbor people is basically the same as the preceding Weeden Island period. The focus was on the exploitation of the maritime and
P05081/July 2005 3-9
riverine resources. Evidence for horticulture has been recovered within the Cove of the Withlacoochee (Mitchem 1989a:588), but not within the coastal areas. Evidence to date suggests that extensive agricultural pursuits were not an important factor in the diet as was the case with the Mississippian chiefdoms (Fort Walton culture) of northern Florida. This is not to say, however, that influences from the northern areas were limited. The evolution of the socio-political system and the influences of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex can be seen in the burial practices and grave offerings placed in the mounds
The Timucuan Indians are the historic counterparts of the Safety Harbor people. With the arrival of the Pánfilo de Narvaéz expedition in 1528 and Hernando de Soto in 1539, the Native American cultures came into direct and indirect contact with European influences. The de Soto expedition headed north from Tampa Bay and passed through several towns on its way to Apalachee. These towns included one near Dade City (Plain of Guancozo), Luca was near Lacoochee, Vicela was reported to be near Istachatta, and Tocaste was reported on Duval Island at the southern end of Lake Tsala Apopka (Milanich 1995:77). Spanish influence and contact are indicated by the presence of European objects, especially beads, at a number of different sites in this region. The presence of cut marks on bones that could only be the result of metal swords and knives also reflected the European presence. The introduction of European diseases, warfare, and the general disruption of their cultural system resulted in the demise of these aboriginal populations.
3.5 Contact and the Colonial Period
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. The first European to have contact with the west coast of Florida was Ponce de León. Arriving in St. Augustine in 1513, his journals record his exploration of the Gulf Coast of Florida from Charlotte Harbor to Apalachee Bay. Next, Pánfilo de Narvaéz arrived in the Tampa Bay area in 1528. His party explored northward from Tampa Bay eventually crossing the Withlacoochee River near present day Dunnellon and investigating the mouth of the river in search of the Gulf of Mexico. Finally, Hernando de Soto landed in the Tampa Bay area in 1539; he sought the allegedly rich Indian village of Cale. By the early 1700s, the native populations were largely wiped out--ravaged by conquest, disease, and the effects of European contact.
The area, which now constitutes the State of Florida, was ceded to England in 1763 after two centuries of Spanish possession. England governed Florida until 1783, when the Treaty of Paris returned Florida to Spain; however, Spanish influence was nominal during this second period of ownership. Prior to the American colonial settlement of Florida, portions of the Creek Nation and remnants of other Indian groups from Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina moved into Florida and repopulated the vacuum created by the decimation of the aboriginal inhabitants. The Seminoles, as these migrating groups of Indians became known, formed at various times loose confederacies for mutual protection against the new American Nation to the north (Tebeau 1980:72).
P05081/July 2005 3-10
Archaeologically, Seminole sites are identified primarily by the presence of brushed ceramics. The sites tend to be small, and have a low artifact density. Several Seminole sites have been identified within the Cove of the Withlacoochee area (Weisman 1989). The Indian Camps Site, located closer to Crystal River, was a Seminole town (Carr and Steele 1993).
The bloody conflict between the Americans and the Seminoles over Florida first came to a head in 1818, and was subsequently known as the First Seminole War. As a result of the war and the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819, Florida became a United States Territory in 1821. 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 including present day Sumter and Marion counties, and Escambia County included the land lying to the west. In the first territorial census in 1825, some 5,077 persons reportedly lived east of the Suwannee River; by 1830 that number had risen to 8,956 (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 all of central and south Florida. The Seminoles relinquished their claim to the whole peninsula in return for occupancy of approximately four million acres of reservation south of Ocala and north of Charlotte Harbor (also encompassing the modern-day project area) (Mahon 1967:46-50). The treaty never satisfied the Indians or the settlers. The inadequacy of the reservation and desperate situation of the Seminoles living there, plus the mounting demand of the whites for their removal, soon produced another conflict. Marion County hosted a number of Seminole towns and villages during this time. The FMSF lists 19 Seminole/Seminole War period sites within Marion County, with several more in Citrus County (Carr and Steele 1993; Denson et al. 1997; Ellis et al. 2003; FMSF; Wisenbaker 1999).
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 Seminoles. Frontier families followed the soldiers and initiated the settlement of the Tampa Bay area. This caused problems for the military as civilian settlements were not in accord with the military Camp Moultrie agreement of 1823 (Guthrie 1974:10). By 1830, the United States War Department found it necessary to establish a military reserve around Fort Brooke with boundaries extending 16 miles to the north, west, and east of the fort. There was a guardhouse, barracks, storehouse, powder magazine, and stables within this military reservation. Also, two years before, William G. Saunders of Mobile, Alabama had opened a general store (Tebeau 1980:146). With the establishment of Fort Brooke, a military road, called the Fort King Road, was cleared in 1825 between Fort Brooke and Fort King (now Ocala) (Horgan et al. 1992:40). Fort King was located approximately 20 miles northeast of the project area.
On December 28, 1835, Major Francis Langhorne Dade was leading a company of soldiers along a section of Fort King Road (near present-day Bushnell) when they were
P05081/July 2005 3-11 attacked by a band of Seminoles under the command of Chief Jumper. Only three of the 108 men under Dade’s command survived. The attack served as a trigger for the Second Seminole War and as a battle cry for the removal of the Seminoles. In 1837, General Thomas Jessup was traveling from Fort King to Fort Brooke when he realized the need for a supply depot between the two forts. To commemorate the slain company and their leader General Jessup established Fort Dade in 1837 near the site of the original battle. It operated for only a few months before closing (a new Fort Dade was established in 1849 south of the original location) (Horgan et al. 1992:25, 94-96). Fort Clinch, located near Inglis along the Withlacoochee River, was established in 1836. That served to open up the region to non-aboriginal settlement and occupation of the area by the U.S. military (Dinkins 1997). Supply trains, troops, and messengers traversed the region along the road from Fort clinch to Fort King near Ocala. Camp Izard is located east of Dunnellon along the Withlacoochee River. Several engagements between the U.S. troops and the Seminole Indians took place in that area (Denson et al. 1997; Ellis et al. 2003). Later a ferry crossing was established and a small community grew.
The Second Seminole War lasted until 1842 when the federal government decided to end the conflict by withdrawing troops from Florida. Some of the battle weary Seminoles were persuaded to migrate west where the federal government had set aside land for Native American inhabitation. By 1843, 3,824 Seminoles were shipped west. However, those who were adamant about remaining were allowed to do so, but were pushed further south into the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp. This area became the last stronghold for the Seminoles (Mahon 1967:321). The surveys, military trails, and forts resulting from the war provided invaluable assistance in the settlement of Florida.
Encouraged by the passage of the Armed Occupation Act in 1842, which was designed to promote settlement and protect the Florida frontier, Anglo-American pioneers and their families 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. The Armed Occupation Act stipulated that any family or single man over 18 years of age 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-month period that the law was in effect, 1,184 permits were issued totaling some 189,440 acres (Covington 1961:48).
In 1845, the Union admitted the State of Florida with Tallahassee as the state capital. Marion County was formed in 1844 from parts of Alachua, Hillsborough, and Mosquito (later Orange) Counties (FPS 1986:10). Ocala was established as the county seat in 1846. During the 1850s, several families in the area “developed sizable plantations” (Murray 2002:2). Early Marion County pioneers engaged in farming and the planting of citrus groves. The county’s vast cotton fields and citrus groves earned its distinction as the “agricultural heart of Florida” before the Civil War (Baker 1970:1). Tobacco, rice, sugar cane, and cattle were also important to the agricultural economy.
P05081/July 2005 3-12
During this settlement period, the federal government initiated surveys in the project area. The exterior boundaries of Township 16 South, Ranges 18 and 19 East were platted by federal surveyors A. W. Warrall, Thomas H. Weightman, and unknown surveyors (State of Florida 1836b, 1836c, 1843, 1845d). Subdivisions were surveyed by Ralph W. Norris, Benjamin Clements, J. B. Clements, and C. C. Tracy (State of Florida 1836a, 1845a, 1845b, 1845c). In general, the area is described as third rate pine with areas of bluejack oak and laurel; along the river are some areas of first rate hammock (State of Florida 1844:422; 1845b:100; 1845c:162). The Rainbow River, referred to as Wekiwa Creek, runs through the southeast corner Township 16 South and Range 18 East, and along the eastern edge of Township 16 South, Range 19 East it is referred to as the Wekiwa River (State of Florida 1836b, 1836c, 1843, 1845d). Fort Clinch Road and the trail to Camp Izard are the only historic features depicted on the map of Township 16 South, Range 18 East. The Fort Clinch to Fort King Road continues into Range 19 East. In addition, there is a northern trending road in the northern part of the Range and in the northeast quarter of that range is an old wagon trail. No other historic features are noted on either plat map.
In December of 1855, the Third Seminole War, or the Billy Bowlegs War (1855- 1858), started as a result of pressure placed on Native Americans remaining in Florida to emigrate to the west. The war started in what is now Collier County and served to renew state and federal interest in the final elimination of the Seminoles from Florida. Military action was not decisive in this Third Seminole War; therefore, in 1858 the U.S. Government resorted to monetary persuasion to induce the remaining Seminoles to migrate west. A total of 165 Seminoles accepted money in exchange for migrating west. On May 8, 1858, the Third Seminole War was officially declared at an end (Covington 1982:78-80).
In 1861, Florida followed South Carolina’s lead and seceded from the Union in a prelude to the American Civil War. Even though the coast of Florida experienced a naval blockade during the war, the interior of the state saw very little military action. Many male residents abandoned their farms and settlements to join the Confederate army or local militias. The militias were established to defend the communities and gather supplies for the Confederate army. The war lasted until 1865.
Immediately following the war, the South underwent a period of “Reconstruction” to prepare the Confederate States for readmission to the Union. The program was administered by the U. S. Congress, and on July 25, 1868, Florida officially returned to the Union (Tebeau 1980:251).
The end of the Civil War stimulated growth in the area. Southerners sought new homes to escape the unrest in the neighboring ex-Confederate states, and the war brought prosperity to a large number of Northerners who sought vacation homes in warmer climates. The Homestead Act of 1866 opened public land in Florida to homesteaders. However, ex-confederates were ineligible and only freed slaves and loyal white settlers were eligible for the 80-acre farms. After the war, most of the plantations in the area converted from cultivating sugar cane and cotton to growing citrus. The first groves in
P05081/July 2005 3-13
the region were established in the vicinity of Orange Lake, north of Ocala, and around Lake Weir. The region was well known for producing two varieties of oranges: the “Parson Brown” and the “Pineapple.” Reverend Nathan Brown, a retired Methodist circuit rider, arrived in the Lake Weir area in 1847. He planted several seedlings that he had grown from fruit brought from Savannah that developed into the “Parson Brown” variety. Much of the area’s growth during this time can be attributed to the citrus industry and the arrival of the railroads.
During the Reconstruction period, Florida's financial crisis, born of pre-war railroad bonded indebtedness, led Governor William Bloxham to search for a buyer for an immense amount of state lands. Bloxham's task was to raise adequate capital in one sale to free from litigation the remainder of state lands for desperately needed revenue. In 1881, Hamilton Disston, a Philadelphia investor and friend of Governor Bloxham, formed the Florida Land and Improvement Company, which purchased four million acres of swamp and overflowed land for one million dollars from the State of Florida in order to clear the state's debt. This transaction, which became known as the Disston Purchase, enabled the distribution of large land subsidies to railroad companies, inducing them to begin extensive construction programs for new lines throughout the state. Hamilton Disston and the railroad companies in turn sold smaller parcels of land (Tebeau 1980).
The property within the Preserve at Blue Run tract was purchased by several individuals from the 1840’s to the 1880’s beginning with James Lynch who purchased the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 25 in 1845. Table 3.2 provides a listing of the original purchasers and the date (State of Florida n.d.-a:131; n.d.-b:183, 186).
Table 3.2. Original Property Owners of the Preserve at Blue Run Tract. Location (section & portion) Purchaser Date Township 16 South, Range18 East 25 NE of SE James Lynch Oct. 13, 1845 25 SE of SW , SE of SE Samuel Agnew Nov. 29, 1854 25 NE of SW William T. Tompkins Jan. 11, 1884 25 SE of SE Amos P. Rathbun May 10, 1883 36 NE Henry W. Stratten Jan. 18, 1886 Township 16 South, Range19East 30 NW of SW Shadrock Atkinson April 1 1859
The Silver Springs, Ocala, and Gulf Railroad ran from Ocala to Homosassa, a portion of which followed the west bank of the Rainbow River. The tracks were first laid in 1885, and the line reached Homosassa in 1889, crossing the Withlacoochee River at Dunnellon in 1887. It was at this time that Dunnellon was developed. John Dunn and several investors established the Withlacoochee and Wekiwa Land Company. The first two years were spent by the Company publicizing and promoting the community located at the confluence of the Withlacoochee and Wekiwa (Rainbow) Rivers. There was little initial development in the town other than the construction of a train depot. In 1888, a boarding house was constructed, although the Company referred to it as a hotel (Dinkins 1997:74). Also that year, Tucker Hood constructed a saw mill along the bank of the
P05081/July 2005 3-14
Withlacoochee River. In 1889, Albertus Vogt discovered hardrock phosphate at Refro Springs, located in western Dunnellon. The following year the Dunnellon Phosphate Company was established. Soon other phosphate companies such as the Marion Phosphate Company were established and buying land as quickly as possible in the area. Within the period 1889-1891, twenty companies had formed in the immediate Dunnellon area (Dinkins 1997:121). The Marion Phosphate Company operated along the Rainbow River while the Dunnellon Phosphate Company operated from Vogt Springs along the Withlacoochee. At one point, Blue Run broke through the edge of a dry mining pit next to the river, and the river emptied into the pit, causing the river to run dry south of SR 484 until the pit had completely filled in (Hayes n.d.). Port Inglis was constructed as a shipping basin by the Dunnellon Phosphate Company and in 1899, the company constructed a railroad line to their new facility along the coast. The Dunnellon Phosphate Company was the largest in the region, operating 12 mines and employing over 400 workers. The company used over 3.5 million feet of lumber to construct the houses, drying sheds, elevated platforms, and other necessities for the company (1974:46). By 1907, Port Inglis lead the world in phosphate shipments (Ott and Chazal 1966:150). A depression occurred in the industry in 1897 due to the rampant speculation and flooded market. The cost of phosphate dropped from $25.00 a ton to $6.50 a tone, and thousands of workers lost their job in the mines. The panic and brief depression caused hardships for the laborers, financial losses for the stockholders and entrepreneurs, but in the end, resulted in a stabilization of the industry and the consolidation of many companies (Dinkins 1997:124).
The Great Freeze of 1894-95 severely affected the citrus industry in the region. In 1894, growers in the state had shipped more than one billion oranges to markets in the nation; only three percent of that amount was shipped the following year. The freeze in 1894-95 not only destroyed the fruit on the trees, but also killed the trees. Although 171,610 trees bore fruit in Marion County in 1891-92, no fruit bearing trees remained in the county from 1895 to 1900. The region entered a period of depression with many residents leaving Florida, thereby causing the dissolution of many small towns. The growers that remained diversified into cattle and truck crops including watermelons, cantaloupes, cabbage, and cucumbers. Over the twenty years following the freeze, small growers increasingly joined together to form cooperative associations and packing houses to jointly market their produce (FPS 1986:34-37).
Dunnellon continued to grow and develop during this period. Several stores were constructed, the Dunnellon State Bank was established, and in addition to the mines, lumber mills and a turpentine still provided for employment of many individuals. The majority of the people who lived in and around Dunnellon were African-Americans. Around 500 people lived in town, but if one includes all the laborers for the mines and lumber camps, the population rose to around 5000 (Dinkins 1997). In 1909, W. C. Camp constructed a hydroelectric power plant on the Withlacoochee River to provide power to all of his mines (Camp Phosphate) and was able to supply the entire area with power (Cusick 1987). Until that time, the power had been supplied by the Dunnellon Ice Storage and Machine Co.
P05081/July 2005 3-15
The turn of the century prompted an optimism and an excitement over growth and development. With increased financial resources and machinery, extensive reaches of land were now available for development. An improving road system, increasing services, and a growing population were additional significant features of the era. The first twenty years of the new century witnessed the advent of progressivism in which governments expanded their services beyond the traditional limits of the previous century. In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt signed a proclamation establishing the first national forest east of the Mississippi. The Ocala National Forest is located between the Ocklawaha and St. Johns Rivers in eastern Marion and northern Lake Counties, east of the project area. The Ocala National Forest, as well as continuing efforts to develop Silver Springs which had attracted visitors since the 1870s, drew an increasing number of tourists to the region (Ott and Chazal 1966:169).
Many small communities developed largely as lumber and turpentine towns along the route of the railroads. From the 1870s until World War I, turpentine and lumber played a major role in the economy of the region. Lumber, mill, crate, and turpentine companies thrived and mill towns were built. Harvesting of naval stores -- turpentine and resin -- brought turpentine camps. Each camp included a turpentine still, living quarters, buildings for producing barrels and pots, maintenance sheds for wagons, along with mule barns, and a commissary (FWP 1939:61). By 1910, Florida ranked first in the production of naval stores (FWP 1939:378). The prosperity of the industry brought new construction including plans for residences, businesses, churches, packinghouses, and schools.
In 1914, prosperity ended with the outbreak of war between Germany and England. Both countries were large consumers of turpentine and resin. In addition, most of the hardrock phosphate had been shipped to European markets. Although the U.S. was a neutral nation at first, trade with Germany and England was precarious. Later, the German submarine warfare destroyed the naval stores traffic. Because of the war, the livelihood of many area residents dwindled and turpentine workers moved to larger cities to find work. After the decline of these industries during World War I, the naval stores and phosphate companies never fully recovered. Sawmills often purchased the remaining timber, while developers purchased the land to later subdivide and sell. With the decline of the regional economy and the movement of turpentine workers to larger cities, financial ruin seemed eminent in 1916 as the turpentine and resin business was dormant (Marion County Historical Commission 1963).
Nathan Mayo, a Marion County businessman, quickly liquidated his turpentine interests and focused his energies on cotton. Cotton, essential to the World War I munitions industry, was a lucrative product. Mayo, along with two other men, organized the Farmer’s Gin and Mill Company. The Farmer’s Gin and Mill Company contracted to buy cotton throughout the “cotton belt” of Florida financing the growing of it and constructing one of the largest gins in the state at Summerfield. The cotton company prospered during World War I, but, with the end of the war in 1919, the extensive market for cotton ended. Concurrently, the boll weevil destroyed cotton crops throughout the South. The Farmer’s Gin and Mill Company closed, the machinery was sold, and the building was leased to a crate mill (Marion County Historical Commission 1963).
P05081/July 2005 3-16
By the middle of the 1920s, the Dunnellon Phosphate Company had gone out of business. The C. and J. Camp Company became one of the few surviving hardrock phosphate companies and controlled vast amounts of timberland as well. Economic expansion also occurred when Edward Williams constructed a sawmill and began cutting timber in the surrounding area. This put many people to work.
By 1926-27, the Florida real estate market collapsed. Massive freight car congestion from hundreds of loaded cars sitting in railroad yards caused the Florida East Coast Railway to embargo all but perishable goods in August of 1925. The embargo spread to other railroads throughout the state, and, as a result, most construction halted. The 1926 real estate economy in Florida was based upon such wild land speculations that banks could not keep track of loans or property values. By October, rumors were rampant in northern newspapers concerning fraudulent practices in the real estate market in south Florida. Confidence in the Florida real estate market quickly diminished, investors could not sell lots, and depression hit Florida earlier than the rest of the nation. At the same time, the agricultural industry suffered a devastating infestation by the Mediterranean fruit fly, which endangered the future of the entire citrus industry (Mormino and Pizzo 1983:167). To make the situation even worse two hurricanes hit south Florida in 1926 and 1928. The hurricanes destroyed confidence in Florida as a tropical paradise and created a flood of refugees fleeing northward. Soon after, the October 1929 stock market crash and the onset of the Great Depression left the area in a state of stagnation. The 1930s saw the closing of mines and mills and widespread unemployment.
It was around this time that Marion County became important in the Thoroughbred industry due to its rich grazing, rolling hills, and year round pastures (Anon. n.d.). The first Thoroughbred Farm, Rosemere, was established in 1936, and with the horse Needle winning the Belmont Stakes and Kentucky Derby in 1956, Marion County became a focus for the horse-racing world.
By the mid-1930s, the New Deal programs implemented by the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration started employing large numbers of workers, helping to revive the economy of the state. The programs, aimed at pulling the nation out of the Depression, were instrumental in the construction of roads, bridges, parks, and public buildings. Legislation, such as the Hayden-Cartwright Act of 1934, expended approximately one million dollars of federal funds for highway construction between 1933 and 1938. In Florida, spending increased from over $12 million in 1930 to over $62 million in 1934 with an average of $54 million during the mid-1930s (King 1991:33). By 1940, recovery from the Great Depression was imminent. The incoming service personnel and their families renewed the area economy. Federal roads, channel building, and airfield construction for the wartime defense effort brought numerous Americans into Florida.
It was during the 1930s and 40s that the Blue Springs Company began to develop Blue Springs into a tourist attraction. The first glass bottom boat was used in 1934, and seawalls were installed and access to the recreation area was improved (Vojnovski et al.
P05081/July 2005 3-17
1999). In 1937, the name was changed from Blue Springs to Rainbow Springs to differentiate it from the many other “Blue” water sites in Florida (Dinkins 1997).
As World War II ended, Florida experienced a population boom during which the state’s population increased from 1,897,414 to 2,771,305 from 1940 to 1950 (Tebeau 1980:431). After the war, car ownership increased making the American public more mobile and vacations inexpensive. Many who had served at Florida’s military bases during World War II also returned with their families to live. As veterans returned, the trend in new housing focused on the development of small tract homes in new subdivisions bordering larger cities.
The construction of the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 75 in the 1960s and 1970s drew large-scale development away from the communities along the more rural highways and as such most of the region remains rural in nature. Development and settlement patterns over the latter half of the twentieth century have led to increasing numbers of automobiles and asphalt, an interstate highway system, suburban sprawl, and strip development along major state highways. Over the past twenty years, large residential developments, such as The Villages, have drawn an increasing number of retirees to the area.
Marion County had 258,916 residents in 2000. Marion County’s famed Thoroughbred horse farms continue to be an important part of the economy, and agricultural products included hay and cattle. Lumber and wood products accounted for a large share of manufacturing employment, and Marion County was the leading producer of softwood logs and the fourth largest producer of softwood for pulp in the state (Purdum 1994:84).
P05081/July 2005 4-1
4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODOLOGIES
4.1 Background Research and Literature Review
A comprehensive review of the archaeological and historical literature, records, and other documents and data pertaining to the general area was conducted. The focus of this research was to ascertain the types of cultural resources known in the project vicinity, their temporal/cultural affiliations, site location information, and other relevant data. This included a review of sites listed in the NRHP, the FMSF, cultural resource survey reports, published books and articles, unpublished manuscripts, and maps. No informant interviews were conducted. The FMSF data in this report were obtained in June 2005. Two previously recorded sites are located within the parcel. These include a portion of an abandoned railroad grade (8MR3270) and the historic Blue Run Cemetery (8MR2752). It should be noted though that this may not reflect all recorded resources as according to Dr. Marion Smith, administrator of the FMSF, input may be a month or more behind receipt of reports and site files.
4.2 Archaeological Considerations
For archaeological survey projects of this kind, specific research designs are formulated prior to initiating fieldwork in order to delineate project goals and strategies. Of primary importance is an attempt to understand, based on previous investigations, the spatial distribution of known resources. Such knowledge serves not only to generate an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of sites which might be anticipated to occur within the project area, but also provides a valuable regional perspective, and thus, a basis for evaluating any new sites discovered.
The archaeological background research indicates 21 archaeological sites have been recorded within two miles of the project area (Figure 4.1, Table 4.1). According to data in the FMSF, these sites were recorded during a survey of Citrus County, surveys for road improvements and expansions, improvements to the Rainbow River State Park, and development projects. In addition, other cultural resource assessment surveys conducted in the general area did not produce evidence of aboriginal or historic utilization.
The first survey work constructed in the general area was for the proposed Cross- Florida Barge Canal. This work was conducted by Charles Fairbanks and Ripley P. Bullen in the mid-1960s (Bullen 1966; Fairbanks 1965). Four culturally indeterminate lithic scatters (8CI81 and 8MR95, -98, -99) were recorded, two of which were along the Withlacoochee River. None of these was considered significant.
P05081/July 2005 4-2
0 .5 1 mile 0 .5 1 kilometer 8MR3268 8MR3269
8MR2701 N
8MR3270
8MR2752 8MR2449 8MR2450 Project Location
8MR98 8CI844 8MR95 8MR3270 8CI81 8CI858 8MR99 8CI843 8CI1223 8MR2117 8CI842 8CI841 8CI840 8CI839
8CI979 8CI980
Figure 4.1. Location of the Archaeological Sites Within Two Miles of the Preserve at Blue Run Tract. 4-3
Table 4.1. Archaeological Sites Within Two Miles of the Preserve at Blue Run Property. SITE # SITE NAME SITE TYPE CULTURE CI00081 Florida Barge Canal 25 campsite prehistoric, lacking pottery CI00839 High Knoll land-terrestrial prehistoric, lacking pottery CI00840 Roadhouse land-terrestrial prehistoric, lacking pottery CI00841 Laurel Hammock other prehistoric, lacking pottery CI00842 Moose Lodge land-terrestrial Orange CI00843 Itchy Scratchy land-terrestrial prehistoric, lacking pottery CI00844 North Citrus campsite twentieth Century American CI00858 Martin, Eugene Park Site land-terrestrial nineteenth Century American CI00979 Dunnellon Phosphate Mine I mine nineteenth Century American CI00980 Dunnellon Phosphate Mine II mine nineteenth Century American MR00095 FLA Barge Canal 24 lithic scatter/quarry unspecified MR00098 FLA Barge Canal 26 lithic scatter/quarry unspecified MR00099 FLA Barge Canal 27 lithic scatter/quarry unspecified MR02117 Llama lithic scatter prehistoric, lacking pottery MR02449 Dunnellon Bank land-terrestrial prehistoric, lacking pottery MR02450 Dunnellon Brick Dump land-terrestrial prehistoric, lacking pottery MR02701 TIPI habitation twentieth century American MR02752 Blue Run Cemetery cemetery White, non-Hispanic MR03268 Rainbow Bridge subsurface features prehistoric lacking pottery MR03269 Campground East campsite St. Johns I MR03207 Abandoned Railroad Grade land-terrestrial unspecified
In 1980, Marsha Chance directed the survey of several large parcels for the Village of Rainbow Springs DRI. Three lithic scatter sites were located well north of the project area (Chance 1980). Phase II testing was conducted on the larger Archaic site (8MR208), which also recovered information on a previously unrecorded Paleo-Indian component. The site was considered an intermittently occupied campsite established for resource procurement.
In 1989, ACI conducted a survey on a 350-acre tract of land along the southern bank of the Withlacoochee River, southeast of Dunnellon. The majority of the tract had been severely impacted by phosphate mining, and two small, undisturbed areas on the tract contained evidence of aboriginal occupation. These two sites (8CI415, -416) were culturally indeterminate artifact scatters, the former contained only lithics, while the latter contained a single piece of Sand Tempered Plain ceramic (Almy 1989). Three years later, ACI conducted a cultural resource assessment survey of Dunnellon’s treatment plant effluent disposal site. One small culturally indeterminate lithic scatter (8MR2117) was discovered (Deming 1992).
Surveys associated with roadway improvements include the proposed extension of the Florida Turnpike from Wildwood to Lebanon Station. Over 50 sites were recorded along this alignment, although none was proximate to the project area (Johnson et al. 1991). Most were considered limited activity campsites with a few mounds and villages. Two surveys have been conducted along SR 45 near the project area. The first, covering
P05081/July 2005 4-4
17 miles of roadway and 29 water retention areas, was conducted south of the Withlacoochee River in Citrus County (Johnson 1995). Nineteen archaeological sites were recorded, and eight previously recorded sites were revisited. A few of the sites are located within two miles of the project area. These include four culturally indeterminate lithic scatters (8CI839, -840, -841, and -843), an Orange period artifact scatter (8CI842), and an historic artifact scatter/campsite (8CI844). None of the sites proximate to the project area is considered significant. A roughly one mile segment and four water retention areas were surveyed just north of Dunnellon (Ashley et al. 1997). Two lithic scatter sites (8MR2449, -2450) were recorded, neither of which is significant. The survey of SR 40, located north of the project area, covered 16 miles or road and examined 30 possible water retention areas (Ashley et al. 1997). Although 17 sites and seven isolated finds were recorded, none is located proximate to the project area.
The Rainbow River State Park, located north of the project area around the headspring of the Rainbow River/Blue Run, has had a number of archaeological investigations. Several of them were due to the looting of archaeological sites on the property (Dunbar et al. 2001; Memory 1999; Memory and Newman 2000). The Tipi Site (8MR2701) is a large multi-component site dating from the Middle Archaic and 20th century. The Archaic component consists of a lithic scatter and quarry while the historic component is associated with the turpentine industry. In addition, several other surveys were conducted prior to proposed park improvements (Ambrosino et al. 2004; Jowers 1999; Vojnovski et al. 1999). These recorded a number of archaeological sites. Those closest to the project area include a lithic scatter (8MR3268) with subsurface features, a St. Johns I period artifact scatter (8MR3269), and a portion of the railroad grade that transects the project area. That portion of the railroad grade was initially assigned a different site number (8MR3270) from the portion that extends into the Preserve at Blue Run tract (8MR3288). However, ACI conferred with the staff at the FMSF and the two segments of abandoned railroad grade have been subsumed under the number 8MR3270 (Creamer 2005). The railroad grade segment within the project area was recorded during the survey for a proposed bike trail. A portion of the trail will follow the existing railroad grade (Earnest and Earnest 2005).
Ellis Archaeology conducted a county-wide survey of Citrus County, during which they recorded phosphate mines (8CI979, -980) and a historic park proximate to the project area (Ellis et al. 1995). ACI conducted a similar survey in Marion County. Numerous sites were recorded, though none close to the Preserve at Blue Run. Two cultural resource assessment surveys have been conducted for telecommunication towers in the general area (Davis 2003; FAC 2002). No archaeological sites were recorded during those surveys.
The Blue Run Cemetery (8MR2752) was recorded in 2000 based on information supplied to Sally Tinkham from Ada M. Strickland Hintze, a descendent of some of those interred in the cemetery (FMSF).
Based on these data, most previously recorded sites proximate to the Preserve at Blue Run project area are classified as precontact campsites and evidenced in the
P05081/July 2005 4-5
archaeological record as lithic and artifact scatters. Most of these sites are temporally indeterminate. The smaller sites most likely served as short-term extractive sites for the exploitation of locally available resources.
As archaeologists have long realized, aboriginal populations did not select their habitation sites and special use activity areas in a random fashion. Rather, many environmental factors had a direct influence upon site location selection. Among these variables are soil drainage, distance to freshwater, relative topography, proximity to food and other resources including stone and clay, and for the later agriculturalists, soil fertility. Based on the aforementioned projects, plus general regional studies, a pattern of site distribution repeatedly demonstrates that archaeological sites are most often located near a permanent or semi-permanent source of potable water. In addition, archaeological sites are found, more often than not, on better-drained soils, or along the better-drained upland margins of wetland features such as swamps, sinkholes, lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers. Upland sites well removed from potable water are scarce. In the lower pine flatwoods, sites tend to be situated in areas of slightly higher elevation relative to the surrounding terrain, but proximate to wetland features. It should be noted that the settlement patterns noted above could not be applied to sites of the Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic periods, which precede the onset of modern environmental conditions.
Based on the research detailed above, the types of aboriginal sites expected within the Preserve at Blue Run project area consist of small, intermittently occupied campsites as evidenced by low to moderate density lithic and/or artifact scatters. Based on the application of these known site location predictive factors and historical information concerning the project area, it was determined that there is a variable potential for the discovery of a variety of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and/or features throughout the property. That portion of the Preserve at Blue Run tract located within 200 m of the river on the better-drained soils was considered to have the highest probability for archaeological occurrence. The further away from the water, the lower the probability for site occurrence became.
4.3 Field Methodology
The field methodology consisted of an initial reconnaissance of the Preserve at Blue Run tract. Following ground surface inspection, systematic subsurface shovel testing was carried out in order to locate sites not exposed on the ground, as well as to test for the presence of buried cultural deposits in areas yielding surface artifacts. Subsurface testing was systematically carried out at 25, 50, and 100 m (82, 164, 328 ft) intervals.
Shovel tests were circular, and measured approximately 50 cm (20 in) in diameter by at least 1 m (3.3 ft) in depth. The soil removed from the shovel tests was screened through 6.4 mm (0.25 in) mesh hardware cloth to assure the recovery of any artifacts. The locations of all shovel tests were plotted on the aerial map, and, following the recording
P05081/July 2005 4-6
of relevant data such as environmental setting, stratigraphic profile, and artifact finds, all shovel tests were backfilled.
4.4 Unexpected Discoveries
If human burial sites such as Indian mounds, lost historic and prehistoric cemeteries, or other unmarked burials or associated artifacts were found, then the provisions and guidelines set forth in Chapter 872.05, F.S. (Florida’s Unmarked Burial Law) were to be followed.
4.5 Laboratory Methods and Curation
All recovered cultural materials were initially cleaned and sorted by artifact class. Lithics were divided into tools and debitage based on gross morphology. Tools, had they been recovered, would have been measured, and the edges examined with a 7-45x stereo- zoom microscope for traces of edge damage. Tool types would have been classified using standard references (Bullen 1975a; Purdy 1981). Lithic debitage was subjected to a limited technological analysis focused on ascertaining the stages of stone tool production. Flakes and non-flake production debris (i.e., cores, blanks, tested cobbles) were measured, and examined for raw material types and absence or presence of thermal alteration. Flakes were classified into four types (primary decortication, secondary decortication, non-decortication, and shatter) based on the amount of cortex on the dorsal surface and the shape (cf., White 1963).
Aboriginal ceramics were classified into commonly recognized types based on observable characteristics such as aplastic inclusions and surface treatment (cf., Cordell 1985; Cordell 1987, 2004; Goggin 1948, 1952; Rouse 1951; Willey 1949).
The artifacts, field notes, and other project documentation will be housed at ACI’s Tallahassee Area Office in Crawfordville, pending transfer for curation.
P05081/July 2005 5-1
5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Archaeological
The archaeological investigations of the Preserve at Blue Run tract consisted of surface reconnaissance combined with subsurface testing. A total of 150 shovel tests was excavated within the tract (Figure 5.1). Of these, ten were excavated at 10 m (33 ft) intervals, 45 at 25 m (82 ft) intervals, 78 at 50 m (164 ft) intervals, 17 were placed in the low probability areas (100 m /328 ft intervals). This resulted in the updating of two previously known sites, as well as the recording of five new archaeological sites and two archaeological occurrences. An archaeological occurrence is defined as “one or two non- diagnostic artifacts, not known to be distant from the original context, which fit within a hypothetical cylinder of thirty meters diameter, regardless of depth below surface” (FMSF 1999). The sites have been recorded as 8MR2228 and 8MR3312 through 8MR3315. A detailed discussion of each of the sites is presented below and the new, original, and updated site file forms are in Appendix A and the forms for the new sites recorded are in Appendix A.
5.1.1 8MR2752 – Blue Run Cemetery
The Blue Run Cemetery is located in the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 25, Township 16 South, Range 18 East (USGS Dunnellon 1991). The site was initially recorded in March of 2000 (FMSF). A wooden fence surrounds the approximate 11 m by 20 m site (36 x 66 ft). The cemetery is covered with live oaks and cedars (Photo 5.1). It has been suggested that more graves may lay outside the fenced area, primarily to the northeast, according to Ada M. Strickland Hintze, a descendent of the Stricklands interred in the cemetery. Occupants of the cemetery include Martha May (Winston) Brass, Martha Adams Carter, Mrs. Jennings, Mrs. Smith, Charles Lloyd Strickland, Susie Ada (Winston) Strickland, Charles Truman Strickland, Grandma Winston, Thomas Frank Winston, Ada Maranda (Carter) Winston, and four infants that died at birth. The cemetery was first used in 1888 and the latest burial occurred in 1960.
The current investigations consisted of surface reconnaissance and the excavation of ten shovel tests at 10 m (33 ft) intervals around the cemetery. Visual inspection revealed the presence of ten graves within the fence, seven of which had inscribed markers. No evidence of any graves outside the confines of the fence was discovered, nor were any artifacts recovered. However, shovel testing does not typically encounter graves, because shovel tests are a meter deep, and many graves are approximately two meters deep. In addition, ACI found no evidence of soil discoloration or stratigraphic disturbance during shovel testing. In addition, the ground surface around the cemetery did not display any subsidence that might be expected if graves had been present. Nonetheless, agricultural activities over the years may have erased any evidence of such features.
P05081/July 2005 8MR3313 N 8MR3270
8MR2752 AO#1 8MR3312 AO#2 8MR2228
8MR3315
positive shovel test negative shovel test railroad grade 8MR3314 cemetery
0 .5 1 km shovel tests not to scale
Figure 5.1. Location of the Shovel Tests, Archaeological Occurrences (AO), and Archaeological Sites within the Preserve at Blue Run Tract, Sections 25 and 36, Township 16 South, Range 18 East and Section 30, Township 16 South, Range 19 East (USGS Dunnellon, Fla. 1991). 5-2 5-3
Photo 5.1. Looking North at the Blue Run Cemetery, 8MR2752.
Blue Run Cemetery was reported to have been associated with the Church of God that was present in the 1880’s. No evidence of the church was discovered on the tract, and no mention of it was discovered within the various local histories (Dinkins 1997; Ott and Chazal 1966). Although the cemetery is important to descendants of the families who have relatives buried there, no information was found to suggest that the cemetery is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP; i.e. a review of local histories (Dinkins 1997; Hayes n.d.; Ott and Chazal 1966) found no mention of individuals important in local history being interred in the cemetery and no unique grave stones, fencing or other funerary artifacts were observed. As a result, the Blue Run Cemetery is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Given the possibility that graves may be located outside the fenced area, ACI recommends that a 15 m (50 ft) buffer be left around the cemetery, and should any ground disturbance deeper than a meter (3.3 ft) in depth occur within 15 m all ground disturbances should be monitored by an archaeologist to assure that no human remains are disturbed.
5.1.2 8MR3270 – Abandoned Railroad Grade
The Abandoned Railroad Grade Site runs through Sections 25 and 36 of Township 16 South, Range 18 East and Section 30 of Township 16 South, Range 19 East (USGS Dunnellon 1991). It consists of raised earthworks of piled gravel and limestone approximately 3 m (10 ft) wide by 1-3 m (3-10 ft) tall (Photos 5.2 and 5.3). The grade, which runs along the western and northern margins of the tract, is approximately1.3 km (4,300 ft) long. It is interrupted in two sections by recent home construction and previous
P05081/July 2005 5-4 mining activities. It is located approximately 5 m (16 ft) south or east of the Rainbow River. It ranges in elevation from 30 to 35 m (9-11 ft) amsl and falls within the river’s flood plain. Local vegetation consists of hickory, maple, pine, and cypress.
Photo 5.2. Close-up of the Railroad Grade, 8MR3270.
Photo 5.3. Looking North at the Railroad Grade (8MR3270).
Research provided no information concerning the construction or this railroad grade, or the exact date of its construction. However, it was most likely constructed in the early part of the twentieth century to facilitate transportation of the various resources of
P05081/July 2005 5-5
the county, especially phosphate, timber, and naval stores. It first appears on a map of the area in 1916 (Hammond 1916). The 1920 U.S. Railroad Administration Map of Marion County lists the line as being part of the Atlantic Coastline Railroad while a 1932 map depicts it as part of the Seaboard Air Line Railway (Anon. 1920, 1932).
Although of interest to the history of Marion County development through railway transportation, this railroad grade is similar to the others in the county and is not considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
5.1.3 8MR2228 – Rainbow River Ranch Mine
The Rainbow River Ranch Mine is located in the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 25, Township 16 South, Range 18 East (USGS Dunnellon, Fla. 1991). It is situated along the shore of the Rainbow River. Elevation is between 9 and 15 m (30-50 ft) amsl. The soil survey indicates the area proximate to the river is Udalfic Arents, 0-5% slopes which are mixed materials from mines that have been smoothed and shaped; the depression within the tract is classified as Udalfic Arents, 15- 60% slopes, which are mixed soil materials and unconsolidated material that has been excavated from and piled adjacent to mine pits (USDA 1979). No subsurface testing was conducted within the mine area. The area is heavily vegetated with pines, hardwoods, and cypress (Photo 5.4).
Reconnaissance around the feature failed to locate any structural remains. However, this is not unusual because once mining operations were completed, structures were dismantled and/or moved to a new mine site (Cusick 1987). The early methods of mining hardrock phosphate include pick and shovels, wheelbarrows, mules, and wagons. Figure 5.2 provides an example of what the mine may have looked like during operation. Once the phosphate was excavated, it was thrown on screens to separate the coarser pebbles from the clay and softer phosphate. This method was used until the turn of the century when some of the larger companies turned to steam shovels (Blakey 1974). In the Dunnellon area, steam power dredges were mounted on wooden hulls once the groundwater became too high for pick and wheelbarrow use. The mine area extends in an east/west direction 400 m (1312 ft) from the railroad grade and extends roughly 100 m (328 ft) north/south.
Although of interest in terms of the extent of mining operations in the area, the Rainbow River Ranch Mine is not considered significant in terms of NRHP eligibility due to its low research potential, and similarly to other recorded mines in the area (8MR979-980) (See Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1). Also, no ancillary mine features, such as a workers camp, were discovered, and it is likely that this was a relatively short-lived mine due to its shallow nature as compared to others in the vicinity. No additional investigations are warranted.
P05081/July 2005 5-6
Photo 5.4. Looking North Down into the Mine.
Figure 5.2. Workers at the Dunnellon Phosphate Mine # 2 (Colby 1890).
P05081/July 2005 5-7
5.1.4 8MR3312 – Rainbow River Ranch I
The Rainbow River Ranch I Site is located in the north half of the southeast quarter of Section 25, Township 16 South, Range 18 East (USGS Dunnellon, Fla. 1991). It is situated on the edge of the ridge sloping down to Rainbow River to the north. Elevation is between 9 and 15 m (30-50 ft) amsl. The site occurs on Candler sand, 0-5% slope, which is an excessively drained soil of the uplands (USDA 1979). Site stratigraphy consists of an upper 20 cm (12 in) of gray sand underlain by light brown sand. Vegetation on the site consists of pasture with cypress, oaks, pine, and maple closer to the river (Photo 5.5). Rainbow River is located about 15 m (50 ft) north of the site.
Photo 5.5. Looking West at 8MR3312.
The site was initially discovered through systematic subsurface testing conducted at 25 and 50 m (82 and 164 ft) intervals along the ridge. Although surface inspection was conducted, no surface materials were recovered. Of the 29 shovel tests excavated in this area, nine produced cultural materials in the form of lithic debitage and one aboriginal ceramic sherd. Based on this testing, the site extends some 300 m (984 ft) east/west by 50 m (164 ft) north/south. The cultural materials were recovered from 20-100 cmbs (8-39 in).
The assemblage consists of 19 pieces of lithic debitage and a piece of Pasco Plain ceramic. The sherd is not particularly diagnostic; Pasco ceramics were manufactured for over 2000 years and can tell us little other than providing evidence for a post-Archaic period component. The debitage assemblage consists entirely of chert. There are 18 non- decortication flakes and one secondary decortication flake. The secondary flake and eight of the non-decortication flakes were thermally altered. The use of thermal alteration was most common during the Middle Archaic period (cf., Ste. Claire 1987). In terms of size,
P05081/July 2005 5-8 the flakes range between 0.6 and 5 cm (0.24-1.97 in) with the majority (n=17) being less than 3 cm (1.18 in) in length. The predominance of the non-decortication flakes coupled with their relatively small size suggests that the later stages of lithic reduction were being undertaken.
The Rainbow River Ranch I Site most likely represents a series of short-term encampments established to utilize the locally available resources of the uplands and adjacent river. Site activities likely included hunting, fishing, and gathering of other foodstuffs as well as the manufacture and/or maintenance of stone tools. The artifact assemblage is sparsely distributed across the site, suggesting that no long-term occupation occurred.
The wide dispersion of artifacts across the site, vertically and horizontally, suggests multiple episodes of site occupation. The diagnostic artifacts include the Pasco Plain sherd, which indicates a post-Archaic component. The fact that roughly half of the lithic materials were thermally altered also suggests a Middle to Late Archaic period component. Although of interest in terms of settlement and land use patterns, given the low artifact density and diversity, lack of subsurface features, and the commonality of this type of site in the area, 8MR3312 is not considered significant in terms of NRHP eligibility. As such, no additional archaeological investigations are warranted.
5.1.5 8MR3313 – Rainbow River Ranch II
The Rainbow River Ranch II Site is located in the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 25, Township 16 South, Range 18 East and the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 30, Township 16 South, Range 19 East (USGS Dunnellon, Fla. 1991). It is situated on the edge of the ridge sloping down to Rainbow River to the north. Elevation is between 9 and 15 m (30-50 ft) amsl. The site occurs on Candler sand, 0-5% slope, which is an excessively drained soil of the uplands (USDA 1979). Site stratigraphy consists of an upper 30 cm (12 in) of gray sand underlain by light brown sand. Vegetation on the site consists of pasture with cypress, oaks, pine, and maple closer to the river (Photo 5.6). Rainbow River is located about 15 m (50 ft) north of the site.
The site was initially discovered through systematic subsurface testing conducted at 25 and 50 m (82 and 164 ft) intervals along the ridge. Although surface inspection was conducted, no surface materials were recovered. Of the 25 shovel tests excavated in this area, 10 produced cultural materials in the form of lithic debitage and two aboriginal ceramic sherds. Based on this testing, the site extends some 325 m (1066 ft) east/west by 150 m (492 ft) north/south. The cultural materials were recovered from 30-100 cmbs (12- 39 in).
P05081/July 2005 5-9
Photo 5.6. Looking East at 8MR3313.
The assemblage consists of 13 pieces of lithic debitage, a piece of Pasco Plain ceramic, and a piece of sand tempered plain (STP) ceramic. The sherds are not particularly diagnostic; both types were manufactured for over 2000 years. Thus, they can tell us little other than providing evidence for a post-Archaic period component. The debitage assemblage consists entirely of chert. There are six non-decortication flakes, five secondary decortication flakes, one primary decortication flake, and one piece of shatter. Seven of the waste flakes had been thermally altered (5 non-decortication, 1 secondary, 1 shatter). The use of thermal alteration was most common during the Middle Archaic period (cf., Ste. Claire 1987). In terms of size, the flakes range between 0.6 and 4 cm (0.24-1.57 in) with the majority (n=12) being less than 3 cm (1.18 in) in length. The relatively small size suggests that the later stages of lithic reduction were being undertaken. The fact that about half of the flakes were secondary decortication suggests that blanks were being reduced into tools, thus indicating the middle range of tool manufacture. However, the low density of materials suggests that tool manufacture was not a major site activity.
The Rainbow River Ranch II Site appears to represent a series of short-term encampments established to utilize the locally available resources of the uplands and adjacent river. Site activities likely included hunting, fishing, and gathering of other foodstuffs as well as the manufacture of the stone tools. The artifact assemblage is sparsely distributed across the site, suggesting that no long-term occupation occurred.
The wide dispersion of artifacts across the site, vertically and horizontally, suggests multiple episodes of site occupation. The diagnostic artifacts include the Pasco Plain and STP sherds, which indicate a post-Archaic component. The fact that roughly half of the lithic materials were thermally altered also suggests a Middle to Late Archaic
P05081/July 2005 5-10
period component. Although of interest in terms of settlement and land use patterns, given the low artifact density and diversity, lack of subsurface features, and the commonality of this type of site in the area, 8MR3313 is not considered significant in terms of NRHP eligibility. As such, no additional archaeological investigations are warranted.
5.1.6 8MR3314 – Pennsylvania Avenue
The Pennsylvania Avenue Site is located in the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 36, Township 16 South, Range 18 East (USGS Dunnellon, Fla. 1991). It is situated on the edge of the ridge sloping down to Rainbow River to the west. Elevation is between 15 and 17 m (50-55 ft) amsl. The site occurs on Candler sand, 0-5% slope, which is an excessively drained soil of the uplands (USDA 1979). Site stratigraphy consists of an upper 30 cm (12 in) of gray sand underlain by light brown sand. Vegetation on the site consists of pasture with cypress, oaks, pine, and maple closer to the river (Photo 5.7). Rainbow River is located about 20 m (66 ft) west of the site.
Photo 5.7. Looking South at 8MR3314.
The site was initially discovered through systematic subsurface testing conducted at 25 and 50 m (82 and 164 ft) intervals along the ridge east of the river. Although surface inspection was conducted, no surface materials were recovered. Of the 16 shovel tests excavated in this area, six produced cultural materials in the form of lithic debitage and an aboriginal ceramic sherd. Based on this testing, the site extends some 150 m (492 ft) east/west by 150 m (492 ft) north/south. The cultural materials were recovered from 60-100 cmbs (24-39 in).
P05081/July 2005 5-11
The assemblage consists of eight pieces of lithic debitage and one piece of aboriginal ceramic. The ceramic is a piece of Weeden Island Plain, which is a well-made type dating from ca. A.D. 200-900 (Weeden Island period). The debitage assemblage consists entirely of chert. There are three non-decortication flakes, two secondary decortication flakes, one primary decortication flake, and two pieces of shatter. Two of the waste flakes had been thermally altered (1 non-decortication, 1 shatter). The use of thermal alteration was most common during the Middle Archaic period (cf., Ste. Claire 1987). In terms of size, the flakes range between 0.6 and 4 cm (0.24-1.57 in) with the majority (n=7) being less than 3 cm (1.18 in) in length. The relatively small size suggests that the later stages of lithic reduction were being undertaken. The fact that over half of the flakes were early stage reduction debris suggests that blanks were being reduced into tools, thus indicating the middle range of tool manufacture. However, the low density of materials suggests that tool manufacture was not a major site activity.
The Pennsylvania Avenue Site most likely represents a series of short-term encampments established to utilize the locally available resources of the uplands and adjacent river. Site activities likely included hunting, fishing, and gathering of other foodstuffs as well as the manufacture of the stone tools. The artifact assemblage is sparsely distributed across the site, suggesting that no long-term occupation occurred.
The wide dispersion of artifacts across the site, vertically and horizontally, suggests multiple episodes of site occupation. The diagnostic artifacts include the Weeden Island Plain sherd, which indicates a Weeden Island period component. The relative lack of thermal alteration may suggest a later occupation as opposed to an Archaic one, however the sample size is really too small to confirm that. Although of interest in terms of settlement and land use patterns, given the low artifact density and diversity, lack of subsurface features, and the commonality of this type of site in the area, 8MR3314 is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP, and no additional archaeological investigations are recommended.
5.1.7 8MR3315 – Hendrix Drive
The Hendrix Drive Site is located in the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 25 and the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 36, Township 16 South, Range 18 East (USGS Dunnellon, Fla. 1991). It is situated on the edge of the ridge sloping down to Rainbow River to the west. Elevation is between 14 and 17 m (45- 55 ft) amsl. The site occurs on Candler sand, 0-5% and 5-12% slope, which is an excessively drained soil of the uplands (USDA 1979). Site stratigraphy consists of an upper 30 cm (12 in) of gray sand underlain by light brown sand. Vegetation on the site consists of pasture with cypress, oaks, and pine closer to the river (Photo 5.8). Rainbow River is located about 20 m (66 ft) west of the site.
P05081/July 2005 5-12
Photo 5.8. Looking Northwest at 8MR3315.
The site was initially discovered through systematic subsurface testing conducted at 25 and 50 m (82 and 164 ft) intervals along the ridge east of the river. Although surface inspection was conducted, no surface materials were recovered. Of the 16 shovel tests excavated in this area, five produced cultural materials in the form of lithic debitage and an aboriginal ceramic sherd. Based on this testing, the site extends some 100 m (328 ft) east/west by 200 m (656 ft) north/south. The cultural materials were recovered from 60-100 cmbs (24-39 in).
The assemblage consists of 12 pieces of lithic debitage and one piece of aboriginal ceramic. The ceramic is a piece of Orange ware. This is the earliest ceramic type, which had been tempered with vegetable fibers. It dates from roughly 2000-500 B.C. The debitage assemblage consists entirely of chert. There are nine non-decortication flakes, one secondary decortication flake, and two pieces of shatter. Seven of the non- decortication flakes had been thermally altered. The use of thermal alteration was most common during the Middle Archaic period (cf., Ste. Claire 1987). In terms of size, the flakes range between 0.6 and 4 cm (0.24-1.57 in) with the half being less than 2 cm (0.8 in) in length. The relatively small size and the predominance of the non-decortication flakes suggest that the later stages of lithic reduction and/or tool maintenance were being undertaken. However, the low density of materials suggests that tool manufacture was not a major site activity.
The Hendrix Drive Site most likely represents a series of short-term encampments established to utilize the locally available resources of the uplands and adjacent river. Site activities likely included hunting, fishing, and gathering of other foodstuffs as well as the manufacture of the stone tools. The artifact assemblage is sparsely distributed across the site, suggesting that no long-term occupation occurred.
P05081/July 2005 5-13
The wide dispersion of artifacts across the site, vertically and horizontally, suggests multiple episodes of site occupation. The diagnostic artifacts include the Orange sherd, which indicates an Orange period component. The relative abundance of thermal alteration suggests a Middle to Late Archaic component. Although of interest in terms of settlement and land use patterns, given the low artifact density and diversity, lack of subsurface features, and the commonality of this type of site in the area, 8MR3315 is not considered eligible for the NRHP, and no additional archaeological investigations are required.
5.1.8 Archaeological Occurrences
The first archaeological occurrence is located south of the Rainbow River Ranch II Site and east of the Blue Run Cemetery. It consists of a medium sized thermally altered chert non-decortication flake recovered between 60 and 100 cmbs (24-39 in). Testing around the positive shovel test failed to recover any additional materials.
The second archaeological occurrence is located west of the Rainbow River Ranch I Site and just north of the mine. It consists of a non-thermally altered chert non- decortication flake. It was recovered at 60 cmbs (24 in) and the additional testing in the area failed to recovery any other artifacts.
Neither archaeological occurrence is considered a site and no additional investigations warranted.
5.2 Historic Structures
No historical structures were located within or adjacent to the Preserve at Blue Run tract.
5.3 Conclusions
The cultural resource assessment survey of the Preserve at Blue Run tract resulted in the identification of five new archaeological sites (8MR2228, 8MR3312 through 8MR3315), two archaeological occurrences, and some additional data concerning the previously recorded cemetery (8MR2752) and abandoned railroad grade (8MR3270). No historic structures are located within or adjacent to the tract. The aboriginal archaeological sites are low-density artifact scatters. They all appear to represent limited activity campsites established to exploit the locally available resources. They date from the Middle Archaic through Weeden Island periods. The mine site (8MR2228), which probably dates from the turn of the century and was most likely associated with phosphate mining is similar to others in the area (Ellis et al. 1995). As a result, none of the sites is considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP due to the low artifact density and diversity, lack of subsurface and surface features, and low research potential. In
P05081/July 2005 5-14
addition, these sites are similar in nature to many other such sites in the region. The railroad grade (8MR3270) is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP due to its low research potential and compromised integrity. The cemetery (8MR2752) contains no individuals important in local, state, or national affairs and no unique funerary artifacts were observed, thus it is not considered NRHP eligible.
Based on these data, no archaeological sites or historic resources which are listed, determined eligible, or considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected by the proposed development project. No further work is recommended.
Finally, due to the possibility of burials outside of the fenced area, it is recommended that a 15 m (50 ft) buffer should be left around the cemetery. In addition, if ground disturbance deeper than a meter (3.3 ft) in depth occurs around the cemetery, archaeological monitoring should be conducted to assure that unmarked burials are not disturbed.
P05081/July 2005 6-1
6.0 REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, J. M., D. C. Hyland, R. L. Andrews, and J. S Illingsworth 2002 Wooden Artifacts. In Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. Edited by G. H. Doran, pp. 166-190. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Almy, Marion M. 1989 Archeological/Historical Survey for Army Corps of Engineers Permit Application No. 89ITP-20711, Selected Portions of 350 Acres, Section 7, Range 19 East, Township 17 South. ACI, Sarasota.
Ambrosino, James N., Kelly A. Driscoll, and Lisa N. Quinn 2004 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Proposed Improvements at Rainbow Springs State Park in Marion County, Florida. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tampa.
Andrews, R. L., J. M. Adovasio, B. Humphrey, D. C. Hyland, J. S. Gardner, and D. G. Harding 2002 Conservation and Analysis of Textile and Related Perishable Artifacts. In Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. Edited by G. H. Doran, pp. 121-165. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Anon. 1920 Marion County, 1920. US Railroad Administration Map. http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/maps/countgal/usrr20/42usrr20.htm. 1932 Marion County, 1932. United States Geological Survey. http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/maps/countgal/geol32/42geol32.htm. n.d. Ocala History & History Related Items. 2/4/05. http://www.usacitiesonline.com/flcountyocala.htm.
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) 1999 Phase III Mitigative Salvage Excavation at the Colorado Site (8HE241) Hernando County, Florida. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee. 2001 State Road (S.R.) 200 from the S.R. 200/U.S. 41 (S.R. 45) Intersection to North of the Marion County Line Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study Reevaluation Citrus and Marion Counties, Florida. ACI, Sarasota.
Ashley, Keith, Marsha A. Chance, and Greg C. Smith 1997 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of SR 45 from Powell Road to North of 111th Place Lane, Marion County, Florida. Environmental Services, Inc., Jacksonville.
P05081/July 2005 6-2
Austin, Robert J. 1997 The Economics of Lithic-Resource Use in South-Central Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2001 Paleoindian and Archaic Archaeology in the Middle Hillsborough River Basin: A Synthetic Overview. SEARCH, Jonesville.
Austin, Robert J. and Richard W. Estabrook 2000 Chert Distribution and Exploitation in Peninsular Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3): 116-131.
Baker, Doris 1970 Railroading was Pioneer's Way of Life for Some in 1800s. Manuscript on file, Hampton Dunn Collection, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Bennett, Kory, Russell A. Dorsey, Gary D. Ellis, Randy G. Martin, and Charles Taylor 2001 Stabilization and Restoration of Three Sites on the Withlacoochee River and Bennetts Creek Citrus County, Florida. Gulf Archaeology Research Institute, Lecanto.
Beriault, John G., Robert Carr, Jerry Stipp, Richard Johnson, and Jack Meeder 1981 The Archaeological Salvage of the Bay West Site, Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34(2): 39-58.
Blakey, Arch F. 1974 History of the Florida Phosphate Industry. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Bullen, Ripley P. 1953 The Famous Crystal River Site. The Florida Anthropologist 6(1): 9-37. 1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 6(1): 43-53. 1965 Florida's Prehistory. In Florida -- From Indian Trail to Space Age. Edited by C. W. Tebeau and R. L. Carson, pp. 305-316. Southern Publishing Co., Delray Beach. 1966 Report on the Completion of the Archaeological Survey of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal Right of Way. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1970 Regionalism in Florida During the Christian Era. The Florida Anthropologist 23(2): 57-61. 1972 The Orange Period of Peninsular Florida. In Fiber-Tempered Pottery in Southeastern United States and Northern Columbia: Its Origins, Context, and Significance. Edited by R. P. Bullen and J. B. Stoltman, pp. 9-33. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 6. 1975a A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville.
P05081/July 2005 6-3
Bullen, Ripley P. 1975b Implications from Some Florida Deposits and Their Archaeological Contents. The Florida Anthropologist 28(2): 73-84.
Carbone, Victor 1983 Late Quaternary Environment in Florida and the Southeast. The Florida Anthropologist 36(1-2): 3-17.
Carr, Robert S. and B. Calvin Jones 1981 Florida Anthropologist Interview with Calvin Jones, Part II -- Excavations of An Archaic Cemetery. The Florida Anthropologist 34(2): 81-89.
Carr, Robert S. and Willard Steele 1993 Seminole Heritage Survey Seminole Sites of Florida. AHC Technical Report 74. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami.
Chance, Marsha A. 1980 The Village of Rainbow Springs Project, Marion County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1981 An Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of the Beverly Hills DRI Development Area. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Colby, C. K. 1890 Workers at the Dunnellon Phosphate Company Mine #2. Florida Photographic Collection RC07621, Florida State Library, Tallahassee.
Cordell, Ann S. 1985 Pottery Variability and Site Chronology in the Upper St. Johns River Basin. In Archaeological Site Types, Distribution, and Preservation within the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida. Edited by B. Sigler-Eisenberg, pp. 114-134. Miscellaneous Project and Report Series 27. Florida State Museum (now Florida Museum of Natural History), Gainesville. 1987 Ceramic Technology at a Weeden Island Period Archaeological Site in North Florida. Ceramic Notes 2. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 2004 Paste Variability and Possible Manufacturing Origins of Late Archaic Fiber- Tempered Pottery from Selected Sites in Peninsular Florida. In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast. Edited by R. Saunders and C. T. Hays, pp. 63-104. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Covington, James W. 1961 The Armed Occupation Act of 1842. Florida Historical Quarterly 40: 41-53. 1982 The Billy Bowlegs War 1855-1858: The Final Stand of the Seminoles Against the Whites. The Mickler House Publishers, Chuluota.
P05081/July 2005 6-4
Creamer, Dawn 2005 Railroad Grades 8MR3270 and 8MR3288. Personal communication to E. A. Horvath, ACI, Crawfordville, FL. 7/14/05.
Cusick, Joyce E. 1987 City of Dunnellon: Historic District Survey: "Boomtown" of the Hardrock Phosphate Mining Industry. Dunnellon Historical Society, Dunnellon.
Daniel, I. Randolph and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Publishing Co., Inc., Farmingdale.
Davis, John H. 1980 General Map of Natural Vegetation of Florida. Circular S-178. Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Davis, McMillan 2003 Historic Resource Report North Dunnellon 20056 Southwest 107th Lane Dunnellon, Marion County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Delcourt, Paul A. and Hazel R. Delcourt 1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 yr B.P. to the Present. In Geobotony II. Edited by R. C. Romans, pp. 123-165. Plenum Publishing Corp.
Deming, Joan 1992 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the 50.02 Acre City of Dunnellon Treatment Plant Effluent Disposal Site. ACI, Sarasota.
Denson, Robin L., Russell A. Dorsey, Gary D. Ellis, John J. Ellis, and John Milton 1993 Archaeological Study Citrus County, Florida. Ellis Archaeology, Lecanto.
Denson, Robin L., Russell A. Dorsey, Gary D. Ellis, and James R. Jones, III 1997 The Archaeological Study of the Camp Izard Tract, Marion County, Florida. Gulf Archaeology Research Institute, Lecanto.
Dickel, David N. 2002 Analysis of Mortuary Patterns. In Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. Edited by G. H. Doran, pp. 73-96. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Dinkins, J. Lester 1997 Dunnellon - Boomtown of the 1890s. Great Outdoors Publishing Co., St. Petersburg.
P05081/July 2005 6-5
Dunbar, James S. 1981 The Effect of Geohydrology and Natural Resource Availability on Site Utilization at the Fowler Bridge Mastodon Site (8Hi393c/uw) in Hillsborough County, Florida. In Report on Phase II Underwater Archaeological Testing at the Fowler Bridge Mastodon Site (8Hi393c/uw), Hillsborough County, Florida. Edited by J. Palmer, J. S. Dunbar and D. H. Clayton, pp. 63-106. Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeological Report 5. Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Management (now Florida Division of Historical Resources), Tallahassee. 1991 Resource Orientation of Clovis and Suwannee Age Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations. Edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 185-213. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Dunbar, James S., Michael K. Faught, and S. David Webb 1989 Page/Ladson (8Je591): An Underwater Paleo-Indian Site in Northwestern Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 41(4): 442-453. 1991 Inundated Prehistoric Sites in Apalachee Bay, Florida, and the Search for the Clovis Shoreline. In Paleoshores and Prehistory: An Investigation of Method. Edited by L. L. Johnson, pp. 117-146. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Dunbar, James S. and Christine Newman 2003 Assessment and Documentation of Cultural Resources in Goethe State Forest Levy County, Florida. C.A.R.L. Archaeological Survey, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
Dunbar, James S., Christine Newman, and Pamela K. Vojnovski 2001 Backfilling of Looting Damage to the Tipi Site (8MR2701) within Rainbow Springs State Park, Marion County, Florida. C.A.R.L. Archaeological Survey, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
Dunbar, James S. and Ben I. Waller 1983 A Distribution Analysis of the Clovis/Suwannee Paleo-Indian Sites of Florida - A Geographical Approach. The Florida Anthropologist 36(1-2): 18-30.
Earnest, Tray and Samantha Earnest 2005 A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Proposed Dunnellon Trail Development in Citrus and Marion Counties, Florida. Garlick Environmental Associates, Inc., Tallahassee.
Ellis, Gary D., Robin Denson, and Russell A. Dorsey 1995 Phase II Archaeological Study, Citrus County, Florida. Ellis Archaeology, Lecanto.
P05081/July 2005 6-6
Ellis, Gary D., Brenda Swann, and Brent R. Weisman 2003 Damage Assessment of Illegal Excavation at the Camp Izard Battlefield Site (8MR2479), Camp Izard Battlefield Preserve, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Marion County, Florida. Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) 1994 Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment, Sunshine Pipeline Regions 4 and 5, Preliminary Progress Report: Site Descriptions and Florida Site File Forms. Environmental Services, Inc., Jacksonville.
Estabrook, Richard W. 2005 Mapping the Residuals: Chert Outcrop Outliers and Lithic Reuse in Peninsular Florida. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Florida Anthropological Society Meeting, Gainesville.
Florida Archaeological Consulting, Inc. (FAC) 2002 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties within the One-Mile Area of Potential Effects of the Existing 300-foot Dunnellon Springs Wireless Telecommunications Tower. Florida Archaeological Consulting, Inc., DeLand.
Fairbanks, Charles H. 1965 Archaeological Survey Florida Cross-State Canal. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Faught, Michael K. 1996 Clovis Origins and Underwater Prehistoric Archaeology in Northwestern Florida. Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, 2004 The Underwater Archaeology of Paleolandscapes, Apalachee Bay, Florida. American Antiquity 69(2): 275-289.
Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) 2002 Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual. Florida Division of Historical Resources, http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/preservation/compliance/manual/.
Ferguson, George R. 1976 The Weekiwachee Site, Hernando County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 29(2 Part 1): 69-83.
Florida Master Site File (FMSF) Various Site File Forms. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
P05081/July 2005 6-7
Florida Master Site File (FMSF) 1999 Guide to the Archaeological Site Form, Version 2.2. Bureau of Archaeological Research, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Florida Preservation Services (FPS) 1986 Marion County Historic and Architectural Survey. Florida Preservation Services. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Federal Writers Project (FWP) 1939 Florida: A Guide to the Southernmost State. Federal Writers Project. Oxford University Press, New York.
Goggin, John M. 1948 Some Pottery Types from Central Florida. Gainesville Anthropological Association, Bulletin 1. 1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archaeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 47. 1998 Reprint, University Press of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Goodyear, Albert C., Sam B. Upchurch, Mark J. Brooks, and Nancy N. Goodyear 1983 Paleo-Indian Manifestations in the Tampa Bay Region, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 36(1-2): 40-66.
Guthrie, Sarah M. W. 1974 Land of Promise, Land of Change: An Examination of the Population of Hillsborough County, Florida. MA thesis, Emory University, Atlanta.
Hammond, C. S. 1916 Marion County, 1916. New Reference Atlas of the World. C. S. Hammond and Company. http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/maps/countgal/hamm16/42hamm16.htm.
Hayes, Garland Griffith n.d. Oral History of Garland Griffith Hayes "Red", Dunnellon, Florida. On file, Florida State Library, Tallahassee.
Healy, Henry G. 1975 Terraces and Shorelines of Florida. Map Series 71. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee.
Hemmings, E. Thomas 1975 The Silver Springs Site, Prehistory in the Silver Springs Valley, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 28(4): 141-158.
P05081/July 2005 6-8
Horgan, James J., Alice F. Hall, and Edward J. Herrmann 1992 The Historic Places of Pasco County. Pasco County Historical Preservation Committee.
Janus Research 2000 Cultural Resource Assessment of the On Top of the World Parcels "B" and "D" DRI Project Area Marion County, Florida. Janus Research, Tampa.
Johnson, Kenneth W. 1987 The Search for Aguacaleyquen and Cali: Archaeological Survey of Portions of Alachua, Bradford, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Marion, Sumter, and Union Counties, Florida. Department of Anthropology, Florida State Museum (now Florida Museum of Natural History), Gainesville.
Johnson, Robert E. 1994 A Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of State Road 200 from US41 in Citrus County to CR484 in Marion County, Florida. Florida Archaeological Services, Inc., Jacksonville. 1995 A Cultural Resource Assessment of U.S. 41 (SR45) from SR44 in Citrus County, Florida to the Marion County Line. Florida Archaeological Services, Inc., Jacksonville.
Johnson, William G., Janice R. Ballo, and Robert J. Austin 1991 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Florida Department of Transportation Florida Turnpike Extension from Wildwood to Lebanon Station. Janus Research, Tampa.
Jowers, David 1999 Rainbow Springs State Park Phase III Development Parking and Entry Areas/ DEP Project #30217 Marion County, Florida. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Karklins, Karlis 1970 The Fish Creek Site, Hillsborough County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 23(2): 67-73.
King, Joseph E. 1991 The Historic Highway Bridges of Florida. Environmental Management Office, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.
Knapp, Michael S. 1978 Environmental Geology Series: Gainesville Sheet. Map Series 79. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee.
P05081/July 2005 6-9
Kohler, Timothy A. 1991 The Demise of Weeden Island and Post-Weeden Island Cultural Stability in Non-Mississippianized Northern Florida. In Stability, Transformation, and Variations: the Late Woodland Southeast. Edited by M. S. Nassaney and C. R. Cobb, pp. 91-110. Plenum Press, New York.
Kohler, Timothy A. and G. Michael Johnson 1986 Dixie County Archaeological Reconnaissance, Winter 1985-86. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Luer, George M. 2002 Three Middle Archaic Sites in North Port. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 15: 3-34.
Mahon, John K. 1967 History of the Second Seminole War 1835-1842. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Marion County Historical Commission 1963 Bulletin 3(2). Marion County Historical Commission, Ocala.
Memory, Melissa 1999 Site Inspection of 8MR2701, Rainbow River State Park, Marion County, Florida. C.A.R.L. Archaeological Survey, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
Memory, Melissa and Christine Newman 2000 Site Testing at the Tipi Site (8MR2701) Rainbow Springs State Park, Marion Cunty, Florida. C.A.R.L. Archaeological Survey, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
Milanich, Jerald T. 1971 The Deptford Phase: An Archaeological Reconstruction. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Milliman, John D. and K. O. Emery 1968 Sea Levels During the Past 35,000 Years. Science 162: 1121-1123.
P05081/July 2005 6-10
Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1989a Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1989b The Ruth Smith, Weeki Wachee, and Tatham Mounds: Archaeological Evidence of Early Spanish Contact. The Florida Anthropologist 42(4): 317- 339.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M., Marvin T. Smith, Albert C. Goodyear, and Robert R. Allen 1985 Early Spanish Contact on the Florida Coast: The Weeki Wachee and Ruth Smith Mounds. In Indians, Colonists, and Slaves: Essays in Memory of Charles H. Fairbanks. Edited by K. W. Johnson, J. M. Leader and R. C. Wilson, pp. 179-219. Florida Journal of Anthropology, Special Publication Number 4, Gainesville.
Moore, Clarence B. 1903 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Central Florida West-Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences 12:361-438. In The West and Central Florida Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore, Edited by J. M. Mitchem. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Mormino, Gary and Tony Pizzo 1983 Tampa: the Treasure City. Continental Heritage Press, Tulsa.
Murray, Vince 2002 Many People Contribute to Town's History. Star Banner Belleview Founder's Day Insert, Ocala.
Neill, Wilfred T. 1958 A Stratified Early Site at Silver Springs, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 11(2): 35-52. 1964 The Association of Suwannee Points and Extinct Animals in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 17(3-4): 17-32.
Ott, Eloise Robinson and Louis Hickman Chazal 1966 Ocali Country: Kingdom of the Sun. Marion Publishers, Inc., Ocala.
Penders, Thomas 2002 Bone, Antler, Dentary, and Lithic Artifacts. In Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. Edited by G. H. Doran, pp. 97-120. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Purdum, Elizabeth D., Ed. 1994 Florida County Atlas and Municipal Fact Book. Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
P05081/July 2005 6-11
Purdy, Barbara A. 1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Tool Technology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Purdy, Barbara A. and Frank N. Blanchard 1973 Petrographs as a Means of Tracking Stone Tools from Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 26(1): 121-125.
Rouse, Irving 1951 A Survey of Indian River Archaeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 44. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1981 Reprint, AMS Press, Inc., New York.
Ruppé, Reynold J. 1980 The Archaeology of Drowned Terrestrial Sites: A Preliminary Report. Bulletin 6:35-45. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties (now Florida Division of Historical Resources), Tallahassee. 1988 The Location and Assessment of Underwater Archaeological Sites. In Wet Site Archaeology. Edited by B. A. Purdy, pp. 55-68. Telford Press, Caldwell, NJ.
Russo, Michael 1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case Study from Horr's Island. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2003 New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery from the Middle St. Johns Valley and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(1): 5-13.
Scott, Thomas M. 2001 Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida. Open File Report 80. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.
Scott, Thomas M., Kenneth M. Campbell, Frank R. Rupert, Jonathan D. Arthur, Thomas M. Missimer, Jacqueline M. Lloyd, J. William Yon, and Joel G. Duncan 2001 Geologic Map of the State of Florida. Map Series 146. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.
Sigler-Eisenberg, Brenda 1984 The Gauthier Site: A Microcosm of Biocultural Adaptation in the Upper St. Johns River Basin. Paper presented at the 41st Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Pensacola.
P05081/July 2005 6-12
State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection 1836a Field Notes. B. Clements and J. B. Clements. Volume 32. 1836b Plat Map. Township 16 South, Range 18 East. B. Clements and J. B. Clements. 1836c Plat Map. Township 16 South, Range 19 East. B. Clements and J. B. Clements. 1843 Plat Map. Township 16 South, Range 18 East. R. W. Norris. 1844 Field Notes. A. W. Warrell. Volume 71. 1845a Field Notes. R. W. Norris. Volume 113. 1845b Field Notes. R. W. Norris and C. C. Tracy. Volume 16. 1845c Field Notes. C. C. Tracy. Volume 116. 1845d Plat Map. Township 16 South, Range 19 East. T. H. Weightman. n.d.-a Tract Book. Volume 16. n.d.-b Tract Book. Volume 15.
State Topographic Office 1995 General Highway Map Marion County, Florida. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.
Ste. Claire, Dana 1987 The Development of Thermal Alteration Technologies in Florida: Implications for the Study of Prehistoric Adaptation. The Florida Anthropologist 40(3): 203-208.
Stokes, Anne V. 2003 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the CR 486 Widening Project From Forest Ridge Blvd. to US 41, Citrus County, Florida. SEARCH, Jonesville.
Tebeau, Charlton W. 1980 A History of Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.
Upchurch, Sam B., Richard N. Strom, and Mark G Nuckels 1982 Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida Cherts. Geology Department, University of South Florida, Tampa.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1979 Soil Survey of Marion County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Services.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1991 Dunnellon, Fla.
P05081/July 2005 6-13
Vojnovski, Pamela K., Jonathan Lammers, William M. Stanton, and Michael Wisenbaker 1999 Archaeological Investigations of Three Proposed Picnic Shelter Sites and a Canoe Launch Area along with Historical Notes on Rainbow Springs State Park, Marion County, Florida. C.A.R.L. Archaeological Survey, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
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.
Weisman, Brent R. 1989 Like Beads on a String. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Wharton, Barry R., George R. Ballo, and Mitchell E. Hope 1981 The Republic Groves Site, Hardee County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34(2): 59-80.
White, Anta M. 1963 Analytic Description of the Chipped-stone Industry from Snyders Site, Calhoun County, Illinois. Miscellaneous Studies in Typology and Classification 19. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
White, William A. 1958 Some Geomorphic Features of Central Peninsular Florida. Geological Bulletin 41. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee. 1970 Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Geological Bulletin 51. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee.
Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113. 1982 Reprint. Florida Book Store, Gainesville.
Wisenbaker, Michael 1999 An Archaeological Survey of a Proposed New Camping Area at Silver River State Park, Marion County, Florida. C.A.R.L. Archaeological Survey, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.
P05081/July 2005
APPENDIX A: Original and Updated Florida Master Site File (FMSF) Forms
P05081/July 2005
Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 MR3270 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Recorder Site # Original Version 2.2 3/97 Field Date 6/20/05 X Update Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Forms for detailed instructions. Form Date 7/15/05 (give site #) Site Name(s) Abandoned Railroad Grade Multiple Listing [DHR only] Project Name CRAS Preserve at Blue Run FMSF Survey # Ownership: X private-profit private-nonprofit private-individ. private-unspecifd. city county state federal foreign Native Amer. unknwn USGS 7.5 Map Name & Date Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 County Marion Township 16 S Range 18 E Section 25 Check if Irregular Section; Qtr. Section (check all that apply): NE NW SE SW Landgrant Tax Parcel # (s) also in T16S, R18 E, S36 and T16S, R19E, S30 City/Town (if within 3 mi.) Dunnellon In Current City Limits: y n X unknown UTM: Zone 16 X 17 Easting Northing Address/ Vicinity of/ Route to
Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) TYPE OF SITE (Check all choices that apply; if needed write others in at bottom) SETTING * STRUCTURES - OR - FEATURES * FUNCTION * X Land- terrestrial Lake/Pond- lacustrine aboriginal boat fort road segment none specified Cave/Sink- subterranean River/Stream/Creek- riverine agric/farm building midden shell midden campsite terrestrial Tidal- estuarine burial mound mill unspecified shell mound extractive site aquatic Saltwater- marine building remains mission shipwreck habitation (prehistoric) intermittently flooded marine unspecified cemetery/grave mound unspec. subsurface features homestead (historic) Wetland- palustrine "high energy" marine dump/refuse plantation surface scatter farmstead usually flooded "low energy" marine earthworks platform mound well village (prehistoric) sometimes flooded town (historic) usually dry X Other railroad grade quarry HISTORIC CONTEXTS (Check all that apply; use most specific subphases: e.g., if Glades Ia only, don't also use Glades I ) Aboriginal* Englewood Glades unspec. St. Augustine Seminole: 2d War to 3d Nonaboriginal* Alachua Fort Walton Hickory Pond St. Johns Ia Seminole: 3d War On First Spanish 1513-99 Archaic, Early Glades Ia Leon-Jefferson St. Johns Ib Seminole unspecified First Spanish 1600-99 Archaic, Middle Glades Ib Malabar I St. Johns I unspec. Swift Creek, Early First Spanish 1700-1763 Archaic, Late Glades I unsp. Malabar II St. Johns IIa Swift Creek, Late First Spanish unspecified Archaic unspecified Glades IIa Manasota St. Johns IIb Swift Creek, unspecif. British 1763-1783 Belle Glade I Glades IIb Mount Taylor St. Johns IIc Transitional Second Spanish 1783-1821 Belle Glade II Glades IIc Norwood St. Johns II unspec. Weeden Island I American Territorial 1821-45 Belle Glade III Glades II unsp. Orange St. Johns unspecif. Weeden Island II American Civil War 1861-65 Belle Glade IV Glades IIIa Paleoindian Santa Rosa Weeden Island unspec. American 19th Century Belle Glade unspec Glades IIIb Pensacola Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Prehistoric nonceramic X American 20th Century Cades Pond Glades IIIc Perico Island Seminole: Colonization Prehistoric ceramic American unspecified Deptford Glades III unsp. Safety Harbor Seminole: 1st War To 2d Prehistoric unspecified African-American Other (Less common phases are not check-listed. For historic sites, also give specific dates if known.)
*Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are "coded fields" at the Site File). SURVEYOR'S EVALUATION OF SITE Potentially eligible for a local register? yes: name of register at right X no insufficient info Name of local register if eligible: Individually eligible for National Register? yes X no insufficient info Potential contributor to NR district? yes X no insufficient info Explanation of Evaluation (Required if evaluated; limit to 3 lines; attach full justification) low research potential, abandoned
Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action no additional work recommended
DHR USE ONLY***************OFFICIAL EVALUATIONS***************DHR USE ONLY NR DATE KEEPER-NR ELIGIBILITY yes no Date SHPO-NR ELIGIBILITY: yes no potentially elig. insufficient info Date DELIST DATE LOCAL DESIGNATION: Date Local office National Register Criteria for Evaluation abcd(See National Register Bulletin 15, p.2) HR6E06401-97 Florida Master Site File/Div. of Historical Resources/ R.A. Gray Bldg/ 500 South Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (904) 487-2299/Suncom 277-2299/Fax (904) 921-0372/E-mail [email protected] Computer Document File P:\FSF\DOCS\FORMS\AR _FORM_V2.2DOC Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site # 8 MR3270 Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions. FIELD METHODS (Check one or more methods for detection and for boundaries) SITE DETECTION* SITE BOUNDARIES* no field check X exposed ground screened shovel bounds unknown remote sensing unscreened shovel X literature search posthole digger none by recorder X insp exposed ground screened shovel informant report auger--size: literature search posthole tests block excavations remote sensing unscreened shovel informant report auger--size: estimate or guess Other methods; number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size (attach site plan) no subsurface testing
SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ca. 1.8 km x 3 m
Temporal Interpretation*- Components (check one): single X prob single prob multiple multiple uncertain unknown Describe each occupation in plan (refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretation
Integrity Overall disturbance*: none seen minor X substantial major redeposited destroyed-document ! unknown Disturbances/threats/protective measures rails removed, road & house construction / development / none
Surface: area collected m2 # collection units Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts # 0 c (C)ount or (E)stimate? Surface # 0 c (C) or (E) Subsurface # 0 c (C) or (E) COLLECTION SELECTIVITY* ARTIFACT CATEGORIES* and DISPOSITIONS* (example: A bone-human) unknown unselective (all artifacts) Pick exactly one code from Disposition List Disposition List* selective (some artifacts) bone-animal exotic-nonlocal A- category always collected mixed selectivity bone-human glass S- some items in category collected SPATIAL CONTROL* bone-unspecified lithics-aboriginal O- observed first hand, but not collected uncollected general (not by subarea) bone-worked metal-nonprecious R- collected and subsequently left at site unknown controlled (by subarea) brick/building debris metal-precious/coin I- informant reported category present variable spatial control ceramic-aboriginal shell-unworked U- unknown Other ceramic-nonaboriginal shell-worked daub Others: Artifact Comments DIAGNOSTICS (Type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwannee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. N= 5. N= 9. N= 2. N= 6. N= 10. N= 3. N= 7. N= 11. N= 4. N= 8. N= 12. N= ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water type* & name (incl. relict source) Rainbow River Distance (m)/bearing 15 m N & W Natural community (FNAI category* or leave blank) Local vegetation pasture w/ scattered oaks Topography* gently rolling Min Elevation 9 meters Max Elevation 12 meters Present land use pasture SCS soil series Soil association FURTHER INFORMATION Informant(s): Name/Address/Phone/Email Describe field & analysis notes, artifacts, photos. For each, give type* (e.g., notes), curating organization *, accession #s, and short description. P05081 artifacts, notes, maps, etc. on file ACI, Crawfordville
Manuscripts or Publications on the site (Use continuation sheet, give FMSF# if relevant) ACI (2005) Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Preserve at Blue Run, Marion County, Florida
Recorder(s): Name/Addr./Phone/Email Elizabeth A. Horvath / (850) 926-9285 / [email protected] Affiliation* or FAS Chapter Archaeological Consultants, Inc. / Tallahassee Area Office / 98 Hickorywood Dr. / Crawfordville, FL 32327 * Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are "coded fields" at the Site File). SITE PLAN & USGS REQUIRAt 1"=300' (1:3600) or larger scale, show: site boundaries, scale north arrow, datum, test/collection unites, landmarks, mappers, date. Page 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8MR3270
USGS MAP Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 Township 16 South, Range 18 East, Sections 25 and 36 Township 16 South, Range 19 East, Section 30
8MR3313 N
8MR2752 AO#1 8MR3312
AO#2 8MR3270
8MR3315
positive shovel test negative shovel test railroad grade 8MR3314 cemetery
0 .5 1 km shovel tests not to scale
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
Page 1 HISTORICAL CEMETERY FORM Site #8 ______MR2752 Original Florida Master Site File Recorder #______XUpdate (give site # Version 3.0: 8/98 Field Date ______6/20/05 at right) *Consult Guide to the Historical Cemetery Form for detailed instructions Form Date ______7/15/05 LOCATION & IDENTIFICATION Cemetery Name(s) ______Blue Run Cemetery Multiple Listing [DHR only] ______Project Name ______CRAS Preserve at Blue Run FMSF Survey # ______Address/Vicinity of/Route to______Nearest City/Town (within three miles)______InDunnellon Current City Limits? yes no unknown County ______Marion Tax Parcel #(s) (optional) ______Ownership Type (check exactly one) private-profit private-nonprofit private-unspecified city county state federal foreign Native American unknown Public Tract Enclosing Cem., if any (e.g. park) ______MAPPING USGS 7.5’ Map Name and Date ______Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 Township______16S Range______18E Section______25 ¼ section NW SW SE NE Irregular sec.-name:______Township______Range______Section______¼ section NW SW SE NE Irregular sec.-name:______Landgrant:______Plat or Other Map ______HISTORY Year Cemetery Established:______1888 Estimated Year_____Ownership History (especially original owners) ______Year Burials Ceased, if applicable ______1960 Reason(s) Burials Ceased ______Range of Death Dates Earliest______1888 Most Recent______1960 (O)bserved or (R)esearched?______O & R Acreage Expansions/Dates:______List People Important in Local, State, or National History Buried in Cemetery ______Previous Attempts at Repair, Cleaning, or Restoration? ______GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CEMETERY Type (Check all that apply) community company town epidemic family fraternal order memorial park military(not national) municipal national potter’s field prison religious “Rural Movement” other (explain):______Ethnic Group(s) Interred (Check all that apply) White non-Hispanic Hispanic Asian Caribbean African American American Indian-tribe: ______other (explain):______Current Status: used for burials maintained but not used abandoned Size: ______ft33 X ______ft 66 or ______acres Total # Graves: ______14 Does Total # Include Unmarked Graves?: yes no Evidence/# of Unmarked Graves? ______7 marked headstones, but 14 people known to be interred Condition: well maintained some areas maintained, others neglected poorly maintained not maintained, but can identify not maintained, hard to identify not identifiable but known to exist (explain): ______wooden fence surrounds the cemetery, but over grown within the fence Cemetery Boundary Type: fence wall hedge other (explain): ______Describe Cem. Boundary (e.g. “cast iron fence”, stone or brick wall, etc.) ______wooden three-rail fence ______Historical Vegetation (trees, shrubs, flowers)______cedar tree Grave Groupings (Check all that apply) family fraternal order military religious ethnic heritage other (explain): ______Groupings Indicated By (Check all that apply) curbing fence hedge wall other (explain): ______family members buried next to each other Public Access Unlimited Restricted: How? ______private property Surroundings [use (N)one, (S)ome, (M)ost, (A)ll or nearly (A)ll] ___Commercial ___ResidentialS ___Institutional M___Undeveloped Threats (Check all that apply) abandonment agriculture desecration public development private development mining or timbering other (explain):______Associated Historical Properties/Archaeological (non-cemetery) Remains ______Check if Historical Structure Form completed Check if Archaeological Site Form completed
Florida Master Site File/Div. of Historical Resources/Gray Bldg/500 S. Bronough St/Tallahassee FL 32399-0250 Phone (850) 245-6440/Suncom 277-2299/Fax (850) 921-0372/E-mail [email protected] FDHR Form Number HRXXXXXXX-98 Computer Docume nt File P:\FSF\DOCS\FORMS\CM_V30ms.doc Page 2 HISTORICAL CEMETERY FORM Site #8 ______MR2752A *Consult Guide to the Historical Cemetery Form for detailed instructions GRAVES If question requests N/S/M/A, estimate proportions by using a letter as follows: (N)one/Very Few, (S)ome, (M)ost, (A)ll/Nearly (A)ll. Orientation (N/S/M/A) (complete all that apply) ___East/WestA ___North/South ___Other: (explain):______Marked Graves (N/S/M/A) (complete all that apply) ___HeadstonesM ___Marked with objects or plants (no headstone on grave) ___Graves mounded ___Graves depressed If Other Method(s) of Marking Graves Used, List and Give N/S/M/A______Marker Materials (Check all that apply) marble concrete/cement fieldstone granite wrought iron cast iron white bronze/zinc sandstone slate wood other (explain below): ______Describe Grave Articles Found in Cemetery ______none noted ______Marker Conditions (N/S/M/A) ___Sunken or tilted ___Chipped,M cracked, weathered, but standing ___BrokenS or in fragments ___Deliberately vandalized Other Notable Conditions Observed and Proportions (N/S/M/A) ______Inscriptions (N/S/M/A) ___LegibleM inscriptions ___Illegible S inscriptions S___No inscriptions Distinctive Gravemarkers, Monuments, and/or Architectural Features ______Signatures of Stone Carvers (Specify name, town if available) ______A. Seavengood ______RECORDER'S EVALUATION Potentially Eligible for Local Designation? yes no insufficient information Name of Local Register if Eligible ______Individually Eligible for Nat. Register? yes no insufficient information Potential Contributor to NR District? yes no insufficient information Areas of Historical Significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, etc.): ______Explanation of Evaluation (required; limit to three lines; attach full statement on separate sheet): ______None of the individuals buried here were important in local, state, or national events ______DOCUMENTATION Research Methods (Consult Guide to the Historical Cemetery Form for detailed instructions) ______Bibliographic References (Author, date, title, publication information. If unpublished, give FSF Manuscript Number, or location where available): ______ACI (2005) Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Preserve at Blue Run, Marion ______County, Florida ______Local Contact: Name/Address/Phone # /Administrative Office______Recorder(Name/Address/Phone/Affiliation): ______Elizabeth A. Horvath / Archaeological Consultants, Inc. / Tallahassee Areas ______Office, Crawfordville, FL 32327 / 850-926-9285 / [email protected] Photographs: Required. Request the use of B&W prints no smaller than 3x5. Photographs would be useful to document main gate or entrance, representative general views, representative or unusual monuments or markers, and damage or neglect. Describe and Give Location/File Nos. of Notes, Records, or Photos: ______DHR USE ONLY======OFFICIAL EVALUATIONS ======DHR USE ONLY NR DATE KEEPER-NR ELIGIBILITY*: yes no Date ___/___/______/___/____ SHPO-NR ELIGIBILITY*: yes no potentially elig. insufficient info. Date___/___/_____ DELIST DATE LOCAL DESIGNATION*: ______Date ___/___/______/___/____ Local office ______National Register Criteria for Evaluation a b c d Page 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8MR2752
USGS MAP Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 Township 16 South, Range 18 East, Section 25
8MR3313 N
8MR2752 AO#1 8MR3312
AO#2 8MR3270
8MR3315
positive shovel test negative shovel test railroad grade 8MR3314 cemetery
0 .5 1 km shovel tests not to scale
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
APPENDIX B: Newly Recorded Florida Master Site File (FMSF) Forms
P05081/July 2005 Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 MR2228 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Recorder Site # X Original Version 2.2 3/97 Field Date 6/20/05 Update Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Forms for detailed instructions. Form Date 7/15/05 (give site #) Site Name(s) Rainbow River Ranch Mine Multiple Listing [DHR only] Project Name CRAS Preserve at Blue Run FMSF Survey # Ownership: X private-profit private-nonprofit private-individ. private-unspecifd. city county state federal foreign Native Amer. unknwn USGS 7.5 Map Name & Date Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 County Marion Township 16 S Range 18 E Section 25 Check if Irregular Section; Qtr. Section (check all that apply): NE NW X SE SW Landgrant Tax Parcel # (s) City/Town (if within 3 mi.) Dunnellon In Current City Limits: X y n unknown UTM: Zone 16 X 17 Easting 359581 Northing 3215145 Address/ Vicinity of/ Route to
Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) TYPE OF SITE (Check all choices that apply; if needed write others in at bottom) SETTING * STRUCTURES - OR - FEATURES * FUNCTION * X Land- terrestrial Lake/Pond- lacustrine aboriginal boat fort road segment none specified Cave/Sink- subterranean River/Stream/Creek- riverine agric/farm building midden shell midden campsite terrestrial Tidal- estuarine burial mound mill unspecified shell mound extractive site aquatic Saltwater- marine building remains mission shipwreck habitation (prehistoric) intermittently flooded marine unspecified cemetery/grave mound unspec. subsurface features homestead (historic) Wetland- palustrine "high energy" marine dump/refuse plantation surface scatter farmstead usually flooded "low energy" marine X earthworks platform mound well village (prehistoric) sometimes flooded town (historic) usually dry Other X quarry HISTORIC CONTEXTS (Check all that apply; use most specific subphases: e.g., if Glades Ia only, don't also use Glades I ) Aboriginal* Englewood Glades unspec. St. Augustine Seminole: 2d War to 3d Nonaboriginal* Alachua Fort Walton Hickory Pond St. Johns Ia Seminole: 3d War On First Spanish 1513-99 Archaic, Early Glades Ia Leon-Jefferson St. Johns Ib Seminole unspecified First Spanish 1600-99 Archaic, Middle Glades Ib Malabar I St. Johns I unspec. Swift Creek, Early First Spanish 1700-1763 Archaic, Late Glades I unsp. Malabar II St. Johns IIa Swift Creek, Late First Spanish unspecified Archaic unspecified Glades IIa Manasota St. Johns IIb Swift Creek, unspecif. British 1763-1783 Belle Glade I Glades IIb Mount Taylor St. Johns IIc Transitional Second Spanish 1783-1821 Belle Glade II Glades IIc Norwood St. Johns II unspec. Weeden Island I American Territorial 1821-45 Belle Glade III Glades II unsp. Orange St. Johns unspecif. Weeden Island II American Civil War 1861-65 Belle Glade IV Glades IIIa Paleoindian Santa Rosa Weeden Island unspec. X American 19th Century Belle Glade unspec Glades IIIb Pensacola Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Prehistoric nonceramic X American 20th Century Cades Pond Glades IIIc Perico Island Seminole: Colonization Prehistoric ceramic American unspecified Deptford Glades III unsp. Safety Harbor Seminole: 1st War To 2d Prehistoric unspecified African-American Other (Less common phases are not check-listed. For historic sites, also give specific dates if known.)
*Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are "coded fields" at the Site File). SURVEYOR'S EVALUATION OF SITE Potentially eligible for a local register? yes: name of register at right X no insufficient info Name of local register if eligible: Individually eligible for National Register? yes X no insufficient info Potential contributor to NR district? yes X no insufficient info Explanation of Evaluation (Required if evaluated; limit to 3 lines; attach full justification) no artifacts recovered, nor any structural remains noticed, common type of site in region
Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action no additional work recommended
DHR USE ONLY***************OFFICIAL EVALUATIONS***************DHR USE ONLY NR DATE KEEPER-NR ELIGIBILITY yes no Date SHPO-NR ELIGIBILITY: yes no potentially elig. insufficient info Date DELIST DATE LOCAL DESIGNATION: Date Local office National Register Criteria for Evaluation abcd(See National Register Bulletin 15, p.2) HR6E06401-97 Florida Master Site File/Div. of Historical Resources/ R.A. Gray Bldg/ 500 South Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (904) 487-2299/Suncom 277-2299/Fax (904) 921-0372/E-mail [email protected] Computer Document File P:\FSF\DOCS\FORMS\AR _FORM_V2.2DOC Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site # 8 MR2228 Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions. FIELD METHODS (Check one or more methods for detection and for boundaries) SITE DETECTION* SITE BOUNDARIES* no field check X exposed ground screened shovel bounds unknown remote sensing unscreened shovel literature search posthole digger none by recorder X insp exposed ground screened shovel informant report auger--size: literature search posthole tests block excavations remote sensing unscreened shovel informant report auger--size: X estimate or guess Other methods; number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size (attach site plan) no subsurface testing, limits determined by quad and soil maps
SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) 40,000 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit 400 m E/W x 100 m N/S
Temporal Interpretation*- Components (check one): X single prob single prob multiple multiple uncertain unknown Describe each occupation in plan (refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretation
Integrity Overall disturbance*: none seen X minor substantial major redeposited destroyed-document ! unknown Disturbances/threats/protective measures none / development / none
Surface: area collected m2 # collection units Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts # 0 c (C)ount or (E)stimate? Surface # 0 c (C) or (E) Subsurface # 0 c (C) or (E) COLLECTION SELECTIVITY* ARTIFACT CATEGORIES* and DISPOSITIONS* (example: A bone-human) unknown unselective (all artifacts) Pick exactly one code from Disposition List Disposition List* selective (some artifacts) bone-animal exotic-nonlocal A- category always collected mixed selectivity bone-human glass S- some items in category collected SPATIAL CONTROL* bone-unspecified lithics-aboriginal O- observed first hand, but not collected uncollected general (not by subarea) bone-worked metal-nonprecious R- collected and subsequently left at site unknown controlled (by subarea) brick/building debris metal-precious/coin I- informant reported category present variable spatial control ceramic-aboriginal shell-unworked U- unknown Other ceramic-nonaboriginal shell-worked daub Others: Artifact Comments DIAGNOSTICS (Type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwannee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. N= 5. N= 9. N= 2. N= 6. N= 10. N= 3. N= 7. N= 11. N= 4. N= 8. N= 12. N= ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water type* & name (incl. relict source) Rainbow River Distance (m)/bearing 75 m W Natural community (FNAI category* or leave blank) Local vegetation oak, cypress, maple Topography* Min Elevation 9 meters Max Elevation 12 meters Present land use wooded SCS soil series Udalfic arents Soil association Lynn-Pomona-Pompano FURTHER INFORMATION Informant(s): Name/Address/Phone/Email Describe field & analysis notes, artifacts, photos. For each, give type* (e.g., notes), curating organization *, accession #s, and short description. P05081 artifacts, notes, maps, etc. on file ACI, Crawfordville
Manuscripts or Publications on the site (Use continuation sheet, give FMSF# if relevant) ACI (2005) Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Preserve at Blue Run, Marion County, Florida
Recorder(s): Name/Addr./Phone/Email Elizabeth A. Horvath / (850) 926-9285 / [email protected] Affiliation* or FAS Chapter Archaeological Consultants, Inc. / Tallahassee Area Office / 98 Hickorywood Dr. / Crawfordville, FL 32327 * Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are "coded fields" at the Site File). SITE PLAN & USGS REQUIRAt 1"=300' (1:3600) or larger scale, show: site boundaries, scale north arrow, datum, test/collection unites, landmarks, mappers, date. Page 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8MR2228
USGS MAP Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 Township 16 South, Range 18 East, Section 25
8MR3313 N
8MR2752 AO#1 8MR3312
8MR2228
8MR3315
positive shovel test negative shovel test railroad grade 8MR3314 cemetery
0 .5 1 km shovel tests not to scale
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 MR3312 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Recorder Site # X Original Version 2.2 3/97 Field Date 6/20/05 Update Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Forms for detailed instructions. Form Date 7/15/05 (give site #) Site Name(s) Rainbow River Ranch I Multiple Listing [DHR only] Project Name CRAS Preserve at Blue Run FMSF Survey # Ownership: X private-profit private-nonprofit private-individ. private-unspecifd. city county state federal foreign Native Amer. unknwn USGS 7.5 Map Name & Date Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 County Marion Township 16 S Range 18 E Section 25 Check if Irregular Section; Qtr. Section (check all that apply): NE NW X SE SW Landgrant Tax Parcel # (s) City/Town (if within 3 mi.) Dunnellon In Current City Limits: X y n unknown UTM: Zone 16 X 17 Easting 359825 Northing 3215389 Address/ Vicinity of/ Route to
Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) TYPE OF SITE (Check all choices that apply; if needed write others in at bottom) SETTING * STRUCTURES - OR - FEATURES * FUNCTION * X Land- terrestrial Lake/Pond- lacustrine aboriginal boat fort road segment none specified Cave/Sink- subterranean River/Stream/Creek- riverine agric/farm building midden shell midden X campsite terrestrial Tidal- estuarine burial mound mill unspecified shell mound extractive site aquatic Saltwater- marine building remains mission shipwreck habitation (prehistoric) intermittently flooded marine unspecified cemetery/grave mound unspec. subsurface features homestead (historic) Wetland- palustrine "high energy" marine dump/refuse plantation surface scatter farmstead usually flooded "low energy" marine earthworks platform mound well village (prehistoric) sometimes flooded town (historic) usually dry Other quarry HISTORIC CONTEXTS (Check all that apply; use most specific subphases: e.g., if Glades Ia only, don't also use Glades I ) Aboriginal* Englewood Glades unspec. St. Augustine Seminole: 2d War to 3d Nonaboriginal* Alachua Fort Walton Hickory Pond St. Johns Ia Seminole: 3d War On First Spanish 1513-99 Archaic, Early Glades Ia Leon-Jefferson St. Johns Ib Seminole unspecified First Spanish 1600-99 Archaic, Middle Glades Ib Malabar I St. Johns I unspec. Swift Creek, Early First Spanish 1700-1763 Archaic, Late Glades I unsp. Malabar II St. Johns IIa Swift Creek, Late First Spanish unspecified X Archaic unspecified Glades IIa Manasota St. Johns IIb Swift Creek, unspecif. British 1763-1783 Belle Glade I Glades IIb Mount Taylor St. Johns IIc Transitional Second Spanish 1783-1821 Belle Glade II Glades IIc Norwood St. Johns II unspec. Weeden Island I American Territorial 1821-45 Belle Glade III Glades II unsp. Orange St. Johns unspecif. Weeden Island II American Civil War 1861-65 Belle Glade IV Glades IIIa Paleoindian Santa Rosa Weeden Island unspec. American 19th Century Belle Glade unspec Glades IIIb Pensacola Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Prehistoric nonceramic American 20th Century Cades Pond Glades IIIc Perico Island Seminole: Colonization X Prehistoric ceramic American unspecified Deptford Glades III unsp. Safety Harbor Seminole: 1st War To 2d Prehistoric unspecified African-American Other (Less common phases are not check-listed. For historic sites, also give specific dates if known.)
*Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are "coded fields" at the Site File). SURVEYOR'S EVALUATION OF SITE Potentially eligible for a local register? yes: name of register at right X no insufficient info Name of local register if eligible: Individually eligible for National Register? yes X no insufficient info Potential contributor to NR district? yes X no insufficient info Explanation of Evaluation (Required if evaluated; limit to 3 lines; attach full justification) low artifact density and diversity no subsurface features, common type of site in region
Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action no additional work recommended
DHR USE ONLY***************OFFICIAL EVALUATIONS***************DHR USE ONLY NR DATE KEEPER-NR ELIGIBILITY yes no Date SHPO-NR ELIGIBILITY: yes no potentially elig. insufficient info Date DELIST DATE LOCAL DESIGNATION: Date Local office National Register Criteria for Evaluation abcd(See National Register Bulletin 15, p.2) HR6E06401-97 Florida Master Site File/Div. of Historical Resources/ R.A. Gray Bldg/ 500 South Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (904) 487-2299/Suncom 277-2299/Fax (904) 921-0372/E-mail [email protected] Computer Document File P:\FSF\DOCS\FORMS\AR _FORM_V2.2DOC Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site # 8 MR3312 Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions. FIELD METHODS (Check one or more methods for detection and for boundaries) SITE DETECTION* SITE BOUNDARIES* no field check X exposed ground X screened shovel bounds unknown remote sensing unscreened shovel literature search posthole digger none by recorder insp exposed ground X screened shovel informant report auger--size: literature search posthole tests block excavations remote sensing unscreened shovel informant report auger--size: estimate or guess Other methods; number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size (attach site plan) 29 ST; 9 positive, 25 & 50 m intervals 1 m deep, 50 cm diameter, 1/4" screen
SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) 15,000 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit artifacts @ 20-100 cmbs 0-20 cm gray sand, 20-100 cm light brown sand 300 m E/W x 50 m N/S Temporal Interpretation*- Components (check one): single prob single X prob multiple multiple uncertain unknown Describe each occupation in plan (refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretation
Integrity Overall disturbance*: none seen X minor substantial major redeposited destroyed-document ! unknown Disturbances/threats/protective measures improvement to pasture / development / none
Surface: area collected m2 # collection units Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts # 20 c (C)ount or (E)stimate? Surface # 0 c (C) or (E) Subsurface # 20 c (C) or (E) COLLECTION SELECTIVITY* ARTIFACT CATEGORIES* and DISPOSITIONS* (example: A bone-human) unknown X unselective (all artifacts) Pick exactly one code from Disposition List Disposition List* selective (some artifacts) bone-animal exotic-nonlocal A- category always collected mixed selectivity bone-human glass S- some items in category collected SPATIAL CONTROL* bone-unspecified A lithics-aboriginal O- observed first hand, but not collected uncollected X general (not by subarea) bone-worked metal-nonprecious R- collected and subsequently left at site unknown controlled (by subarea) brick/building debris metal-precious/coin I- informant reported category present variable spatial control A ceramic-aboriginal shell-unworked U- unknown Other ceramic-nonaboriginal shell-worked daub Others: Artifact Comments 19 flakes, all chert; 1 ceramic DIAGNOSTICS (Type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwannee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. thermal alteration N= 9 5. N= 9. N= 2. Pasco Plain N= 1 6. N= 10. N= 3. N= 7. N= 11. N= 4. N= 8. N= 12. N= ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water type* & name (incl. relict source) Rainbow River Distance (m)/bearing 15 m N Natural community (FNAI category* or leave blank) Local vegetation pasture w/ scattered oaks Topography* gently rolling Min Elevation 9 meters Max Elevation 15 meters Present land use pasture SCS soil series Candler sand, 0-5% Soil association Candler Apopka FURTHER INFORMATION Informant(s): Name/Address/Phone/Email Describe field & analysis notes, artifacts, photos. For each, give type* (e.g., notes), curating organization *, accession #s, and short description. P05081 artifacts, notes, maps, etc. on file ACI, Crawfordville
Manuscripts or Publications on the site (Use continuation sheet, give FMSF# if relevant) ACI (2005) Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Preserve at Blue Run, Marion County, Florida
Recorder(s): Name/Addr./Phone/Email Elizabeth A. Horvath / (850) 926-9285 / [email protected] Affiliation* or FAS Chapter Archaeological Consultants, Inc. / Tallahassee Area Office / 98 Hickorywood Dr. / Crawfordville, FL 32327 * Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are "coded fields" at the Site File). SITE PLAN & USGS REQUIRAt 1"=300' (1:3600) or larger scale, show: site boundaries, scale north arrow, datum, test/collection unites, landmarks, mappers, date. Page 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8MR3312
USGS MAP Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 Township 16 South, Range 18 East, Section 25
8MR3313 N
8MR2752 AO#1 8MR3312
AO#2 8MR3270
8MR3315
positive shovel test negative shovel test railroad grade 8MR3314 cemetery
0 .5 1 km shovel tests not to scale
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 MR3313 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Recorder Site # X Original Version 2.2 3/97 Field Date 6/20/05 Update Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Forms for detailed instructions. Form Date 7/15/05 (give site #) Site Name(s) Rainbow River Ranch II Multiple Listing [DHR only] Project Name CRAS Preserve at Blue Run FMSF Survey # Ownership: X private-profit private-nonprofit private-individ. private-unspecifd. city county state federal foreign Native Amer. unknwn USGS 7.5 Map Name & Date Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 County Marion Township 16 S Range 18 E Section 25 Check if Irregular Section; Qtr. Section (check all that apply): NE NW X SE SW Landgrant Tax Parcel # (s) also in T16S, R19E, S30, SW 1/4 City/Town (if within 3 mi.) Dunnellon In Current City Limits: X y n unknown UTM: Zone 16 X 17 Easting 360267 Northing 3215475 Address/ Vicinity of/ Route to
Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) TYPE OF SITE (Check all choices that apply; if needed write others in at bottom) SETTING * STRUCTURES - OR - FEATURES * FUNCTION * X Land- terrestrial Lake/Pond- lacustrine aboriginal boat fort road segment none specified Cave/Sink- subterranean River/Stream/Creek- riverine agric/farm building midden shell midden X campsite terrestrial Tidal- estuarine burial mound mill unspecified shell mound extractive site aquatic Saltwater- marine building remains mission shipwreck habitation (prehistoric) intermittently flooded marine unspecified cemetery/grave mound unspec. subsurface features homestead (historic) Wetland- palustrine "high energy" marine dump/refuse plantation surface scatter farmstead usually flooded "low energy" marine earthworks platform mound well village (prehistoric) sometimes flooded town (historic) usually dry Other quarry HISTORIC CONTEXTS (Check all that apply; use most specific subphases: e.g., if Glades Ia only, don't also use Glades I ) Aboriginal* Englewood Glades unspec. St. Augustine Seminole: 2d War to 3d Nonaboriginal* Alachua Fort Walton Hickory Pond St. Johns Ia Seminole: 3d War On First Spanish 1513-99 Archaic, Early Glades Ia Leon-Jefferson St. Johns Ib Seminole unspecified First Spanish 1600-99 Archaic, Middle Glades Ib Malabar I St. Johns I unspec. Swift Creek, Early First Spanish 1700-1763 Archaic, Late Glades I unsp. Malabar II St. Johns IIa Swift Creek, Late First Spanish unspecified X Archaic unspecified Glades IIa Manasota St. Johns IIb Swift Creek, unspecif. British 1763-1783 Belle Glade I Glades IIb Mount Taylor St. Johns IIc Transitional Second Spanish 1783-1821 Belle Glade II Glades IIc Norwood St. Johns II unspec. Weeden Island I American Territorial 1821-45 Belle Glade III Glades II unsp. Orange St. Johns unspecif. Weeden Island II American Civil War 1861-65 Belle Glade IV Glades IIIa Paleoindian Santa Rosa Weeden Island unspec. American 19th Century Belle Glade unspec Glades IIIb Pensacola Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Prehistoric nonceramic American 20th Century Cades Pond Glades IIIc Perico Island Seminole: Colonization X Prehistoric ceramic American unspecified Deptford Glades III unsp. Safety Harbor Seminole: 1st War To 2d Prehistoric unspecified African-American Other (Less common phases are not check-listed. For historic sites, also give specific dates if known.)
*Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are "coded fields" at the Site File). SURVEYOR'S EVALUATION OF SITE Potentially eligible for a local register? yes: name of register at right X no insufficient info Name of local register if eligible: Individually eligible for National Register? yes X no insufficient info Potential contributor to NR district? yes X no insufficient info Explanation of Evaluation (Required if evaluated; limit to 3 lines; attach full justification) low artifact density and diversity no subsurface features, common type of site in region
Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action no additional work recommended
DHR USE ONLY***************OFFICIAL EVALUATIONS***************DHR USE ONLY NR DATE KEEPER-NR ELIGIBILITY yes no Date SHPO-NR ELIGIBILITY: yes no potentially elig. insufficient info Date DELIST DATE LOCAL DESIGNATION: Date Local office National Register Criteria for Evaluation abcd(See National Register Bulletin 15, p.2) HR6E06401-97 Florida Master Site File/Div. of Historical Resources/ R.A. Gray Bldg/ 500 South Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (904) 487-2299/Suncom 277-2299/Fax (904) 921-0372/E-mail [email protected] Computer Document File P:\FSF\DOCS\FORMS\AR _FORM_V2.2DOC Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site # 8 MR3313 Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions. FIELD METHODS (Check one or more methods for detection and for boundaries) SITE DETECTION* SITE BOUNDARIES* no field check X exposed ground X screened shovel bounds unknown remote sensing unscreened shovel literature search posthole digger none by recorder insp exposed ground X screened shovel informant report auger--size: literature search posthole tests block excavations remote sensing unscreened shovel informant report auger--size: estimate or guess Other methods; number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size (attach site plan) 25 ST; 10 positive, 25 & 50 m intervals 1 m deep, 50 cm diameter, 1/4" screen
SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) 48,750 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit artifacts @ 30-100 cmbs 0-30 cm gray sand, 30-100 cm light brown sand; 150 m N/S x 325 m E/W
Temporal Interpretation*- Components (check one): single prob single X prob multiple multiple uncertain unknown Describe each occupation in plan (refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretation
Integrity Overall disturbance*: none seen X minor substantial major redeposited destroyed-document ! unknown Disturbances/threats/protective measures improvement to pasture / development / none
Surface: area collected m2 # collection units Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts # 15 c (C)ount or (E)stimate? Surface # 0 c (C) or (E) Subsurface # 15 c (C) or (E) COLLECTION SELECTIVITY* ARTIFACT CATEGORIES* and DISPOSITIONS* (example: A bone-human) unknown X unselective (all artifacts) Pick exactly one code from Disposition List Disposition List* selective (some artifacts) bone-animal exotic-nonlocal A- category always collected mixed selectivity bone-human glass S- some items in category collected SPATIAL CONTROL* bone-unspecified A lithics-aboriginal O- observed first hand, but not collected uncollected X general (not by subarea) bone-worked metal-nonprecious R- collected and subsequently left at site unknown controlled (by subarea) brick/building debris metal-precious/coin I- informant reported category present variable spatial control A ceramic-aboriginal shell-unworked U- unknown Other ceramic-nonaboriginal shell-worked daub Others: Artifact Comments 13 flakes (all chert), 2 ceramic DIAGNOSTICS (Type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwannee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. thermal alteration N= 7 5. N= 9. N= 2. Pasco Plain N= 1 6. N= 10. N= 3. STP N= 1 7. N= 11. N= 4. N= 8. N= 12. N= ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water type* & name (incl. relict source) Rainbow River Distance (m)/bearing 15 m N Natural community (FNAI category* or leave blank) Local vegetation pasture w/ scattered oaks Topography* gently rolling Min Elevation 9 meters Max Elevation 15 meters Present land use pasture SCS soil series Candler sand, 0-5% Soil association Candler Apopka FURTHER INFORMATION Informant(s): Name/Address/Phone/Email Describe field & analysis notes, artifacts, photos. For each, give type* (e.g., notes), curating organization *, accession #s, and short description. P05081 artifacts, notes, maps, etc. on file ACI, Crawfordville
Manuscripts or Publications on the site (Use continuation sheet, give FMSF# if relevant) ACI (2005) Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Preserve at Blue Run, Marion County, Florida
Recorder(s): Name/Addr./Phone/Email Elizabeth A. Horvath / (850) 926-9285 / [email protected] Affiliation* or FAS Chapter Archaeological Consultants, Inc. / Tallahassee Area Office / 98 Hickorywood Dr. / Crawfordville, FL 32327 * Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are "coded fields" at the Site File). SITE PLAN & USGS REQUIRAt 1"=300' (1:3600) or larger scale, show: site boundaries, scale north arrow, datum, test/collection unites, landmarks, mappers, date. Page 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8MR3313
USGS MAP Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 Township 16 South, Range 18 East, Section 25 Township 16 South, Range 19 East, Section 30
8MR3313 N
8MR2752 AO#1 8MR3312
AO#2 8MR3270
8MR3315
positive shovel test negative shovel test railroad grade 8MR3314 cemetery
0 .5 1 km shovel tests not to scale
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 MR3314 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Recorder Site # X Original Version 2.2 3/97 Field Date 6/21/05 Update Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Forms for detailed instructions. Form Date 7/15/05 (give site #) Site Name(s) Pennsylvania Avenue Multiple Listing [DHR only] Project Name CRAS Preserve at Blue Run FMSF Survey # Ownership: X private-profit private-nonprofit private-individ. private-unspecifd. city county state federal foreign Native Amer. unknwn USGS 7.5 Map Name & Date Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 County Marion Township 16 S Range 18 E Section 36 Check if Irregular Section; Qtr. Section (check all that apply): NE X NW SE SW Landgrant Tax Parcel # (s) City/Town (if within 3 mi.) Dunnellon In Current City Limits: X y n unknown UTM: Zone 16 X 17 Easting 359352 Northing 3214419 Address/ Vicinity of/ Route to
Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) TYPE OF SITE (Check all choices that apply; if needed write others in at bottom) SETTING * STRUCTURES - OR - FEATURES * FUNCTION * X Land- terrestrial Lake/Pond- lacustrine aboriginal boat fort road segment none specified Cave/Sink- subterranean River/Stream/Creek- riverine agric/farm building midden shell midden X campsite terrestrial Tidal- estuarine burial mound mill unspecified shell mound extractive site aquatic Saltwater- marine building remains mission shipwreck habitation (prehistoric) intermittently flooded marine unspecified cemetery/grave mound unspec. subsurface features homestead (historic) Wetland- palustrine "high energy" marine dump/refuse plantation surface scatter farmstead usually flooded "low energy" marine earthworks platform mound well village (prehistoric) sometimes flooded town (historic) usually dry Other quarry HISTORIC CONTEXTS (Check all that apply; use most specific subphases: e.g., if Glades Ia only, don't also use Glades I ) Aboriginal* Englewood Glades unspec. St. Augustine Seminole: 2d War to 3d Nonaboriginal* Alachua Fort Walton Hickory Pond St. Johns Ia Seminole: 3d War On First Spanish 1513-99 Archaic, Early Glades Ia Leon-Jefferson St. Johns Ib Seminole unspecified First Spanish 1600-99 Archaic, Middle Glades Ib Malabar I St. Johns I unspec. Swift Creek, Early First Spanish 1700-1763 Archaic, Late Glades I unsp. Malabar II St. Johns IIa Swift Creek, Late First Spanish unspecified Archaic unspecified Glades IIa Manasota St. Johns IIb Swift Creek, unspecif. British 1763-1783 Belle Glade I Glades IIb Mount Taylor St. Johns IIc Transitional Second Spanish 1783-1821 Belle Glade II Glades IIc Norwood St. Johns II unspec. Weeden Island I American Territorial 1821-45 Belle Glade III Glades II unsp. Orange St. Johns unspecif. Weeden Island II American Civil War 1861-65 Belle Glade IV Glades IIIa Paleoindian Santa Rosa X Weeden Island unspec. American 19th Century Belle Glade unspec Glades IIIb Pensacola Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Prehistoric nonceramic American 20th Century Cades Pond Glades IIIc Perico Island Seminole: Colonization Prehistoric ceramic American unspecified Deptford Glades III unsp. Safety Harbor Seminole: 1st War To 2d Prehistoric unspecified African-American Other (Less common phases are not check-listed. For historic sites, also give specific dates if known.)
*Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are "coded fields" at the Site File). SURVEYOR'S EVALUATION OF SITE Potentially eligible for a local register? yes: name of register at right X no insufficient info Name of local register if eligible: Individually eligible for National Register? yes X no insufficient info Potential contributor to NR district? yes X no insufficient info Explanation of Evaluation (Required if evaluated; limit to 3 lines; attach full justification) low artifact density and diversity no subsurface features, common type of site in region
Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action no additional work recommended
DHR USE ONLY***************OFFICIAL EVALUATIONS***************DHR USE ONLY NR DATE KEEPER-NR ELIGIBILITY yes no Date SHPO-NR ELIGIBILITY: yes no potentially elig. insufficient info Date DELIST DATE LOCAL DESIGNATION: Date Local office National Register Criteria for Evaluation abcd(See National Register Bulletin 15, p.2) HR6E06401-97 Florida Master Site File/Div. of Historical Resources/ R.A. Gray Bldg/ 500 South Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (904) 487-2299/Suncom 277-2299/Fax (904) 921-0372/E-mail [email protected] Computer Document File P:\FSF\DOCS\FORMS\AR _FORM_V2.2DOC Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site # 8 MR3314 Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions. FIELD METHODS (Check one or more methods for detection and for boundaries) SITE DETECTION* SITE BOUNDARIES* no field check X exposed ground X screened shovel bounds unknown remote sensing unscreened shovel literature search posthole digger none by recorder insp exposed ground X screened shovel informant report auger--size: literature search posthole tests block excavations remote sensing unscreened shovel informant report auger--size: estimate or guess Other methods; number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size (attach site plan) 16 ST; 6 positive, 25 & 50 m intervals 1 m deep, 50 cm diameter, 1/4" screen
SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) 22,500 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit artifacts @ 60-100 cmbs 0-30 cm gray sand, 30-100 cm light brown sand 150 m E/W x 150 m N/S Temporal Interpretation*- Components (check one): single X prob single prob multiple multiple uncertain unknown Describe each occupation in plan (refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretation
Integrity Overall disturbance*: none seen X minor substantial major redeposited destroyed-document ! unknown Disturbances/threats/protective measures improvement to pasture / development / none
Surface: area collected m2 # collection units Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts # 9 c (C)ount or (E)stimate? Surface # 0 c (C) or (E) Subsurface # 9 c (C) or (E) COLLECTION SELECTIVITY* ARTIFACT CATEGORIES* and DISPOSITIONS* (example: A bone-human) unknown X unselective (all artifacts) Pick exactly one code from Disposition List Disposition List* selective (some artifacts) bone-animal exotic-nonlocal A- category always collected mixed selectivity bone-human glass S- some items in category collected SPATIAL CONTROL* bone-unspecified A lithics-aboriginal O- observed first hand, but not collected uncollected X general (not by subarea) bone-worked metal-nonprecious R- collected and subsequently left at site unknown controlled (by subarea) brick/building debris metal-precious/coin I- informant reported category present variable spatial control A ceramic-aboriginal shell-unworked U- unknown Other ceramic-nonaboriginal shell-worked daub Others: Artifact Comments 8 flakes, all chert; 1 ceramic DIAGNOSTICS (Type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwannee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. thermal alteration N= 2 5. N= 9. N= 2. Weeden Island Plain N= 1 6. N= 10. N= 3. N= 7. N= 11. N= 4. N= 8. N= 12. N= ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water type* & name (incl. relict source) Rainbow River Distance (m)/bearing 20 m W Natural community (FNAI category* or leave blank) Local vegetation pasture w/ scattered oaks Topography* gently rolling Min Elevation 15 meters Max Elevation 17 meters Present land use pasture SCS soil series Candler sand, 0-5% Soil association Candler Apopka FURTHER INFORMATION Informant(s): Name/Address/Phone/Email Describe field & analysis notes, artifacts, photos. For each, give type* (e.g., notes), curating organization *, accession #s, and short description. P05081 artifacts, notes, maps, etc. on file ACI, Crawfordville
Manuscripts or Publications on the site (Use continuation sheet, give FMSF# if relevant) ACI (2005) Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Preserve at Blue Run, Marion County, Florida
Recorder(s): Name/Addr./Phone/Email Elizabeth A. Horvath / (850) 926-9285 / [email protected] Affiliation* or FAS Chapter Archaeological Consultants, Inc. / Tallahassee Area Office / 98 Hickorywood Dr. / Crawfordville, FL 32327 * Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are "coded fields" at the Site File). SITE PLAN & USGS REQUIRAt 1"=300' (1:3600) or larger scale, show: site boundaries, scale north arrow, datum, test/collection unites, landmarks, mappers, date. Page 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8MR3314
USGS MAP Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 Township 16 South, Range 18 East, Section 36
8MR3313 N
8MR2752 AO#1 8MR3312
AO#2 8MR3270
8MR3315
positive shovel test negative shovel test railroad grade 8MR3314 cemetery
0 .5 1 km shovel tests not to scale
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 MR3315 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Recorder Site # X Original Version 2.2 3/97 Field Date 6/21/05 Update Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Forms for detailed instructions. Form Date 7/15/05 (give site #) Site Name(s) Hendrix Drive Multiple Listing [DHR only] Project Name CRAS Preserve at Blue Run FMSF Survey # Ownership: X private-profit private-nonprofit private-individ. private-unspecifd. city county state federal foreign Native Amer. unknwn USGS 7.5 Map Name & Date Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 County Marion Township 16 S Range 18 E Section 36 Check if Irregular Section; Qtr. Section (check all that apply): NE X NW SE SW Landgrant Tax Parcel # (s) also in T16S, R18E, S25, SW 1/4 City/Town (if within 3 mi.) Dunnellon In Current City Limits: X y n unknown UTM: Zone 16 X 17 Easting 359337 Northing 3214678 Address/ Vicinity of/ Route to
Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) TYPE OF SITE (Check all choices that apply; if needed write others in at bottom) SETTING * STRUCTURES - OR - FEATURES * FUNCTION * X Land- terrestrial Lake/Pond- lacustrine aboriginal boat fort road segment none specified Cave/Sink- subterranean River/Stream/Creek- riverine agric/farm building midden shell midden X campsite terrestrial Tidal- estuarine burial mound mill unspecified shell mound extractive site aquatic Saltwater- marine building remains mission shipwreck habitation (prehistoric) intermittently flooded marine unspecified cemetery/grave mound unspec. subsurface features homestead (historic) Wetland- palustrine "high energy" marine dump/refuse plantation surface scatter farmstead usually flooded "low energy" marine earthworks platform mound well village (prehistoric) sometimes flooded town (historic) usually dry Other quarry HISTORIC CONTEXTS (Check all that apply; use most specific subphases: e.g., if Glades Ia only, don't also use Glades I ) Aboriginal* Englewood Glades unspec. St. Augustine Seminole: 2d War to 3d Nonaboriginal* Alachua Fort Walton Hickory Pond St. Johns Ia Seminole: 3d War On First Spanish 1513-99 Archaic, Early Glades Ia Leon-Jefferson St. Johns Ib Seminole unspecified First Spanish 1600-99 Archaic, Middle Glades Ib Malabar I St. Johns I unspec. Swift Creek, Early First Spanish 1700-1763 Archaic, Late Glades I unsp. Malabar II St. Johns IIa Swift Creek, Late First Spanish unspecified X Archaic unspecified Glades IIa Manasota St. Johns IIb Swift Creek, unspecif. British 1763-1783 Belle Glade I Glades IIb Mount Taylor St. Johns IIc Transitional Second Spanish 1783-1821 Belle Glade II Glades IIc Norwood St. Johns II unspec. Weeden Island I American Territorial 1821-45 Belle Glade III Glades II unsp. X Orange St. Johns unspecif. Weeden Island II American Civil War 1861-65 Belle Glade IV Glades IIIa Paleoindian Santa Rosa Weeden Island unspec. American 19th Century Belle Glade unspec Glades IIIb Pensacola Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Prehistoric nonceramic American 20th Century Cades Pond Glades IIIc Perico Island Seminole: Colonization Prehistoric ceramic American unspecified Deptford Glades III unsp. Safety Harbor Seminole: 1st War To 2d Prehistoric unspecified African-American Other (Less common phases are not check-listed. For historic sites, also give specific dates if known.)
*Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are "coded fields" at the Site File). SURVEYOR'S EVALUATION OF SITE Potentially eligible for a local register? yes: name of register at right X no insufficient info Name of local register if eligible: Individually eligible for National Register? yes X no insufficient info Potential contributor to NR district? yes X no insufficient info Explanation of Evaluation (Required if evaluated; limit to 3 lines; attach full justification) low artifact density and diversity no subsurface features, common type of site in region
Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action no additional work recommended
DHR USE ONLY***************OFFICIAL EVALUATIONS***************DHR USE ONLY NR DATE KEEPER-NR ELIGIBILITY yes no Date SHPO-NR ELIGIBILITY: yes no potentially elig. insufficient info Date DELIST DATE LOCAL DESIGNATION: Date Local office National Register Criteria for Evaluation abcd(See National Register Bulletin 15, p.2) HR6E06401-97 Florida Master Site File/Div. of Historical Resources/ R.A. Gray Bldg/ 500 South Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (904) 487-2299/Suncom 277-2299/Fax (904) 921-0372/E-mail [email protected] Computer Document File P:\FSF\DOCS\FORMS\AR _FORM_V2.2DOC Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site # 8 MR3315 Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions. FIELD METHODS (Check one or more methods for detection and for boundaries) SITE DETECTION* SITE BOUNDARIES* no field check X exposed ground X screened shovel bounds unknown remote sensing unscreened shovel literature search posthole digger none by recorder insp exposed ground X screened shovel informant report auger--size: literature search posthole tests block excavations remote sensing unscreened shovel informant report auger--size: estimate or guess Other methods; number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size (attach site plan) 16 ST; 5 positive, 25 & 50 m intervals 1 m deep, 50 cm diameter, 1/4" screen
SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) 20,000 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit artifacts @ 60-100 cmbs 0-30 cm gray sand, 30-100 cm light brown sand 100 m E/W x 200 m N/S Temporal Interpretation*- Components (check one): single prob single prob multiple multiple X uncertain unknown Describe each occupation in plan (refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretation
Integrity Overall disturbance*: none seen X minor substantial major redeposited destroyed-document ! unknown Disturbances/threats/protective measures improvement to pasture / development / none
Surface: area collected m2 # collection units Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts # 13 c (C)ount or (E)stimate? Surface # 0 c (C) or (E) Subsurface # 13 c (C) or (E) COLLECTION SELECTIVITY* ARTIFACT CATEGORIES* and DISPOSITIONS* (example: A bone-human) unknown X unselective (all artifacts) Pick exactly one code from Disposition List Disposition List* selective (some artifacts) bone-animal exotic-nonlocal A- category always collected mixed selectivity bone-human glass S- some items in category collected SPATIAL CONTROL* bone-unspecified A lithics-aboriginal O- observed first hand, but not collected uncollected X general (not by subarea) bone-worked metal-nonprecious R- collected and subsequently left at site unknown controlled (by subarea) brick/building debris metal-precious/coin I- informant reported category present variable spatial control A ceramic-aboriginal shell-unworked U- unknown Other ceramic-nonaboriginal shell-worked daub Others: Artifact Comments 12 flakes, all chert; 1 ceramic DIAGNOSTICS (Type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwannee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. thermal alteration N= 2 5. N= 9. N= 2. Orange ware N= 1 6. N= 10. N= 3. N= 7. N= 11. N= 4. N= 8. N= 12. N= ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water type* & name (incl. relict source) Rainbow River Distance (m)/bearing 20 m W Natural community (FNAI category* or leave blank) Local vegetation pasture w/ scattered oaks Topography* gently rolling Min Elevation 14 meters Max Elevation 17 meters Present land use pasture SCS soil series Candler sand, 0-5% and 5-12% Soil association Candler Apopka FURTHER INFORMATION Informant(s): Name/Address/Phone/Email Describe field & analysis notes, artifacts, photos. For each, give type* (e.g., notes), curating organization *, accession #s, and short description. P05081 artifacts, notes, maps, etc. on file ACI, Crawfordville
Manuscripts or Publications on the site (Use continuation sheet, give FMSF# if relevant) ACI (2005) Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Preserve at Blue Run, Marion County, Florida
Recorder(s): Name/Addr./Phone/Email Elizabeth A. Horvath / (850) 926-9285 / [email protected] Affiliation* or FAS Chapter Archaeological Consultants, Inc. / Tallahassee Area Office / 98 Hickorywood Dr. / Crawfordville, FL 32327 * Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for preferred descriptions not listed above (data are "coded fields" at the Site File). SITE PLAN & USGS REQUIRAt 1"=300' (1:3600) or larger scale, show: site boundaries, scale north arrow, datum, test/collection unites, landmarks, mappers, date. Page 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8MR3315
USGS MAP Dunnellon, Fla. 1991 Township 16 South, Range 18 East, Sections 25 and 36
8MR3313 N
8MR2752 AO#1 8MR3312
AO#2 8MR3270
8MR3315
positive shovel test negative shovel test railroad grade 8MR3314 cemetery
0 .5 1 km shovel tests not to scale
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
APPENDIX C: Survey Log
P05081/July 2005 Page 1 FMSF USE ONLY Form Date 07/15/05 Survey Log Sheet FMSF Survey # Florida Master Site File Version 2.0 9/97 Consult Guide to the Survey Log Sheet for detailed instructions.
Recorder of Log Sheet Elizabeth A. Horvath
Identification and Bibliographic Information Survey Project (Name and project phase) CRAS Preserve at Blue Run, Marion County, Phase I
Is this a continuation of a previous project? X No Yes Previous survey#(s) Report Title (exactly as on title page) Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Preserve at Blue Run, Marion County, Florida
Report Author(s) (as on title page-individual or corporate) Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Publication Date (month/year) July 2005 Total Number of Pages in Report (Count text, figures, tables, not site forms) 61 Publication Information (if relevant, series and no. in series, publisher, and city. For article or chapter, cite page numbers. Use the style of American Antiquity. See Guide to the Survey Log Sheet.) Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 8110 Blaikie Ct., Suite A., Sarasota, FL 34240
Supervisor(s) of Fieldwork (whether or not the same as author[s]) Nelson Rodriguez Affiliation of Fieldworkers (organization, city) Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Key Words/Phrases (Don't use the county, or common words like archaeology, structure, survey, architecture. Put the most important first. Limit each word or phrase to 25 characters). artifact scatter, phosphate mine, cemetery Orange, Weeden Island, Rainbow River
Survey Sponsors (corporation, government unit, or person who is directly paying for fieldwork) Name Conservation Land Group, LLC Address/Phone 18501 Murdock Circle, Suite 404, Port Charlotte, FL 33948
Mapping
Counties (List each one in which field survey was done-do not abbreviate) Marion
USGS 1:24,000 Map(s): Names/Dates: Dunnellon, Fla. 1991
Remarks (Use supplementary sheet[s] if needed) 1 cemetery, 1 mine pit, 1 railroad grade, 4 artifact scatters, 2 archaeological occurences, none are significant
Description of Survey Area Dates for Fieldwork: Start 6/20/05 End 6/28/05 Total Area Surveyed (fill in one) hectares 212 acres Number of District Tracts or Areas Surveyed 1 If Corridor (fill in one for each) Width meters feet Length kilometers miles Types of Survey (check all that apply) X archaeological architectural X historical/archival underwater other:
HR6E06610-97 Florida Master Site File, Division of Historical Resources, Gray Building, 500 South Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone 850-487-2299, Suncom 277-2299, Fax 850-921-0372, Email [email protected], Web http://www.dos.state.fl.us/dhr/msfl \\C cf_ graydhr\dhrshare\FSF\DOCS\FORMS\Logsheet.doc 10/03/97 11:07 AM Page 2 Survey Log Sheet of the Florida Master Site File
Research and Field Methods Preliminary Methods (Check as many as apply to the project as a whole. If needed write others at bottom).
X Florida Archives (Gray Building) library research - (local public) local property or tax records X windshield survey X Florida Photo Archives (Gray Building) X library-special collection- (non local) newspaper files aerial photography X FMSF site property search X Public Lands Survey (maps at DEP) X literature search X FMSF survey search local informant(s) Sanborn Insurance maps other (describe)
Archaeological Methods (Describe the proportion of properties at which method was used by writing in the corresponding letter. Blanks are interpreted as "None.") F(-ew: 0-20%, S(-ome: 20-50%); M(-ost: 50-90%); or A(-ll, Nearly all: 90-100%). If needed write others at bottom. Check here if NO archaeological methods were used.
surface collection, controlled other screen shovel test (size: ) block excavation (at least 2x2 m) Msurface collection, uncontrolled water screen (finest size: ) soil resistivity Mshovel test-1/4" screen posthole tests magnetometer shovel test-1/8" screen auger (size: ) side scan sonar shovel test-1/16" screen coring unknown shovel test-unscreened test excavation (at least 1x2 m) other (describe):
Historical/Architectural Methods (Describe the proportion of properties at which method was used by writing in the corresponding letter. Blanks are interpreted as "None.") F(-ew: 0-20%, S(-ome: 20-50%); M(-ost: 50-90%); or A(-ll, Nearly all: 90-100%). If needed write others at bottom. Check here if NO historical/architectural methods were used.
building permits demolition permits neighbor interview subdivision maps commercial permits M exposed ground inspected occupant interview tax records interior documentation local property records occupation permits unknown other (describe):
Scope/Intensity/Procedures background research, field investigations consisted of systematic subsurface testing at 10, 25, 50 & 100 m intervals; 1/4" screen, 50 cm diameter, 1 m deep, analyzed artifacts, wrote report, completed FMSF forms and survey log
Survey Results (cultural resources recorded) Site Significance Evaluated? X Yes No If Yes , circle NR-eligible/significant site numbers below. Site Counts: Previously Recorded Sites 2 Newly Recorded Sites 5 Previously Recorded Site #'s (List site #'s without "8." Attach supplementary pages if necessary) MR3270; MR2752
Newly Recorded Site #'s (Are you sure all are originals and not updates? Identify methods used to check for updates, ie, researched the FMSF records). List site #s without "8." Attach supplementary pages if necessary. MR3312, MR3313, MR3314, MR3315, MR2228 checked site files
Site Form Used: SmartForm FMSF Paper Form X Approved Custom Form: Attach copies of written approval from FMSF Supervisor and Supervisor-signed form.
DO NOT USE **************SITE FILE USE ONLY ***************DO NOT USE BAR Related BHP Related 872 1A32 State Historic Preservation Grant CARL UW Compliance Review CRAT #
ATTACH PLOT OF SURVEY AREA ON PHOTOCOPIES OF USGS 1:24,000 MAP(S)
HR6E06610-97 Florida Master Site File, Division of Historical Resources, Gray Building, 500 South Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone 850-487-2299, Suncom 277-2299, Fax 850-921-0372, Email [email protected], Web http://www.dos.state.fl.us/dhr/msfl \\C cf_ graydhr\dhrshare\FSF\DOCS\FORMS\Logsheet.doc 10/03/97 11:07 AM N
Project Location R18E R19E
0 .5 1 mile 0 .5 1 kilometer
Preserve at Blue Run Sections 25 and 36, Township 16 South, Range 18 East and Section 30, Township 16 South, Range 19 East USGS Dunnellon, Fla. 1991