[email protected] www.bio-techconsulting.com

April 4, 2017

Cory Catts SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604

Proj: Lake Charles Resort Site – Polk County, Florida SWFWMD Application No. 733689 (BTC File #923-01) Re: RAI Response

Dear Mr. Catts:

The purpose of this document is to respond to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) request for additional information (dated Orlando Office 2002 East Robinson St. September 9, 2016) for the Lake Charles Resort Site ERP application Orlando, FL 32803 submittal. The SWFWMD’s comments and the responses are as follows: Vero Beach Office 4445 N. A1A Suite 221 8. Please contact the project review Environmental Scientist, Cory Catts, Vero Beach, FL 32963 to schedule a site visit to verify the location of the wetland boundaries, verify the seasonal high water levels (SHWL), inspect the Jacksonville Office 2036 Forbes St. areas of wetland impact, review UMAM analysis, and conduct a Jacksonville, FL 32204 general environmental assessment of the project area. Please ensure

Tampa Office that all flags or stakes denoting the wetland line are clearly visible in 6011 Benjamin Rd. the field during the construction of the project. Please be aware that Suite 101 B Tampa, FL 33634 additional questions and clarification in regards to wetland/surface water features, proposed mitigation, UMAM assessments pursuant to Key West Office 1107 Key Plaza Ch. 62-345, F.A.C., and other environmental considerations may be Suite 259 required following the field visit findings. Key West, FL 33040

Aquatic & Land The site inspection with District staff was completed on March 29, 2017. Management Operations 3825 Rouse Rd. All wetland line changes are reflected on the revised plan sheets. Orlando, FL 32817

Native Plant Nursery DCC Farms 8580 Bunkhouse Rd. Orlando, FL 32832

407.894.5969 877.894.5969 407.894.5970 fax Orlando Vero Beach Jacksonville Tampa Key West Cory Catts, SWFWMD Lake Charles Resort Site (BTC File #923-01) RAI Response, App. No. 733689 Page 2 of 4

9. The project plans and summary indicate that an upland buffer has been provided to address secondary impacts. Be advised that the District can accept an undisturbed, upland buffer around wetlands, which is an average 25 feet wide, but never less than 15 feet, as a means of providing reasonable assurance that secondary wetland impacts will not occur. As currently shown on the plans the buffer does not meet the 15 foot minimum requirement in many areas of the proposed design. Please revise the project design to meet the 15 foot minimum and 25 foot average upland buffer or provide alternate methods to prevent secondary impacts to the adjacent wetlands. Please also clarify of the upland buffer will remain undisturbed or if any of the project side slopes are proposed for grading within the buffer area. If the buffer is to be disturbed please revise the project design to meet the 15 foot minimum and 25 foot average upland buffer or provide alternate methods to prevent secondary impacts to the adjacent wetlands.

The majority of wetlands remaining in the post-development condition will be provided with a 15-foot minimum and 25-foot average upland buffer. However, there are two areas along Lake Charles and one along Wetland 5 in the northeast portion of the property that does not provide the required 15-foot minimum upland buffer. The potential for future secondary wetland impacts will be offset in these areas with plantings. The upland areas currently adjacent to the wetlands consist of maintained pasture and provide little to no buffer protection. The plantings will consist of 1-gallon sand cordgrass set on 2-foot centers and placed along three staggered rows. These plantings along with conservation area signage will provide reasonable protection of the wetlands from future secondary impacts.

10. Please provide a detailed alternatives analysis to justify the proposed wetland impacts throughout the project. This analysis should clearly show that you have made every effort through practicable design modifications to eliminate and reduce wetland impacts within the project.

The site plan has been revised to minimize wetland impacts to the greatest extent practicable. The direct wetland impacts are limited to an isolated less than 0.5-acre wetland (W1B – 0.24 acres) and the outfall structures (0.01 acres).

11. Please provide information on the methodology used to collect the seasonal high water level (SHWL) and normal pool (NP) data for the wetlands and surface waters receiving the storm water discharges generated by the project. Please provide appropriate field data collected from all wetland indicators utilized to justify your estimations for the

Cory Catts, SWFWMD Lake Charles Resort Site (BTC File #923-01) RAI Response, App. No. 733689 Page 3 of 4

elevations. Please provide the location of each of the surveyed indicators used on the plans for the project.

Please see response from project engineer.

12. The project is proposing to route storm water through several wetlands within the project. Please demonstrate that adverse impacts to the wetland hydro periods will not occur by providing hydrographs of the 2.33 year mean annual storm. The graph should start and end at the pop-off elevation with Existing Condition and Proposed Condition hydrographs superimposed for comparison. Please provide a supporting narrative for the hydrographs explaining any variations that are shown. The invert of ditches may be the existing ‘pop-off’ elevation, or SHWL, of the wetland and may need to be considered when designing the storm water management system. Please provide reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse hydrologic impacts to on-site wetlands and/or demonstrate how the current hydroperiod, hydrological input patterns, and hydrologic conditions of the wetlands will be maintained after development.

Please see response from project engineer.

13. Please note that comments have been requested from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DHR) regarding this project. Since activities are proposed in wetlands and/or surface waters, the receipt of a letter from the DHR indicating that additional information is not required or recommending certain requirements is a completeness item for this application.

An archaeological survey was completed on the subject property in 2015. No historical resources were found within the project limits (see attached CRAS report).

14. Reasonable assurance that threatened or endangered species will not be adversely affected by the proposed construction and associated water dependent activity in the area has not been provided. Be advised that the District is coordinating with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Bureau of Imperiled Species) for comments regarding secondary impacts to threatened or endangered species in the area. Based on their recommendations, additional information or revisions may be needed in determining whether construction and operation of the proposed facility will cause significant adverse impact to threatened or endangered species.

Cory Catts, SWFWMD Lake Charles Resort Site (BTC File #923-01) RAI Response, App. No. 733689 Page 4 of 4

The majority of intact wetlands within the subject property will remain in the post- development condition, along with adequate upland buffers. These areas will provide significant habitat for Listed wildlife species.

Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (407) 894-5969. Thank you.

Regards,

Daniel Gough Project Manager

John Miklos President attachments

CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE RESORT AT LAKE CHARLES PROPERTY POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA

Prepared for:

Bio-Tech Consulting Inc. 2002 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32803

Prepared by:

Florida’s First Choice in Cultural Resource Management

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A Sarasota, Florida 34240 (941) 379-6206 Toll Free: 1-800-735-9906

February 2015

CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE RESORT AT LAKE CHARLES PROPERTY POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA

Prepared for:

Bio-Tech Consulting Inc. 2002 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32803

Prepared by:

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A Sarasota, Florida 34240

Marion Almy – Project Manager Elizabeth A. Horvath – Project Archaeologist Justin Winkler – Archaeologist Jorge Danta – Architectural Historian

February 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) of the Resort at Lake Charles property in Polk County, Florida, for Bio-Tech Consulting, Inc. The purpose of this project was to locate and identify any cultural resources and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This survey was conducted in February 2015 at the request of the Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) who reviewed the project in accordance with Chapters 267.061 and 373.414, Florida Statutes (FS) (Bendus 2015: Appendix A). The resulting report meets specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code (revised August 2002) and follows the guidelines in the Cultural Resources Standards and Operational Manual (FDHR 2003).

Background research and a review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) indicated that no archaeological sites have been recorded within the property or within one mile of the project area. Based on previous investigations in similar environmental settings, the Resort at Lake Charles property was determined to have a moderate potential for the occurrence of aboriginal and historic archaeological sites given the well-drained soils proximate to the lake and various swamps/wetlands. There had been structures on the property, based on the historic aerial photos, but none appear to be extant. As a result of ACI’s field survey, no archaeological sites were discovered, but two archaeological occurrences (AO) were noted. An AO is defined as one or two non-diagnostic artifacts, not known to be distant from the original context, which fit within a hypothetical cylinder of thirty meters (98 feet) diameter, regardless of depth below surface (FMSF 1999:10). AO#1 consists of a small fragment of St. Johns ceramic and AO#2 consists of two small pieces of lithic debitage; neither AO is eligible for listing in the NRHP due to their low research potential.

Background research including a review of the FMSF, indicated that no previously recorded historical sites were located within the project area. In addition, based on a review of the aerial photos and property appraiser’s data, there was potential for one historic structure, built ca. 1950. However, the field reconnaissance resulted in the recording of one historic structure that had been moved on to the property (8PO07985). This building, a ca. 1920 Bungalow style residence was moved about 1968 to its current location and is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP, either individually or as part of a historic district, owing to its lack of architectural significance. In addition, as a relocated property, it does not to meet Criteria Consideration B.

Therefore, development of the Resort at Lake Charles will have no effect on any resources listed, eligible, or potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. No additional investigations are warranted.

P15018 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose ...... 1-1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 2-1 2.1 Project Location and Physical Setting ...... 2-1 2.2 Geology Geomorphology ...... 2-1 2.3 Soils and Vegetation ...... 2-3 2.4 Paleo-environmental Considerations ...... 2-4

3.0 CULTURE HISTORY ...... 3-1 3.1 Paleoindian ...... 3-1 3.2 Archaic ...... 3-4 3.3 Formative ...... 3-5 3.4 Mississippian ...... 3-6 3.5 Colonialism ...... 3-7 3.6 Territorial and Statehood ...... 3-8 3.7 Civil War and Aftermath ...... 3-10 3.8 Twentieth Century ...... 3-12 3.9 Project Area Specifics ...... 3-13

4.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND METHODS ...... 4-1 4.1 Background Research and Literature Review ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Archaeological Considerations ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Historical Considerations ...... 4-3 4.2 Field Methodology ...... 4-3 4.3 Unexpected Discoveries ...... 4-3 4.4 Laboratory Methods and Curation ...... 4-4

5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 5-1 5.1 Archaeological Results ...... 5-1 5.2 Historical/Architectural Results ...... 5-1 5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 5-5

6.0 REFERENCES CITED ...... 6-1

APPENDICES Appendix A SHPO correspondence Appendix B FMSF form Appendix C Survey log

P15018 ii

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTOGRAPHS

Figure Page

Figure 1.1. Location of the Resort at Lake Charles project area...... 1-2

Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Resort at Lake Charles project area...... 2-2

Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions...... 3-2

Figure 3.2. 1941 and 1968 aerial photographs of the Resort at Lake Charles project area...... 3-14

Figure 4.1. Location of archaeological sites within two miles of the Resort at Lake Charles project area...... 4-2

Figure 5.1. Location of the shovel tests, archaeological occurrences, and newly recorded historic resource within the Resort at Lake Charles project area...... 5-2

Table

Table 2.1. Soil types within the project area...... 2-4

Photo

Photo 2.1. Wetland and pasture in northeast portion of the project area...... 2-1

Photo 2.2. Pasture in the northwest portion of the project area...... 2-3

Photo 2.3. Relic grove...... 2-3

Photo 5.1 Circa 1920 Bungalow Style residence (8PO07985) located on the southeast quadrant of Section 31, Township 26 South, Range 27 East, looking south...... 5-3

Photo 5.2 1968 aerial photograph indicated the absence of the subject house on its current location...... 5-4

Photo 5.3 2015 Google Earth satellite image depicting the presence of the house as revealed per field survey...... 5-4

P15018 iii 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) of the Resort at Lake Charles property in Polk County, Florida for Bio-Tech Consulting, Inc. (Figure 1.1). The project area is located northwest of Lake St. Charles and south of Massee Road, west of US 27.

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of the CRAS was to locate and identify any archaeological sites and historic structures within the project area and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Field survey was preceded by background research; such work provided both an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of cultural resources that might be anticipated to occur within the project area, as well as a basis for evaluating any new sites discovered.

This survey was initiated at the request of the Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) who reviewed the project in accordance with Chapters 267.061 and 373.414, Florida Statutes (FS), Florida’s Coastal Management Program, and implementing state regulations regarding possible impact to historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP, or otherwise of historical, architectural, or archaeological value (Bendus 2015: Appendix A). All work was carried out in conformity with the standards contained in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code (revised 2002), and follows the guidelines set forth in the Cultural Resources Standards and Operational Manual (FDHR 2003).

P15018 1-2 ¹

0 0.5 1 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Miles Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), 012 Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap Kilometers contributors, and the GIS User Community

Figure 1.1. Location of the Resort at Lake Charles project area, Polk County. 2-1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Environmental factors such as geology, topography, relative elevation, soils, vegetation, and water resources are important in determining where prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites are likely to be located. These variables influenced what types of resources were available for utilization in a given area. This, in turn, affected decisions regarding settlement location and land-use patterns. Because of the influence of the local environmental factors upon the aboriginal inhabitants, a discussion of the effective environment is included.

2.1 Project Location and Physical Setting

The Resort at Lake Charles property is located in Section 31 of Township 26 South, Range 27 East (United States Geological Survey [USGS] Gum Lake 1977, PR 1983) (Figure 2.1). The land is primarily pasture and relic citrus groves with several swamps/wetlands and Lake St. Charles (Photos 2.1-2.3)

Photo 2.1. Wetland and pasture in northeast portion of the project area.

2.2 Geology Geomorphology

The project area is contained within the Central Highlands physiographic zone, and more specifically within the Lake Wales Ridge (White 1970). The project area is underlain by the Cypresshead Formation of limestone and undifferentiated reworked Cypresshead sediments (Scott 2001; Scott et al. 2001). The surface lithology consists of clayey sand (Scott 1978). The project area ranges in elevation from 40 to 43 meters (m) (130-140 feet [ft]) above mean sea level.

P15018 2-2 ¹

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Resort at Lake Charles project area; Section 31 of Township 26 South, Range 27 East; USGS Gum Lake. 2-3

Photo 2.2. Pasture in the northwest portion of the project area.

Photo 2.3. Relic grove.

2.3 Soils and Vegetation

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the project area is within the Pomona-Myakka-Smyrna soil association, which is characterized by nearly level poorly drained, sandy soils of the flatwoods (Ford et al. 1990). The natural vegetation consists of South Florida slash pine, longleaf pine, slash pine, saw palmetto, water oak, running oak, gallberry, waxmyrtle, ground blueberry, pineland threeawn, and scattered fetterbush lyonia. The depressional areas support bay, cypress, maple, and gum with an understory of sawgrass, fern, greenbrier, lilies, reeds, and other aquatic plants. Table 2.1 provides a list of the specific soils types within the project area (Ford et al. 1990; USDA 2012).

P15018 2-4

Table 2.1. Soil types within the project area. Soil Type & slope Drainage Environmental setting Basinger mucky fine sand, depressional Very poor Wet depressions on flatwoods Candler sand, 0-5% Excessive Upland ridges and knolls Hontoon muck Very poor Swamps and marshes Millhopper fine sand, 0-5% Moderately well Upland ridges and knolls on flatwoods Pomello fine sand Moderately well Low, broad ridges and low knolls on flatwoods Pomona fine sand Poor Broad areas on flatwoods Samsula muck Very poor Swamps and marshes Smyrna and Myakka fine sands Poor Broad areas on flatwoods Tavares fine sand, 0-5% Moderately well Broad uplands and knolls on flatwoods

2.4 Paleo-environmental Considerations

The early environment of the region was different from that seen today. Sea levels were lower, the climate was arid, and fresh water was scarce. An understanding of human ecology during the earliest periods of human occupation in Florida cannot be based on observations of the modern environment because of changes in water availability, botanical communities, and faunal resources. Aboriginal inhabitants would have developed cultural adaptations in response to the environmental changes taking place, which were then reflected in settlement patterns, site types, artifact forms, and subsistence economies.

Due to the arid conditions between 16,500 and 12,500 years ago, the perched water aquifer and potable water supplies were absent. Palynological studies conducted in Florida and Georgia suggest that between 13,000 and 5000 years ago, this area was covered with an upland vegetation community of scrub oak and prairie (Watts 1969, 1971, 1975). However, the environment was not static. Evidence recovered from the inundated Page-Ladson Site in north Florida has clearly demonstrated that there were two periods of low water tables and dry climatic conditions and two episodes of elevated water tables and wet conditions (Dunbar 2006c). The rise of sea level reduced xeric habitats over the next several millennia.

By 5000 years ago, a climatic event marking a brief return to Pleistocene climatic conditions induced a change toward more open vegetation. Southern pine forests replaced the oak savannahs. Extensive marshes and swamps developed along the coasts and subtropical hardwood forests became established along the southern tip of Florida (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Northern Florida saw an increase in oak species, grasses, and sedges (Carbone 1983). At Lake Annie, in south central Florida, pollen cores were dominated by wax myrtle and pine. The assemblage suggests that by this time, a forest dominated by longleaf pine along with cypress swamps and bayheads existed in the area (Watts 1971, 1975). About 5000 years ago, surface water was plentiful in karst terrains and the level of the Floridan aquifer rose to 5 ft above present levels. With the establishment of warmer winters and cooler summers than in the preceding early Holocene, the fire-adapted pine communities prevailed. These depend on the high summer precipitation caused by the thunderstorms and the accompanying lightning strikes to spark the fires (Watts et al. 1996; Watts and Hansen 1994). The increased precipitation also resulted in the formation of the large swamp systems such as the Okefenokee and Everglades (Gleason and Stone 1994). After this time, modern floral, climatic, and environmental conditions began to be established.

.

P15018 3-1

3.0 CULTURE HISTORY

A discussion of the regional culture history is included to provide a framework within which the local historical and archaeological records can be examined. Archaeological sites and historic features are not individual entities, but rather are part of once dynamic cultural systems. As a result, individual sites cannot be adequately examined or interpreted without reference to other sites and resources in the general area.

Archaeologists summarize the culture history of an area (i.e., an archaeological region) by outlining the sequence of cultures through time. These are defined largely in geographical terms but also reflect shared environmental and cultural factors. The project area is located in proximity to both the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast and the East and Central archaeological regions (Milanich 1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). This region extends from just north of Tampa Bay southward to the northern portion of Charlotte Harbor (Figure 3.1). Paleoindian, Archaic, Formative, and Mississippian stages have been defined based on unique sets of material culture traits including stone tools, ceramics, and subsistence, settlement, and burial patterns. These broad temporal units are further subdivided into culture phases or periods.

The local history of the region is divided into four broad periods based initially upon the major governmental powers. The first period, Colonialism, occurred during the exploration and control of Florida by the Spanish and British from around 1513 until 1821. At that time, Florida became a territory of the U.S. and 21 years later became a State (Territorial and Statehood). The Civil War and Aftermath (1861-1899) period deals with the Civil War, the period of Reconstruction following the war, and the late 1800s, when the transportation systems were dramatically increased and development throughout the state expanded. The Twentieth Century period includes subperiods defined by important historic events such as the World Wars, the Boom of the 1920s, and the Depression. Each of these periods evidenced differential development and utilization of the region, thus effecting the historic site distribution.

3.1 Paleoindian

The Paleoindian stage is the earliest known cultural manifestation in Florida, dating from roughly 12,000 to 7500 Before Common Era (BCE) (Milanich 1994). Archaeological evidence for Paleoindians consists primarily of scattered finds of diagnostic lanceolate-shaped projectile points. The Florida peninsula at this time was quite different than today. In general, the climate was cooler and drier with vegetation typified by xerophytic species with scrub oak, pine, open grassy prairies, and savannas (Milanich 1994:40). When human populations were arriving in Florida, the sea levels were still as much as 40 to 60 m (130-200 ft) below present levels and coastal regions of Florida extended miles beyond present-day shorelines (Faught 2004). Thus, many sites have been inundated (Faught and Donoghue 1997).

The Paleoindian period has been sub-divided into three horizons based upon characteristic tool forms (Austin 2001). Traditionally, it is believed that the Clovis Horizon (10,500-9000 BCE) represents the initial occupation of Florida and is defined based upon the presence of the fluted Clovis points. These are somewhat more common in north Florida. Research suggests that Suwannee and Simpson points may be contemporary with or predate Clovis (Dunbar 2006a; Stanford 1991). The Suwannee Horizon (9000-8500 BCE) is the best known of the three horizons. The lanceolate-shaped, unfluted Simpson and Suwannee projectile points are diagnostic of this time (Bullen 1975; Daniel and

P15018 3-2 ¹

1 2

3 5 1 Northwest 4 2 North 3 North-Central 4 East and Central 5 North Peninsular Gulf Coast 6 Central Peninsular Gulf Coast 6 7 Caloosahatchee 8 Okeechobee Basin 9 Glades 8

7

9

Post-500 BCE regions of precolumbian Florida Kilometers Miles 050100 (adapted from Milanich 1994:xix) 02550

Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions. The project area ( ) is within the East and Central Region. 3-3

Wisenbaker 1987; Purdy 1981). The Suwannee tool kit includes scrapers, adzes, spokeshaves, unifacially retouched flakes, and blade-like flakes as well as bone and ivory foreshafts, pins, awls, daggers, anvils, and abraders (Austin 2001:23).

Following the Suwannee Horizon is the Late Paleoindian Horizon (8500-8000 BCE). The smaller Tallahassee, Santa Fe, and Beaver Lake projectile points have traditionally been attributed to this horizon (Milanich 1994). However, many of these points have been recovered stratigraphically from late Archaic and early Woodland period components and thus, may not date to this period at all (Austin 2001; Farr 2006). Florida notched or pseudo-notched points, including the Union, Greenbriar, and Hardaway-like points may represent late Paleoindian types, but these types have not been recovered from datable contexts and their temporal placement remains uncertain (Dunbar 2006a:410).

Archaeologists hypothesize that Paleoindians lived in migratory bands and subsisted by gathering and hunting, including the now-extinct Pleistocene megafauna. It is likely that these nomadic hunters traveled between permanent and semi-permanent sources of water, such as artesian springs, exploiting the available resources. These watering holes would have attracted the animals, thus providing food and drink. In addition to being tethered to water sources, most of the Paleoindian sites are close to good quality lithic resources. The settlement pattern consisted of the establishment of semi-permanent habitation areas and the movement of the resources from their sources of procurement to the residential locale by specialized task groups (Austin 2001:25).

Although the Paleoindian period is generally considered to have been cooler and drier, there were major variations in the inland water tables resulting from large-scale environmental fluctuations. There have been two major theories as to why most Paleoindian materials have been recovered from inundated sites. The Oasis theory, put forth by Wilfred T. Neill, was that due to low water tables and scarcity of potable water, the Paleoindians and the game animals upon which they depended clustered around the few available water holes that were associated with sinkholes (Neill 1964). Whereas, Ben Waller postulated that the Paleoindians gathered around river-crossings to ambush the large Pleistocene animals as they crossed the rivers (Waller 1970). This implies periods of elevated water levels. Based on the research along the Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, it appears that both theories are correct, depending upon what the local environmental conditions were at that time (Dunbar 2006b). As such, during the wetter periods, populations became more dispersed because the water resources were abundant and the animals they relied on could roam over a wider range.

Some of the information about this period has been derived from the underwater excavations at two inland spring sites in Sarasota County: Little Salt Spring and Warm Mineral Springs (Clausen et al. 1979). Excavation at the Harney Flats Site in Hillsborough County has provided a rich body of data concerning Paleoindian life ways. Analysis indicates that this site was used as a quarry-related base camp with special use activity areas (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). It has been suggested that Paleoindian settlement may not have been related as much to seasonal changes as generally postulated for the succeeding Archaic period, but instead movement was perhaps related to the scheduling of tool-kit replacement, social needs, and the availability of water, among other factors (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:175). Investigations along the Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, as well as other sites within the north Florida rivers, have provided important information on the Paleoindian period and how the aboriginals adapted to their environmental setting (Webb 2006). Studies of the Pleistocene faunal remains from these sites clearly demonstrate the importance of these animals not for food alone, but as the raw material for their bone tool industry (Dunbar and Webb 1996).

P15018 3-4

3.2 Archaic

Climatic changes occurred, resulting in the disappearance of the Pleistocene megafauna and the demise of the Paleoindian culture. The disappearance of the mammoths and mastodons resulted in a reduction of open grazing lands, and thus, the subsequent disappearance of grazers such as horse, bison, and camels. With the reduction of open habitat, the herd animals were replaced by the more solitary, woodland browser: the white-tailed deer (Dunbar 2006a:426). The intertwined data of megafauna’ extinction and cultural change suggests a rapid and significant disruption in both faunal and floral assemblages. The Bolen people represent the first culture adapted to the Holocene environment (Carter and Dunbar 2006). This included a more specialized toolkit and the introduction of chipped-stone woodworking implements.

Due to a lack of excavated collections and the poor preservation of bone and other organic materials in the upland sites, our knowledge of the Early Archaic artifact assemblage is limited (Carter and Dunbar 2006; Milanich 1994). Discoveries at the Page-Ladson, Little Salt Spring, and Windover sites indicate that bone and wood tools were used (Clausen et al. 1979; Doran 2002; Webb 2006). The archaeological record suggests a diffuse, yet well-scheduled, pattern of exploiting both coastal and interior resources. Because water sources were much more numerous and larger than previously, the Early Archaic peoples could sustain larger populations, occupy sites for longer periods, and perform activities requiring longer occupations at a specific locale (Milanich 1994:67).

Marked environmental changes, which occurred some 6500 years ago, had a profound influence upon human settlement and subsistence practices. Among the landscape alterations were rises in sea and water table levels that resulted in the creation of more available surface water. In addition to changed hydrological conditions, this period is characterized by the spread of mesic forests and the beginnings of modern vegetation communities including pine forests and cypress swamps. Humans adapted to this changing environment and regional and local differences are reflected in the archaeological record (Russo 1994a, 1994b; Sassaman 2008).

The Middle Archaic archaeological record is better understood than the Early Archaic. The material culture inventory included several stemmed, broad blade projectile point types including the Newnan, Levy, Marion, and Putnam types (Bullen 1975). Population growth, as evidenced by the increased number of Middle Archaic sites and accompanied by increased socio-cultural complexity, is assumed for this time (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Site types included large base camps, smaller special-use campsites, quarries, and burial areas. The most common sites are the smaller campsites, which were most likely used for hunting or served as special-use extractive sites for such activities as gathering nuts or other botanical materials. At quarry sites, aboriginal populations mined stone for their tools. They usually roughly shaped the stone prior to transporting it to another locale for finishing. Base camps are identified by their larger artifact assemblages and wider variety of tools.

During the Late Archaic period, population increased and became more sedentary. The broad-bladed, stemmed projectile styles of the Middle Archaic continued to be made with the addition of Culbreath, Lafayette, Clay, and Westo point types (Bullen 1975). A greater reliance on marine resources is indicated in coastal areas. Subsistence strategies and technologies reflect the beginnings of an adaptation to these resources. Around 4000 years ago, evidence of fired clay pottery appears in Florida. The first ceramic types, tempered with fibers (Spanish moss or palmetto), are referred to as the Orange series. Initially, it was thought that they lacked decoration until about 1700 BCE, when they were decorated with geometric designs and punctations. Research has called this ceramic chronology into question; AMS dates from a series of incised Orange sherds from the middle St. Johns River Valley, have produced dates contemporaneous with the plain varieties (Sassaman 2003).

P15018 3-5

Milanich (1994:86-87) suggests that while there may be little difference between Middle and Late Archaic populations, there are more Late Archaic sites and they were primarily located near wetlands. The abundant wetland resources allowed larger settlements to be maintained. It is likely that the change in settlement patterns was related to the environmental changes. By the end of the Middle Archaic, the climate closely resembled that of today; vegetation changed from those species which preferred moist conditions to pines and mixed forests (Watts and Hansen 1988). Sea levels rose, inundating many sites located along the shoreline. The adaptation to this environment allowed for a wider variety of resources to be exploited and a wider variation in settlement patterns. No longer were the scarce waterholes dictating the location of sites. Shellfish, fish, and other food sources were now available from coastal and freshwater wetlands resulting in an increased population size.

The Late Archaic Transitional stage refers to that portion of the ceramic Archaic when sand was mixed with the fibers as a tempering agent. The same settlement and subsistence patterns were being followed. It has been suggested that during this period there was a diffusion of cultural traits as a result of the movement of small groups (Bullen 1959, 1965). This resulted in the appearance of several different ceramic and lithic tool traditions, and the beginning of cultural regionalism.

3.3 Formative

The Formative stage is comprised of the Manasota and Weeden Island-related cultures (ca. 500 BCE to 800 CE [Common Era]). Settlement patterns consisted of permanent villages located along the coast with seasonal forays into the interior to hunt, gather, and collect those resources unavailable along the coast. Most Manasota sites are shell middens found on or near the shore where aboriginal villagers had easiest access to fish and shellfish (Milanich 1994). The subsistence economy focused on the coastal exploitation of maritime resources, supplemented by the hunting and gathering of inland resources (Luer and Almy 1982). Investigations at the Shaw’s Point, Fort Brook Midden, Yat Kitischee, and Myakkahatchee sites have provided a wealth of information on site formation, subsistence economies, and technology and their changes over time (Austin 1995; Austin et al. 1992; Luer et al. 1987; Schwadron 2002). The major villages were located along the shore with smaller sites being located up to 19-29 km (12-18 mi) inland. These inland sites, which probably served as seasonal villages or special-use campsites, were often located in the pine flatwoods on elevated lands proximate to a source of freshwater where a variety of resources could be exploited (Austin and Russo 1989; Luer and Almy 1982). Hardin and Piper (1984) suggest that some of the larger inland sites may actually be permanent or semi-permanent settlements as opposed to seasonal campsites.

Manasota is characterized by a wide range of material cultural traits such as a well-developed shell and bone tool technology, sand tempered plain ceramics, and burials within shell middens (Luer and Almy 1982). Much of the shell and bone technology evolved out of the preceding Archaic period. Through time, the burial patterns became more elaborate, with burials being placed within sand burial mounds located near the villages and middens. The early burial patterns consisted of primary flexed burials in the shell middens, while later sites contained secondary burials within sand mounds.

Temporal placement within the Manasota period can be determined based upon diagnostic ceramic rim and vessel forms (Luer and Almy 1982). The early forms (ca. 500 BCE to 400 CE) are characterized as flattened globular bowls with incurving rims and chamfered lips. Pot forms with rounded lips and inward curving rims were utilized from about 200 BCE until 700 CE. Deeper pot forms with straight sides and rounded lips were developed around 400 CE and continued into the Safety Harbor period. Simple bowls with outward curving rims and flattened lips were used from the

P15018 3-6 end of the Late Weeden Island period (ca. 800 CE) into the Safety Harbor period. Vessel wall thickness decreased over time.

The lithic assemblage of the Manasota culture was scarce along the coast especially in the more southern portions of the region where stone suitable for tool manufacture was absent. Projectile point types associated with the Manasota period include the Sarasota, Hernando, and Westo varieties (Luer and Almy 1982).

Influences from the Weeden Island “heartland,” located in north-central Florida, probably resulted in the changes in burial practices. These influences can also be seen in the increased variety of ceremonial ceramic types through time. The secular, sand tempered ware continued to be the dominant ceramic type. Manasota evolved into what is referred to as a Weeden Island-related culture. The subsistence and settlement patterns remained consistent. Hunting and gathering of the inland and coastal resources continued. Evidence of a widespread trade network is seen by the ceramic types and other exotic artifacts present within the burial mounds.

Ceremonialism and its expressions, such as the construction of complex burial mounds containing exotic and elaborate grave offerings, reached their greatest development during this period. Similarly, the subsistence economy, divided between maritime and terrestrial animals and perhaps horticultural products, represents the maximum effective adjustment to the environment. Many Weeden Island-related sites consist of villages with associated mounds, as well as ceremonial/burial mound sites. The artifact assemblage is distinguished by the presence of Weeden Island ceramic types. These are among some of the finest ceramics in the Southeast; they are often thin, well-fired, burnished, and decorated with incising, punctations, complicated stamping, and animal effigies (Milanich 1994:211). Coastal sites are marked by the presence of shell middens, indicating a continued pattern of exploitation of marine and estuarine resources. Interaction between the inland farmer-gatherers and coastal hunter-gatherers may have developed into mutually beneficial exchange systems (Kohler 1991:98). This could account for the presence of non-locally made ceramics at some of the Weeden Island-related period sites. There is no definitive evidence for horticulture in the coastal area (Milanich 1994:215).

3.4 Mississippian

The final aboriginal cultural manifestation in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region is Safety Harbor, named for the type-site in Pinellas County. The presence of datable European artifacts (largely Spanish) in sites, along with radiocarbon dates from early Safety Harbor contexts associated with Englewood ceramics, provide the basis for dividing the Safety Harbor period into two pre- Columbian phases: Englewood (900-1000 CE) and Pinellas (1000-1500 CE) and two colonial period phases: Tatham (1500-1567 CE) and Bayview (1567-1725 CE) (Mitchem 1989). The Safety Harbor variant in Hillsborough, northern Manatee, Pinellas, and southern Pasco counties is identified as the Circum-Tampa Bay regional variant.

Although inland sites do occur, the Safety Harbor culture was primarily a coastal phenomenon (Mitchem 1989, 2012). Large coastal towns or villages often had a temple mound, plaza, midden, and a burial mound associated with them. Although some maize agriculture may have been practiced by the Safety Harbor peoples, the coastal environment was not suitable for intensive maize agriculture (Luer and Almy 1981; Mitchem 2012). Away from the coastal plain, a more dispersed pattern of smaller settlements was evident and the burial mounds appear to have been located away from the habitation areas (Mitchem 1988, 1989).

P15018 3-7

Influences from the north led to the incorporation of some Mississippian traits by the late Manasota peoples, which became the Safety Harbor culture. Most, Safety Harbor components are located on top of the earlier Manasota deposits and there is evidence of significant continuity from Manasota into Safety Harbor. However, in some areas, Manasota continued later than previously thought, while in other areas Englewood did not appear to have occurred at all (Austin et al. 2008). The lack of the diagnostic Englewood ceramics at many sites may indicate that the Englewood phase was skipped in the developmental sequence from Manasota to Safety Harbor (Mitchem 2012).

The primary difference between Manasota and Safety Harbor is the ceramic assemblage. The utilitarian ceramics include the Pasco (limestone tempered), Pinellas (laminated paste), and sand tempered plain varieties. The decorated ceramics, primarily recovered from burial mounds, include Englewood Incised, Sarasota Incised, Lemon Bay Incised, St. Johns Check Stamped, Safety Harbor, Incised, and Pinellas Incised (Willey 1949). The adoption of Mississippian traits such as jar and bottle forms, and the guilloche or loop design, are indicative of this period. However, unlike most Mississippi period ceramics, the use of mussel shell as the aplastic is not present (Mitchem 2012).

Trade between the Safety Harbor people and other Southeastern Mississippian cultures took place. It is likely that marine whelks and conchs were traded with groups in the Southeast and Midwest. In turn, items such as copper and ground-stone artifacts made their way south. Based on Spanish accounts, the Safety Harbor culture had evolved into a chiefdom form of government, albeit minus the maize agriculture of other Mississippian period groups in the Southeast. This lack of agriculture was likely due to the extremely successful adaptation to the local environment and the lack of suitable soils for the production of maize. Mitchem notes that although contact with Mississippian people may have led to political and religious changes, there was not a compelling reason to change their lifestyle completely (Mitchem 2012:185).

3.5 Colonialism

The Timucuan Indians are the historic counterparts of the Safety Harbor people. In the Tampa Bay area they are referred to as the Tocobaga, extending from roughly Tarpon Springs southward to the Sarasota area (Bullen 1978). The Tocobaga consisted of a number of small chiefdoms whose leaders frequently waged war against each other. The most powerful chiefdom was Tocobaga, located at the head of Old Tampa Bay at the Safety Harbor site; other major chiefdoms included the Mocoço (at the mouth of the Alafia River) and Ucita (at the mouth of the Little Manatee River) (Hann 2003).

The cultural traditions of the native Floridians ended with the advent of European expeditions to the New World. The initial events, authorized by the Spanish crown in the 1500s, ushered in devastating European contact. After Ponce de Leon’s landing near St. Augustine in 1513, Spanish explorations were confined to the west coast of Florida; Narvaéz is thought to have made shore in 1528 in St. Petersburg and de Soto’s 1539 landing is commemorated at De Soto Point on the south bank of the Manatee River. The Spaniards briefly established a fort and garrison at Tocobaga in the 1560s. In 1568, the Tocobaga killed all of the soldiers and when a Spanish supply ship arrived, the Tocobaga left and the Spanish burned the village (Hann 2003).

The area that now constitutes the State of Florida was ceded to England in 1763 after two centuries of Spanish possession. England governed Florida until 1783 when the Treaty of Paris returned Florida to Spain; however, Spanish influence was nominal during this second period of ownership. Prior to the American colonial settlement of Florida, portions of the Muskogean Creek, Yamassee, and Oconee tribes moved into Florida and repopulated the demographic vacuum created

P15018 3-8 by the decimation of the original aboriginal inhabitants. These migrating groups of Native Americans became known to English speakers as Seminoles. They had an agriculturally based society, focusing upon cultivation of crops and the raising of horses and cattle. The material culture of the Seminoles remained similar to the Creeks, the dominant aboriginal pottery type being Chattahoochee Brushed. European trade goods, especially British, were common. The Creek settlement pattern included large villages located near rich agricultural fields and grazing lands.

Their early history can be divided into two basic periods: colonization (1716-1767) when their initial movement into Florida occurred, and enterprise (1767-1821) which was an era of prosperity under the British and Spanish rule prior to the American presence (Mahon and Weisman 1996). The Seminoles crossed back and forth into Georgia and Alabama conducting raids and welcoming escaped slaves. This resulted in General Andrew Jackson’s invasion of Florida in 1818, which became known as the First Seminole War. “In 1821, just after the general had agreed to accept Florida’s provisional governorship, his Lower Creek allies raided the peninsula. They attacked Seminole villages from the Suwannee down to modern Pasco County. Driving further south, they ultimately destroyed Angola. Likely three hundred blacks were dragged back into American slavery, and the remainder of Angola’s population of perhaps seven hundred to eight hundred divided between refuges in the Bahamas and the Florida interior. The raid compounded for blacks and Seminoles the importance of lessons already learned. In unity lay strength” (Rivers 2000).

3.6 Territorial and Statehood

As a result of the war and the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819, Florida became a United States territory in 1821, but settlement was slow and scattered during the early years. Andrew Jackson, named provisional governor, divided the territory into St. Johns and Escambia Counties. At that time, St. Johns County encompassed all of Florida lying east of the Suwannee River, and Escambia County included the land lying to the west. In the first territorial census in 1825, some 317 persons reportedly lived in South Florida; by 1830 that number had risen to 517 (Tebeau 1980:134).

The 1821 raid disrupted Buckra Woman’s Town in the Big Hammock, which lay within today’s Hernando and Pasco Counties. Buckra Woman’s Town, aka Bucker Woman’s Town, referred to an African-derived expression even though the village’s owner was a Seminole. Buckra was a pejorative term, stemming from the Ibo word for “white man,” used by slaves to describe their white southern plantation masters (Rivers 2000). Sister to the dead Seminole chiefs King Payne and King Bowlegs, Buckra Woman was the mother of Billy Bowlegs. By 1823 she had transferred her cattle operations and black vassals to a village situated on a creek that flowed westward into Peace River, three miles south of Fort Meade. The stream retains the name Bowlegs Creek. Buckra Woman called the village Tobasa or Wahoo (Brown 2001:13).

Even though the First Seminole War was fought in north Florida, the Treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823, at the end of the war, was to affect the settlement of all of south Florida. The Seminoles relinquished their claim to the whole peninsula in return for an approximately four million acre reservation south of Ocala and north of Charlotte Harbor (Covington 1958; Mahon 1985:50). The treaty satisfied neither the Indians nor the settlers. The inadequacy of the reservation and desperate situation of the Seminoles living there, plus the mounting demand of the settlers for their removal, soon produced another conflict.

During the Second Seminole War, Fort Gardiner, lying within present-day Polk County, was established at the headwaters of the Kissimmee. Military and civilian suppliers passed through the

P15018 3-9 region traveling to reach Seminole villages and an increasing number of military fortifications. A major military strategy during the war was developed to ensure that the Seminoles would remain on the lands south of Ocala. General Zachary Taylor established a line of posts or forts across the state from Fort Brooke, on the west, to around New Smyrna on the east coast. The line of forts included Fort Fraser in Polk County. The Second Seminole War lasted until 1842 “…when a frustrated President John Tyler ordered the end of military action against the Seminoles, $20 million had been spent, 1500 American soldiers had died, and still no formal peace treaty had been signed” (Wickman 2002). Tyler ended the conflict by withdrawing U.S. troops from Florida. Some of the battle-weary Seminoles were persuaded with money to migrate west where the federal government had set aside land for Native Americans. However, those who were adamant about remaining in Florida were allowed to do so, but were pushed further south into the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp. This area became the last stronghold for the Seminoles (Mahon 1985:321).

Although the war devastated many parts of Florida, it also stimulated development. During the war, the U.S. army dispatched a number of military expeditions to the Peace River. Forts were established along the river and elsewhere throughout central Florida; land was cleared and roads were created to provide access to the scattered forts. Encouraged by the passage of the Armed Occupation Act in 1842, designed to promote settlement and protect the Florida frontier, settlers moved south through Florida. The Act made available 200,000 acres outside the already developed regions south of Gainesville to the Peace River, barring coastal lands and those within a two-mile radius of a fort. The Armed Occupation Act stipulated that any family or single man over 18 able to bear arms could earn title to 160 acres by erecting a habitable dwelling, cultivating at least five acres of land, and living on it for five years. During the nine-month period the law was in effect, 1184 permits were issued totaling some 189,440 acres (Covington 1961a:48).

In 1845, the State of Florida was admitted to the Union with Tallahassee selected as the state capital. During the same year, Hillsborough County, which was established in 1834, was enlarged to include parts of Mosquito County, including the area that later became Polk County. Federal surveys were initiated by the U.S. Government in the 1840s, following the Second Seminole War and the Armed Occupation Act. B. F. Whitner surveyed the exterior lines and interior subdivisions of Township 26 South, Range 27 East in 1846 and 1847. No historic features were noted within the project area, but the road from Lake Monroe to Tampa was located about 5 miles east of the project area (State of Florida 1848b). Whitner described the area as third-rate flat pine and saw palmetto with areas of high rolling pine and blackjack (State of Florida 1847:155, 167, 1848a:155, 160)

By 1851, there were not more than a dozen Anglo-American families, along with a garrison of soldiers and a hundred or so Indians, in what was to become Polk County. The earliest settlements were established along the Peace River. Pioneer homesteaders included the Blounts, Raulersons, and Summerlins, most of who were from northeast Florida. Many of the families tended to concentrate around the communities of Medulla, Bartow, Socrum, and Fort Meade (Historic Property Associates [HPA 1992:3; McNeely and McFadyen 1961:7).

As more homesteaders settled further south on the peninsula, difficulties with the Seminoles increased, eventually resulting in the Third Seminole War (1855-1858) (McNeely 1961). In 1849, an “Indian Scare” began with several attacks, one occurring near a trading post at Payne’s Creek. There, white settlers employed at the post were attacked by a few young Seminoles. Two settlers were killed, and others escaped to alert surrounding settlements (Frisbie 1976:16).

The possibility of repeat events such as this prompted the creation of a number of military forts throughout central Florida (Covington 1961b). In 1849, Ft. Kissimmee was strategically placed halfway between Lake Okeechobee and Lake Kissimmee. Hostilities broke out in December 1855

P15018 3-10 when a group of surveyors, with a military escort, penetrated the Big Cypress Swamp and Billy Bowlegs’ camp resulting in the start of the Third Seminole War (Covington 1982).

Polk County was witness to some hostile action during the Third Seminole War. The Battle of Peace River occurred in the summer of 1856, as a result of a Seminole war party attack on the Tillis family home near Fort Meade (Matthews 1983). Reinforcements were sent from Fort Fraser to Fort Meade and a bloody battle ensued with the whites withdrawing to a position south of Fort Meade. Captain William B. Hooker, commander of militia forces in the area, arrived and searched for the Seminole group up and down the banks of the Peace River with no success. The battle was over. It was not until two years later in February of 1858, that the final Seminole War ended when Chief Billy Bowlegs, along with 165 Seminoles, accepted monetary persuasion to migrate west. On May 8, 1858, the Third Seminole War was declared over (Brown 1991; Covington 1982).

Following the Third Seminole War, the area that currently comprises Polk County experienced its first land boom. More soldiers settled in the area and civilians finally felt the land was sufficiently safe to inhabit. Several settlements sprang up and others grew. Communities developed during the mid-nineteenth century as families settled near forts for protection. By 1860, the total population of Hillsborough County, which included present-day Polk County, was 2,979. Nineteen percent of the total population was slaves, with only 120 slave owners in the entire county. One year later, Readding Blount, James Hamilton, George Hamilton, Francis A. Hendry, Louis Lanier, John C. Oats, Henry Seward, and Frederick Varn owned 55 percent of the slaves in Polk County. The slaves located in Fort Fraser and Fort Blount held a value of $81,450, almost as much as cattle in the same year (Brown 1991:138-138).

3.7 Civil War and Aftermath

On February 8, 1861, the state legislature created Polk County out of portions of Hillsborough and Brevard Counties, and named it in honor of President James K. Polk (Frisbie 1976:32). That same year Florida followed South Carolina’s lead and seceded from the Union as a prelude to the Civil War. Although homesteaders and settlers clustered around the drainage and supply systems of Peas Creek (Peace River), occupation was still scattered and isolated throughout the years of the War Between the States (Davis 1856). Many male residents abandoned their farms and settlements to join the Union Army at one of the coastal areas retained by the United States government or joined the Confederate Cow Cavalry. The Confederate Cow Cavalry provided one of the major contributions to the Confederate war effort by supplying and protecting the transportation of beef to the government (Akerman 1976:93-95). There was little military activity in Polk County during the ensuing four years of the Civil War.

During the early post-war years, the highly publicized 1862 Homestead Act, passed by the U.S. Congress as wartime legislation, enticed more settlers into Florida to establish farms and rescue the rebel state. Civilian activity slowly resumed a normal pace after recovery from wartime depressions. Subsistence agriculture, citrus, and cattle remained the primary economic sources in Polk County. The county seat was established in 1867 on land at Fort Blount given by Jacob Summerlin. The settlement was named Bartow, for Gen. Francis S. Bartow of Georgia, a wartime casualty (Frisbie 1976:36). Travel between Tampa, Fort Meade, and Bartow, a 48 mile trip requiring twelve hours, was completed weekly by stage (Pizzo 1968:77). During the early 1870s, there were less than 150 people residing within an area of 50 square miles surrounding the county seat of Bartow. The unstable economy following the war hampered any noticeable development in central and south Florida until the 1880s, when railroads extended tracks through the area (HPA 1992:6)

P15018 3-11

During the Reconstruction period, Florida’s financial crisis, born of pre-war railroad bonded indebtedness, led Governor William Bloxham to search for a buyer for an immense amount of state lands. Bloxham’s task was to raise adequate capital in one sale to free from litigation the remainder of state lands for desperately needed revenue. In March of 1881, Hamilton Disston, a Philadelphia investor and friend of Governor Bloxham, purchased four million acres from the State of Florida in order to clear the state’s debt. This transaction, which became known as the Disston Purchase, enabled the distribution of large land subsidies to railroad companies, inducing them to begin extensive construction programs for new lines throughout the state (Harner 1973; Tebeau 1980). Hamilton Disston and the railroad companies, in turn sold smaller parcels of land to developers and private investors (Davis 1939). Disston’s land holding company was the Florida Land and Improvement Company. Disston and his associates also formed the Atlantic and Gulf Coast Canal and Okeechobee Land Company on July 1881 (Davis 1939:205). This company was established as part of the drainage contract created with the State that would provide Disston and his associates with one-half of the acreage that they could drain, reclaim, and make fit for cultivation. Disston also formed the Kissimmee Land Company to help fulfill his drainage contracts (Hetherington 1928). Canals were dug to many area lakes and the Kissimmee River was cleaned and deepened. The dredging operations made it possible to navigate a steamboat from Lake Kissimmee to Lake Okeechobee and out to the Gulf of Mexico via the Caloosahatchee River (Tebeau 1980:280). Steamboats became commonplace on the river as people began to settle around Lake Kissimmee.

In addition to the introduction of the railroad in the 1880s, natural resources were discovered, fostering growth in the area. During studies conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1881 to determine the feasibility of opening a navigable waterway from the St. Johns River to Charlotte Harbor, valuable pebble rock phosphate deposits were discovered along the Peace River. Subsequent massive land acquisitions began and continued for decades. Mining towns, refineries, and shipping facilities were soon to change the face of the lands in which deposits were found (Blakey 1974; Brown 1991; Cash 1938; Driver 1992; Historic Tampa/Hillsborough County Preservation Board [HT/HCPB 1980).

Polk County began witnessing major growth following the discovery of phosphate and the construction of the railroad throughout the county. In 1883, Henry Plant’s South Florida Railway entered Polk County, extending from Tampa northeast to Kissimmee where it linked up with the Sanford Line. It is around this time, that the lands within the Resort at Lake Charles property were purchased by the South Florida Railway Co. (1883), John Flannery (1884), Daniel C. Harp, Jr. (1885), and J. L. Morgan/W. H. Reynolds (1890) (State of Florida n.d.:289).

In late 1889, the DeSoto Phosphate Mining Company built a phosphate processing plant on the Peace River. From its beginnings at Zolfo and Arcadia, the phosphate industry spread throughout the Peace River Valley. The Pharr Phosphate Company and the Florida Phosphate Company had mines near Bartow in 1890. However, the pebble phosphate boom was short lived. A drop in prices, decreased demand, increasing production costs, the Panic of 1893, and competition from hard rock and land pebble mine, ultimately combined to end the production of pebble phosphate (Brown 1991). Nonetheless, land mining for phosphate continued, and in 1919 there were 17 phosphate companies in Polk County (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA 1978). By 1938, extensive consolidation of the various phosphate companies across the state resulted in a total of three hardrock phosphate companies and six land pebble phosphate companies (Blakey 1974:159).

By 1895, only a decade after incorporation, the population of Lakeland had nearly doubled to 1,000. Much of this was because Lakeland had become an important rail yard and shipping site in Polk County; by 1893, there were 20 daily train arrivals and departures at the local station. Essential to the economic success of Lakeland, the railroad facilitated the shipment of citrus, strawberries and

P15018 3-12 phosphate, three of its key industries, to markets worldwide (Hetherington 1928; McNeely 1961). This placed the town among the top 15 cities in Florida at the time. Although the national financial Panic of 1893, and the Great Freeze of 1894-95, devastated capital investment and much of the Florida citrus industry, including that in Polk County, groves were replanted and prospered again within the next decade. In 1900, the main industries remained phosphate mining, citrus, and strawberry farming (Hetherington 1928).

3.8 Twentieth Century

The Florida Citrus Exchange was formed in 1909, with a Polk County sub-exchange headquartered in Bartow. A Lakeland Citrus Exchange was created in 1912. Several other packinghouses and a juice plant were constructed by 1916, primarily located along the railroad tracks, northwest of downtown. By the late 1910s, the naval stores industry that produced turpentine, lumber and rosin, joined the citrus and phosphate industries as a prime economic resource in Polk County.

In 1916, the Good Roads Association sponsored a 1.5 million dollar bond issue to build 217 miles of asphalt highways linking every major city in Polk County. By 1923, another million dollars had been spent on asphalt roads, with arches erected at each major point of entry. At this time, the County was believed to be the only county in the country in which every town was linked by paved roads (Brown 2001; Frisbie 1976; Hetherington 1928; Kendrick 1964; McNeely 1961). The expanding road system, mild winters, new hotels, and propaganda that advertised the state as a tropical paradise, prompted the Florida Land Boom of the 1920s. Polk County boasted 326 miles of “velvet asphalt highways winding through 50,000 acres of orange groves and around hundreds of lakes” (Barber 1975:324-325).

However, the 1926 real estate economy in Florida was based upon such wild land speculations that banks could not keep track of loans or property values. By October 1926, rumors were rampant in northern newspapers concerning fraudulent practices in the real estate market in south Florida. Confidence in the Florida real estate market quickly diminished, investors could not sell lots, and depression hit Florida earlier than the rest of the nation. Simultaneously, the agricultural industry suffered a devastating infestation by the Mediterranean fruit fly that endangered the future of the entire citrus industry. To make the situation even worse two hurricanes hit south Florida in 1926 and 1928. The hurricanes destroyed confidence in Florida as a tropical paradise and created a flood of refugees fleeing northward. Soon after, the October 1929 stock market crash and the onset of the Great Depression left the area in a state of stagnation. The 1930s saw the closing of mines and mills and citrus packing plants, and widespread unemployment (Burr 1974).

Exacerbating the economic downturn was the compulsory cattle dipping law, which forced cattle owners to dip their stock every two weeks for two years. This law was enforced in an effort to eradicate the cattle fever tick, responsible for transmission of tick fever. This disease, which was debilitating to the nation’s southern stock, was fatal to northern herds (Black 1998). Although the program was subsidized by the state, until the correct “dip recipe” was discovered, numerous cattle were lost to overdosing, at the expense of the private ranchers (Black 1998). In addition, with cattle scattered over vast distances, bi-monthly dipping required constant hours in the saddle for the roundups (Akerman 1976). Despite the short-term economic burden placed on ranchers, many see the cattle-dipping program as the birth of the cattle industry in Florida. Prior to this, herds were allowed to roam freely. The legislation made ranchers accountable for their herds, a responsibility, which resulted in fenced ranches and branded cattle (Carlton 1997).

P15018 3-13

By the mid-1930s, federal programs implemented by the Roosevelt administration began employing large numbers of construction workers helping to revive the economy. These projects included federal building of parks, bridges, and public buildings. In addition to projects such as these, the WPA occasionally assisted local entrepreneurs. One such local businessperson was Dick Pope who developed the swampland on the north bank of Lake Eloise into Cypress Gardens, located in Winter Haven. On January 2, 1936, Cypress Gardens opened to the public and became Florida’s first theme park show-placing thousands of types of flowers from countries around the world (Brown 2001). Eventually the park expanded to include rides and water-skiing shows.

Following the Depression, World War II and federal efforts to package and transport food resulted in innovative changes. Rapid expansion occurred in the citrus canning field (HT/HCPB 1980:13). In addition, federal road building and airfield construction for the wartime defense effort brought unparalleled numbers of residents into Florida and the project area during the postwar years. Phosphate operations continued. The 1940s saw an industry-wide rebound as wartime and post- wartime demands for modern agricultural production created economic market incentives worldwide. Conglomerate corporations entered the market as technology evolved and small-scale operations began to disappear (HT/HCPB 1980:17-18). During the following decade, the 1956 Highway Act funded a plan for 41,500 miles of interstate highway nationwide. Interstate 4 (I-4) was part of that plan and was constructed during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Today, I-4 is the major automobile transportation link between Tampa and Orlando through Polk County.

Economically, the county continues to rely on the industries that have historically supported it. Polk County is a leading phosphate and citrus producer in the state and is a major producer of cattle, poultry, and softwood logs and pulp. It also has the largest amount of farmland in the State. In addition, tourism is important economically. Polk County’s total population in 2000 was 483,924 and by 2010, the population had increased almost 25% to 602,095 (U.S. Census Bureau [USCB 2012).

3.9 Project Area Specifics

The aerial photos available from the Publication of Archival Library and Museum Materials (PALMM) from 1941 to 1968 indicate that the project area had been used for citrus and pasture as early as 1941, with agricultural expansion increasing from east to west (USDA 1941, 1952, 1958, 1968). A number of structures were evident on the aerial photos, but do not appear to be extant today (Figure 3.2).

P15018 3-14

3-2-41 CTU-8B-8 ¹

0 500 1,000 Feet 0 100 200 300 Meters 2-12-68 CTU-4JJ-91 ¹

0 500 1,000 Feet

0 100 200 300 Meters

Figure 3.2. 1941 and 1968 aerial photographs of the Resort at Lake Charles project area (USDA 1941, 1968). 4-1

4.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND METHODS

4.1 Background Research and Literature Review

A comprehensive review of archaeological and historical literature, records and other documents and data pertaining to the project area was conducted. The focus of this research was to ascertain the types of cultural resources known in the project area and vicinity, their temporal/cultural affiliations, site location information, and other relevant data. This included a review of sites listed in the NRHP, the FMSF, cultural resource survey reports, published books and articles, unpublished manuscripts, and maps.

It should be noted that the FMSF digital data used in this report were obtained in January 2015. According to FMSF staff, input may be a month or more behind receipt of reports and site files and the GIS data are updated quarterly. Thus, the findings of the background research phase of investigation may not be current with actual work performed in the general project area.

4.1.1 Archaeological Considerations

For archaeological survey projects, specific research designs are formulated prior to initiating fieldwork to delineate project goals and strategies. Of primary importance is an attempt to understand, based on prior investigations, the spatial distribution of known resources. Such knowledge serves not only to generate an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of sites which might be anticipated to occur within the project area, but also provides a valuable regional perspective, and thus, a basis for evaluating any new sites discovered.

Background research indicated that four previously recorded archaeological sites are located between one and two miles of the Resort at Lake Charles property (Figure 4.1). 8PO00217 and 8PO00218 were recorded during the survey of the Ridgewood Lakes/Edgehill Development (Piper 1982), as were one other archaeological site and nine archaeological occurrences. These two sites consist of an artifact scatter and a lithic scatter, neither of which was deemed NRHP-eligible by the researchers. None has been evaluated by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in terms of NRHP eligibility. 8PO06857 and 8PO06858 were recorded as a result of the survey of the Tramonto Estates property (White 2006). These were both lithic scatter scatters with low research potential. Neither was deemed eligible for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO (FMSF).

There have been several other CRAS reports prepared within a mile of the project area for development projects (ACI 2008; Ambrosino 2005; Driscoll 2008), transportation related projects (ACI 2000, 2003; Janus Research 1998), and a cell tower (FAC 2004). Based on these data, combined with more regional archaeological syntheses (ACI 1999; de Montmollin 1983; Janus Research 1992, 2004; Johnson and Basinet 1995), the project area and surrounding lands has been the scene of human activity for more than 8000 years. As archaeologists have long realized, aboriginal populations did not select their habitation sites and special use activity areas in a random fashion. Rather, many environmental factors had a direct influence upon site location selection. Among these variables are soil drainage, distance to freshwater, relative topography, and proximity to food and other resources including stone and clay.

P15018 4-2 ¹

8PO00218

8PO00217

8PO06856

8PO06857

8PO06858

0 0.5 1 Miles 012 Kilometers Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Figure 4.1. Location of archaeological sites within two miles of the Resort at Lake Charles project area; USGS Gum Lake. 4-3

In general, comparative site location data indicate a pattern of site distribution favoring the relatively higher and better-drained terrain relative to the surrounding land and near a permanent or semi-permanent source of potable water including rivers, creeks, and freshwater marshes. Upland sites well removed from potable water are rare. In the poorly drained pine flatwoods, sites tend to be situated on ridges and knolls near a freshwater source. It should be noted that the settlement patterns noted above cannot be applied to sites of the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, which precede the onset of modern environmental conditions.

The project area was considered to have moderate archaeological potential due to the presence of fairly well drained soils and abundant water and wetland resources. The project area was also considered to have a moderate to high potential for historic period archaeological sites given the structures that had been previously constructed on the property.

4.1.2 Historical Considerations

According to information obtained from the FMSF and the NRHP, no historic resources have been recorded within the Resort at Lake Charles property. The historic aerials depicted several structures on the property, but none appear to be extant based on the 2011 aerial available from ESRI (USDA 1941, 1952, 1958, 1968). One historic building, a residence built ca. 1950, may potentially exist on the southeast quadrant of the property (Parcel ID 27-26-31-709000-020170) (Faux 2015).

4.2 Field Methodology

Archaeological field methods included ground surface inspection as well as subsurface shovel testing to locate sites not exposed on the ground. Archaeological subsurface testing was conducted at 50 m (164 ft) and 100 m (328 ft) intervals throughout the property. In addition, shovel tests were placed at 10 m (33 ft) intervals around the two positive shovel tests. Shovel tests were circular and measured approximately 50 centimeter (cm) (20 inches [in]) in diameter by at least 1 m (3.3 ft) in depth unless precluded by utilities or groundwater intrusion. All soil removed from the test pits was screened through 0.64 cm (0.25 in) mesh hardware cloth to maximize the recovery of artifacts. The locations of all shovel tests were recorded using an GeoXT, and, following recording of relevant data such as stratigraphic profile and artifact finds, all test pits were refilled.

Historical field methodology consisted of a preliminary reconnaissance survey of the area to determine the location of all historic properties believed to be 50 years of age or older, and to ascertain if any resources adjacent to the project corridor could be eligible for listing in the NRHP. In addition, “Lem,” a resident of the property reported that a structure had been moved along the lakeshore from somewhere near US 27. The investigations consisted of an in-depth study of the identified historic resource. Photographs were taken and information needed for the completion of the FMSF form was gathered. In addition to architectural descriptions, the property was reviewed to assess style, historic context, and potential NRHP eligibility.

4.3 Unexpected Discoveries

If human burial sites such as Indian mounds, lost historic and prehistoric cemeteries, or other unmarked burials or associated artifacts were found, then the provisions and guidelines set forth in Chapter 872.05, FS (Florida’s Unmarked Burial Law) will be followed. Although burial mounds have

P15018 4-4 been recorded in the region, it was not anticipated that such sites would be found along the Resort at Lake Charles property.

4.4 Laboratory Methods and Curation

All recovered cultural materials were initially cleaned and sorted by artifact class. Lithics were divided into tools and debitage based on gross morphology. Tools would have been measured, and the edges examined with a 7-45x stereo-zoom microscope for traces of edge damage and classified using standard references (Bullen 1975; Purdy 1981). Lithic debitage was subjected to a limited technological analysis focused on ascertaining the stages of stone tool production. Flakes and non-flake production debris (i.e. cores, blanks, tested cobbles) were measured, and examined for raw material types and absence or presence of thermal alteration. Flakes were classified into four types (primary decortication, secondary decortication, non-decortication, and shatter) based on the amount of cortex on the dorsal surface and the shape (White 1963).

Aboriginal ceramics were classified based on the characteristics of temper type and decoration, utilizing standard references (Cordell 1987, 2004; Goggin 1948; Luer and Almy 1980; Willey 1949). In addition, standard references would have been used to aide in the identification of historic period artifacts to ascertain site function and temporal placement. Faunal material would have been initially sorted into class (mammal, reptile, bony fish, etc.); within these broad categories, identifiable elements would have been classified as to genus and species, where possible.

The project-related records such as aerials, field notes, and photographs and the artifacts will be maintained at ACI in Sarasota (P15018), unless the client requests otherwise.

P15018 5-1

5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Archaeological Results

The archaeological survey consisted of surface reconnaissance and the excavation of 82 shovel tests within the Resort at Lake Charles property (Figure 5.1). Fifty shovel tests were placed at 50 m (164 ft) intervals in the moderate probability zones, and 24 were placed at 100 m (328 ft) intervals in the low probability zones. The stratigraphy in the upland area consists of 0-20 cm (0-8 in) gray sand and 20-100 cm (8-40 in) yellowish brown sand. In the southwest quarter of the project area the stratigraphy consisted of 0-20 cm (0-8 in) gray sand and 20-100 cm (8-40 in) light gray sand with water intrusion at 60-70 cm (24-28 in). An additional eight shovel tests were placed at 10 m (82 ft) intervals to delimit the boundaries of the cultural resources discovered. As a result of this effort, no archaeological sites were discovered. However, two archaeological occurrences (AO) were discovered. An AO is defined as “one or two non-diagnostic artifacts, not known to be distant from the original context, which fit within a hypothetical cylinder of thirty meters diameter, regardless of depth below surface” (FMSF 1999:10).

AO#1 was recorded in in the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 26 South, Range 27 East (USGS Gum Lake) (Figure 5.1). It is located along the northern margin of an elongated wetland. Stratigraphy consisted of 0-20 cm (0-8 in) gray sand underlain by yellowish brown sand. A very small fragment of St. John ceramic was recovered from 70-100 cm (28-40 in) below surface. Four additional shovel tests were excavated, with negative results.

AO#2 was recorded in in the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 26 South, Range 27 East (USGS Gum Lake) (Figure 5.1). It is located along the eastern margin of a broad, U-shaped wetland in the northwest corner of the property. Stratigraphy consisted of 0-20 cm (0-8 in) gray sand underlain by yellowish brown sand. Two small pieces of lithic debitage, on chert and one coral, were recovered at 90-100 cm (36-40 in) below surface. An additional four shovel tests were excavated, with negative results.

Neither of these AOs is considered eligible for listing in the NRHP due to their commonality of type in the region and lack of research potential.

5.2 Historical/Architectural Results

As a result of field survey, one historic building was located and recorded (8PO07985), a ca. 1920 Bungalow style single-family residence. This house is not evident on the historic aerial photographs of the area, and an interview with a local resident confirmed that the house had been moved to its current location sometime after 1968 (USGS 1968, Winkler 2015). The house is a typical example of its style without significant historical associations, and does not meet Criteria Consideration B for moved properties. Thus, it is the opinion of ACI’s architectural historian that 8PO07985 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. A description of the house follows, and a copy of the FMSF form can be found in Appendix B.

P15018 5-2

Positive ST Negative ST Historic Structure ¹

AO#2 AO#1

8PO07985

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar 0 500 1,000 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Feet Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User 0200400 Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © Meters OpenStreetMap contributors

Figure 5.1. Location of the shovel tests (not to scale), archaeologi- cal occurrences, and newly recorded historic resource within the Resort at Lake Charles project area. 5-3

Photo 5.1 Circa 1920 Bungalow Style residence (8PO07985) located on the southeast quadrant of Section 31, Township 26 South, Range 27 East (Gum Lake 1977), looking south. Building was moved to this site ca. 1968.

8PO07985: The residence located in the southeast quadrant of Section 31, Township 26 South, Range 27 East (Gum Lake 1977) was built ca. 1920 in the Bungalow style (Photo 5.1), this house does not have a street address, and the Polk County Property Appraiser website does not list a physical address either (Faux 2015). The one-and-a-half story residence has a continuous concrete block foundation supporting wood frame walls clad in wood siding capped by a gable roof covered with asphalt shingles. The main entrance is located on the north elevation, and consists of a single glazed-door. The entrance features a partial porch covered by an extension of the main gable on the house and supported by simple wood posts. Window types include 2/2 wood single-hung-sash, 1/1 wood single-hung-sash, and one-light wood awning. An incised porch is present on the south elevation. Other structural and decorative elements include wide eaves, louvered attic vents, wood window and door surrounds, exposed rafter tails, and wood brackets under the eaves. The house is vacant and in an advanced state of physical deterioration.

This house is a typical example of the Bungalow style as found throughout Polk County, where this style is abundant. The County has excellent examples of this type, exhibiting high integrity, and often found in large quantities comprising historic districts, such as those found in the City of Lakeland, and Winter Haven, as well as more rural areas, such as Davenport. In addition, research revealed no significant historical associations for this house, and it is not located in an area with the potential to be considered a historic district.

Furthermore, a comparison of the 1968 USDA aerial and a current Google Earth satellite image indicate that this house was not extant at its current location in 1968 and was moved to the site sometime after (Photos 5.2 and 5.3). This relocation was confirmed by the resident at 3221 Massee Road, who stated that the house “originally stood near US 27” and was relocated to the site (Winkler 2015). Thus, Criteria Consideration B for moved properties was considered. However, this building does not meet the criteria consideration owing to its lack of significance, architecturally or through

P15018 5-4 historical association. As such, it is the opinion of ACI’s architectural historian that 8PO07985 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, either individually or as part of a historic district.

Photo 5.2 1968 aerial photograph indicated the absence of the subject house on its current location (USDA 1968).

Photo 5.3 2015 Google Earth satellite image depicting the presence of the house as revealed per field survey (Google 2015).

P15018 5-5

5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

The cultural resources survey of the Resort at Lake Charles property consisted of background research, surface reconnaissance, subsurface testing, and visual reconnaissance for historic structures. As a result, two AOs and one historic building (8PO07985), a ca. 1920 Bungalow style residence, were recorded. Neither is considered to be eligible for listing on the NRHP, either individually or as part of a historic district.

P15018 6-1

6.0 REFERENCES CITED

ACI 1999 Archaeological Site Location Predictive Model for the City of Lakeland. ACI, Sarasota. 2000 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Technical Memorandum, US 27 Pond Siting from Blue Heron Bay Blvd. to CR 547 (2.3 miles), Polk County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2003 Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Memorandum US 27 from CR 547 to Holly Hill Grove Road Number 1 Polk County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2008 Cultural Resources Assessment Survey US 27 and CR 547 Davenport Marketplace, Polk County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota.

Akerman, Joe A. 1976 Florida Cowman: A History of Florida Cattle Raising. Florida Cattlemen's Association, Kissimmee.

Ambrosino, Meghan L. 2005 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Bella Nova Project Area in Polk County, Florida. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tampa.

Austin, Robert J. 1995 Yat Kitischee: A Prehistoric Coastal Hamlet 100 B.C.-A.D. 1200. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa. 2001 Paleoindian and Archaic Archaeology in the Middle Hillsborough River Basin: A Synthetic Overview. SEARCH, Jonesville.

Austin, Robert J., Kenneth W. Hardin, Harry M. Piper, Jacquelyn G. Piper, and Barbara McCabe 1992 Archaeological Investigations at the Site of the Tampa Convention Center, Tampa Florida. Volume 1: Prehistoric Resources, Including a Report on the Mitigative Excavation of a Prehistoric Aboriginal Cemetery. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa.

Austin, Robert J., Jeffrey M. Mitchem, Arlene Fradkin, John E. Foss, Shanna Drwiega, and Linda Allred 2008 Bayshore Homes Archaeological Survey and National Register Evaluation. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, Pinellas Park.

Austin, Robert J. and Michael Russo 1989 Limited Excavations at the Catfish Creek Site (8SO608), Sarasota, Florida. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa.

Barber, Bernice M 1975 From Beginnings to Boom. Privately published, Haines City.

Bendus, Robert F. 2015 Letter to Southwest Florida Water Management District, January 7. RE: DHR Project File No. 2014-5664 The Resort and Country Club at Lake Charles, Polk County. FDHR, Tallahassee.

P15018 6-2

Black, Neal 1998 Animal Health: A Century of Progress. United States Animal Health Association. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/11742684/animal-health-a-century-of- progress.

Blakey, Arch F. 1974 History of the Florida Phosphate Industry. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Brown, Canter, Jr. 1991 Florida's Peace River Frontier. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. 2001 In the Midst of All That Makes Life Worth Living: Polk County, Florida to 1940. Polk County Historical Association. Sentry Press, Tallahassee.

Bullen, Ripley P. 1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 6(1): 43-53. 1965 Florida's Prehistory. In Florida -- From Indian Trail to Space Age. Edited by C. W. Tebeau and R. L. Carson, pp. 305-316. Southern Publishing Co., Delray Beach. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville. 1978 Tocobaga Indians and the Safety Harbor Culture. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia during the Historic Period. Edited by J. T. Milanich and S. Proctor, pp. 50-58. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Burr, Josephine G. 1974 History of Winter Haven, Florida. Larry Burr Printing Co., Winter Haven.

Carbone, Victor 1983 Late Quaternary Environment in Florida and the Southeast. The Florida Anthropologist 36(1-2): 3-17.

Carlton, Doyle E., Jr. 1997 Doyle Carlton at Cracker County. Interview of Doyle E. Carlton, Jr. by G. Pierce Wood, Jr., June 27, 1997. University of South Florida, Special Collections and Digital Collections, USF Oral History Project.

Carter, Brinnen C. and James S. Dunbar 2006 Early Archaic Archaeology. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Edited by S. D. Webb, pp. 493-517. Springer, The Netherlands.

Cash, W. T. 1938 The Story of Florida. Volume Volume II. The American Historical Society, New York.

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(4381): 609-614.

Cordell, Ann S. 1987 Ceramic Technology at a Weeden Island Period Archaeological Site in North Florida. Ceramic Notes 2. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

P15018 6-3

Cordell, Ann S. 2004 Paste Variability and Possible Manufacturing Origins of Late Archaic Fiber-Tempered Pottery from Selected Sites in Peninsular Florida. In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast. Edited by R. Saunders and C. T. Hays, pp. 63-104. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Covington, James W. 1958 Exploring the Ten Thousand Islands: 1838. Tequesta 18: 7-13. 1961a The Armed Occupation Act of 1842. Florida Historical Quarterly 40(1): 41-53. 1961b The Indian Scare of 1849. Tequesta 21: 53-62. 1982 The Billy Bowlegs War 1855-1858: The Final Stand of the Seminoles Against the Whites. The Mickler House Publishers, Chuluota.

Daniel, I. Randolph and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Publishing Co., Inc., Farmingdale.

Davis, Jefferson 1856 Map of the State of Florida.National Archives Record Group 77.

Davis, T. Frederick 1939 The Disston Land Purchase. Florida Historical Quarterly 17(3): 200-210. de Montmollin, Wanda 1983 Environmental Factors and Prehistoric Site Location in the Tampa Bay Area. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.

Delcourt, Paul A. and Hazel R. Delcourt 1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 yr B.P. to the Present. In Geobotony II. Edited by R. C. Romans, pp. 123-165. Plenum Publishing Corp., New York.

Doran, Glen H., Ed. 2002 Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Driscoll, Kelly A. 2008 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Orchid Gardens Phase IV & V Project Area in Polk County, Florida. Florida History, LLC, Tampa.

Driver, Raymond L. 1992 Bone Valley Comes to Life. Privately printed, Tampa.

Dunbar, James S. 2006a Paleoindian Archaeology. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Edited by S. D. Webb, pp. 403-435. Springer, The Netherlands. 2006b Paleoindian Land Use. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Edited by S. D. Webb, pp. 525-544. Springer, The Netherlands. 2006c Pleistocene-Early Holocene Climate Change: Chronostratigraphy and Geoclimate of the Southeast US. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Edited by S. D. Webb, pp. 103-155. Springer, The Netherlands.

P15018 6-4

Dunbar, James S. and S. David Webb 1996 Bone and Ivory Tools from Submerged Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. Edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 331- 353. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

FAC 2004 Assessment of Potential Effects Upon Historic Properties: Proposed 175-Foot Ridge Assembly of God Stealth Wireless Telecommunications Tower (Verizon Wireless 080663-1), Polk County, Florida. Florida Archaeological Consulting, Inc., Daytona Beach.

Farr, Grayal Earle 2006 A Reevaluation of Bullen's Typology for Preceramic Projectile Points. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Faught, Michael K. 2004 The Underwater Archaeology of Paleolandscapes, Apalachee Bay, Florida. American Antiquity 69(2): 275-289.

Faught, Michael K. and Joseph F. Donoghue 1997 Marine Inundated Archaeological Sites and Paleofluvial Systems: Examples from a Karst-controlled Continental Shelf Setting in Apalachee Bay, Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Geoarchaeology 12: 417-458.

Faux, Marsha M., CFA. ASA., Polk County Property Appraiser 2015 County Property Appraiser information accessed online via http://www.polkpa.org/Default.aspx, on Februay 17, 2015.

FDHR 2003 Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual. Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

FMSF Various site file forms. On file, FDHR, Tallahassee. 1999 Guide to the Archaeological Site Form, Version 2.2. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Ford, Richard D., John M. Robbins, Jr., Jeffrey T. Werner, Dean Cowherd, Charles N. Gordon, William B. Warmack, Mark M. Brown, Kenneth W. Monroe, Walter G. George, Therman Sanders, and Phyllis M. Basch 1990 Soil Survey of Polk County. USDA, Soil Conservation Services.

Frisbie, Louise K. 1976 Yesterday's Polk County. E. A. Seeman Publishing, Inc., Miami.

Gleason, Patrick J. and P. Stone 1994 Age, Origin and Landscape Evolution of the Everglades Peatland. In Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. Edited by S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden, pp. 149-197. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach.

P15018 6-5

Goggin, John M. 1948 Some Pottery Types from Central Florida. Gainesville Anthropological Association, Bulletin 1.

Google 2015 Satellite Image accessible on Google Earth via https://www.google.com/earth, accessed on February 17, 2015.

Hann, John H. 2003 Indians of Central and South Florida 1513-1763. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Hardin, Kenneth W. and Harry M. Piper 1984 Manasota: Which Way to the Border? Paper presented at the Florida Academy of Sciences, Boca Raton.

Harner, Charles E. 1973 Florida's Promoters. Trend House, Tampa.

Hetherington, M. F. 1928 History of Polk County: Narrative and Autobiographical. The Record Company Printers, St. Augustine.

HPA 1992 East Lake Morton and Citywide Resource Surveys of Lakeland Florida. Historic Property Associates, Inc., St. Augustine.

HT/HCPB 1980 The Cultural Resources of the Unincorporated Portions of Hillsborough County: An Inventory of the Built Environment. Historic Tampa/Hillsborough County Preservation Board, Tampa.

Janus Research 1992 An Archaeological Resource Inventory and Archaeological Site Predictive Model for Manatee County, Florida. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa. 1998 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for US Highway 27 (State Road 25) from SR 544 to CR 547 and from CR 547 to SR 400 (I-4) in Polk County, Florida. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa. 2004 Updated Archaeological Site Predictive Model for the Unincorporated Areas of Hillsborough County, Florida. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa.

Johnson, Robert E. and B. Alan Basinet 1995 An Archaeological Site Probability Model for Orange County, Florida. Florida Archaeological Services, Inc., Jacksonville.

Kendrick, Baynard 1964 Florida Trails to Turnpikes 1914-1964. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

P15018 6-6

Kohler, Timothy A. 1991 The Demise of Weeden Island and Post-Weeden Island Cultural Stability in Non- Mississippianized Northern Florida. In Stability, Transformation, and Variations: the Late Woodland Southeast. Edited by M. S. Nassaney and C. R. Cobb, pp. 91-110. Plenum Press, New York.

Luer, George M. and Marion M. Almy 1980 The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast of Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 33(4): 207-225. 1981 Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area. The Florida Anthropologist 34(3): 127-155. 1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 35(1): 34-58.

Luer, George M., Marion M. Almy, Dana Ste. Claire, and Robert J. Austin 1987 The Myakkahatchee Site (8SO397), A Large Multi-Period Inland from the Shore Site in Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 40(2): 137-153. Mahon, John K. 1985 History of the Second Seminole War 1835-1842. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Mahon, John K. and Brent R. Weisman 1996 Florida's Seminole and Miccosukee Peoples. In The New History of Florida. Edited by M. Gannon, pp. 183-206. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Matthews, Janet Snyder 1983 Edge of Wilderness: A Settlement History of Manatee River and Sarasota Bay 1528- 1885. Coastal Press, Sarasota.

McNeely, Ed 1961 A History of Polk County. Polk County Centennial Committee.

McNeely, Ed and Al R. McFadyen 1961 A Century in the Sun: A History of Polk County, Florida. Bartow and Robinson, Orlando.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1988 Some Alternative Interpretations of Safety Harbor Burial Mounds. Florida Scientist 51(2): 100-107. 1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2012 Safety Harbor: Mississippian Influence in the Circum-Tampa Bay Region. In Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World. Edited by K. Ashley and N. M. White, pp. 172-185. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Neill, Wilfred T. 1964 The Association of Suwannee Points and Extinct Animals in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 17(3-4): 17-32.

P15018 6-7

Piper, Harry M. 1982 Culture Resources Survey of Ridgewood Lakes (a.k.a. Edgehill Development). Janus Research, Inc., Tampa.

Pizzo, Tony 1968 Tampa Town: 1824-1886, Cracker Village with a Latin Accent. Trend House, Tampa.

Purdy, Barbara A. 1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Tool Technology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Rivers, Larry Eugene 2000 Slavery in Florida: Territorial Days to Emancipation. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Russo, Michael 1994a A Brief Introduction to the Study of Archaic Mounds in the Southeast. Southeastern Archaeology 13(2): 89-92. 1994b Why We Don't Believe in Archaic Ceremonial Mounds and Why We Should: The Case from Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 13(2): 93-108.

Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2003 New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery from the Middle St. Johns Valley and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(1): 5-13. 2008 The New Archaic, It Ain't What It Used to Be. The SAA Archaeological Record 8 (5): 6- 8.

Schwadron, Margo 2002 Archeological Investigations of De Soto National Memorial. SEAC Technical Reports 8. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Scott, Thomas M. 1978 Environmental Geology Series: Orlando Sheet. Map Series 85. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee. 2001 Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida. Open File Report 80. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.

Scott, Thomas M., Kenneth M. Campbell, Frank R. Rupert, Jonathan D. Arthur, Thomas M. Missimer, Jacqueline M. Lloyd, J. William Yon, and Joel G. Duncan 2001 Geologic Map of the State of Florida. Map Series 146. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.

Stanford, Dennis 1991 Clovis Origins and Adaptations: An Introductory Perspective. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations. Edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 1-14. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, OR.

State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection 1847 Field Notes. Volume 120. B. F. Whitner. 1848a Field Notes. B. F. Whitner. Volume 123. 1848b Plat. Township 26 South, Range 27 East. B. F. Whitner.

P15018 6-8

State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection n.d. Tract Book. Volume 23.

Tebeau, Charlton W. 1980 A History of Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.

USCB 2012 Florida Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html.

USDA 1941 Aerial Photograph - 3-2-41, CTU-8B-8. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1952 Aerial Photograph - 1-7-52, CTU-7H-183. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1958 Aerial Photograph - 1-28-58, CTU-2V-85. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1968 Aerial Photograph - 2-12-68, CTU-4JJ-91. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 2012 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Florida - June 2012. USDA, NRCS, Fort Worth, TX. USEPA 1978 Central Florida Phosphate Industry: Final Areawide Environmental Impact Assessment Statement. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. On file, State Library of Florida, Tallahassee.

Waller, Ben I. 1970 Some Occurrences of Paleo-Indian Projectile Points in Florida Waters. The Florida Anthropologist 23(4): 129-134.

Watts, William A. 1969 A Pollen Diagram from Mud Lake, Marion County, North-Central Florida. Geological Society of America Bulletin 80(4): 631-642. 1971 Post Glacial and Interglacial Vegetational History of Southern Georgia and Central Florida. Ecology 51: 676-690. 1975 A Late Quaternary Record of Vegetation from Lake Annie, South-Central Florida. Geology 3(6): 344-346.

Watts, William A., Eric C. Grimm, and T. C. Hussey 1996 Mid-Holocene Forest History of Florida and the Coastal Plain of Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. Edited by K. E. Sassaman and D. G. Anderson, pp. 28-38. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Watts, William A. and Barbara C. S. Hansen 1988 Environments in Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site Archaeology. Edited by B. A. Purdy, pp. 307-323. Telford Press, Caldwell. 1994 Pre-Holocene and Holocene Pollen Records of Vegetation History for the Florida Peninsula and their Climatic Implications. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 109: 163-176.

Webb, S. David, Ed. 2006 First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Springer, The Netherlands.

P15018 6-9

White, Anta M. 1963 Analytic Description of the Chipped-stone Industry from Snyders Site, Calhoun County, Illinois. Miscellaneous Studies in Typology and Classification 19. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

White, Matthew 2006 Cultural Resource Survey of the Tramonto Estates Property, Polk County, Florida. Suncoast Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Lake Wales.

White, William A. 1970 Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Geological Bulletin 51. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee.

Wickman, Patricia R. 2002 The History of the Seminole People of Florida. http://www.seminoletribe.com.

Winkler, Justin J. 2015 Field interview conducted with local resident, ‘Lem” residing at 3221 Massee Road, Haines City. Interview conducted on February 12, 2015, interview notes on file at ACI, Srasota, Florida.

Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113. 1982 Reprint. Florida Book Store, Gainesville.

P15018

APPENDIX A: SHPO Correspondence

P15018 ibOA-fúuù <ÝÍ'=>%*. í?v/*-*Mvjh?rb?,15#Ýf wiä?m631%=,Yt'3*U Ìt?"Ulml?.,./,S'I L--,------',,'.------'-,-=------/.------JVim".U?/ FLORIDA DEPARTMENT STATE r------=------+------nOf RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Governor Secretary of State

Southwest Florida Water Management District January 7, 2015 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 RE: DHR Project File No.: 2014-5664, Received by DHR: December 11, 2014 Application No.: 705274 ProjectTbe Resort and Countg Club at Lztke Cbarles County: Polk To Whom It May Concem: Our office reviewed the referenced project in accordance with the agency's obligations under 267.061 and 373.414, Flonla Florida Statutes, Coastal Management Program, and implementing state regulations, for possible effects on historic properties listed, or eligìble for listing, in the NationalR@i#er f Histonc Places, or otherwise of historical, architectural or archaeological value. This addresses the responsibilities of state agencies under Chapter 267, and the potential for cumulative effects of the regulated activates in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands to adversely affect significant historical and/or archaeologìcal resources, pursuant to 373.414(1)(a)6, Flon? Statutes. A review of the Florida Master Site File indicates that the project area has not been surveyed for archaeological and historical properties. Since environmental conditions in the area are favorable for the presence ofthese kinds of resources, it is our request that the project area be subjected to a professional cultural resources assessment survey. The resultant survey report must conform to the provisions of Chapter 1A-46, Flon'da Adminirtrative Code, and should be forwarded to the Division of Historical Resources to complete the review process. In addition, the report will assist this office in determining if further measures are necessary to avoid, minirnize, or mitigate adverse effects to significant archaeological and historic properties. The Division of Historical Resources does not endorse specific archaeological or historic preservation consultants. However, the American Cultural Resources Association maintains a listing of professional consultants at www. acra- crm.org, and the Register ofProfessional Archaeologists maintains a membership directory at w.ww.rpanet.org. The Division encourages checking references and recent work history. If you have any questions, please contact Christopher Hunt, Historic Sites Specialist, by email at [email protected]@dos.mißond?com, or by telephone at 850.245.6333 or 800.847.7278. FOR Sincerely =, N<."Cv j =--ÝS,Å:<"*Í?, j --)05 214 Robert ?Be?s, Director Southwest Florida Division of Historical Resources District & State Historic Preservation Officer Water Management JAN 15 2015 PC: Dave Schmitt Engineering, Inc. SŽ-í Received 5*7 BROOKSVILLE RSL== L Division of Historical Resources --vüt R.A. Gray Building . 500 South Bronough Street. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 7ef=#Ess- 850.245.6300. 850.245.6436 (Fax) flheritage.com iäzm jk Promoting Florida's History and Culture F' VIVÀFLORIDA VivaFlorida.org wurv,-flherltage.corn

APPENDIX B: FMSF form

P15018 PO07985 Page 1 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM SSite #8 ______FField Date ______2-12-2015 † Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE FForm Date ______2-17-2015 † Update Version 4.0 1/07 RRecorder # ______1 SShaded Fields represent the minimum acceptable level of documentation. Consult the Guide to Historical Structure Forms for detailed instructions.

SSite Name(s) (address if none) ______House on Lake Charles MMultiple Listing (DHR only) ______SSurvey Project Name ______CRAS, Resort at Lake Charles, Polk County SSurvey # (DHR only) ______NNational Register Category (please check one) † building † structure † district † site † object OOwnership: †private-profit †private-nonprofit †private-individual †private-nonspecific †city †county †state †federal †Native American †foreign †unknown LOCATION & MAPPING Street Number Direction Street Name Street Type Suffix Direction AAddress: none Massee Road CCross Streets (nearest / between) ______West of US Highway 27, south of Massee Rd. UUSGS 7.5 Map Name ______GUM LAKE UUSGS Date ______1977 PPlat or Other Map ______CCity / Town (within 3 miles) ______Haines City IIn City Limits? †yes †no †unknown CCounty ______Polk TTownship ______26S RRange ______27E SSection ______31 ¼ section: †NW †SW †SE †NE Irregular-name: ______TTax Parcel # ______272631709000020170 LLandgrant ______SSubdivision Name ______Not in a subdivision BBlock ______LLot ______UUTM Coordinates: ZZone †16 †17 EEasting 436393 NNorthing 3116646 OOther Coordinates: X: ______Y: ______CCoordinate System & Datum ______NName of Public Tract (e.g., park) ______HISTORY CConstruction Year: ______1920 †approximately †year listed or earlier †year listed or later OOriginal Use ______Private Residence (House/Cottage/Cabin) From (year):______1957 To (year):______unk CCurrent Use ______From (year):______unk To (year):______curr OOther Use ______From (year):______To (year):______MMoves: †yes †no †unknown Date: ______post 1968 Original address ______Unknown, near US Highway 27 AAlterations: †yes †no †unknown Date: ______Nature ______AAdditions: †yes †no †unknown Date: ______Nature ______AArchitect (last name first): ______Unknown BBuilder (last name first): ______Unknown OOwnership History (especially original owner, dates, profession, etc.) ______ADJ Investments (2005) ______IIs the Resource Affected by a Local Preservation Ordinance? †yes †no †unknown Describe ______DESCRIPTION SStyle ______Bungalow EExterior Plan ______Square NNumber of Stories ______1.5 EExterior Fabric(s) 1. ______Wood siding 2. ______3. ______RRoof Type(s) 1. ______Gable 2. ______3. ______RRoof Material(s) 1. ______Asphalt shingles 2. ______3. ______RRoof secondary strucs. (dormers etc.) 1. ______Flat dormer 2. ______WWindows (types, materials, etc.) ______2/2 wood SHS, independent, paired, and grouped; 1/1 wood SHS, independent and ______grouped; one-light wood awning, independent. DDistinguishing Architectural Features (exterior or interior ornaments) ______Wood window and door surrounds, louvered attic vents, exposed______rafter tails, wide eaves, wood brackets under the eaves. ______AAncillary Features / Outbuildings (record outbuildings, major landscape features; use continuation sheet if needed.) ______None visible ______

DHR USE ONLY OFFICIAL EVALUATION DHR USE ONLY NR List Date SHPO – Appears to meet criteria for NR listing: †yes †no †insufficient info Date ______Init.______KEEPER – Determined eligible: †yes †no Date ______† Owner Objection NR Criteria for Evaluation: †a †b †c †d (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 2)

HR6E046R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building / 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail [email protected] PO07985 Page 2 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM SSite #8 ______

DESCRIPTION (continued)

CChimney: No.____0 CChimney Material(s): 1. ______2. ______SStructural System(s): 1. ______Wood frame 2. ______3. ______FFoundation Type(s): 1. ______Continuous 2. ______FFoundation Material(s): 1. ______Concrete Block 2. ______MMain Entrance (stylistic details) ______N elevation, single multi-glazed wood door. ______PPorch Descriptions (types, locations, roof types, etc.) ______N elevation, partial, centered, supported by simple wood square posts; ______a second porch is located on the S elevation, incised, full-with with square wood posts. ______CCondition (overall resource condition): †excellent †good †fair †deteriorated †ruinous NNarrative Description of Resource ______Bungalow style residence, built ca. 1920, moved to its current location sometime ______after 1968. It is a typical example of its style, currently vacant and in an advanced state of physical ______deterioration. AArchaeological Remains ______† CCheck if Archaeological Form Completed

RESEARCH METHODS (check all that apply) † FMSF record search (sites/surveys) † library research † building permits † Sanborn maps † FL State Archives/photo collection † city directory † occupant/owner interview † plat maps † property appraiser / tax records † newspaper files † neighbor interview † Public Lands Survey (DEP) † cultural resource survey (CRAS) † historic photos † interior inspection † HABS/HAER record search † other methods (describe) ______USDA Historic Aerial Photography through PALMM BBibliographic References (give FMSF manuscript # if relevant, use continuation sheet if needed) ______Publication of Archival Library & Museum Materials______(PALMM), accessible online at: http://susdl.fcla.edu/ ______OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE

AAppears to meet the criteria for National Register listing individually? †yes †no †insufficient information AAppears to meet the criteria for National Register listing as part of a district? †yes †no †insufficient information EExplanation of Evaluation (requiredd, whether significant or not; use separate sheet if needed) ______This is a typical example of a Bungalow style in______Polk County without significant historical associations, which does not meet Criteria Consideration B for moved______properties. Therefore, 8PO07985 does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP. AArea(s) of Historical Significance (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.) 1. ______Architecture 3. ______5. ______2. ______Community planning & development 4. ______6. ______DOCUMENTATION

AAccessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents DDocument type ______All materials at one location MMaintaining organization ______Archaeological Consultants Inc 1) DDocument description ______Field photographs, notes, maps FFile or accession #’s ______P15018 DDocument type ______MMaintaining organization ______2) DDocument description ______FFile or accession #’s ______RECORDER INFORMATION

RRecorder Name ______Jorge Danta AAffiliation ______Archaeological Consultants Inc RRecorder Contact Information ______8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A, Sarasota, Florida 34240 (address / phone / fax / e-mail)

n USGS 7.5’ MAP WITH STRUCTURE LOCATION PINPOINTED IN RED Required o LARGE SCALE STREET, PLAT OR PARCEL MAP (available from most property appraiser web sites) Attachments p PHOTO OF MAIN FACADE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable). Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. Page 4 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM Site # 8PO07985 USGS Gum Lake Township 26 South, Range 27 East, Section 31 ¹

8PO07985

0 500 1,000 Feet 0150300 Meters Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Page 3 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM Site # 8PO07985

PHOTOGRAPH

AERIAL MAP ¹

8PO07985

02550 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Meters Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, 0 100 200 Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Feet Community

APPENDIX C: Survey log

P15018 3DJH 

(QW ' )06) RQO\ BBBBBBBBBB 6XUYH\ /RJ 6KHHW 6XUYH\  )06) RQO\ BBBBBBBBB )ORULGD 0DVWHU 6LWH )LOH 9HUVLRQ  

&RQVXOW *XLGH WR WKH 6XUYH\ /RJ 6KHHW IRU GHWDLOHG LQVWUXFWLRQV

,GHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG %LEOLRJUDSKLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ

6XUYH\ 3URMHFW QDPH DQG SURMHFW SKDVH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCRAS Resort at Lake Charles, Polk County, Phase I B BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW 7LWOH H[DFWO\ DV RQ WLWOH SDJH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Resort at lake Charles BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBProperty, Polk County, Florida BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW $XWKRUV DV RQ WLWOH SDJH ODVW QDPHV ILUVW . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBACI . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3XEOLFDWLRQ 'DWH \HDU BBBBBBBBBB2015 7RWDO 1XPEHU RI 3DJHV LQ 5HSRUW FRXQW WH[W ILJXUHV WDEOHV QRW VLWH IRUPV BBBBBBBBBBB42 3XEOLFDWLRQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ *LYH VHULHV QXPEHU LQ VHULHV SXEOLVKHU DQG FLW\. )RU DUWLFOH RU FKDSWHU FLWH SDJH QXPEHUV. 8VH WKH VW\OH RI $PHULFDQ $QWLTXLW\. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBP15018, ACI, Sarasota BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6XSHUYLVRUV RI )LHOGZRUN HYHQ LI VDPH DV DXWKRU 1DPHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBAlmy, Marion $IILOLDWLRQ RI )LHOGZRUNHUV 2UJDQL]DWLRQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBArchaeological Consultants Inc &LW\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBSarasota .H\ :RUGV3KUDVHV 'RQuW XVH FRXQW\ QDPH RU FRPPRQ ZRUGV OLNH DUFKDHRORJ\ VWUXFWXUH VXUYH\ DUFKLWHFWXUH HWF . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

6XUYH\ 6SRQVRUV FRUSRUDWLRQ JRYHUQPHQW XQLW RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU SHUVRQ GLUHFWO\ IXQGLQJ ILHOGZRUN 1DPH. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBio-Tech Consulting Inc. 2UJDQL]DWLRQ. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $GGUHVV3KRQH(PDLO. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB2002 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32803 BBBBBBBBBBB 5HFRUGHU RI /RJ 6KHHW BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBHorvath, Elizabeth A. 'DWH /RJ 6KHHW &RPSOHWHG BBBBBBBBBBB2-16-2015

,V WKLV VXUYH\ RU SURMHFW D FRQWLQXDWLRQ RI D SUHYLRXV SURMHFW" T 1R T

0DSSLQJ

&RXQWLHV /LVW HDFK RQH LQ ZKLFK ILHOG VXUYH\ ZDV GRQH DWWDFK DGGLWLRQDO VKHHW LI QHFHVVDU\ . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBPolk . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

86*6  0DS 1DPHV

'HVFULSWLRQ RI 6XUYH\ $UHD

'DWHV IRU )LHOGZRUN 6WDUW BBBBBBBBB2-10-2015 (QG BBBBBBBBB 2-13-2015 7RWDO $UHD 6XUYH\HG ILOO LQ RQH BBBBBBKHFWDUHV BBBBBB189 DFUHV 1XPEHU RI 'LVWLQFW 7UDFWV RU $UHDV 6XUYH\HG BBBBBBBBB1 ,I &RUULGRU ILOO LQ RQH IRU HDFK :LGWK BBBBBBPHWHUV BBBBBBIHHW /HQJWK BBBBBBNLORPHWHUV BBBBBBPLOHV

+5(5 )ORULGD 0DVWHU 6LWH )LOH 'LYLVLRQ RI +LVWRULFDO 5HVRXUFHV *UD\ %XLOGLQJ  6RXWK %URQRXJK 6WUHHW 7DOODKDVVHH )ORULGD  3KRQH  )$;  (PDLO 6LWH)LOH#GRV.VWDWH.IO.XV 3DJH  6XUYH\ /RJ 6KHHW 6XUYH\ BBBBBBBBB

5HVHDUFK DQG )LHOG 0HWKRGV 7\SHV RI 6XUYH\ FKHFN DOO WKDW DSSO\  DUFKDHRORJLFDO DUFKLWHFWXUDO KLVWRULFDODUFKLYDO XQGHUZDWHU GDPDJH DVVHVVPHQW PRQLWRULQJ UHSRUW RWKHU GHVFULEH . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6FRSH,QWHQVLW\3URFHGXUHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBbackground research, systematic subsurface testing, 1 m deep, 50 cm diameter,BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB6.4 mm mesh screen; 50 shovel tests at 50 m intervals, 24 @ 100m; 8 @ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB10m; 2 positive; historic BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBresource reconnaissance BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

3UHOLPLQDU\ 0HWKRGV FKHFN DV PDQ\ DV DSSO\ WR WKH SURMHFW DV D ZKROH T )ORULGD $UFKLYHV *UD\ %XLOGLQJ T OLEUDU\ UHVHDUFK ORFDO SXEOLF T ORFDO SURSHUW\ RU WD[ UHFRUGV T RWKHU KLVWRULF PDSV T )ORULGD 3KRWR $UFKLYHV *UD\ %XLOGLQJ T OLEUDU\VSHFLDO FROOHFWLRQ  QRQORFDO T QHZVSDSHU ILOHV T VRLOV PDSV RU GDWD T 6LWH )LOH SURSHUW\ VHDUFK T 3XEOLF /DQGV 6XUYH\ PDSV DW '(3 T OLWHUDWXUH VHDUFK T ZLQGVKLHOG VXUYH\ T 6LWH )LOH VXUYH\ VHDUFK T ORFDO LQIRUPDQW V T 6DQERUQ ,QVXUDQFH PDSV T DHULDO SKRWRJUDSK\ T RWKHU GHVFULEH . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

$UFKDHRORJLFDO 0HWKRGV FKHFN DV PDQ\ DV DSSO\ WR WKH SURMHFW DV D ZKROH T &KHFN KHUH LI 12 DUFKDHRORJLFDO PHWKRGV ZHUH XVHG. T VXUIDFH FROOHFWLRQ FRQWUROOHG T VKRYHO WHVWRWKHU VFUHHQ VL]H T EORFN H[FDYDWLRQ DW OHDVW [ P T VXUIDFH FROOHFWLRQ XQFRQWUROOHG T ZDWHU VFUHHQ T VRLO UHVLVWLYLW\ T VKRYHO WHVWwVFUHHQ T SRVWKROH WHVWV T PDJQHWRPHWHU T VKRYHO WHVWw VFUHHQ T DXJHU WHVWV T VLGH VFDQ VRQDU T VKRYHO WHVW wVFUHHQ T FRULQJ T SHGHVWULDQ VXUYH\ T VKRYHO WHVWXQVFUHHQHG T WHVW H[FDYDWLRQ DW OHDVW [ P T XQNQRZQ T RWKHU GHVFULEH . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

+LVWRULFDO$UFKLWHFWXUDO 0HWKRGV FKHFN DV PDQ\ DV DSSO\ WR WKH SURMHFW DV D ZKROH T &KHFN KHUH LI 12 KLVWRULFDODUFKLWHFWXUDO PHWKRGV ZHUH XVHG. T EXLOGLQJ SHUPLWV T GHPROLWLRQ SHUPLWV T QHLJKERU LQWHUYLHZ T VXEGLYLVLRQ PDSV T FRPPHUFLDO SHUPLWV T H[SRVHG JURXQG LQVSHFWHG T RFFXSDQW LQWHUYLHZ T WD[ UHFRUGV T LQWHULRU GRFXPHQWDWLRQ T ORFDO SURSHUW\ UHFRUGV T RFFXSDWLRQ SHUPLWV T XQNQRZQ T RWKHU GHVFULEH . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

6XUYH\ 5HVXOWV FXOWXUDO UHVRXUFHV UHFRUGHG 6LWH 6LJQLILFDQFH (YDOXDWHG" T

6LWH )RUPV 8VHG T 6LWH )LOH 3DSHU )RUP T 6LWH )LOH (OHFWURQLF 5HFRUGLQJ )RUP

5(48,5(' $77$&+ 3/27 2) 6859(< $5($ 21 3+272&23< 2) 86*6  0$3 6

6+32 86( 21/< 6+32 86( 21/< 6+32 86( 21/< 2ULJLQ RI 5HSRUW  &$5/ 8: $  $FDGHPLF &RQWUDFW $YRFDWLRQDO *UDQW 3URMHFW  &RPSOLDQFH 5HYLHZ &5$7 

7\SH RI 'RFXPHQW $UFKDHRORJLFDO 6XUYH\ +LVWRULFDO$UFKLWHFWXUDO 6XUYH\ 0DULQH 6XUYH\ &HOO 7RZHU &5$6 0RQLWRULQJ 5HSRUW 2YHUYLHZ ([FDYDWLRQ 5HSRUW 0XOWL6LWH ([FDYDWLRQ 5HSRUW 6WUXFWXUH 'HWDLOHG 5HSRUW /LEUDU\ +LVW. RU $UFKLYDO 'RF 036 05$ 7* 2WKHU

'RFXPHQW 'HVWLQDWLRQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3ORWDELOLW\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

+5(5 )ORULGD 0DVWHU 6LWH )LOH 'LYLVLRQ RI +LVWRULFDO 5HVRXUFHV *UD\ %XLOGLQJ  6RXWK %URQRXJK 6WUHHW 7DOODKDVVHH )ORULGD  3KRQH  )$;  (PDLO 6LWH)LOH#GRV.VWDWH.IO.XV ¹

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Resort at Lake Charles Section 31 of Township 26 South, Range 27 East USGS Gum Lake Polk County