FROM FL ARCI-EOLOG I CAL S~V I CES FAX N0. 904-2919388- Apr. 13 2005 12:15PM P2
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT 4F STATE Glenda E. Hood Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
8,2005 Mr. Robert E. Johnson April Florida Archaeological Services, Inc. 4250 Melrose Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32210
DHR: March 25, 2005 Re: DHI2 Project File No. 2005-2714 (2004-3123 Received by Creek Side Phase UArchaeological Investigation ofSite 8SL1643 at the P,roposed Development T}~act St. Lucie Cortnty, Florida
Dear Mr. Johnson:
conducted a Phase II From May until July 2004, Florida Archaeological Services, Inc. FAS)( archaeological investigation of the Creek Side # 3 site (8SL1643)on behalf of Culpepper & Terpening, to the Inc. Fourteen 1x2 meter excavation units and seventy shovel tests were placed determine SSL1643 is significance of site 8SL1643. Affier analysis of the recovered artifacts FAS determined that to the Glades I with a small Malabar I likely a series of biotic extraction.campsites relating period features or cultural strata it is the of component. Due to low research potential, and lack of intact opinion no further FAS that 8SL1643 does not appear eligible for listing in the NItHP. FAS recommends investigation of the site. listed or 1t is the opinion of FAS that the proposed development w171 have no effect on cultural resources vatue_FAS eligible for listing in the NRF7P, or otherwise of historical, architectural or archaeological recommends no further investigation of the subject parcel.
concurs determinations and finds the submitted Based on the information provided, our office with these Florida Administrative Code. report complete and sufficient in accordance with Chapter 1A-46,
contact Claire Historic Sites If you have any questions concerning our comments, please Nanfro, Your continued Specialist, by phone at (850)245- 6333, or by electronic mail at cenanfro(state.us.aldos.fl. interest in protecting Florida' s historic properties is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Frederick P. Gaske, Director, and State Historic Preservation Officer
500 S. Bronough Street . Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 . http://flheritage. www.com
O Director's Offfce O Archaeological Research ~ istoaic Preservation O Historical Museums FAX: 2456433 850) 245-6300 • FAX: 2~43645~ ( 850) 245-6444 • FAX: 245-6436 ( 850) 245-6333 • FAX: 245-6437 ( 850)24. 56300 • Southeast Regional Office O Northeast Regional Office O Central Florida Regional OftYce 71x4) 467-4990 • FAX: 467-4991 ( 9pA) 8255045 • FAX: 8255044 ( 813) 2723&13 • FAX: ?92.2340 FROM :' FL ARCHEOLOGICAL SERVICES FAX NO, 904-2919388- May. 19 20E~4 02:22PM P2
ate ~~ .
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF S`ATfiI~ GIenda E. Hood Secretary of State DIVISION OP HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Mr. Robert E. Johnson May 12, 2004 Florida Archeological Services, Inc. 4250 Melrose Avenue Jacksonville, FIorida 32210
Re: DTiR Project File No. 2004-3123 / Rcxeived by DHR: April 13, 2004 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of the Creek Side Tract, St. Lucie Count}; Florida_
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Onr office received and reviewed the above referenced survey report in accordance with Chapter 267, Florida for assessment of adverse to Statutes, possible impact historic properties listed, or eligible for in the National Places ( listing, Register ofHistorie NRHP),or otherwise of historical, architectural or archaeological value.
Between and March Florida February 2004, Archeological Services, Inc. FAS)( conducted an and archaeological historical investigation of the Creek Side Tract for Culpepper 8z. Terpening, Inc.,in of future Three anticipation permitting processes. archaeological sites were identified within the project area during the investigation. '
Creek Side #1(8SL1641), Creek Side #2 ( and 8SL1642), Creek Side #3 (8SL1643)all appear to Glades I represent prehistoric, period campsites. 85L1641 and 8SL1642 are small in size and exhibit low artifact densities, 8SL1643 is extent larger in and features a more dense artifact assemblage and wider array of artifact No intact features or types. cultural strata were identifed at any of the sites_
rLis_opinion_FAS~the_of_atBSL1641 and_SSL 1 Fi42 do no ar PoaLeligx7il~fQr ling ~the NRIl'P,and that development in the of these sites will have no vicinity efloct on historic properties listed, or eligible for in the or otherwise of Iisting, NRHP, historical, architectural or archaeological value. Our ofl°ice concurs. FAS feels that 8SL1643 : However, may be eligible for listing in the NRT~P,and rc~sernmends preservation of the site. It is the of this oflsce opirxion that insulrcicnt information is available at this time to make a deterntinatiort the of 8SL1643 for in the regarding eligibility listing NRHP. However, we concur with the recommendation for of preservation site 8SLI 643. In the event that preservation is not we recommcrtd further of possible, investigation 85L1643 to delineate the site's boundaries and further evaluate the significance of the site to detemune eIib~ibility for listing in the NRHP.
VVe find the submitted report complete and sufficient in accordance with Chapter 1A-46,Florida Administrative Code.
S00 S. Bronoagh Stroet - Txllahxbscc, FT.32394- 0250 . hrip:ivwvv,coml/flheritage. D Directors Offce O Research ~ ArchaeoIogicel Historic PrescrvaEion Q Historical Mcrscams 850)243- 6300 • pAX: 245-6435 ~ ( 850) 245-6444 • FAX: 245~b436 ( 850)2g8-933 6, • FAX: 245-6437 ( 850) 245.6400 • FAX: 245-6433 Palm Beach Regional Office O St Augustine Regional Offict O Tampa Regional office 561) 279-1475 • FAX: 279-1476 ( 8255045 • 904) FAX: 825-5044 ( s13) 2rz-3384. r'•Ax: 272- 2340 FROM FL ARCHEOLOGICAL SERVICES FAX N0. 904-2919388- May. 19 2004 02:22PM P3
Mr.Johnson Ivtdy Iz, aoo4 Page 2
If you have any questions concernins our comments, please conlaci Arians Slcmmens, Historic Sites Specialist, at abslemmens(dos.fl,ct~,state.us or 850)( 245- 6333. Your continued interest in protecting Florida's historic properties is appreciated.
Sincerely, n,
Frederick Gaske, Acting Director, and Deputy State I~istoric Preservation Officer
A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF
THE CREEK SIDE TRACT,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Robert E. Johnson
Submitted to:
Culpepper & Terpening, Inc. 2980 South 25`h Street Ft. Pierce, FL 34981
Submitted by:
Florida Archeological Services, Inc. 4250 Melrose Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32210
March 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ...... i List of Tables ...... ii List of Figures ...... iii
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
PROJECT LOCATION AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 3
HISTORIC CONTEXT: REGIONAL CULTURAL SETTING ...... 10
PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ...... 23
FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODOLOGY ...... 26
SURVEY RESULTS AND SITE DESCRIPTIONS ...... 30
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 44
REFERENCES CITED ...... 46
Appendix A:DHR Survey Recommendation Letter ...... 53 Appendix B: Survey Log Sheet ...... 54 Appendix C: Completed Florida Master Site File Forms for Sites 8SL1641, 8SL1642, and 8SL1643 ...... 57
i LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Artifact from Assemblage 8SL1641, FAS l,the Creek Side #1 Site ...... 35
2. Artifact from Assemblage 8SL1642, FAS 2,the Creek Side #2 Site ...... 36
3. Artifact from Assemblage 8SL1643, FAS 3,the Creek Side #3 Site ...... 41
ii LIST OF FIGURES
List of Figures Page
1. Portion of the USGS 1949 Ft. Pierce NW, Fla.,Topographic Quadrangle Map showing the Location of the Creek Side Tract ...... 4
2. General View of the Creek Side Project Area, note improved pasture eastern portion, view to northeast) ...... 7
3. General View of the Creek Side Project Area, note Tenmile Creek Floodplain western portion, view to southeast) ...... 7
4. Portion of the 1845 Historic Survey Plat of Township 35 South, Range 39 East and the General Location of the Creek Side Project Tract ...... 21
5. Archaeological Field Map showing the Location of Shovel Tests within the Creek Side Project Area ...... 31
6. Portion of the USGS 1949 Ft. Pierce NW, Fla.,Topographic Quadrangle Map showing the Location of Sites 8SL1641, 8SL1642, and 8SL1643 ...... 32
7. General View of the Shovel Testing at Site SSL1641 ( view to northeast) ...... 33
8. General View of the Shovel Testing at Site 8SL1642 ( view to south) ...... 33
9. Archaeological Field Map showing Site 8SL1641 ...... 34
10. Archaeological Field Map showing Site 8SL1642 ...... 37
11. General View of the Shovel Testing at Site 8SL1643, note oxbow (view to east}...... 39
12. General View of Site 8SL1643, note Tenmile Creek Floodplain (view to northeast) ...... 3 9
13. Archaeological Field Map showing Site 8SL1643 ...... 40
iii INTRODUCTION
The following report presents the results of a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Survey
GRAS)of the Creek Side tract located in east central St. Lucie County, Florida. At present, this tract of land is currently being considered for residential development and as such, and in
anticipation of local, state, and/or federal permitting actions, this tract was subjected to a formal
Phase I archeological and historical survey.
The Creek Side study was conducted by Florida Archeological Services, Inc. FAS)( of
Jacksonville for the firm of Culperpper & Terpening, Inc. of Ft. Pierce, Florida, in anticipation of
state ( Water Management District),and/ or federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permitting
and actions. As such, it was designed to comply with Chapters 267 and 373, Florida Statutes,
Florida's Coastal Management Program, as well as Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 ( as amended),and its implementing regulations contained
36CFR800 ( Protection of Historic Properties). Moreover, this archeological investigation was
implemented in accordance with the current standards and guidelines contained in the Historic
Preservation Compliance Review Program Manual maintained by the Florida Division of Historical
Resources ( DHR) under the direction of the State Historic Preservation Officer ( SHPO) in
Tallahassee. Finally,this report was designed to comply with Chapter 1 A-46 FloridaAdministrative
Code.
The Creek Site project was completed during a seven field-day period in the month of
February 2004. Proj ect analysis and final report preparation was completed during March 2004. The
primary goal of the investigation was to locate, define, and evaluate all historic properties archeological and historical sites) within the Creek Side tract, a parcel of land which comprises
approximately 369+/-acres of land in St. Lucie County, Florida. Located in Township 35 south,
Range 39 East, Sections 26 and 27, the tract's entire acreage was designated as the project's Area
of Potential Effect or APE.
As the following report will demonstrate, three archeological sites (8SL1641, 8SL1642, and
no structures were identified 8SL 1643)were identified within the Creek Side tract. However, historic
Sites 8SL1461 and 8SL1462 were during the survey. Evaluated in accordance with 36CFR60.4,
deemed to represent insignificant historic properties. In contrast, Site 8SL1643was deemed
1 potentially significant and as such, may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. As such, this site may have the capacity to increase current knowledge of Native American populations during Florida's late prehistoric period. It is recommended for preservation; however, if preservation is not the preferred alternative, then a program of Phase II testing designed to make a final determination of significance should be implemented.
In view of the fact that Sites 8SL1641 and 8SL1642 are considered insignificant and, therefore deemed ineligible for listing the National Register of Historic Places, no further work, except completion of the DHR's compliance/review process is recommended for these sites. In contrast, as stated, Site 8SL1463, having been deemed potentially significant, should be subjected to preservation or Phase II testing to make a final determination of significance. Pending completion of the DHR's compliance/review process, this site should be protected from any ground disturbing activities.
2 PROJECT LOCATION AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Project Location
The Creek Side tract is situated within east central St. Lucie County, Florida, and comprises a total of some 369 +/- acres of land, used at the time of survey as improved pasture. Examination of the tract's historic land use revealed that prior use included citrus groves, as remnant rows of prior grove were documented during the survey. The Creek Side tract is bounded to the south by Tenmile
Creek, and the north by Okeechobee Road (S.R. 70),while lands to the east are in current citrus production, and lands to the west currently under development as a residential development.
Utilizing the Ft. Pierce NW, Fla. United States Geological Survey (USGS 1949) quadrangle
map (7.5 minute series),the Creek Side tract occurs within Sections 26 and 27, of Township 35
South, Range 39 East (Figure 1).
Physiography
Florida is the exposed land mass that separates the waters of the Gulf of Mexico from those
of the Atlantic Ocean. This peninsula is part of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Sedimentary Basin as
described by Puri and Vernon (1959:1).The Creek Side tract lies within the Eastern Flatwoods
physiographic district as defined by Brooks (1981).Specifically, the tract comprises a portion of the
St. Johns Marsh, which is described as similar to St. Johns Wet Prairie, which includes marshes and
grass prairies with clumps of cabbage palms and willow that are seasonally flooded, but St. Johns
Marsh lacks any karst features. (Brooks 1981).Topographic elevations of this physiographic region
are generally above 18 feet above mean sea level (AMSL),and at the Creek Side tract elevations
range from around 15-20 feet AMSL.
Hydrology The St. Lucie River is the dominant flowing hydric feature within the project region. This
river consists of two forks, the North and South Forks. The latter comprises a short stretch of river,
while the former is of more considerable length, with its headwaters southwest of Fort Pierce. The
two forks have their confluence at St. Lucie Inlet, which lies south of Port St. Lucie and north of
Stuart (Florida Department of Natural Resources [ FDNR] 1989).
More specific to the project area is Tenmile Creek which delineates the southern project boundary for Creek Side and flows into the confluence of the North Fork St. Lucie River and
3 I Z R R
I G X C
L d i x LL Q L,' + 1 j n I: y, I r y-~,Q I ~
i/ 1 I 1 i I I r I
X X I
U nl0
I II I cL 1 I 11 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 i , 1 I 1 t ry ~` j i 1 i t 9~,I I 4 I i ice i ,_ _ _- __ -- • i s__- ______t i 1 I 0 I 2 i r a 4 I I ~ ~
J ~ I I Li- 1 111 Fir I ° a a i yl I r I 1 I~ _ _ _ _ _ I
ijYc.rw II
I ~ r II z b I 1 tp I
z l- f -- I~ U tL ~. I tx ~ ~ ~-~.. X 0 II
E is ~ M < Ni Q ~~ II a ab T.-~ 1 U Pd n ~' x;;o~~~o..'~ O sc~-. a e.,es~
r I ok9~a x r t: U e
f~~i w 91 ~ I N d r F a m , fit K~C4 YVxO• Vl LS ' 9~ U I awa o r+`sn c r x 0.Gef«.x1%'a rfu __ Q~ ti~ Q~ al II i i~U N ~ II O h V r' ~ II N r-II-- F Q I I 1' 4 n O I y.h N II I m I j q ' I Cam.) N JI F-~ ~ J 1 II SS'JJJ U R"' I r I V h C1.1 .~ i l I lJll 0 • Y < i' 1 I i--I N 0 i Q r X I t N a M W I, m J I w i~ ~ ~ E Ilt o~ ~ i i N I N Fivemile Creek. These smaller streams are associated with narrow streambeds supporting hydric grasses and emergent flora, while the North Fork St. Lucie River has a rather wide mangrove swamp bordering it. Soils Soil is the mineralogical and organic matrix which forms the foundation for all terrestrial plant life. Its formation in any given area is dependent upon five major factors: climate, composition of the parent material, organisms living on or within the soil, topographic relief, and the length of time these factors have acted upon the soil. The characteristics of various soil types also determine the drainage capacity for a given area, thus affecting the types of water bodies present and the permanency and flow of streams and rivers. Eastern St. Lucie County is composed predominantly of Spodosols, a soil order which consists of sandy soils that have a spodic horizon formed through the process of leaching of organic matter and minerals ( Brown et al. 1990:48).More specifically, two soil associations, Wabasso- Winder asoil of the low ridges, knolls, and flatwoods, and Winder-Riviera, a soil of the swamps, marshes, and very wet areas that are subject to ponding or flooding, are within the vicinity of the Creek Side tract. Of these associations, Wabasso- Winder soils are described as nearly level, poorly drained soils; the subsoil is dark and sandy in the upper part and loamy in the lower part or is loamy within a depth of 20 inches. Winder-Riviera soils are nearly level, poorly drained soils; the loamy subsoil is within a depth of 20 inches or is between depths of 20 and 40 inches (Watts and Starkey 1980). Five soil types comprise the Creek Side tract; these are Ankona sand, Chobee loamy sand, Susanna sand, Wabasso sand, and Winder loamy sand. The dominant soil at the tract is Winder loamy sand, which is a nearly level and poorly drained variety. It is found within broad hammocks and along drainageways. Slopes are smooth to convex and range from 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is 15 cm thick and is a black (lOYR 2/1)loamy sandy in the upper 7-8 cm and very dark gray (10YR3/1)loamy sand in the lower 7-8 cm. The subsurface layer is sand 15 cm thick, grayish brown (1 OYR 5/2)in the upper 7-8 cm and light brown (1 OYR 6/2)in the lower 7-8 cm. The water table of Winder loamy sand is at a depth of less than 26cm. (Watts and Starkey 1980). 5 Wabasso sand is a poorly drained nearly level soil typically found in flatwoods areas; these soils are described as having a smooth to convex slope of 0 to 2 percent. A typical pedon for Wabasso sand has a surface layer of sand about 20 cm thick which is black (10YR2/1)in the upper 10 cm and very dazk gray (lOYR 3/1)in the lower 10 cm. The subsurface layer is gray (lOYR 5/1) sand 43 cm thick (Watts and Stankey 1980). Susanna sand is also poorly drained, and nearly level, located in flatwoods. Slopes are smooth and convex and range from 0 to 2 percent. Atypical pedon for Susanna sand consists of a black (lOYr 2/1)surface layer 15 cm thick, while the subsurface layer is about 49 cm thick; it is typically described as dark gray (lOYR 4/1)sand in the upper 30 cm and gray (lOYR 5/1)sand in the lower 19 cm (Watts and Stankey 1980). Chobee loamy sand is a poorly drained, nearly level soil and is usually found in small to lazge depressional areas and along poorly defined drainageways. Typically maintaining a less than 1 percent slope, slopes can range from 0 to 2 percent, however. The surface layer is usually a black lOYR 2/1)loamy sand some 28 cm thick (Watts and Stankey 1980). The final soil type found within the Creek Side tract is Ankona sand which is a poorly drained, nearly level variety usually found in broad flatwoods areas. Slopes aze smooth to concave with less than 1 percent slope in most places, but they range to 2 percent along the edges of depressional areas ( Watts and Stankey 1980). Natural Environment At the time of survey, the Creek Side tract is best described as improved pasture ( Figures 2 & 3),that was previously used in citrus production. Prior to modern times the azea was likely predominantly a pine flatwoods ecosystem area which, as is indicated at a regional level, may have contained several low xeric knolls prior to modern times. Lower, less well drained areas of the tract were likely dominated by flatwoods, which may have supported a natural community comprised principally of slash pine (Pinus elliottii),with an often dense understory understory of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) and, to a lesser extent, loblolly bay Gordonia( lasianthus),inkberry Scaevolaplumieri),( gallberry Ilexglabra),( wax myrtle Iyrica(~ cerifera),blackberry (Rubus spp.),grape, fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),and more. Native grasses 6 Figure 2. General View of the Creek Side Project Area, note improved pasture eastern portion, view to northeast). 8~ Nv j 5 ~ ~ f ' b~*1 W114~~* ~; p`4 ~ J' 4 Y t x qg FyY aw.. 3 ~ k w lx j; ~ , 6 ~ Y S ~. d St*r ~ yn b Figure 3. General View of the Creek Side Project Area, note Tenmile Creek Floodplain western portion, view to southeast). consist of Indian grass (Sorghastrum spp),threeawns, panicums (Panicum spp.),and bluestems Andropogon spp.)FNAI& ( DNR 1990:24;Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990:116).110- The faunal presence within flatwoods and sand pine scrub ecosystems is somewhat limited. Mammals tend not to inhabit these communities permanently, though in the past several utilized their resources including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),black bear (Ursus americanus), bobcat (Lynx rufus),gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus),spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius),and raccoon ( Procyon lotor).Avifauna, too, tend to inhabit these biomes on a seasonal or intermittent basis. In general, some species found within pine flatwoods and sand pine scrub include red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), southeastern kestrel (Falco sparverius), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), in addition to various songbirds. Reptiles and amphibians are represented by pine woods tree frog Hyla( femoralis), box turtle ( Terrapene Carolina),pine woods snake (Rhadinaea flavilata),eastern diamondback rattlesnake ( Crotalus adamanteus), gopher tortoise ( Gopherus polyphemus), and black racer Coluber constrictor),among others (Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990; FNAI&DNR 1990). The North Fork St. Lucie River, which lies east of the Creek Side tract, serves in places as an aquatic preserve. That portion of the river situated west of the project tract is flanked by a mangrove swamp. Mangrove swamps are salt dependent communities that can contain monostands of red mangrove, black mangrove, or white mangrove. Other flora occurring in these wetlands include sea rocket (Cakile lanceolata),saltwort (Bads maritima),perennial glasswort (Salicornia perennis),saltgrass (Distichlis spicata),and seashore paspalum (Paspalum disticum).Mangrove swamps are known to provide an important habitat to a number of faunal species, including fish (220 species),reptiles and amphibians (24 species),mammals (18 species),and birds 181( species)Odom ( and McIvor 1990).Notable vertebrates exploited to varying degrees by the prehistoric people of the region include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),raccoon, mink (Mustela vison),river otter Lutra canadensis), black bear, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis),Florida manatee ( Trichechus manatus),wood stork (Mycteria americana),mullet (Mugil cephalus),tarpon (Megalops atlanticus), and snook (Centropomus undecimal is)(Odum and McIvor 1990).Further west along Tenmile Creek, the floodplain ecosystem becomes a freshwater system, an environmental setting that was likely highly suitable for use by the region's aboriginal populations. 8 Climate The current climate of St. Lucie County is hot and humid due to the moderating influence of the nearby Gulf Stream and Atlantic Ocean; the climate is technically classified as subtropical in inland portions of the county and tropical along the coast. Rainfall peaks from June through October, and the average annual rainfall for the area is approximately 141 cm. The average year-round temperature is 73.8 degrees Fahrenheit ( F),with a high of 101 degrees F recorded. Average wind speed is 10-15 miles (16-24 km)per hour during the afternoon and 5-10 miles (8-16 km) per hour at night (Watts and Starkey 1980:2).1- 9 HISTORIC CONTEXT: THE REGIONAL CULTURAL SETTING St. Lucie County is located at the southern end of the Eastern and Central Culture Area as defined by Milanich and Fairbanks (1980) and Milanich (1994).Furthermore, the Creek Side project area occurs near the transition zone between the St. Johns region to the north and the Glades region to the south. This transition zone was first recognized by Irving Rouse (1951),who defined it as the Indian River area. The following discussion is intended as a general overview of the prehistoric and historic development of the project region. Paleoindian Period (10000-7500 B. C.) The earliest occupants of Florida were hunter-gatherers who are known to have been in the state as early as 12,000 years before present (YBP).At that time, ecological conditions in the region were cooler and more arid and the sea level was as much as 48 m lower than at present. In the karstic regions of Florida, the only freshwater sources during this period were perched ponds and deep cenotes (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:35;Dunbar et al. 1989:474;473-Milanich 1994:38). Around 10,000 YBP, climatic changes caused wetter conditions to prevail in the Southeast Milanich 1994:63).During this time,the aboriginal population of Florida grew larger, as evidenced by an increase in the number of Late Paleoindian sites over Early Paleoindian sites (Thomas et al. 1993:509).This population increase was probably due to the amelioration of the climate, since expanded water availability resulted in greater diversity of flora and fauna that could be exploited by Paleoindian populations. These early inhabitants are believed to have subsisted primarily by hunting such Pleistocene megafauna as mammoth, horse, tapir, ground sloth, camels, and bison, along with deer and smaller game animals (Milanich 1994:47).Larger animals were probably most often ambushed at shallow river crossings (Waller 1970).Plant foods were also exploited, though at present it is not certain to what extent. The Paleoindians were nomadic and the overall population of the region was probably small (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). The Paleoindian tool kit consisted primarily of implements of stone, termed lithic materials by archeologists. Paleoindian hunter-gatherers almost exclusively utilized cryptocrystalline rock to make prof ectile points and other stone tools. It is theorized that these highly mobile hunter-gatherers preferred cryptocrystalline material since they could rework and recycle their lithic assemblage when 10 they were far from lithic raw materials sources ( Goodyear 1979:4).2-Chipped stone projectile point types of the Paleoindian period include Clovis, Suwannee, Simpson, and Dalton. Some of these points were hafted in ivory foreshafts ( Dunbar 1991:193),while other stone tool types of the period tend to be unifacial and piano-convex and included unifacial scrapers, gravers, knives, adzes, choppers, and flake tools. Bolas may also have been utilized. Bone implements included points, leisters and perforators, some of which were probably utilized with socketed bone handles (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980).Other tools or implements were also made of wood, though such items have rarely been preserved. The Bolen point was introduced around the end of the period (Bullen 1975). Southeast peninsular Florida has only recently revealed evidence of human occupation during the late Paleoindian period. The Cutler Fossil Site, 8DA2001, has produced fossil Pleistocene animal bones and Late Paleoindian projectile points. A charcoal sample associated with a hearth was radiometricallydated to around 7800 B.C.Carr ( 1986:232).231-Other notable Paleoindian sites are located within southwest Florida and include Warm Mineral Springs (Clausen et al. 1975) and Little Salt Spring, both located along Florida's west coast in Sarasota County (Clausen et al. 1975, 1979). Early Archaic (7500-5000 B.C.) Like their Paleoindian predecessors, Early Archaic peoples were hunter/gatherers, exploiting many of the same environments and resources as their predecessors. One common trait between the Late Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods was the continuing use of stone tools such as the Bolen point. Bone and wooden items also continued to be used (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). The era's principal social unit probably consisted of small family groups which may have gathered together at certain times of the year to exploit seasonally available resources ( Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:50).Changes in settlement and subsistence practices are manifested by several site types which are not known for the Paleoindian period. One specialized site type suspected by archeologists to have been common during the Early Archaic period is the lithic quarry. These lithic extraction sites generally occur in the interior uplands of Florida in close proximity to stone outcrops Purdy 1981). Other than lithic scatters of dubious temporal origin. Early Archaic sites have been difficult to locate in Florida, generally due to their small size and great antiquity. As a result of these research restrictions, the majority of previous Early Archaic studies has focused primarily on lithic 11 technologies. Recently, however, the excavation of several unique archeological sites has provided invaluable information concerning Early Archaic lifeways in Florida. One such site is Windover Pond (8BR246),an inundated aboriginal cemetery first utilized as early as 6500 B.C. This site is located in Brevard County, on the edge of the Atlantic coastal ridge approximately eight km from Cape Canaveral and the coast. It yielded a diverse human skeletal assemblage, including both subadult and adult individuals which has provided valuable demographic data for the Early Archaic period. In addition to human remains, both ecofactual and artifactual materials were recovered during the excavations. These data suggest that the Windover inhabitants were well adapted to an ecologically rich ecosystems of the area. The positioning of this site midway between the Atlantic coastal lagoons and the St. Johns River,as well as the recovery of bone artifacts manufactured from marine species, suggest an earlier than expected date for coastal resource exploitation (Doran and Dickel 1988a,b). To date, few Early Archaic sites have been identified in southeast Florida. It has been suggested that south Florida was abandoned during this time (Widmer 1988),possibly as a result of the arid climatic conditions which then existed (Griffin 1988:130). Middle Archaic (5000-3000 B. C.) Between 5000 and 8,000 ago, grid conditions returned to the region. During this time, the sea level rose and decreased the landmass of the Florida peninsula. Although the climate was warmer, elevated sea levels caused higher levels of groundwater and more wetland habitats. Human populations continued to increase, causing greater competition for resources. These factors ultimately led to new aboriginal subsistence strategies and settlement patterns (Milanich 1994). Within lithic assemblages, the onset ofthe Middle Archaic period is marked by a replacement of notched projectile point forms with stemmed varieties possessing broad blades. The type considered most characteristic of the period is the Newnan point Milanich( and Fairbanks 1980:54). Points, knives, scrapers, chopping and hammering tools, drills,blades, and sandstone hones have all been recovered from Middle Archaic sites. Bone artifacts are rare, but have been recovered from several underwater sites. A prevalent site type of the Middle Archaic period within Florida is the small, special-use camp, a site type characterized by debitage and tools. Larger sites are believed to be central base 12 villages with larger populations, inhabited at least on a seasonal basis. Some sites along the rivers evidence of freshwater provide shellfish exploitation ( Cumbaa 1976).Marine shellfish were exploited along the Atlantic coast, as evidenced by several preceramic sites from northeast Florida Russo 1992x).A very rare site type has been found in caves. The best known of these subterranean sites is in Dixie County, but several similar sites are known from the Panhandle region of the state Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Several recent investigations have recovered data pertaining to Middle Archaic mortuary Little Salt practices. Springs, Windover, Gauthier, and Bay West are wet sites in which Early to Middle Archaic human skeletons have been found, some with intact brain tissue in the skulls. While at Windover burials were placed in a pond, recovered archeological materials included textile matting, clothing, pouches, and twine. Wooden stakes, bone pins and awls, and other bone implements were also recovered, as were Archaic stemmed points (Doran and Dickel 1988a,b). Late Archaic (3000- 500 B.C.) The environmental conditions present in modern Florida were established sometime around and Hansen 5,000 ago (Watts 1988:310),coinciding with the onset of the Late Archaic period,a time of cultural increasing regionalization. The late Holocene geologic era saw a reversal to a dominance of forests and the establishment of extensive pine wetlands, including the development of cypress swamps (Carbone 1983:9).Estuarine environments in particular became increasingly important to Late Archaic populations, as reflected in the archeological record (Russo 1992a).Lake Okeechobee had formed by the close of the Middle Archaic period and in turn stimulated the formation of the Everglades (Brooks 1984:38).Two Late Archaic sites in the Everglades, Peace Camp and Taylor's Head, have been dated at 3050 + 140 YBP (Mowers and Williams 1972:18)and 4840 + 210 YBP Masson et al. 1988:346),respectively. The most important technological innovation of the Late Archaic occurred during the latter part of the period around 2000 B.C. At this time, hand molded, fiber-tempered ceramics appeared, not only in Florida but across much of the Southeast. An invaluable technological innovation, this ceramic ware was hand-molded from local clay and tempered with vegetal fiber. Regionally, fiber-tempered pottery is known as the Orange series after the type site located in nearby Orange County. Initially, Orange wares were undecorated, but after 1650 B.C.,geometric designs and 13 punctations were introduced as surface decorations. From 1650 to 1450 B.C.,incised diamonds and spirals were common, incised straight line designs predominated from 1450 to 1250 B.C.Thereafter, some pottery was coil-constructed and was decorated with simple incised motifs from 1250 to 1000 B.C. and with incising and triangular punctations from 1000 to 500 B.C. Milanich( 1994). Orange ceramics also occur in south Florida,but these items may actually represent imported trade goods or locally manufactured copies of north peninsular Orange types rather than a local manifestation of the Orange culture. The apparent normal geographic range of Orange ceramics is along the St. Johns River valley and surrounding areas within northeast and east-central Florida, usually occurring no further south than present-day Fort Pierce in St. Lucie County. Malabar Period (500 B.C.-A. D. 1565) In eastern Florida, the Archaic culture gave way to the St. Johns culture (500 B.A.C.-D. 1565).In the Indian River area, the Malabar period is coeval with the St. Johns period to the north Rouse 1951).The characteristic that differentiates the two is the presence of significant amounts of undecorated sand-tempered pottery, along with St. Johns wares, in ceramic assemblages of the former period. Early researchers labeled this pottery Glades and Belle Glade, though later archeologists have determined that it was manufactured from local clays and therefore not introduced by Glades populations to the south as previously believed ( Milanich 1994:250). The development of the Malabar culture of south Florida generally mirrored that of the St. Johns culture of north Florida. Both cultures were characterized by increasing population growth, greater exploitation of coastal resources, construction of burial mounds, and the introduction of new ceramic styles. The latter trait is represented by St. Johns pottery, which is chalky to the touch due to microscopic freshwater sponge spicules present in the paste (Borremans and Shaak 1986). Current theory on aboriginal development in the Indian River area holds that Orange populations were small due to the limited palustrine development of the region as compared to areas lying to the north, where Late Archaic populations flourished. However, as productive wetlands became more widespread during post-Archaic times, so did the concomitant dietary resources, and as a consequence local populations increased during the Malabar I period (ca. 500 B.A.C.-D.7S0). At this time, it appears that aboriginal populations settled around these wetlands, occupying both coastal and interior areas ( Russo 1988). 14 St. Johns Check Stamped pottery emerged as a temporal marker for the St. Johns II period around A.750-D.800 Milanich( and Fairbanks 1980:162;Milanich 1994:263).262-This distinctively decorated pottery also occurs in Malabar II assemblages (ca. A.D. 750-1565).The St. Johns II time period was characterized by increasing populations and local settlement, evidenced archeologically by a preponderance of Malabar II sites over those dating to the earlier Malabar I period (Milanich 1994). As noted, Malabar settlements are found adjacent to wetland locales of both the coastal zone and in the interior, particularly in the St. Johns River valley. Special-use campsites, occupied ephemerally or intermittently for short periods, are common in the interior. Some of these campsites are articulated with larger, denser sites interpreted as villages. Burial mounds are associated with some of these habitation sites (Sigler-Lavelle et al. 1985; Russo 1988; Milanich 1994:252).251- Coastal sites occupied by Malabar populations are primarily represented by marine shell middens. Some of these are extensive, while others are small, indicating a range of purposes and occupational intensity. The Zaremba site (8IR56),located some 50 miles north of the Creek Side tract, has provided abundant information on Malabar coastal subsistence and settlement patterns. This Malabar II oyster midden is small (approximately 20x16 m)and composed of a series of fire pits containing such marine shellfish as oyster and coquina, as well as vertebrate faunal remains and aboriginal pottery. Vertebrates were primarily represented by marine catfish, sea trout, and drums. It was interpreted as a special-use camp (collecting/fishing station)occupied intermittently during the spring and summer months (Sigler-Eisenberg and Russo 1986). Another site, Futch Cove, located to the north in Brevard County, dates to the Malabar I period and served a purpose similar to 8IR56, though seasonally available avifaunal remains suggested occupation during the winter (Russo 1992b). Aborigines of the Historic Period (A.D.1565- present) The first Spanish explorer to sail north from the Indies was Juan Ponce de Leon, who landed near present day Palm Beach, Florida, in 1513 (Fagan 1991).During this expedition de Leon also visited an area named Rio de la Cruz, now believed to be Jupiter Inlet. Although some researchers believe that other explorers likely arrived prior to this event, de Leon's exploration occurred under royal auspices and was the first to be recorded. 15 Several native groups were present in south Florida when the Spanish first arrived. The extreme southeast, from Pompano Beach to Cape Sable, was occupied by the Tequesta Indians who settled along the coastal zone, in areas surrounding the mouths of rivers, and on offshore islands. To the north were the Ais and Jeaga who mainly inhabited the areas surrounding the coastal lagoons. Along the southwestern coast, from Charlotte Harbor to Cape Sable, were the Calusa, a coastal Indian dwelling group. The Ais were the immediate descendants of the people affiliated with the Malabar culture and those living in the Creek Side project region at the time of European contact. Their territory included the entire length of the Indian River, approximately between St. Lucie Inlet to the south and Cape Canaveral to the north; it also extended inland to the St. Johns River valley (Rouse 1951).The Ais a possessed subsistence economy based on hunting, fishing, and gathering, with little or no reliance on domesticated plants. The native community structure reflected this dietary pattern, with dispersed households and extraction camps associated with "centralized" villages. Four such villages were recorded by ethnohistoric accounts: Ais, Perucho, Ulumay, and Guacata, each located adjacent to a major river (Dickinson 1945; Higgs 1951; Rouse 1951; Sigler-Eisenberg and Russo 1986). These accounts also suggest permanent exploitation and settlement around the lagoon environment However, it has been suggested that one reason for the failure of the Spanish to establish missions among the Ais was the fact that it would have been impossible for year-round habitation within one environmental zone because of the Indians' lack of horticultural practices (Milanich 1978:68). Following the demise of the regional aboriginal populations by the early-midto-eighteenth century, the area was briefly reoccupied by Seminole groups. The Seminole culture began as a series of migrations into Florida by Lower Creek Indians who had originally settled along the lower Chattahoochee and the fall line area of the Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers in central Georgia. This southward movement, occurring from approximately A.D. 1716 to 1763, was instigated by the invitation of the Spanish for the Creeks to resettle territory left unoccupied by the depopulation of Timucua and as as the Apalachee, well hostilities from the British in Carolina as retaliatory measures for the Creek involvement in the Yamassee War of 1715 (Fairbanks 1978:166).164- The First was Seminole War sparked in 1817 when Andrew Jackson authorized Maj or David of Fort E. Twiggs Scott to take action against the village of Fowltown, which was located 14 miles 16 from the fort. The Seminoles, whose leader was Neamathla of the Red Stick faction, were occupying U.S.territory and it was Jackson' s intention to remove them. The Seminoles retreated into a nearby swamp after the loss of several villagers,moved to Lake Miccosukee, and combined their forces with the inhabitants there to avenge themselves by ambushing a boat commanded by Lieutenant Robert W. Scott on the Apalachicola River (Covington 1993:42).41-Tensions and clashes escalated between whites and Indians following this massacre, requiring Jackson to march into Florida at the head of a force of regulars, militiamen, volunteers, and friendly American Indians. The result of subsequent military maneuvers against the Seminoles was an eastward and southward shift of settlements and a greater diffusion and isolation of these villages (Fairbanks 1978:183).This war hastened the cession of Florida to the United States in 1821. When the United States acquired Florida from Spain on February 22, 1821, the widely scattered Seminole population consisted of an estimated 5,000 individuals (Fairbanks 1978:184; Covington 1993:50).The influx of white settlers brought concerns. about the proximity of Indians and authorities began regarding this problem. The solution seemed to lie in relocation of the Seminoles, and Governor William P. Duval suggested they be sent to join the Upper Creeks in Alabama or moved west of the Mississippi River. At first President James Monroe did not approve of this notion, but later attempted to implement it when pressured by white settlers in Florida. Tribal relocation to a reservation was chosen as the best alternative, and the area selected was the region south of Charlotte Harbor and Charlotte (now Peace) River. The site chosen for negotiations of this removal was the north bank of Moultrie Creek, south of St. Augustine (Fairbanks 1978:184).Their subsequent removal into new environments with unfamiliar resources, as well as the comparable lack of trading facilities, led the Seminoles to depend on raids for cattle and horses for subsistence. These activities, combined with Georgian aggressions against escaped slaves and free blacks living among the Seminoles and mismanagement by the government, led to the outbreak of hostilities in 1835. One of the first major battles of the Second Seminole War was fought near present-day Bushnell, on December 28, 1835. At this battle, which came to be known as the Dade Massacre, some 180 Seminoles ambushed 108 American soldiers under the command of Major Francis Dade. The result was a complete defeat for the whites (Covington 1993:80).79-The ensuing seven year 17 struggle resulted in the massive relocation of Seminoles to territory west of the Mississippi River and the migration of the remainder mainly into the Everglades and the Big Cypress Swamp regions of south Florida (Fairbanks 1978:186).Within these areas of Florida, the Seminole remnants began to develop new cultural adaptations that more or less continue today (Weisman 1989). Few Seminole sites have been recorded in the Indian River region,though Seminole artifacts have been reported from surface contexts at several regional sites ( Rouse 1951:257).Historic accounts mention scattered Seminole settlements along Indian River (Weed et al. 1982 in Richards 1990:13). RegionaUCounty History The history of what is now St. Lucie County dates back at least as far as the early 16`''century when French and Spanish explorers are known to have visited the "Treasure Coast" area. While it is possible that Juan Ponce DeLeon may have had contact with the local Native American population who became known as the Ais Indians, it was Jean Ribault who founded the first European colony near present-day Jacksonville in 1564 that is believed to have had actual contact with the native populations of the region (Rouse 1951:49). In 1565 when the French again arrived in Florida to bring additional supplies and settlers to Ft. Caroline, they were being closely pursued by Pedro Menendez who had left Spain with the sole purpose of reaching Florida before the French. Delayed by several weeks of bad weather, the French reached the Gulf Stream and sailed directly to Florida arriving somewhere in the vicinity of the Indian River area (Lyon 1974:110).Closely behind the French,Menendez landed in the Indian River area and was confronted by the local aboriginal population who became known as the Ais. By 1565, this Indian group had a well known reputation for ferocity and cruelty having been known to take white prisoners and salvage what they could from shipwrecks along the Indian River coastline Lyons 1978:129).These native peoples had lived untold centuries in the region subsisting on the rich faunal and floral resources in or adj acent to the rivers, inlets of the region, as well as the Atlantic Ocean. Following the taking of Ft. Caroline ( near present-day Jacksonville) by the Spanish on September 20, 1565, and the defeat (or massacre) of the French at Matanzas Inlet on September 29, 1565, the Spanish, under the lead of Menendez, had established their dominance over the French 18 in Florida. Having established Fort Mateo at St. Augustine, the Spanish would secure control of Florida for the next two centuries. Following the defeat of the French, Menendez left some 200 of his men and some 50 French captives in the Indian River area located in a place near what appears to have a the main village of the chief of the Ais Indians. Menendez then sailed to Cuba to meet reinforcements from Spain; for the adelantado, this ended the first phase of the conquest of Florida Lyons 1978:130). About 1567, the Spanish had established the Mission of Lucia somewhere south of present- day Vero Beach. On several occasions in the early and late 17`h century, the Spanish again had contact with the Indian populations of the Indian River region and it appears that the Spanish/Indian relationship was in good order during this period. By the mid-lateto-18`''century, however, the Spanish came under another European threat primarily in north Florida in the vicinity of St. Augustine) with the attacks from the north by English soldiers and their Yamassee and Creek Indian allies. While the Spanish appear to have had amenable relations with the Ais Indians of the region until their demise in the mid-lateto-18`h century, little or no significant Spanish settlement or activity occurred in the Indian River region during this, the First Spanish period. After the defeat of the Spanish in the Seven Years War, Spain relinquished control of Florida to the British in 1763 (Tebeau 1971). Between 1763 and 1783, during a period known as the British Period, a small number of plantations were established in what is now the Indian River area through a land grant system designed to repopulate the regions evacuated by the Spanish. During the latter part of this period, poor security in the region led to raids by Indians loyal to the British, as well as by Spanish and French privateers on the homes and plantations of the area (Schene 1976:9). In 1784, Spain again acquired control of Florida during the Second Spanish period. During this era, a driving force for the development of the Indian River area was a rededication to the expansion of the plantation farm system begun during the previous British period. Thus the agricultural impetus continued to foster the development of the region with cash crops and subsistence farming serving as primary motivators. Following the signing of the Adams-Onis Treaty in 1819, Spain once again relinquished control of Florida, on this occasion to the United States; in 1821, the Territory of Florida was 19 established. 4 shows an 1845 Figure government survey map of the Creek Side project area superimposed. With the onset of the Second Seminole War in 1835, the government and the U.S. Army establish began to military outposts and fortifications throughout the Florida peninsula. On January 2,1838, one such fort was established as Ft. Pierce after its founder Col. Benjamin Kendrick Pierce who commanded the fort from 1838 until 1842 (Van Landingham 1988:6).At the war's end, Ft. Pierce was abandoned on August 25, 1842. A model of the fort and associated artifacts of the period can be seen at the St. Lucie Historical Museum in Ft. County Pierce. The City of Fort Pierce was established on 1901 and a February 2, city charter was established complete with the names of 53 qualified voters ( Van Landingham 1988:36). On August 4, 1842 the U.S. Congress passed the Armed Occupation Act which established a for the permit system settlement of lands south of Gainesville and Palatka. In east Florida, permits were handled out of St. Augustine; during this time some 370 permits were issued by the Register ofthe Land Office for some acres of 45,280 land Rights 1994:35).With such government assistance with the of to 160 acres of the east complete granting up land, Florida region of St. Lucie was opened to settlement all the while attempting to gain control of the land from the remnant Seminole Indian populations. In 1844, Santa Lucia was formed County from giant Mosquito County which dated back to 1824. In 1855, St. Lucie was renamed County Brevard County. The back country of southern Brevard County (including portions of what is not St. Lucie)was still sparsely populated during this Located some 30 period. miles west of Ft.Pierce, Fort Drum was established in 1850 and abandoned in 1860. It wasn't until 1870 that this interior area was inhabited when Judge Henry L. Parker moved into the area ( Van Landingham 1988:33). In U.S. Census records indicate some 1850, that 140 persons lived in what is now Indian River County. Also in March of this year, Ft. Capron, named for Erastus Capron of the First was established Artillery, and remained in existence until 1859. During this time, the Third Seminole War was being waged outside of the local area and no fighting is known to have occurred in the vicinity (Rights 1994:41). 20 o 1~~1M ' 1 q~, . vrLcl~I~l•~t ` off' 0 ~ ~ d i A ~ 5 ~ q ~ A V cea :: -• v a Z ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ 1 l4aeH"1~ a o ~ V ~ A C~;wbpA~ w h ~ L ~ ; ~ O l•'ar+~~cv V l•Fe~lb y Y Y n r Ate h•\ hrl L i~ d VV r L L cc < c ? ~ ~°~ ~' ~" ti O ~ O n~ Z ~~ 1 ~~ b w a w~,.-p w~~~ i k ~.~ ~+ a C ' Q e ~ ~ 1 [ ~ ~: A ~ ~ ~ cd W o~ M G~ bA cd O N '~ M ~ a '~ 3 ~' o E-~a w ~, o -d a x a~ ~- U ci U ~-. O O ~ n O x~ U N S: ~ w ~ O O ,~ a° ~ on w Following the Civil War, agricultural operations including both cattle and pineapple operations became leading industries in the St. Lucie County area. Steamboats made regular stops in the area during travels between Jacksonville and Miami carrying passengers, merchandise and other goods. During the 1920's the area prospered as did other portions of the state during the 1920's Boom Era,but hurricanes of 1926 and 128 slowed the development boom in the area (Rights 1994:161).Today the St. Lucie County area, which covers some 78 square miles, is again feeling the pressures of modern development. 22 PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH St. Lucie County has traditionally not been subjected to the intense level of survey experienced by many of the Florida counties along the Atlantic coast, a reflection of the relative lack of development in the general region (as compared to areas north and south) which has limited the amount of federal, state, and county mandated cultural resources assessment surveys. However, as the county continues to develop at a fast pace, absorbing the influx of new residents who are seeking such areas as St. Lucie County with a much lesser population density than counties to the north and south, more archeological work is being conducted in the county, and the area's prehistory is becoming better understood. Some of the first archeological investigations in the St. Lucie County region were conducted by such avocational researchers such as Clarence B. Moore. In the latter part of the 19`''century, Moore excavated numerous mounds throughout Florida and indeed much of the southeastern United States; some of these were in the region of St. Lucie County (Moore 1896). The first professional archeological research in the county, however, was conducted by Irving Rouse,who in 1951 published his monumental work,A Survey ofIndian River Archeology, Florida, in which he defined the area as distinct from the St. Johns cultural region to the north and the Glades region to the south in that it seemed to represent a transitional zone between those regions. Rouse labeled this transition zone as the Indian River area and gave the post Archaic cultural sequence the name of Malabar. The Malabar tradition, subdivided into the Malabar I,Malabar I',and Malabar II periods, represented the mixing of the St. Johns and Glades cultures (Rouse 1951). In the mid-1990s, FAS conducted cultural resource assessment surveys of three tracts located in the central part of the county, west of Fort Pierce. These tracts were all in flatwoods environments with poorly drained soils. Despite the excavation of 103 shovel tests, or roughly one test per three acres, no prehistoric artifacts were recovered, therefore demonstrating the near absence of aboriginal activity within the resource-poor hinterlands of St. Lucie County (Johnson 1995). In order to examine the types of archeological resources previously documented in the Creek Side project region,an arbitrarily defined "Study Region"was identified as being within five miles from the Creek Side project area. Documentation at the Florida Master Site Files at the Division of Historical Resources of all previously recorded archeological sites within this "study region"was 23 examined as a means by which to prepare atract-specific archeological site predictive model for the project. Within this five- mile study region a total often previously recorded historic properties was identified for the Creek Side Study Region of which three are represented by historic structures while seven are archaeological sites. Four of these sites lay south of the Creek Side project area across Tenmile Creek. Three of these sites were identified by New South Associates during a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area Critical Project completed in 2003 (Loubser, Cantley, Vojnovski, Langdale, and Young, 2003). Site 8SL42 was originally identified in 1978 by James Dunbar as a midden deposit containing human burials. 8SL42 consisted of an upper component of Orange Period with a lower Malabar component; an updated site form was completed by Pepe in the Countywide survey. Two sites located in the general vicinity of the Creek Side tract, 8SL6 and 8SL7, were non- professionally investigated by F.M. O'Byrne in 1915. These two sites,both situated along Tenmile Creek, yielded St. Johns Plain and Glades Plain sherds. Site 8SL6, a burial mound, also produced St. Johns Check Stamped and St. Johns Simple Stamped sherds, indicating a Malabar II period of deposition. Another site in the region, 8SL2, was later reported by John Goggin in the vicinity of Fort Pierce at the confluence of Indian River and a tributary stream. This black earth midden also contained St. Johns Plain and Glades Plain ceramics, and therefore has been assigned a Malabar I period of origin (Rouse 1951:189). The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey and Site Evaluation of Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area Critical Project, conducted by New South Associates, Inc. of Georgia, in 2003 was one of the more intense archaeological studies done within the project region The Cultural Resource Survey was conducted for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Jacksonville District, and was intended to evaluate prehistoric ceramic site 8SL7, and to locate any other unrecorded sites within the 300-acre tract located south of Tenmile Creek and directly south of the Creek Side project area. During the New South survey three additional sites, 8SL1180, 8SL1181, 8SL1182, were identified within the project area. All four sites located within the project.area were considered eligible for listing on National Register ofHistoric Places ( Loubser, et. al. 2003). 24 Based on research descriptions by Pepe, Site 8SL7 was originally identified in 1915 by Rouse based on the descriptions of F.M. O' Byme, and was named the "Williams Midden"which contained 64 Glades Plain sherds, and one St. Johns Plain sherd, however Rouse never visited the site himself therefore plotting 8SL7 as a general vicinity site (Pepe 2000). The survey work conducted by New South Associates located and plotted the exact location of the site, southwest of the old general vicinity plot;this correct position is south of the present-day channel of Tenmile Creek. New South also noted that a large borrow pit had removed most of the central and western portions of the site except for a small segment along the southwest edge of the borrow pit (Loubser, et. al. 2003). The artifact assemblage collected from 8SL7 suggests a Glades culture due to the majority of sand tempered Glades sherds recovered. During the Ten Mile Creek survey project three additional sites were identified by New South. 8SL1180 was located on the south side of the present-day channel of Ten Mile Creek and north of a re-channeled oxbow. 8SL1180, produced primarily sand tempered pottery along with a small component of fiber tempered pottery (Loubser, et.al. 2003). Site 8SL1181, located south of Ten Mile Creek, contained both a prehistoric and historic component. The historic component consisted mostly ofhistoric glass, white granite historic ceramic fragments which were located near the access road which passes along the western boundary of the site. The artifacts prehistoric consisted of predominately sand tempered pottery with a mixture of sand and fiber tempered (Loubser, et.al. 2003). Site 8SL1182, was identified by sand tempered sherds recovered from shovel tests along with sherds containing sponge spicules, fiber temper and a transitional mix of fiber and sand temper. The site showed amounts of disturbance to large due bulldozed areas for the construction of a power line corridor across an adjacent slough or canal (Loubser, et.al. 2003). New South Associates recommended mitigation for all four sites found on the Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area. to Subjected Phase III archeological data recovery, work on Ten Mile Creek Phase III was not yet completed at the time of this writing (Grady Caulk, 2004, personal communication). 25 FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODOLOGY Background Literature Research The principal objective of the Creek Side Cultural Resources Assessment Survey was to locate, identify,and evaluate the significance of any prehistoric and historic resources located within the boundaries of the Creek Side project tract, or APE. To this end, a thorough background review of the Florida Master Site Files (FMSF),regional archeological literature, and historic land records pertinent to the study area was conducted at the Bureau of Archeological Research ( BAR) in Tallahassee, and other repositories such as the Land Records Section of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In addition, archeological and historical reports, journals, monographs, and other literature relating to the St. Lucie County region in general were also examined as a means by which to establish previous historic land use, aboriginal settlement patterns, and so forth. Included in this research was a complete inspection of past archeological surveys performed in close proximity to the Creek Side project area. Local historic land records were also examined to establish historic land use of the Creek Side tract. No evidence of early historic occupation such as historic homesteads, i.e.historic structures),was determined during this investigation. Ultimately, the purpose of the background research was to develop aproject-specific site- predictive model for the Creek Side tract. A number of environmental and cultural factors were considered during this phase of the study. Local soil type was determined as a primary site selection characteristic likely used by the region's aboriginal populations because edaphic conditions generally guide, or are guided by, other environmental parameters such as drainage, relief, and floral/faunal composition (Almy 1978).The availability of potable water was another important factor in the the creation of project-specific site-predictive model, and the existence of hydric features near well- drained soil was deemed to increase the potential for archeological recovery. The proximity of Tenmile Creek, being the closest fresh water supply to the project tract, was also factored into the site-predictive model. Utilizing these environmental data, as well as an examination and analysis of of the distribution known archeological sites within the defined study area, a predictive model which ranked the project area in terms of its potential for archeological recovery was formulated. As such, it was predicted that the Creek Side tract maintained aMedium-Highto-Probability Zone within 50 26 to 100-150 meters of the Tenmile Creek floodplain, while the remainder of the tract was deemed to represent a Low Probability Area. When the findings of the FAS site-predictive model were compared to the results of the recently completed ACOE survey of the Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area, the four sites identified during that study were all located within 60 meters of the Tenmile Creek floodplain. No sites were found more than 60 meters from Tenmile Creek. Regarding historic structures, background research failed to indicate any past tract utilization which would suggest the presence of historic structures, or the remains thereof, on the Creek Side project area. During the survey, pedestrian survey confirmed this view. Field Methodology Based upon the results of the background research and literature review, as well as the subsequent formulation of aproject-specific archeological site-predictive model, the Creek Side project tract was ranked as a Low and aMedium-Highto-Probability Zone of Archeological Probability (ZAP).These rankings were utilized to guide the fieldwork procedures implemented during the field portion of the survey. As such, the project was completed in accordance with the DHR's standards and guidelines, whereby Low ZAPS were examined at 100m intervals, Medium ZAPS at SOm intervals, and High ZAPS were examined at 25m intervals. With the location of sites 8SL7, 8SL1180, 8SL1181, and 8SL1182, south of Tenmile Creek it was deemed that the area north of Tenmile Creek would be the area of highest probability within the Creek Side project area, therefore a transect running west to east approximately SOm north of Tenmile Creek floodplain was implemented as the primary site-locational tool for the project. In the lower areas of this transect, (i.e. areas exhibiting relatively low topographic settings) and/or very poorly drained soil characteristics, this portion of the transect was sampled at S Om intervals. In more well drained soils, or in areas of slightly higher elevation ( relatively speaking),such areas were examined at 25m intervals. Areas. in excess of 150m from the Tenmile Creek floodplain were examined as Low probability zones with an additional series of north/south transects implemented in this zone. It should be noted that the majority of the survey area was ranked as a Low ZAP, and was tested accordingly. However, the Low Probability sample met or exceeded the 10%threshold as defined in current DHR standards and guidelines. In this view, the remainder of the tract was sampled at 100 27 m intervals with 11 additional transects running north to south between the tract's northern boundary i.e. SR70 -Okeechobee Road) and the Tenmile Creek floodplain. All fieldwork for the Creek Side survey was conducted by an archeological field team under the direction of Robert E.Johnson, Principal Investigator, and Douglas Lewis, Project Archaeologist. The field crew consisted of archeological field technicians, including Shawn Dennis, Eric Waltermier and Neal the Murray. Throughout project tract, subsurface testing was conducted on a linear grid system axially aligned to grid north, which corresponded to magnetic north. Horizontal control was maintained the use of through ahand-held Suunto KB-14 compass and a 50 m fiberglass As the was surveyor's tape. stated, tract sampled at 25m, 50 m, and 100 m intervals. This testing allowed strategy sufficient coverage of the project tract within areas deemed to maintain high and medium for potential containing archeological deposits, respectively. Moreover, as the tract contained zero almost surface visibility,this strategy would assure that adequate subsurface testing was completed on the survey tract. Subsurface consisted of shovel test testing excavation. All shovel tests were square and measured 50x50 cm in were size, and excavated to a depth of 100-110 cm when possible, although a number of shovel tests were terminated at lesser depths because a spodic soil horizon, or the water table was reached. All excavated soil was sifted through 1/4"6. ( 25 millimeter [mm])hardware mesh mounted on portable hand-held shaker screens. Pertinent data, including date, test location, grid coordinates, soil stratigraphy, environmental conditions, etc. were recorded on standardized FAS shovel test forms, and Munsell soil color notations were also recorded for selected tests. Following completion, all shovel tests were backfilled and marked with a pink surveyor's flag containing the appropriate locational data. At the end of each fieldwork day's activities, all tests excavated that day were on aerial superimposed photographs (1:400) of the project area. Laboratory Methodology Following the completion of project fieldwork, all field notes, test forms, and recovered cultural materials were returned to the FAS laboratory. All artifacts and other materials were washed with a soft bristle brush and to allowed air dry. All aboriginal sherds were inspected under 60-power a Carlsan 200 binocular magnification utilizing microscope and were identified using a bivariate 28 SURVEY RESULTS AND SITE DESCRIPTIONS Survey Results Fieldwork for the Creek Side project was completed in seven field-day period initiated on February 9, 2004, and completed on February 27`''.Work was oriented toward completion of an intensive Phase I-level survey of the project area. This study resulted in the excavation of 154 shovel tests, 22 (14%)of which yielded cultural materials. These positive tests occurred in three separate archeological deposits, resulting in three newly identified sites, 8SL1641, 8SL1642, and 8SL1643 Figure 6).In view of the implementation of this strategy, the Creek Side tract is considered to have been adequately tested with 1 shovel tests per 1.7 acre (Figure 5). Archeological Site Descriptions For the following discussion, FAS defines an archeological site as a deposit which has yielded at least four artifacts from two or more shovel tests situated no more than 50 m apart. Exceptions are made,however, for single artifact finds which may advance the regional database due to the nature of the artifact (e.g.Clovis point, etc.).Utilizing these criteria, three archeological sites were identified during the Creek Side survey. Site 8SL1641/ Creek Side #1. Site 8SL1641 is located in the southwest portion of the Tract ( Creek Side Figure 7).Using the Fort Pierce, NW, Fla. USGS guadrangle map (1949),the site occurs within Section 27, Township 35 South, and Range 39 East (Figure 6).Specific centerpoint Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)coordinates are at 3029770 Northing and 556890 Easting. The local soil type is Winder loamy sand which is a nearly level and poorly drained variety. It is found within broad hammocks and along drainageways. Slopes are smooth to convex and range from 0 to 2 percent. Typically,the surface layer is 15 cm thick and is a black (1 OYR 2/1) loamy sand in the upper 7-8 cm and very dark gray (10YR3/1)loamy sand in the lower 7-8 cm. The subsurface layer is sand 15 cm thick, grayish brown (1 OYR 5/2)in the upper 7-8 cm and light brown (1 OYR 6/2) in the lower 7-8 cm. The terrain rises toward the north from Tenmile Creek which lies some 50 m south of the site. Currently, the area is burned out Citrus grove converted to improved pasture. As defined, the Creek Side #1 Site maintains maximum dimensions of approximately 10 meters north/south by ZO meters east/west (200 mz, or 0.02 ha).It is represented by two positive shovel test from a total of eight installed within l Om of the site boundaries ( Figure 9). 30 o ~ V U O ~ C O ~ N O Z ~ ~ o O V O •, ~_ L 0 ~- ~- O . a o V. ~ N N W ° W W N ll. Q ~ O d, N W W G7 ~ W > > W 0 ~ Z O O O ~ ~ ~ J W ~ O 1a7 N ~-- ~ OO 0_ 3 0 ~ O 2 O • O O O O O O ' O •~ O O O O r O O O O O O O O O Q O Z O Q O U 3 o Na o • r 0 0 0 944. of Y 0 W. H 0 4p O O o G p u 6. W p O ••• O C/~ w ip O O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o o Ij N N O Y N cd Q O tJii ~ U m O o y O O O o O O O O O OQ c 0 lb'Ntl~ 0 3 a O J p p J Q O O ~ l~O O O C7 O G~ +-' U Q O A O O O O Z a o p W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U n. U 0 0 0 0 0 00 O L=, M ii Fro I s c x p G1 to y ~ n~ 1 ~ 1 d C1 cD a X Z ia4 I II l / I jl I: Q 1 S x :; i ( I T~L ~ _ ~~ I~ j I V .. X 1 X Q44 i F c 1 I'. W II W I 1 1 II i I~; a M------I I'. II I I I', I I j I I I ~ I! Qr a i L______-x _,___~_- I I 1 w I j F- 1 1 II i t i ~ i O L I t j I j o I bA t d I n1 I I AA... 1 I 1 I II C~ 11 11~ M 1 ~' I II. 1 o' R N I I. ~ II U a~ d t0 1I X 11; y tai l I~ 1~ L r __ - J III a ao i + i ~~ I 00 X x II I La x ° d i I u u i n O ,: x 0 it H I I~ e 9. - x'. L as ! I ~. J I 00 h x :. 1 y'yam~ .-- i t,_ 1 1 R t ~ s ~~. U mo Ra I U . t s ' u'}t 9Lp Y. j 11 w ~ 4J =) II 1--1 I II 41 ,, , , ..~ 1 II ~ O l II O n ~~ ~ U x u , o• u I li 1 t n O I o a 11 il. N 1 . 9 ol: Il C i-i 1 c ._-~x a ~ _ O 7C'- I O •.. II I O x il; a I ., 1' m a it I'•, dq i a , :, ra ., ~ m + C r &~ ai ~~ sy~d'`~r"' ~ d a e x ..~ a''~ Figure 7. General View of the Shovel Testing at Site 8SL1641, FAS 1 view to northeast). Figure 8. General View of the Shovel Testing at Site 8SL1642, FAS 2 view to south) r. ~ V U p1 C Y F- J N w o W W Q Z N W V L J U n o j Q ~ r0 LL Q ( n Q W Z z o o o a o o O U OJ O a a~ o O x dNd~ a~i U a~ O c O • O 3 O v -- O • a O r v~ ~ D h oo O a~ a 3 o O O U W b N Z A z r w U F- CA W O d U O~ GA w O Discovered during medium probability shovel test sampling ,Site 8SL1641 was delineated with a series of seven additional reduced- interval shovel tests in cardinal directions from the original positive test. A total of eight shovel tests were implemented in this site in order to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of this deposit. In addition to subsurface testing, intensive ground surface reconnaissance was implement at and adjacent to this deposit. This effort, although conducted in freshly disturbed areas such as "bull wallows" and recent rootings from feral hogs, failed to yield additional cultural materials. As such, the artifact assemblage from 8SL1641, is scant, consisting of 8 Glades Plain ceramic sherds, and a single lithic flake. These items, were recovered from between 10-40 curbs (Table 1). In terms of function, Site 8SL1641 appears to represent ashort-term campsite, perhaps utilized as a biotic extraction activity area. The ceramic ware recovered is that of the Glades I plain, early period AD( 1-500) characterized by a temper of medium sized,white, water-worn, quartz sand and fine grit as defined by Willey (1949b).Evaluated in terms of National Register Criteria 36CFR60.4),Site 8SL1641 is deemed insignificant and is not, therefore, considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register ofHistoric Places. Therefore, no further work is recommended in connection with the site. Table 1. Artifact Assembla a from 8SL1641, the Creek Side #1 Site Ceramic Artifacts Number Percent Weight Percent Comments Glades Plain 3 37.5% 19.1 g 81.62% quartz sand tempering diminutive, cf. Glades 5 62.5% 4.3 g 18.38% quartz sand tempering Total 8 100% 23.4 100% Site 8SL1642, the Creek Side #2. Site 8SL1642, is located in the south central portion of the Creek Side Tract (Figure 8).Utilizing the Fort Pierce NW,Fla. United States Geological Survey L1SGS)quadrangle sheet (1949),the site occurs withinSection 27,Township 35 South, and Range 39 East (Figure 6).Specific centerpoint Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)coordinates are at 3029910 Northing and 557410 Easting. 35 the Tenmile Identified by judgmental subsurface testing on a slight (~ 10 cm) rise adjacent to is a Creek floodplain, the soil type present at Creek Side #2 is Winder loamy sand which nearly level and poorly drained variety. It is found within broad hammocks and along drainageways usually the surface is 15 cm thick and is a black ( on slopes of 0 to 2 percent. Typically, layer lOYR 2/1) sand in the lower 7-8 cm. The loamy sand in the upper 7-8 cm and very dark gray (10YR3/1)loamy 7-8 cm and brown subsurface layer is sand 15 cm thick, grayish brown (1 OYR 5/Z)in the upper light Tenmile Creek which lies 1 OYR 6/2)in the lower 7-8 cm. The terrain rises toward the north from area Creek Side #2 is a remnant citrus some 25 m south of the site. Currently,the occupied by grove converted to improved pasture. Livestock was present at the time of survey. As defined, Site 8SL1642 maintains maximum dimensions of approximately 100 meters north/south by 50 meters east/west (500 mz, or 0.05 ha).It is represented by eight positive shovel This site was tests from a total of 15 installed within lOm of the site boundaries ( Figure 10). in cardinal directions from delineated with a series of 15reduced-interval shovel tests implemented the original positive test. The site contained a total of eight positive shovel tests and expanded north of the original test. The site's artifact assemblage consists of 61 ceramic sherds of which 12 are Glades Plain. These items, were recovered from between 10-50 cmbs,(Table 2). In terms of function, Site 8SL1642 appears to represent ashort-term campsite, perhaps ware of the Glades I utilized as a biotic extraction activity area. The ceramic recovered is that plain, early period AD( 1-500) characterized by a temper of medium sized, white,water- worn, quartz sand in terms of National Criteria and fine grit as defined by Willey (1949b).Evaluated Register 36CFR60.4),Site 8SL1641 is deemed insignificant and is not, therefore, considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, no further work is recommended in connection with the site. Table 2. Artifact Assembla a from 8SL1642, the Creek Side #2 Site Ceramic Artifacts Number Percent Weight Percent Comments Glades Plain 12 19.67% 50.2 g 40.16% quartz sand tempering diminutive, cf. Glades 49 80.33% 74.8 g 59.84% quartz sand tempering Total 61 100% 125 100% 36 a ° N o N ~ W V U H C a ~ ~ Q Z O J y" W A W lp O ~ V t Z Q ~' F- W O ~ a • • • V (/ W d J W W O 3 lL Q ( n a • •, O • o a ~ a a b , O0 ~ c • 9 a a • • ~ v~ V • ' • • • ~~~" A - Y 2 `'• ° .~ a. ~ ~ JJ ~ a e . y a ~ a. r a '. a a ~ ~ • r J~ a • ~ • a t/~ ~ • . 2 a . a O a O O • • • • ~ O O • N J a aNO `` O O a . Qdp21 SS3~Jti 121IQ a 3NI~ 3~N3~ v O a r O N v Q OG Q G r Z 7 a O O U ~ W K ~ 1 OA a w Site 8SL1643, the Creek Side #3 Site. Site 8SL1643 is located in the southeastern portion of the Creek Side Tract within an oxbow upland surrounded by Tenmile Creek to the south and wetlands to the east and north. Utilizing the Fort Pierce NW, Fla. United States Geological Survey USGS) quadrangle sheet (1949),the site occurs within Section 27, Township 35 South, and Range 39 East (Figure 6).Specific centerpoint Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)coordinates are at 3030140 Northing and 557690 Easting. The local soil type is also Winder loamy sand which is a nearly level and poorly drained variety. It is found within broad hammocks and along drainageways. Slopes are smooth to convex and range from 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is 15 cm thick and is a black (lOYR 2/1) loamy sand in the upper 7-8 cm and very dark gray (10YR3/1)loamy sand in the lower 7-8 cm. The subsurface layer is sand 15 cm thick, grayish brown (1 OYR 5/2)in the upper 7-8 cm and light brown 1 OYR 6/2)in the lower 7-8 cm. The terrain rises toward the north from Tenmile Creek which lies some 25 m south of the site. Currently, the area is burned out Citrus grove converted to cow pasture Figures 11 & 12). As defined, the site maintains maximum dimensions of approximately 100 meters north/south by 250 meters east/west (25,000 mz, or 2.5 ha).It is represented by 12 positive shovel tests from a total of 28 (43%)installed within 10-25m of the site boundaries ( Figure 13). Discovered during Transect 1 shovel testing in the tract's High Probability Zone,the site was discovered by several positive shovel tests being implemented at 25m intervals. Site 8SL1643 was delineated with a series ofreduced- interval shovel tests in cardinal directions from all positive tests or geographic boundaries such as wetlands or the Tenmile Creek floodplain. The site contained a total of 12 positive shovel tests out of 28 implemented (43%),and covers a majority of the oxbow or upland finger that is delineated south by Tenmile Creek and east and north by its associated wetlands. The artifact assemblage from the Creek Side #3 Site consists of 181 ceramic sherds five burned shell fragments, one unidentified faunal bone fragment, and one sharks tooth. Of these items, 18 sherds were identified as Glades Plain (Table 3). Based the information upon generated by the present Phase I survey, Site 8SL1643 appears to represent a a probable short-term perhaps seasonal, campsite. Its size suggests that it was likely revisited repeated by peoples of the Glades culture. The ceramic type recovered from 8SL1643 is 38 Figure 11. General View of the Shovel Testing at Site 8SL1643, note oxbow view to east). Figure 12. General View of Site 8SL1643, note Tenmile Creek Floodplain (view to northeast) V U C O ~ j 1 v a W N W N O ~ ' Q Z J Q Ny^ W O W U J 2 Y- W O W NO 1. O O • ^ O O o I J ~ N O ~ a N ~ U • ~ 1 • ~ ~ Y ' 1~ K U O N O O a a~ b a~ a~ U a~ O 3 M w ~ ~ ~ ll t ' . ~ r-~i 1 ' rY^ VhJ^ W~..11 Ir O 3 0 0 O v a~ w O U O O O O O O a~ i~ c~ O M O O r J O O that of the Glades I plain, early period (AD 1-500),a type characterized by a temper of medium sized, white, water-worn, quartz sand and fine grit as defined by Willey (1949b). Table 3.Artifact Assembla a from 8SL1643, the Creek Side #3 Site Ceramic Artifacts Number Percent Weight Percent Comments Glades Plain 18 9.94 93.0 g 36.73% quartz sand tempering cf. Glades 163 diminutive, 90.1% 160.2 g 63.27% quartz sand tempering Shell Total 181 100% 253.2 g 100% Miscellaneous Artifacts Shell 5 71.43% 6.4 g 90.14% Burned uid-bone ( 1 faunal) 14.29% 4 g 5.63% sharks tooth 1 14.29% 3 g 4.23% Total 7 100% 7.1 100% In view of recovered information, Site 8SL1463 maintains good archaeological integrity; due to its size and it clarity extent, may contain information important in our understanding of past in the St. Lucie area aboriginal occupation during Florida's prehistoric past. In fact , no disturbances to the site were noted save for the of presence minor superficial impacts to the upper soil stratum due to livestock use. Additional archaeological information is needed to adequately delineate and document the nature and extent of this deposit. Moreover, additional data are needed before a final determination of the site's for eligibility inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places can be made. This site may contain information important in the understanding of past aboriginal behavior the during early Glades I period. As such, it may enhance the regional archaeological database in terms of increasing the understanding of aboriginal lifeways of southeast Florida. Evaluated as such in accordance with National Register Criteria (36CFR60.4),8SL1463 is considered potentially significant. Therefore, 8SL 1643 may be eligible for inclusion in the National Historic Register of Places. This site should be protected from any ground surface disturbances activities pending completion of the DHR compliance/review process. If preservation is not the 41 desired this site should be to alternative, subjected Phase II testing in order to make a final determination of significance in accordance with 36CFR800, Procedures for the Protection and Enhancement ofHistoric and Cultural Properties. Discussion of Results of Survey As demonstrated above, three archeological sites were identified and assessed during the I Phase Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of the Creek Side project tract. In terms of environmental and cultural parameters, the results of the project fully substantiated the expectations forwarded in the site-predictive model formulated prior to commencement of the fieldwork activities that is that while those areas immediately to the Tenmile Creek floodplain were most likely to contain archeological deposits, those areas in excess of 100-150 meters of this wetlands ecosystem were not likely to contain evidence of past aboriginal occupation or settlement. It would appear that the occupation of these sites is from the early Glades I culture (AD 1- and be a or 500) may temporary seasonal campsite from the Glades occupation similar to those identified south of the project tract on the ACOE Ten Mile Creek Wetlands Preserve Area - at sites 8SL7, 8SL1180, 8SL1181, 8SL1182. In the summary, archeological survey of the Creek Side project tract has enhanced the current regional database concerning aboriginal settlement within the east central interior portions of what is now St. Lucie One site in County. particular, 8SL1463 may also contain subsistence pattern information based upon the recovery of a limited shellfish sample. Other, untested portions of the site may contain significant archeological deposits which could assist, like those sites examined during the ACOE study, in the better definition of aboriginal lifeways during the Glades prehistoric period. Moreover, this site may contain a variety of prehistoric activity-related information only accessible Phase II-level by procedures designed to employ large-scale (i.e. 1x2 m or larger) test excavation units. While the events occupational responsible for the presence of the three sites identified on the Creek Side the tract, only Creek Side #3 Site (8SL1463) appears to maintain sufficient integrity to address questions about settlement and possibly subsistence. As such, and evaluated in terms of National Register criteria, Sites 8SL1461 and 8SL1462 are considered insignificant and therefore not eligible for inclusion in the National Register ofHistoric Places. In contrast, Site 8SL1643 is 42 deemed potentially significant and may, therefore, be eligible for inclusion in the National Register ofHistoric Places. 43 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary and Conclusions An intensive Cultural Resources Assessment Survey was conducted of the proposed Creek Side development tract, a 369 +/- acre (APE) parcel of land in St. Lucie County, Florida, by Florida Archeological Services, Inc.,of Jacksonville during a seven field-day period in February of 2004. This investigation was conducted for the firm of Culperpper & Terpening,Inc. of Ft. Pierce, Florida, in anticipation of state (Water Management District),and/ or federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permitting actions. As such, it was designed to comply with Chapters 267 and 373,Florida Statutes, and Florida's Coastal Management Program, as well as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 ( as amended),and its implementing regulations contained 36CFR800 (Protection of Historic Properties). Moreover, this archeological investigation was implemented in accordance with the current standards and guidelines contained in the Historic Preservation Compliance Review Program Manual maintained by the Florida Division of Historical Resources ( DHR) under the direction of the State Historic Preservation Officer ( SHPO) in Tallahassee, as well as Chapter 1A-46 Florida Administrative Code. During the project, standards and guidelines of the DHR's compliance/review manual were implemented as a means by which to achieve project goals and objectives. The archeological survey resulted in the excavation of 154 shovel tests and the identification of three archeological deposits 8SL1641, 8SL1642, and 8SL1643).As noted elsewhere in this report, soils data, along with other pertinent environmental and cultural parameters were utilized as a primary criteria for the development of atract-specific archeological site-predictive model. Implementation of the procedures generated by this model resulted in the discovery of three previously unidentified cultural resources. Despite intensive ground surface reconnaissance and pedestrian survey, no historic structures were identified or evaluated during the Creek Side project. Recommendations The Creek Side survey resulted in the identification and evaluation of Sites 8SL1461, 8SL1462, and 8SL1463. Each of the archeological sites was assessed in term of its potential. significance utilizing criteria contained within 36CFR60. 4 National( Register Criteria).As such,two 44 of the sites (8SL1461 and 8SL1462) were deemed insignificant and need no further investigation. No further archeological work is recommended for these sites. In contrast, the remaining site (8SL1463) is recommended for mitigation in the form of preservation or Phase II archaeological investigation designed to make a final determination of the site's eligibility for inclusion in the National Register ofHistoric Places. Pending completion of the DHR compliance/review process, this site should be protected from any ground surface disturbance activities. On a final note, it is recommended that in the event of an unexpected discovery of significant archeological materials during project construction, that the project's sponsor stop construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find and contact the Florida Division of Historical Resources at the Department of State in Tallahassee. Should this event occur, DHR will provide pertinent cultural resource management recommendations at that time for dealing with any such discoveries. It is also understood, that such recommendations also pertain to the discovery of any unmarked human remains that might be discovered during construction activities. Covered under Chapter 872 Florida Statutes, unmarked human remains must be reported to the Office of the State Archeologist when such remains appear to be in excess of 75 years of age, and to the Medical Examiner's Office when such remains appear to be less than this age. 45 REFERENCES CITED Almy, Marion M. 1978 The Archeological Potential of Soil Survey Reports. Florida Anthropologist 31:91.75- Bense, Judith A. and John C. Phillips 1990 Archaeological Assessment ofSix Selected Areas in Brevard County:A First Generation Site Locational Model. Report of Investigations 32. Institute of West Florida Archaeology, University of West Florida. Pensacola. Beriault, John, Robert Carr, Jerry Stipp, Richard Johnson, and Jack Meeder 1981 The Archeological Salvage of the Bay West Site, Collier County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 34:58.39- Borremans, Nina T. and Greg D. Shaak 1986 A Preliminary Report of Investigations of Sponge Spicules in Florida "Chalky" Paste Pottery. Ceramic Notes 3:131.125-Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Florida State Museum, Gainesville. Brooks, H. Kelley 1981 Guide to the Physiographic Divisions ofFlorida.Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1984 Lake Okeechobee. In Environments ofSouth Florida: Present and Past, edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 38-68. Miami Geological Society Memoir 2,revised edition, Coral Gables. Brown, Randall B.,Earl L. Stone, and Victor W. Carlisle 1990 Soils. In Ecosystems ofFlorida,edited by Ronald L.Myers and John J. Ewel,pp. 35-69. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Bullen, Ripley P. 1975 A Guide to the Identification ofFlorida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville, Florida. Bullen, Ripley P.,A. K. Bullen, and C.J. Clausen 1968 The Cato Site near Sebastian Inlet. Florida Anthropologist 21(14-1):16. Carbone, Victor A. 1983 Late Quaternary Environments in Florida and the Southeast. Florida Anthropologist 36:17.3- 46 Carr, Robert S. in Southern 1986 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Cutler Fossil Site (8Da2001) Florida. Florida Anthropologist 39:232.231- Carr, Robert S. And John G. Beriault 1984 Prehistoric Man in South Florida. In Environments ofSouth Florida: Present and Past, Revised Edition, edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 1-14. Miami Geological Society Memoir 2, Miami. Caulk, Grady 2004 Personal communication. Archeologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. Jacksonville, Florida. Clausen, Carl J.,H. K. Brooks, and A.B. Wesolowsky 1975 Florida Spring Confirmed as 10,000 Year Old Early Man Site. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 7. Clausen, Carl J.,A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J.A. Holman, and J.J. Stipp 1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203:614.609- Covington, James W. 1993 The Seminoles of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Cumbaa, Stephen L. 1976 A Reconsideration of Freshwater Shellfish Exploitation in the Florida Archaic. Florida Anthropologist 29:59.49- Dickinson, Jonathan 1945 Jonathan Dickinson ' s Journal, edited by E. Andrews and C. Andrews, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Doran, Glen H. and David N. Dickel 1988a Radiometric Chronology of the Archaic Windover Archaeological Site (8Br246). Florida Anthropologist 41 (3):380.365- 1988b Multidisciplinary Investigations at the Windover Site. In Wet Site Archaeology, edited by Barbara Purdy, pp. 263-289. Caldwell, N.J.:Telford Press. Dunbar, James S. 1991 Resource Orientation of Clovis and Suwannee Age Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptions, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K.Turnmier, pp. 185-213. Corvallis: Center for the First Americans, Oregon State University. 47 Dunbar, James S.,S. David Webb, and Dan Cring 1989 Culturally and Naturally Modified Bones from a Paleoindian Site in the Aucilla River, North Florida. In First International Bone Modification Conference, ed. R. Bonnichsen, pp. 473-497. Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, University of Maine. Fagan, Brian M. 1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson Ltd, London. Fairbanks, Charles H. 1978 The Ethno-Archeology of the Florida Seminole. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia during the Historic Period, edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor, pp. 163-193. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Florida Department of Natural Resources 1989 Florida Rivers Assessment. Division of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Park Planning, Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Department of Natural Resources 1990 Guide to the Natural Communities ofFlorida. Goodyear, Albert C. 1979 A Hypothesis for the Utilization of Cryptocrystalline Rock. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology Research Manuscript Series. Griffin, John W. 1988 The Archeology ofEverglades National Park.•A Synthesis. Contract CX 5000-0049.5- Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee. Griffin, John W.,Sue B. Richardson, Mary Pohl, Carl D. McMurray, C.Margaret Scarry, Suzanne K. Fish, Elizabeth S. Wing, L. Jill Loucks, and Marcia K. Welch 1985 Excavations at the Granada Site. Archaeology and History ofthe Granada Site. Vol. 1. Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, DOS, Tallahassee. Higgs, Charles D. 1951 Appendix A: The Derrotero of Alvaro Mexia, 1605. In A Survey of Indian River Archeology. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 44:274.265- Johnson, Robert E. 1995 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of USDA Property and School Board Property in Central St. Lucie County, Florida. Submitted to United States Department of Agriculture and St. Lucie County School Board. Ms. on file, Florida Archeological Services, Inc.,Jacksonville. 48 Loubser, J. H.,Cantley, C. E.,Vojnovski, P.,Langdale, J. and Young, B. 2003 Cultural Resources Survey and Site Evaluation: Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area Critical Project, St. Lucie, County, Florida. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. Report on File ACOE Jacksonville, Florida. Lyon, Eugene 1974 The Enterprise ofFlorida, Pedro Menendez deAviles and the Spanish Conquest of1565- 1568. The University Presses of Florida. Gainesville. Masson, Marilyn, Robert S. Carr, and Debra Goldman 1988 The Taylor's Head Site (8BD74):Sampling a Prehistoric Midden on an Everglades Tree Island. Florida Anthropologist 41(336-3):350. Milanich, Jerald T. 1978 The Western Timucua. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians ofFlorida and Southeastern Georgia during the Historic Period, edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor, pp. 59-88. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1994 Archaeology ofPrecolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerald T. And Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc.,Orlando. Moore, Clarence B. 1896 Mounds of Duval and Clay Counties, Florida: Mound Investigation on the East Coast ofFlorida. Privately Printed, Philadelphia. Mowers, Bert and Wilma B. Williams 1972 The Peace Camp Site, Broward County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 25:20.1- Myers, Ronald L. 1990 Scrub and High Pine. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers and John J. Ewel, pp. 150-193. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. National Register of Historic Places 1976 The National Register of Historic Places, 1976. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 1994 The National Register ofHistoric Places, 1966 -1994. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 49 Odum, William E. and Carole C. McIvor 1990 Mangroves. In Ecosystems ofFlorida, edited by Ronald L.Myers and John J. Ewel, pp. 517-548. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Pepe, J. 2000 An Archaeological Survey of St. Lucie County, Florida. AHC Technical Report # 280. Purdy, Barbara A. 1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Tool Technology. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Puri, H.S. and R.O. Vernon 1959 Summary of the Geology of Florida and a Guidebook to the Classic Exposures. Florida Geological Survey, Special Publication no. 5, Tallahassee. Richards, Storm L. 1990 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Coquina Development Project, St. Lucie County. Report submitted to McQueen & Associates, Inc. Storm L. Richards & Associates, Inc., Sanford, Florida. Rights, Lucille Rieley 1994 A Portrait of St. Lucie County. The Donning Company/Publishers, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Rouse, Irving 1951 A Survey of Indian River Archeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, Florida State Museum, Gainesville. Russo, Michael 1985 Zaremba, a Short-Term Use Malabar II Site. Department ofAnthropology Miscellaneous Report Series No. 25. Florida State Museum, Gainesville. 1986 The Coevolution of Environment and Human Exploitation of Faunal Resources in the Upper St. Johns River Basin. Master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1988 Excavations at the Palm Bay Development, Brevard County, Florida: Subsistence and Settlement Pattern. Report submitted to General Development Corporation, Inc. 1992a Chronologies and Cultures of the St. Marys Region of Northeast Florida and Southeast Florida. Florida Anthropologist 45:126.107- 1992b Subsistence, Seasonality, and Settlement at Futch Cove. Report submitted to Florida Archeological Services, Inc.,Jacksonville. 50 Sigler-Eisenberg, Brenda and Michael Russo 1986 Seasonality and Function of Small Sites on Florida's Central-East Coast. Southeastern Archaeology 5:32.21- Sigler-Lavelle, Brenda, Ann Cordell, Richard Estabrook, Elizabeth Horvath, Lee A. Newsom, and Michael Russo 1985 Archaeological Site Types, Distribution, and Preservation within the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report 27. Schene, Michael 1976 Hopes, Dreams, and Promises. Dayton Beach, Florida. Tebeau, Charlton 1971 A History ofFlorida. Coral Gables, Florida. Thomas, Prentice M.,Jr. and L.Janice Campbell, editors 1993 Eglin Air Force Base, Historic Preservation Plan: Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resources at Eglin, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton Counties. New World Research, Inc.,Fort Walton Beach. Report of Investigations No.192. United States Geological Survey 1949 Fort Pierce NW, Florida Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series Topographic Map. U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Photorevised 1982. Van Landingham, Kyle S. 1988 Pictorial History of Saint Lucie County 1565-1910. The St. Lucie County Historical Society, Ft. Pierce, FL. Waller, Ben I. 1970 Some Occurrences of Paleoindian Projectile Points in Florida Waters. Florida Anthropologist 23:134.129- Watts, Frank C. and Daniel L. Stankey 1980 Soil Survey ofSt. Lucie County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Watts, William A.and Barbara C. S. Hansen 1988 Environments of Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site Archaeology, edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 307-323. Telford Press, Caldwell, N.J. Weisman, Brent R. 1989 Like Beads on a String:A Culture History ofthe Seminole Indians in North Peninsular Florida. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. 51 Widmer, Randolph J. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa, aNon-agricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. The University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa. 52 Appendix A: DHR Survey Request Letter Project Not Yet in DHR Compliance/Review Process 53 Appendix B: DHR Survey Log Form 54 Page 1 Ent D (FMSF Only)_/_/_Sllrvey LOg ShCCt Survey#(FMSF only) Florida Master Site File Version 2.0 9/97 Consult Guide to the Survey Log Sheet for detailed instructions. ldcntircation and l ~ Bibliographic Inforlation _ ~~~ Survey Project (Name and project phase) A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of the Creek Side Tract, St. Lucie County, Florida Report Title (exactly as on title page) Same Report Author(s)as on(title page--individual or corporate; last names first)- _Johnson, Robert E. Publication Date ( 03/04 year) Total Number of Pages in Report (Count text, figures, tables, not site forms 56 Publication Information ( no. If relevant, series and 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.) of Fieldwork ( or same Supervisor(s) whether not the as the author[s];last name first) Johnson, RE Affiliation of Field workers ( organization, city) Florida Archeological Services Inc. Words/Phrases ( use the or common Key Don't county, words like archaeology, structure, survey, architecture. Put the most first. Limit each word or to 25 important phrase characters) Medium - high probability stud poor soil drainage Tenmile Creek Survey Sponsors ( corporation, government unit, or person who is directly paying for fieldwork) Name Culpepper & Terpening, Inc. Address/Phone_ 2980 South 25`~Street, Ft. Pierce, FL 34981 Recorder of Log Sheet RE Johnson Date Log Sheet Completed 03 / 19 / 04 Is this survey or project a continuation of a previous project? X No -Yes: Previous survey #(s)FMSF [ only] c ~ ~ _ r~ ; 4 ~ i9~: Mapping ,,~" hj r ° l. Counties ( each one in which was List field survey done-do not abbreviate; use supplement sheet if necessary) St. Lucie USGS 1:00024, Map(s):Map Name/Date of Latest Revision ( use supplement sheet of necessary) Ft. Pierce NW Fla. 1949• PR1982 Llescription of Surve Y Area_ ,~ ~;'~ '~ a` ` h Dates for Fieldwork: Start 02 / 09 / 04 End 02 / 26/04 Total Area Surveyed (fill in one) hectares- 369 acre Number of Distinct Tracts or Areas Surveyed O1 If corridor ( fill in one for each):Width meters feet Length kilometers miles HR6E06ti10-97 Florida Master Site File, Division otHistorical Resources, Gray Building, 500 South Brooough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phaue Suncom 850-2299,487- 277-2299, FAX 850-0372,921-Email [email protected],dos.tl.Web http://dos.I.mst!vvww.state.[usldhr/ Page 2 Survey Log Sheet of the Florida Master Site File Types of Survey (check all that apply: x archaeological x architectural x historical/azchival -underwater ~other:~ Preliminary Methods ( check as many as apply to the project as a whole. If needed write others at bottom. Florida Archives ( Gray Building) x library research- local public _ local property or tax records _ windshield Florida Photo Archives ( Gray Building)_speciallibiary-collection- nonlocol _ newspaper files x aerial photography x FMSF site property search x Public Lands Survey (maps at DEP) x literature search x FMSF survey search x 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%),A(-11, 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) A surface collection, uncontrolled _ water screen ( finest size: _ soil resistivity A shovel test-4"1!screen _ posthole tests _ magnetometer shovel test-8"1/screen _ auger (size: _ side scan sonar shovel tests-16"I/screen _ coring _ unknown shovel test-unscreened _ test excavation ( at least 1x2 M) other (describe): HtstorlCal/ 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%),A(-ll, Nearly all: 90-100%).If needed write others at bottom. Check here if NO historicaVazchitectural methods were used. building permits _ demolition permits A neighbor interview _ subdivision maps commercial permits A exposed ground inspected _ occupant interview A tax records interior documentation A local property records _ occupation permits _ unknown other ( describe): Scope/ProceduresIntensity/ No historic structures recorded or evaluated on property Sun~ey Resttlts;`(cultural resonr~r,~~es~o ..~ , _~" }~ Site Significance Evaluated'? X Yes No If Yes, circle NR-significanteligible/ site numbers below Site Counts: Previously Recorded Sites: 0 Newly Recorded Sites 3 Previously Recorded Site #'s List( site #'s without "8."Attach supplementary pages if necessary.!______ Newly Recorded Site #'s (Are you sure all are originals and not updates? Identify methods used to check for updates, researched the FMSF records. List site #'s without "8."Attach supplementary pages if necessary.) 8SL1641,and8SL1642, 8SL1643 Site Form Used: _ Smart Form X FMSF Paper Form - Approved Custom Form: Attach copies of written approval from FMSF Supervisor. DO NOT LTSE ` SITE FILE USE,ONLY ` DO NOT USE -- v^1l-- BA R .Related. - ` BIIE' Related 873 1r~2 State }3ist=~,.c T'frt; ~t C't sr~~., ~ CAR L ="L'Vi'` t,.s ATTACH PLOT OF SURVEY AREA ON PHOTOCOPIES OF USGS 1:00024,MAPS(S) I AJ I My~~ z~ y I I Ir I O ` W i t • 1 i ~ lL Q 1 I. I I I f~l X K 4 i / I N I u II I I ' I I I I i I I I i y ~ II z 1 T------u I J AV ~ d L r _ t s li1 l M i- d i l -e: ii. C-_=_ N N lam. 1 hs4jv j~ O ~„~ 1.J PJ~ •+..a- I 1-~l f h 9~ I i\ OO i r~ e..i_4 u. r 4n.ia ~ a. I 1 W N Qt c.. I U I II Q~ W 1• / .~ ~ N r/ i;....galI O N b IIN V.q Q t'• N I~ i f mIN O h.- -_ 1 II M r n U n I 1 ii N~ u J M y a I II' N II 1 I ~ i f ti 1 3 o N a b x I d t i1 N m 1' h 9 A 4 i,y II u I' i E M i u I Appendix C: Completed Florida Master Site File Forms Sites 8SL1641, 8SL1642, and 8SL1643 57 Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 SL1641 x Original FLORIDA SITE FILE Recorder # Update Version 2.0 7/92 Field Date 02/0409/ Form Date 02/0425/ SITE NAME(S)FAS 1, Creek Side 1 [ DIST #8 ] PROJECT NAME CRA Survey of the Creek Side Tract St. Lucie County Florida [ SURVEY # ] OWNERSHIP _ private-profit _private-nonprofit _ private- individ - private-unspec. X city _ county _ state _ federal _ unknown TWP 35S RANGE 39E SECTION 27 , 1/4 SE , 1/4-4 NE , 1/1%1144-SW IRREG. SECT.? _y x n USGS MAP NAME Ft. Pierce NW COUNTY St. Lucie NEAREST CITY Ft. Pierce IN CURRENT CITY LIMITS? _ y X n UTM: ZONE 17 EASTING~ 51 51 61 81 91 OI NORTHING J 31 0( 21 91 71 71 OI ] ADDRESS/ VICINITY OF/ROUTE TO Site is located SOm north of Tenmile Creek at a point 742m due east of western project boundary; latter point is 240m north of projects sw corner NAME OF PUBLIC TRACT ( e.g.,park) TYPF. Ob`SITE (Check all choices that apply;~if needed write others in at bottom) ~ ` ~ s ~ ' SETTING STRUCTURES OR FEATURES FUNCTION DENSITY x land site boat fort aboriginal road segment none specified unknown agric/farm bldg midden shell midden x campsite _ single artifact wetland fresh wtr burial mound mill unspecified shell mound extractive site x diffuse scatter wetland salt/tidal building remains mission shipwreck habitation/ homestd dense scatter >2m~ undwtr ( mound original) cemetery/ grave unspec. subsurface feature farmstead _ variable density undwtr (inun.) dump/refuse plantation surface scatter village/town earthworks platform mound well quarry OTHER QR);C GO~I'1'EXTS ( a # a. ~ t v Check r~rtWTY4X.tiw- a.,,^.,,~ n..V:.~d..a'~ `sq.5z~4' lithw .. . e ; specific subphases,only) ~ ': Aboriginal Fort Walton Hickory Pond Perico Island Semi: Colonization NONABORIGINAL Alachua x Glades la Late Archaic Safety Harbor Semi: 1st War to 2d 1st Spanish 1513-99 Archaic unspec. Glades Ib Late Swift Creek St. Augustine Semi: 2d War to 3d 1st Spanish 1600-99 Belle Glade I Glades I unspec. Leon-Jefferson St. Johns Ia Semi: 3d War on 1st Spanish 1700-1763 Belle Glade II Glades Iia Malabar 1 St. Johns Ib Seminole-unspec. 1st Spanish unspec. Belle Glade III Glades [ Ib Malabar II St. Johns 1 unspec Swifr Creek unspec. British 1763-1783 Belle Glade IV Glades IIc Manasota St. Johns IIa Transitional 2d Spanish 1783-182] Belle Glade unsp Glades [ I unspec. Middle Archaic St. Johns IIb Weeden Island I Amer.lTerr' 1821-45 Cades Pond Glades IIIa Mount Taylor St. Johns llc Weeden Island II AmecCvl War 1861-65 Glades IIIb Norwood Deptford St. Johns n unspec. Weeden Island unspec American 19th Century Archaic Glades IIIc Early Orange St. Johns unspec. prehistoric nonceramic American 20th Century Early Swift Creek Glades III unspec. Paleo-Indian Santa Rosa prehistoric ceramic American unspecified Glades Pensacola Englewood unspec. Santa Rosa-Sw Crk prehistoric unspec Afro-American OTHER ( Less common phases are not ch ecklisted. For histori c sites also give specific dates if known) I SURVEYOR'S EVALUATION,CIF SITE _ , ' , ~ ~-'~ ,' ~~,,°~" ~ I Potentially elig. for local designation? _ yes x no _ insuff. info Local Designation Category Individually elig. for Nat. Register? _ yes x no _ insuff. info Potential contributor to NR district? _ yes x no _ insuff. info EXPLANATION OF EVALUATION ( Required if evaluated; limit to 3 lines; attach full justification) Site is limited in nature and does not very represent a potentially significant cultural resource RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE No further work is recommended in connection with this site Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 SL1641 Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State gyp, w IELD METHODS- ,(Check one or more methods fot• ctetectott and for hauled SITE DETECTION SITE BOUNDARIES no field check exposed ground x screened shovel bounds unknown remote sensing _ unscreened shovel literature search posthole digger none by recorder insp expsd. ground x screened shovel informant report auger--size: literature search posthole digger _ block excavations remote shovel sensing unscreened informant report auger-size: _ estimate or guess Number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size eight 50x50 cm shovel tests/to 100 curbs/10 m interval / 6.35 mm mesh ryy}}~~y~ // ~ i EXTENT Size (mz) 200 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit 10-40 curbs TEMPORAL INTERPRETATION Components: x single _ prob single _prob multiple _ multiple _ uncertain Describe each occupation in plan ( refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretations. INTEGRITY Overall disturbance: _ none seen x minor _ substantial _ major _ redeposited _ destroyed- document! Disturbances/protectivethreats/ measures no disturbances or threats to site noted/no protective measures warranted AREA COLLECTED m2 Surface: units# , total area , mZ. Excavation: #units a a~M. ~ , k-ia~, ~, ,,, TOTAL ARTIFACTS # 8 ( C)ount or (E)stimate? 8 Surface # 0 Subsurface # 8 COLLECTION STRATEGY ARTIFACT/ FEATURE CATEGORIES unknown x unselective ( all artifacts) unspecified daub nonlocal-exotic bone-unspec. selective ( some artifacts) lithics, aborg'I bricWbldg mat metal, nonprec. unworked shell uncollected _ general (not by subarea) x ceramic-Iaborg' glass bone-human worked shell controlled (by subarea) ceramic-nonabo prec metal/coin bone-animal subsrf features Other (Strategy, Categories) DIAGNOSTICS ( Type and frequency) 5 N= I Glades Plain ceramics N=3 6 N= N= N=_ N= N= 4 N= N= Nearest fresh water (incl. relic source) Tenmile Creek Dist. m/bearing( ft)/SOm South Natural community pine flatwoods Local vegetation- pasture grasses Topography gentle rise to north Elevation 10 ft Present land use Improved Pasture SCS soil series Winder loamy sand Soil association Wabasso- Winder. Winder-Riviera RTHE~ti'()Il~RMATION~ ~~, z' ~ .;~ ~ ~ ~,~.~~~. INFORMANT(Name/lPhoneS):Addr. LOCATION & FILE NOS. Field( notes, artifacts/accession nos, photographs/negative nos.) MANUSCRIPTS OR PUBLICATIONS ON THE SITE (if unpub., give FSF file # or location) A Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of the Creek SideTract, St. Lucie County Florida RECORDER( S):Name/Phone Addr./Douglas R. Lewis/4250 Melrose Avenue/ Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Affiliation or FAS Chapter Florida Archeological Services, Inc. LARGE SCALE MAP: At 1 "=200' or larger scale, show: site boundaries, scale, North arrow, datum, test/collectionuniu, landmarks. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION/ CONTINUATIONS: Attach additional sheetswith detailed information orwith continuations. REQUIRED: USGS MAP OR COPY WITH SITE LOCATION, EXTENT MARKED Narrative Description Site FAS #1 (aka Creek Side #1)is located in the southwest portion of the Creek side Tract (Figure 7) Utilizing the Ft. Pierce NW, Fla. United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle sheet (1949),the site occurs within the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 27, Township 35 South, and Range 39 East Figure 6).Specific centerpoint Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)coordinates are at 3029770 Northing and 556890 Easting. The local soil type is Winder loamy sand which is a nearly level and poorly drained variety. It is found within broad hammocks and along drainageways. Slopes are smooth to convex and range from 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is 15 cm thick and is a black (1 OYR 2/1)loamy sand in the upper 7-8 cm and very dark gray (10YR3/1)loamy sand in the lower 7-8 cm. The subsurface layer is sand 15 cm thick, grayish brown (lOYR 5/2)in the upper 7-8 cm and light brown (1 OYR 6/2)in the lower 7-8 cm. The terrain rises toward the north from Tenmile Creek which lies some 50 m south of the site. Currently, the area is burned out Citrus grove converted to cow pasture. As defined, the site maintains maximum dimensions of approximately 10 meters north/south by 20 meters eastlwest ( 200 m2, or 0.02 ha).It is represented by two positive shovel test from a total of eight installed within l Om of the site boundaries. Discovered during medium probability shovel test sampling (50 m interval),8SL 1641 was delineated with a series of six reduced interval shovel tests in cardinal directions from the positive test. The fourth reduced interval on the west side of the positive was also positive so additional reduced interval tests were placed to delineate the site A total of eight shovel test including the original positive were dug for 8SL 1641 with two being positive and six negative shovel test delineating the site in cardinal directions. The artifact assemblage from 8SL1641, FAS I,Creek Side I Site is scant, consisting of 8 Glades Plain pot sherds, and a single lithic flake. These items, were recovered from between 10-40 curbs, Site 8SL1641 appears to represent a minor campsite. The ceramic type recovered is that of the Glades I plain, early period (AD 1-500) characterized by a temper of medium sized, white, water-worn, quartz sand and fine grit (Willey 1949b).Evaluated in terms of National Register Criteria (36CFR60.4), 8SL1641 is deemed insignificant and ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, no further work is recommended in connection with the site. Table 1. Shovel Test Artifact Assembla a from SSL1641 FAS #1 Ceramic Artifacts Number Percent Weight Percent Comments Glades Plain 3 37.5% 19.1 g 81.62% quartz sand tempering diminutive, cf. Glades 5 62.5% 4.3 g 18.38% quartz sand tempering Total 8 100% 23.4 100% a O ~ V O _ V C71 ~ p ' ~ N o Z ! d 0 O C O v o ~ d t W W W N LL Q V) O ` ~ ~ Q N W W ~ W C1 ~ p • 1 Z W O O O ~ H F'" J W ~ O ~ • ~ N F- ~ OO p a° 3 o 0 z 0 0 • 0 0 0 o o o ., 0 0 0 c r o o o 0 o 0 0 o s o Z p a p U O Q O N N W W O .~ i 0 0 o 9Q4• of Y y p E~ O 40 W. O O p O U Q O • . • W O O ... • 1s1 4r W O O FW- O O O O O O O O O N R$ O y ~ U 07 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 bA 0 0 r.. tlNtl~ o 3 0 a N / O O O ~ L~O O O d O 3r U a O C1 O O O O O O U a o ~ p b U p 0 0 0 0 o x O U N n. U 0 0 0 0 0 00 o bA L% r 1 I ~,~ R t J C f~ p`Ch n r N aryl} I n n r~rw W 11 SX Y y' - 11 F.24. V Z k c11~i''''^^i i p' C S I L 1 tL Q fA I 1 I b I I i I a 1 I o~ i I I X Q X I W 1 K I-I i I 0 I I I w-----. I I I I 1 II I I 1 i I n az- Q.. I I I I I I I--~_~_1 F I i Q) or a ` j O D i I` I i D i I Y d r I D _ . J J~c c_ :___ ~ _. --= it j N r l~~fn h IL__ t'. ~q1e A N N' 4 ' . ry o ( Rf , N s 1 Q 1~ q a o I J r~ vl 1 t r f%I o0 I W ~ • ~ I p T~11 ~ II II O i h IIN Q r r^ vl O M I ~ mll N cC it CJ p I I, 11 II I I I a.v u.:~cvnc= ~ X ~ s_:M=. I { ~ W , O ` N W O Il i I ry I I O X l a ~ r N N e 1 4" m 1` r w is ~ I m i p m Q r I c p V U C F- F- w o U X O W Z~ F- Q W v J q Q U lJ.l l,J Z W ti- d Li Q fA Z r w w o 3 W O O O O a~ O y r U y O a a~ v O dN'd~ axi a> a~ O O • O N/a O N ~ 00 O 3 o O O a U r N Q b Z A U H bA W ~ O O d U bA Sy O Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 SL1642 x Original FLORIDA SITE FILE Recorder # Update version 2.0 7/92 Field Date 02/0409/ Form Date 02/0425/ SITE NAME(S)FAS 2, Creek Side 2 [ DIST #8 PROJECT NAME CRA Survey of the Creek Side Tract, St. Lucie County Florida [ SURVEY # OWNERSHIP _ private-profit _private-nonprofit _ private- individ - private-unspec. X city _ county _ state _ federal _ unknown TWP 35S RANGE 39E SECTION 27 , 1/4 NW , 1/4-4 NE , 1/4-4 SE IRREG. SECT.? _y x n USGS MAP NAME Ft. Pierce NW COUNTY St. Lucie NEAREST CITY Ft. Pierce IN CURRENT CITY LIMITS? _ y X n UTM: ZONE 17 EASTING [ 51 51 71 41 1 I OI NORTHING 131 0[ 21 91 91 11 OI [ ADDRESSNICINITY OF/ROUTE TO Site is located 60m north of Tenmile Creek at a point 30m due east of ACOE Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area NAME OF PUI3I:1C TRACT ( c.g.,park) A~Y, PE) Oli'~~SITE ( Check all choices that apply; if needed write others in at bottom £ ~ *~±~=~'k SETTING STRUCTURES OR FEATURES FUNCTION DENSITY x land site boat fort aboriginal road segment none specified unknown agric/farm bldg midden shell midden x campsite single artifact wetland fresh wtr burial mound mill unspecified shell mound extractive site x diffuse scatter wetland salt/tidal building remains mission shipwreck habitation/ homestd dense scatter >2m= undwtr ( original) cemetery/ grave mound unspec. subsurface feature farmstead variable density undwtr ( inun.) dump/refuse plantation surface scatter village/ town earthworks platform mound well quarry OTHER Aboriginal Fort Walton Hickory Pond Perico Island Semi: Colonization NONABORIGINAL Alachua x Glades la Late Archaic Safety Harbor Semi: 1st War to 2d 1st Spanish 1513-99 Archaic unspec. Glades Ib Late Swift Creek St. Augustine Semi: 2d War to 3d 1st Spanish 1600-99 Belle Glade 1 Glades 1 unspec. Leon-Jefferson St. Johns Ia Semi: 3d War on 1st Spanish 1700-1763 Belle Glade [ I Glades IIa Malabar I St. Johns Ib Seminole-unspec. 1st Spanish unspec. Belle Glade III Glades [ Ib Malabaz II St. Johns I unspec Swift Creek unspec. British 1763-1783 Belle Glade IV Glades llc Manasota St. Johns IIa Transitional 2d Spanish 1783-1821 Belle Glade unsp Glades [ I unspec. Middle Archaic St. Johns [ Ib Weeden Island I Amer.ITerr' 1821-45 Cades Pond Glades [ Ila Mount Taylor St. Johns [ Ic Weeden Island [ I Amer_Cvl Waz 1861-65 Glades Illb Norwood Deptford St. Johns Il unspec. Weeden Island unspec American 19th Century Archaic Glades IIIc Early Orange St. Johns unspec. prehistoric nonceramic American 20th Century Early Swift Creek Glades III unspec. Paleo-Indian Santa Rosa prehistoric ceramic American unspecified Glades Pensacola Englewood unspec. Santa Rosa-Sw Crk prehistoric unspec Afro-American OTHER (Less common phases are not ch ecklisted. For historic sites also give specific dates if known) k .. i 6 k SURVEYOR' S EVALUATION OF SITE ~ ` t. -'"' Potentially elig. for local designation? _ yes x no _ insuff. info Local Designation Category Individually elig, for Nat. Register? _ yes x no _ insuff. info Potential contributor to NR district? _ yes x no _ insuff. info EXPLANATION OF EVALUATION ( Required if evaluated; limit to 3 lines; attach full justification) Site is limited in and very nature does not rearesent a potentially significant cultural resource RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE No further work is recommended in connection with this site Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 SL1642 Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State IELD METRODS Check. Date or more mcihrads t_or detection , aitcl for h«undaricsl SITE DETECTION SITE BOUNDARIES no field check exposed ground x screened shovel _ bounds unknown remote sensing _ unscreened shovel literature search posthole digger none by recorder insp expsd. ground x screened shovel informant report auger--size: literature search posthole digger _ block excavations remote sensing unscreened shovel informant report auger-size: _ estimate or guess Number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size 15 50x50 cm shovel tests/to 100 cmbs/10 m interval / 6.35 mm mesh eh5+ . 9R fi`. N, ~-.~ iFS T m.y, . 7 < z - r i SITE DESr>, ~ . ;~~ ~ F ~" ~ ~: ~~ ~:.... _ ~. . _. EXTENT Size (m2) 500 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit 10-40 cmbs TEMPORAL INTERPRETATION Components: x single _ prob single _ prob multiple _ multiple _ uncertain Describe each occupation in plan ( refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretations. ___ INTEGRITY Overall disturbance: _ none seen x minor _ substantial _ major _ redeposited _ destroyed- document! Disturbances/protectivethreats/ measures no disturbances or threats to site noted/no protective measures warranted AREA COLLECTED mz Surface: #units , total area , mZ. Excavation: #units r, ~ 3;~7a k~~F~~~ ; ~~, ~~. . ~~ ARTIFACT'S ~ ~..;.a'~35L + ~~~vr,sr la~w~'w.-..»,_.,~,~,~~7~ , aw..lr,rd~.snE,..~4 ,,~~..'~§Rd~:...~;~ .,. ~~. ~,„~~ TOTAL ARTIFACTS # 61 ( C)ount or (E)stimate? 61 Surface # 0 Subsurface # 61 COLLECTION STRATEGY ARTIFACT/ FEATURE CATEGORIES unknown x unselective ( all artifacts) unspecified daub nonlocal-exotic _ bone-unspec. selective (some artifacts) lithics, aborg'I brick bldg mat metal, nonprec. _ unworked shell uncollected _ general ( not by subarea) x ceramic-Iaborg' glass bone-human _ worked shell controlled ( by subarea) ceramic-nonabo prec metal/coin bone-animal _ subsrf features Other (Strategy, Categories) DIAGNOSTICS ( Type and frequency) 5 N=_ 1 Glades Plain N= 12 6 N= 2 N=_7 N=_ 3 N=_8 N=_ 4 N=_9 N= s ~ Z~ Nearest fresh water (incl. relic source) Tenmile Creek Dist. m/bearing( ft)/25m South Natural community pine flatwoods Local vegetation Pasture grasses Topography gentle rise to north Elevation 10 ft Present land use Imaroved Pasture SCS soil series Winder loamy sand Soil association Wabasso- Winder, Winder-Riviera INFORMANT(NamelAddr./S):Phone LOCATION & FILE NOS. (Field notes, artifacts/accession nos, photographs/negative nos.) MANUSCRIPTS OR PUBLICATIONS ON THE SITE (if unpub., give FSF file # or location) A Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of the Riverwalk Tract, St. Lucie County, Florida RECORDER( S):Name/Phone Addr./Douglas R. Lewis/4250 Melrose Avenue/ Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Affiliation or FAS Chapter Florida Archeological Services, Inc. LARGE SCALE MAP: At 1 "=200' or larger scale, show: site boundaries, scale, North arrow,datum, test/collection units, landmarks. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION/ CONTINUATIONS: Attach additional sheetswith detailed information orwith continuations. REQUIRED: USGS MAP OR COPY WITH SITE LOCATION, EXTENT MARKED Narrative Description Site 8SL1642, FAS #2,Creek Side #2 is located in the south central portion of the Creek side Tract Figure 8).Utilizing the Ankona, Fla. United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle sheet (1948),the site occurs within the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 27, Township 35 South, and Range 39 East (Figure 6).Specific centerpoint Universal Transverse Mercator ( UTM) coordinates are at 3029910 Northing and 557410 Easting. The local soil type is Winder loamy sand which is a nearly level and poorly drained variety. It is found within broad hammocks and along drainageways. Slopes are smooth to convex and range from 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is 15 cm thick and is a black (1 OYR 2/1) loamy sand in the upper 7-8 cm and very dark gray (1 OYR3/ 1)loamy sand in the lower 7-8 cm. The subsurface layer is sand 15 cm thick, grayish brown (1 OYR 5/2)in the upper 7-8 cm and light brown (IOYR 6/2)in the lower 7-8 cm. The terrain rises toward the north from Tenmile Creek which lies some 25 m south of the site. Currently, the area is burned out Citrus grove converted to cow pasture. As defined, the site maintains maximum dimensions of approximately 100 meters north/south by 50 meters eastlwest ( 500 m2, or 0.05 ha).It is represented by eight positive shovel tests from a total of 15 installed within l Om of the site boundaries ( Figure 10). Discovered during Selective Judgmental shovel test, 8SL1642 was delineated with a series of 15 reduced interval shovel tests in cardinal directions from the positive test. The site contained a total of eight positive shovel tests and expanded north ofthe original positive shovel test.The artifact assemblage from the FAS II, Creek Side II Site consists of 12 Glades Plain and 49 diminutive ( cf. Glades) pot sherds. These items, were recovered from between 10-40 curbs, Site 8SL1642 appears to represent a minor campsite .The ceramic type recovered is that of the Glades I plain, early period (AD 1-500) characterized by a temper of medium sized, white, water-worn, quartz sand and fine grit (Willey 1949b).Evaluated in terms of National Register Criteria (36CFR60.4), 8SL1642deemed insignificant and ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, no further work is recommended in connection with the site. Table 2. Shovel Test Artifact Assembla a from 8SL1642 FAS #2 Ceramic Artifacts Number Percent Weight Percent Comments Glades Plain 12 19.67% 50.2 g 40.16% quartz sand tempering Glades Plain, diminutive 49 80.33% 74.8 g 59.84% quartz sand tempering Total 61 100% 125 100% a O • lp V U C O ~- O N 0 o Z 0 V L '_ o H H Q OD ~ L 41 W W ~ N LL Q U) J-- ~ ~ a N W ~ ~ O W O O O Z Y S F- W y 0 O • ~ N / J- ~ O Z a 3 0 ~ O O • 0 0 0 o o o r . o o 0 0 o a o U N a O N N 3 W t ~~ O Y O O p` 944. Y a~ E-~ qo W. 6 o •.• p o•••• C/] 2 4.. O O o o O O O O O O O N Y N O vJi4 m a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 o o\ ldNdJ 3 oL O J O H O 0. O O ~ l.0 O O b p N +-~ U Q OJ C] O O O O O Z 1.. O U a o ~ b u V1 0 O O O O 0 U ~ a U 0 i 0 0 0 0 00 w r r ~ I-' I j Y n FOR r i`('7 l W 111 G'~4~ ~~YJ . ~~" _ O x d 1 e a ~ X Z~ M o ~ a~ N I b I i x x rI=I^^===_____-I Y 1 N W 1 i i I i --- - i I C1. I I 1 1 I I I I y i 1 I 44 I I G~ l~-___I i I 1 ii I o' N m tr Cd QQ X U N t Y N Y M O s M D~r_ N O : a . CL k and.. f: p+~.a.. 00 y` S/ v ry y i z ~. h a : Ll o o N Q\ g 1 10 y IIN Q C/) O Y III o mx C/) Cd U I N O A n O I N 11 ! I 1 al, O Y II h y N II ~ F+ ry o 1`! o x o. cn 1 N p 1' f. x k a I gyp., m N i~ n e 1 4 p m 1' N o U _ Vl ~ W ( V N ~ W W V e ~ C F- ~ Q Z ~ O J N W W ~' ~ a• ~ ~ ¢ W • fl d V J L L a ., ~ • ~ Q F Z • H W ~ ~ ~ d u. Q cn a z o 3 a ' .' O • ' o a a o ~ O b oQ O o i a d• v J r a~ U a J • a U V O O 3... a a O a C/1 Y x 2 v i O U O O • 1J O O f~ O CO ~ O Q C/~ o ~~ N adoa ss3~~t!1211a ao 3NI~ 3~N3~ 3 O o v b O a U bD r O U O O U a cC 4 pC 4 U r A a O O r v a~ W O ~ GA w 1 Page ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 SL1643 x Original FLORIDA SITE FILE Recorder # Update version 2.0 7/9z Field Date 02/0409/ Form Date 02/0425/ SITE FAS NAME(S) 3, Creek Side 3 [ DIST #8 ] PROJECT NAME CRA Survey of the Creek Side Tract St. Lucie County Florida [ SURVEY # ] OWNERSHIP _ private-profit _private-nonprofit _ private- individ - private-unspec. X city _ county _ state _ federal unknown TWP 35S RANGE 39E SECTION 27 , 1/4 1/4-4 SE , 1/4-4 NE SE, IRREG. SECT.? _y x n USGS MAP NAME Ft. Pierce NW COUNTY St. Lucie NEAREST CITY Ft. Pierce IN CURRENT CITY LIMITS? _ y X n UTM: ZONE 17 EASTING 15~51 7I 61 91 OI NORTHING 131 0131 OI 11 41 0I ] ADDRESSNICINITY OF/ROUTE TO Site is located in oxbow and surrounded on north east and south by Tenmile Creek also is due floodplain; east (272m) from ACOE access road to Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve• latter point 300m north of intersection of access road and Tenmile Creek floodplain NAME OF PUBLIC TRACT ( e.g.,park) F C) ~ ~ Ices aj • haf a I~l yylI#'~i in i$flvRW' edEe dthers glzt4adG.e a..h"fsit"^Y~• Txwt.~Ie'at[ u'~Xt,, Sdue.S"!ed.d2.+~ . .. .attbottom) - ,! SETTING STRUCTURES OR FEATURES FUNCTION DENSITY x land site boat fort aboriginal road segment none specified unknown agric/farm bldg midden shell midden campsite single artifact wetland fresh wtr burial mound mill unspecified shell mound x extractive site diffuse scatter wetland salt/tidal remains mission building shipwreck habitation/homestd x dense scatter >2m2 undwtr (original) mound subsurface cemetery/grave unspec. feature farmstead variable density undwtr ( inun.) dump/refuse plantation surface scatter village/town earthworks mound platform well quarry OTHER HISTORIC CO NTEXTS ( k all that e use t~tos eelfic Chec apply, xcept sub has ..o n~~vr1 i~ ~'~~~"~ t, ,v. ~. „ & .. r!~h pia ,.,; ?~~,,, ~ Fort Walton Aboriginal Hickory Pond Perico Island Semi: Colonization NONABORIGINAL Alachua x Glades Ia Late Archaic Safety Harbor Semi: Ist Waz to 2d 1st Spanish 1513-99 Archaic Glades Ib Late Swift Creek unspec. St. Augustine Semi: 2d War to 3d 1st Spanish 1600-99 Belle Glade I Glades I Leon-Jefferson unspec. St. Johns la Semi: 3d Waz on 1st Spanish 1700-1763 Belle Glade II Glades IIa Malabaz I St. Johns Ib Seminole-unspec. I st Spanish unspec. Belle Glade III Glades I[b II St. Johns Malabaz I unspec Swift Creek unspec. British 1763-1783 Belle Glade IV Glades IIc Manasota St. Johns IIa Transitional 2d Spanish 1783-1821 Belle Glade Glades II Middle Archaic unsp unspec. St. Johns IIb Weeden Island I Amer.1Terr' 1821-45 Cades Pond Glades IIla Mount Taylor St. Johns Ilc Weeden Island [ I Amer.Cvl War 1861-65 Deptford Glades IIIb Norwood St. Johns II unspec. Weeden Island unspec American 19th Century Early Archaic Glades IIIc St. Johns Orange unspec prehistoric nonceram ic American 20th Century Early Swift Creek Glades [ II Paleo-Indian Santa Rosa unspec. prehistoric ceramic American unspecified Englewood Glades Pensacola Santa Rosa-Sw unspec. Crk prehistoric unspec Afro-American OTHER ( common Less phases are not checklisted. For historic sites also give specific dates if known) SURVEYOR' S EVALUATION OF SITE ~ ~' ~~ ; Potentially for local X no x insuff. info elig. designation? yes _ Local Designation Category for Individually elig. Nat. Register? _ yes _ no x insuff. info Potential contributor to NR district? _ yes _ no x insuff. info EXPLANATION OF EVALUATION ( Required if evaluated; limit to 3 lines; attach full justification) Site is deemed a potentially significant cultural resource RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE Preservation or Phase II testin Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 SL1643 Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State oreteeth for TTIyQD ~ ' ; , d9 za, Ctit?q axnd. boundaries) I SITE DETECTION SITE BOUNDARIES no field check exposed ground x screened shovel _ bounds unknown remote sensing unscreened shovel literature search posthole digger none by recorder insp expsd. ground x screened shovel informant report auger--size: literature search posthole digger block excavations remote sensing unscreened shovel informant report auger-size: _ estimate or guess Number, size, of screen size 12 of 28 50x50 depth pattern units; positive cm shovel tests/to I00 cmbs/10 m interval ! 6 35 mm mesh EXTENT Size (m2) 25,000 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit 10-40 cmbs TEMPORAL INTERPRETATION Components: x single _ prob single _ prob multiple _ multiple _ uncertain Describe each in to attached occupation plan ( refer large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretations. INTEGRITY Overall disturbance: _ none seen x minor _ substantial _ major _ redeposited _ destroyed-document! measures no Disturbances/protectivethreats/ disturbances or threats to site noted/no protective measures warranted AREA COLLECTED mZ Surface: #units , total area , mz. Excavation: #units r ~,. ~~~~~, RT~ACT~° : r TOTAL ARTIFACTS # 188 ( C)ount or (E)stimate? 188 Surface # 0 Subsurface # 188 COLLECTION STRATEGY ARTIFACT/ FEATURE CATEGORIES unknown x unselective ( all artifacts) unspecified _ daub nonlocal-exotic bone-unspec. selective (some mat artifacts) lithics, aborg'1 _brick/ bldg metal, nonprec. x unworked shell uncollected _ general ( not by subarea) x ceramic-Iaborg' glass _bone-human worked shell controlled ( by subarea) ceramic-nonabo _ prec metal/coin xbone-animal subsrf features Other (Strategy, Categories) DIAGNOSTICS ( and Type frequency) 5 N= 1 Glades Plain N=18 6 N= 2 N=_ ~ N=- 3 N=-8 N= 4 N--9 N= R Present land use Improved Cow Pasture SCS soil series Winder loamy sand Soil association Wabasso- Winder, Winder-Riviera R R ns : iw6. RV.. x~ks3a... wr...~.. •.~ A... ,.. : ORMA~IO ' { M^vI s~cA. I~.^irt :' ~ INFORMANT(S):Name/Add r./Phone LOCATION & FILE NOS. ( Field notes, artifacts/ accession nos, photographs/ negative nos.) MANUSCRIPTS OR PUBLICATIONS ON THE SITE (if unpub., give FSF file # or location) A Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of the Riverwalk Tract St Lucie County Florida RECORDER(S):Name/Phone Addr./Douglas R. Lewis/4250 Melrose Avenue/ Jacksonville Florida 32210 Affiliation or FAS Chapter Florida Archeological Services Inc. SCALE MAP: At 1 "=200' or show: LARGE larger scale, site boundaries, scale, North arrow,datum, testlcollection units, landmarks. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION/ CONTINUATIONS: Attach additional sheets with detailed information orwith continuations. REQUIRED: USGS MAP OR COPY WITH SITE LOCATION, EXTENT MARKED Narrative Description Site FAS #3,Creek Side #3 is located in the south east portion of the Creek Side Tract within an oxbow upland surrounded by Tenmile Creek to the south and wetlands to the east and north ( Figures 11 & 12).Utilizing the Ft. Pierce NW, Fla. United States Geological Survey ( USGS)quadrangle sheet ( 1949),the site occurs within the SE 1/4 ofthe SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 27, Township 35 South, and Range 39 East ( Figure 6).Specific centerpoint Universal Transverse Mercator ( UTM) coordinates are at 3030140 Northing and SS7690 Easting. The local soil type is also Winder loamy sand which is a nearly level and poorly drained variety. It is found within broad hammocks and along drainageways. Slopes are smooth to convex and range from 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is 1 S cm thick and is a black (1 OYR 2/1)loamy sand in the upper 7-8 cm and very dark gray (10YR3/I ) loamy sand in the lower 7-8 cm. The subsurface layer is sand 1 S cm thick, grayish brown ( 1 OYR S/2)in the upper 7-8 cm and light brown ( 1 OYR 6/2)in the lower 7-8 cm. The terrain rises toward the north from Tenmile Creek which lies some 2S m south of the site. Currently, the area is burned out Citrus grove converted to cow pasture. As defined, the site maintains maximum dimensions of approximately 100 meters north/south by 250 meters easdwest ( 25,000 mz, or 2.S ha).It is represented by 12positive shovel tests from a total of 28 installed within 10-2Sm of the site boundaries ( Figure 13). Discovered during Selective Judgmental shovel tests, 8SL1643was delineated with a series of reduced interval shovel tests in cardinal directions from all positive tests or geographic boundaries such as wetlands or Tenmile Creek. The site contained a total of 12 positive shovel tests and covers a majority of the oxbow finger that is delineated south by Tenmile Creek and east and north by wetlands. The artifact assemblage from the FAS III,Creek Side III Site consists of 18 Glades Plain pot sherds, and 163 ( cf.Glades) diminutive sherds, S burned shell fragments 1 unidentified bone fragment and 1 sharks tooth. These items, were recovered from between 10-40 curbs, Site 8SL1643 does not appear to have been intensively occupied suggesting a probable short-term use such as a seasonal, campsite. The ceramic type recovered from 8SL 1643, FAS III,Creek Side III, is that of the Glades I plain, early period (AD 1-500) characterized by a temper of medium sized, white, water-worn, quartz sand and fine grit (Willey 1949b).Site 8SL1463 maintains good archaeological integrity. In fact , no disturbances to the site were noted save for the usual superficial impact to the upper soil stratum due to used cow pasture. Additional archaeological information is needed to adequately delineate and document the nature and exten of this deposit, as well as to provide information useful in reaching a final determination of the site's eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. This site may contain information important in the understanding of past aboriginal behavior during the early Glades I period. As such, it may enhance the regional archaeological database in terms of increasing the understanding of aboriginal lifeways ofnortheast Florida. Evaluated as such in accordance with National Register Criteria (36CFR60.4), 8SL1463 is considered potentially significant. Therefore, 8SL1643 may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. This site should be protected from any ground surface disturbances activities pending completion of the DHR compliance/review process. Table 3. Shovel Test Artifact Assembla a from 8SL1643 FAS #3 Ceramic Artifacts Number Percent Weight Percent Comments Glades Plain 18 9.94 93.0 g 36.73% quartz sand tempering diminutive, cf. Glades 163 90.1% 160.2 g 63.27% quartz sand tempering Shell Total 181 100% 253.2 g 100% Miscellaneous Artifacts Shell S 71.43% 6.4 g 90.14% Burned uid-bone (faunal) 1 14.29% 4 g 5.63% sharks tooth 1 14.29% 3 g 4.23% Total 7 100% 7.1 100% a ' O V p V C O y" 0 0 ° z C d1 L H O V •~ O L QI LL Q ( n O F Q N i W W L] Q: O W Z W O O 1 F Y Q W 1a7 y FJ- O o Z a° 3 ° O O 0 0 0 o o o r o o o 0 0 o Q o U O < ~ D J N O O V1 ¢ it S W 0) O . t O O 4 p 4 . o~ Y o W . E--~ O • . • W 0...• 1 S O O o J 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C v a o O 7 L N H ~ U m o Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Y 0 0 r- ldNtlJ o 3 tN v .- / N O O O T W O O C~ ~ O b O U a w a~ Q o 0 0 0 Z 0 U Q+ O ~ o b O 0 0 0 0 N 0° x o a a~ U 0 vi 0 0 0 0 00 o O GA Lz. 1__ ~ Jpl f7 j n I n ~ f'- z II 3X 3' '! ,~ U U r 1 o L a Q cn o I I a ~ o I o r I I I - - --- ; I I X I X < i F x o I II I d I II I i t ! I I ~ i i j li i I I ~ II I 11 I f 1 I I . l i ! I I I h I i 1 I I I ' k I N I I ' I ~ 1. a 1 , V Orel I bA I ~ y 1 N I, i ii A' M I II i a ~ I N M L •.~ Jy I ~ II T r ~ A ~ IL .. t~ 1 p i x v it I , ..~ 00 C A II 1-• I.O.. i I - 1 i a J I 00 ry s,- 1. m, I 3 m_ v J i~ i.. N : Q~ 1S h 1 CL. o o a I. II O o m~ C7 Ri 1 Y i Y 1 ~ J I. 1 x N bA I ry I ry 1 bq co U U C O y" y V W Y~ . ~ H W N O ti W Q Z V ,~^ J Q N W A W W ti J 2 y V N W V i n° ~ O ~ O O • o I U M O N O JQ 2 cd W ~ WZ Y G K r U O N O O a a~ a~ V 1.. U a~--+~r V ' , ., Y f O 3 i M a N 1 ,• ti bq O 3 O \ 0 cd~ v O a~ w O ca U O t O O a~ U v ~ O C~1 O O i J Lr J b0 O r Florida Archeological Services, inc. I~~~~G3 OO(~G~~~~~~~~QL~ ~ I~ 4250 Melrose Avenue OL~~PFFtr~ & Jacksonville, FL 32210 c~rt°- ~ 904) 389-1976 FAX: (904) 388-2919 March 26, 2004 HiJIL FL DIVISION OF HISTORICAL TO RESOURCES Laura Kammerer i H'Ov"! WE ARE SENDING YOU ® Attached ^ Under separate cover via the following items vl 1=f3 Final report ^ Maps ~~ Draft report ^ Curation samples ~- es Management summary ^ Materials for curation ~ Aerial photos Copy of letter ^ Faunal samples ^ Proj t area keys Other '~~ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 March 2004 A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSDIENT SURVEY OF THE CREEK SIDE TRACT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 ea. ( loose) Site Forms for 8SL1641, 8SL1642, & 8SL1643 1 Survey Log ( within report) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: C~As requested For your record On loan For your use For approval FAX For review and comment; Please return by _ REMARKS Mr . J . P . COPY TO Terpening w/enclosures Signed: Q~t! 3 reports & Invoice