CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY LAKEWOOD RANCH BOULEVARD EXTENSION SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

Performed for:

Kimley-Horn 1777 Main Street, Suite 200 Sarasota, Florida 34326

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

June 2016

CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY LAKEWOOD RANCH BOULEVARD EXTENSION SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

Performed for:

Kimley-Horn 1777 Main Street, Suite 200 Sarasota, Florida 34326

By:

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

Marion M. Almy - Project Manager Lee Hutchinson - Project Archaeologist Katie Baar - Archaeologist Thomas Wilson - Architectural Historian

June 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) of the Lakewood Ranch Boulevard Extension, in Sarasota, Florida, was performed by Archaeological Consultants, Inc (ACI). The purpose of this survey was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the project area and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the Sarasota County Register of Historic Places (SCRHP). This report is in compliance with the Historic Preservation Chapter of Apoxsee and Article III, Chapter 66 (Sub-Section 66-73) of the Sarasota County Code, as well as with Chapters 267 and 373, Florida Statutes (FS), Florida’s Coastal Management Program, and implementing state regulations regarding possible impact to significant historical properties. The report also meets specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code (FAC) (revised August 21, 2002).

Background research, including a review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF), and the NRHP indicated no prehistoric archaeological sites were recorded in the project area. However, when drainage of the general area began in the 1920s, it was discovered that much of the land consisted of mucky soils and that in this muck were several wood canoes. According to Montague Tallant, these canoes were found in “muck from two to three feet deep and all boats are resting in the hard sand underneath” (Tallant 1935b). Although the exact location of the canoes remains unknown, letters between Dr. M. W. Stirling and Tallant indicate that they came from the general area southeast of the I-75/Fruitville Road intersection (Tallant 1935a, 1935b), away from the project area.

Although evidence of canoes or other wooden artifacts in the now drained soils was considered unlikely, other types of aboriginal evidence such as low density artifact or lithic scatters was considered likely. As a result of field survey, no historic or prehistoric archaeological sites were found.

Background research, including a review of the FMSF, the NRHP and SCRHP, indicated that a portion of the early 20th century Fruitville Drainage Canal (8SO06275) is recorded within and adjacent to the project area, but the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) determined the canal not eligible for NRHP listing in 2012. Also, one Building Complex Resource Group (8SO06979) comprised of four historic buildings (8SO06975-06978), is near the project area. The historic buildings (contained within the building complex resource group) do not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or the SCRHP, either individually or as part of a potential historic district. The SHPO has not evaluated these resources.

Based on the results of the background research, field survey and analyses, the proposed project will not impact any archaeological or historical resources listed, determined eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP or the SCRHP.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose ...... 1-1 1.3 Environment ...... 1-3

2.0 CULTURE HISTORY ...... 2-1 2.1 Paleo-Indian ...... 2-1 2.2 Archaic ...... 2-3 2.3 Transitional ...... 2-4 2.4 Manasota ...... 2-4 2.5 Mississippian ...... 2-6 2.6 Contact and the Colonial Period ...... 2-7 2.7 American Period ...... 2-7

3.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND FIELD METHODS ...... 3-1 3.1 Background Research and Literature Review ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Archaeological Considerations ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Historical Considerations...... 3-1 3.2 Field Methodology ...... 3-3 3.3 Laboratory Methods and Curation ...... 3-3 3.4 Unexpected Discoveries ...... 3-3

4.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 4-1 4.1 Archaeological Results ...... 4-1 4.2 Historical Architecture Results ...... 4-1 4.3 Conclusions ...... 4-5

5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 5-1

APPENDIX : Survey Log

ii

LIST OF FIGURES AND PHOTOGRAPHS

Figures Page

Figure 1.1. Location of the Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension project area, Sarasota County...... 1-2

Figure 1.2. Environmental setting of the Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension project area ...... 1-4

Figure 2.1. Florida Archaeological Regions...... 2-2

Figure 2.2. 1948 aerial photo of the Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension project area...... 2-13

Figure 2.3. 1957 aerial photo of the Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension project area...... 2-14

Figure 3.1. Location of historic resources adjacent to and archaeological sites within one mile of the Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension project area...... 3-2

Figure 4.1. Location of the shovel tests within the Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension project area. 4-2

Photos

Photo 1.1. General environment within and adjacent to the project area...... 1-5

Photo 4.1. A portion of the Fruitville Drainage District (8SO6275), facing north between Parcels...... 4-1

Photo 4.2. Building A, the Frame Vernacular style building at 900 Coburn Road, facing east...... 4-3

Photo 4.3. Building B, the Frame Vernacular style residence at 900 Coburn Road, facing northeast...... 4-4

Photo 4.4. Barn A, the Masonry Vernacular style barn at 900 Coburn Road, facing southeast...... 4-4

Photo 4.5. Barn B, the Frame Vernacular style barn at 900 Coburn Road, facing northeast...... 4-5

iii 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW

1.1 Project Description

The proposed alignment of the Lakewood Ranch Boulevard extension is separated into three typical sections requiring varying right-of-way (ROW) widths. The three typical sections are based on Sarasota County land development standards for four-lane divided minor arterial roadways. Segments 1 and 2 include a raised median. Segment 3 includes both raised median and a two-way-left turn lane to allow for access to Church of Hope and other access points. This effort includes nine proposed pond sites (Figure 1.1).

The first segment of the project intersects with Fruitville Road. Segment 1 requires 120 feet (ft) of ROW. The typical section includes a 20 ft raised median, four 11 ft lanes, 4 ft bike lanes, and 6 ft sidewalks along each side of the roadway.

The Lakewood Ranch Boulevard extension generally follows the existing route of Coburn Road. Two roundabouts are placed at the beginning and end of this segment. The route is located so as to minimize impacts to the Main C drainage canal.

The roadway then generally follows the current route of Richardson Road. The roadway cannot be relocated farther south without disrupting several parcels. A roundabout is placed where Lakewood Ranch Boulevard turns northward.

Segment 2 begins at the roundabout and continues northward. Segment 2 requires 88 ft of ROW. The segment includes a 20 ft raised median, four 11 ft lanes, 4 ft bike lanes, and a 6 ft sidewalk along one side of the road. The route is adjacent to the FDOT limited access ROW and I-75.

Segment 3 continues northward and requires 76 ft of ROW. Segment 3 is similar to Segment 2 but alternates between a two way left turn lane and a raised median. The median is omitted in areas to allow for left turns into Church of Hope and other access points. Also, reducing the overall median width and utilizing a two way left turn lane reduces the ROW.

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this survey was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the project area and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the NRHP and the SCRHP. This report is in compliance with the Historic Preservation Chapter of Apoxsee and Article III, Chapter 66 (Sub-Section 66-73) of the Sarasota County Code. This report also complies with Chapters 267 and 373, FS, Florida’s Coastal Management Program, and implementing state regulations regarding possible impact to significant historical properties. This report meets specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, FAC (revised August 21, 2002).

Field survey was preceded by background research. Such work served to provide an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of cultural resources which might be anticipated to occur within the project area, as well as a basis for evaluating any newly discovered sites.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 1-2 ¹

Pond 9

Pond 8

Pond 7

Pond 5

Pond 4

Pond 2 Pond 6

Pond 3

Pond 1

0 0.5 1 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, Miles increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © 012 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Kilometers Community 2015 Figure 1.1. Location of the Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension Lakewood Ranch Boulevard project area, Sarasota County. Extension, Sarasota County, Florida 1-3

1.3 Environment

The project area is located in Township 36 South, Range 19 East, Sections 7, 18, and 19 (USGS Bee Ridge, Fla. 1973, PR 1987; Figure 1.2). Specifically, this project is located north of Fruitville Road across from the Fruitville Road and Coburn Road intersection. The project then meanders north and west following the existing Coburn Road and Richardson Road alignments, and north along the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) limited access ROW until it terminates at the southern Lakewood Ranch Boulevard property line

The project lies at an elevation between 20 and 30 ft above mean sea level (amsl), within the Gulf Coastal Lowlands, the physiographic zone that typifies the entire coastline of the state of Florida. The Gulf Coastal Lowlands are, as the name implies, flat, and are characterized by surficial streams with little to no down cutting. Coastwise parallel, low sand ridges form slight, rolling hills within the zone. Ocean waters constructed these ridges during the Pleistocene Epoch (1.8 million years ago to 10 thousand years ago; Williams et. al 1993). The lack of elevation in the Gulf Coastal Lowlands creates the near-surficial to exposed water table throughout the region. This high water table results in the poor natural drainage and abundance of wetlands in the region (Davis 1943; McNab and Avers 1996). But due to the drainage ditches constructed by the SFDD in the early 1900s, the normal water table in the area has long been significantly suppressed.

The soils in the study area are part of the EauGallie-Mayakka-Holopaw-Pineda soil association. These nearly level, very poorly drained soils are typical of flatwoods (USDA 1991). Locally, the project areas are comprised of two nearly level, poorly drained soil types: EauGallie and Myakka fine sand and Bradenton fine sand. EauGallie and Myakka fine sand and Bradenton fine sand are nearly level poorly drained soils; the former is found on broad flatwoods and the later on low ridges and hammocks. Both support South Florida slash pine, long leaf pine, sand pine, cabbage palm, saw palmetto, running oak, and sand live oak. The remaining soil types; Holopaw fine sand, depressional, Delray fine sand, depressional, Floridana and Gator soils, depressional, Pople fine sand, Malabar fine sand, Felda fine sand, depressional, Floridana mucky fine sand, and Manatee loamy fine sand, depressional are soils found in depressions, in poorly defined drainageways, broad sloughs, and flood plains. Without drainage, they support a variety of water tolerant vegetation such as sand cordgrass, maidencane, and St. Johnswort (USDA 1991).

Current Conditions: Within and adjacent to the project area, the land has a variety of uses: residential, commercial, agriculture, and vacant areas. Photo 1.1 shows the least developed areas.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 1-4 ¹

Pond 9 ¨¦§75

Pond 8

Pond 7

Pond 5

Pond 4 Pond 6

Richardson Rd Pond 2

Pond 3 Fruitville Rd

Pond 1

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

Figure 1.2. Environmental setting of the Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Lakewood Ranch Boulevard Extension project area; Sections 7, 18 and 19 of Township 36 Extension, South, Range 19 East (USGS Bee Ridge, 1975). Sarasota County, Florida 1-5

Photo 1.1. General environment within and adjacent to the project area.

Paleoenvironmental Considerations: The prehistoric environment of Sarasota County and the surrounding area was different from that which is seen today. Sea levels were much lower (Milliman and Emery 1968), the climate was drier (Watts 1969, 1971, 1975), and potable water was scarce (Dunbar 1981:95). Much of these differences were the result of the glaciation of North America. In the post-glacial period, ca. 4000 Before Current Era (BCE), the environment began to assume modern parameters.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 2-1

2.0 CULTURE HISTORY

Archaeologists and historians typically summarize the prehistory and history of a given geographical area with a chronological arrangement of identifiable periods of settlement and land use. As a result, prehistoric and historic settlement is often defined in geographical terms, but also reflects shared environmental and cultural factors. The project area is located in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast archaeological region, as defined by Milanich (1994) and Milanich and Fairbanks (1980). This region extends from just north of Tampa Bay southward to the northern portion of Charlotte Harbor, an area encompassing today’s Sarasota County (Figure 2.1).

2.1 Paleo-Indian

The Paleo-Indian Period is the earliest known cultural manifestation in Florida, dating from roughly 11,000 to 7500 BCE (Austin 2001). Archeological evidence for Paleo-Indians consists primarily of scattered finds of diagnostic lanceolate projectile points. The majority of these sites are associated with the rivers in the north-central portion of Florida. During this period, the climate was cooler and drier. Vegetation was typified by xerophytic species with scrub oak, pine, and open grassy prairies (Milanich 1994:40). Since sea levels were as much as 115 ft below present levels and the coastal regions extended miles beyond present day shorelines (Milliman and Emery 1968), many of the sites dating from this time period have been inundated (Clausen et al. 1979; Ruppé 1980; Scholl et al. 1969). Much of the information about the Paleo-Indian Period in Sarasota County is derived from underwater excavations at two inland spring sites southeast of the project area: Little Salt Spring and Warm Mineral Springs (Milanich 1994:44). There is also good evidence that Paleo-Indians in southwest Florida and elsewhere hunted now extinct species like mastodon, mammoth, ground sloth and giant tortoise (Clausen et al. 1979; Dunbar and Waller 1983).

Traditionally, the Paleo-Indian Period was thought to be characterized by small nomadic bands of hunters and gatherers. However, Daniel (1985) has proposed a model of an early hunter- gatherer settlement which suggests that some Paleo-Indian groups may have practiced a more sedentary lifestyle than previously believed. Archaeologists also speculate that since the climate was cooler and much drier, it is likely that these nomadic bands traveled between permanent and semi- permanent sources of water, exploiting seasonally available resources. This has been referred to as the Oasis hypothesis (Dunbar 1991). These watering holes would have attracted the animals upon which the Indians hunted, thus providing both food and drink.

Excavations at the Harney Flats Site in Hillsborough County (8HI507) have provided a rich body of data concerning Paleo-Indian lifeways in west-central Florida (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). Such data supports the theory that Paleo-Indian settlement may “not have been related as much to seasonal changes as generally among other factors (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:175). During the Late Paleo-Indian Period, the large lanceolate Suwannee and Simpson points were replaced by the smaller Tallahassee, Santa Fe, and Beaver Lake types (Milanich 1994:53). Other research in the region has shown that at least portions of coastal shell deposits, bordering now submerged river channels in Tampa Bay, were probably middens deposited during the Paleo-Indian period (Goodyear and Warren 1972; Goodyear et al. 1983). Austin (2001), however, notes that while some researchers have suggested that the disappearance of Pleistocene megafauna forced early Holocene groups to the coast to exploit maritime resources, such a change seems unlikely.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 2-2

Post-500 BCE regions of precolumbian Florida ¹ (adapted from Milanich 1994: xix)

1 2

3 5 4

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

0 50 100 Miles 0100200 Kilometers

Figure 2.1. Florida Archaeological Regions. The Lakewood Lakewood Ranch Boulevard Ranch Blvd. Extension project area is within the Central Peninsu- Extension, lar Gulf Coast Region. Sarasota County, Florida 2-3

In addition to Warm Mineral and Little Salt Springs, evidence of the Paleo-Indian Period in Sarasota County has been identified at a lithic scatter component of the Myakkahatchee Site in the City of North Port and along the Gulf beach at Venice where a Simpson-like projectile point was recovered near a spring (ACI 1985).

2.2 Archaic

As the Paleo-Indian Period gradually came to a close, climatic changes occurred, and the last of the Pleistocene megafauna disappeared from the landscape. Archaeological evidence suggests a slow cultural change which led toward an increasingly intensive exploitation of localized food resources. These changes may reflect a transition from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene which was characterized by a more seasonal, modern climate. Some archaeologists have hypothesized that with the extinction of some Pleistocene mammals, Archaic populations turned to the hunting of smaller game like deer, raccoon, and opossum, as well as a reliance on wild plants and shellfish (Milanich 1994).

The Archaic Period has been divided into three sub-periods: Early, Middle, and Late (or Ceramic) Archaic. The Early Archaic period, ca. 7500 - 5000 BCE, is well-documented in Florida, and generally recognized by the presence of Dalton and/or Bolen type projectile points (Bullen 1975). The archaeological record appears to indicate a diffuse, yet well-scheduled pattern of exploiting both coastal and interior resources. The Early Archaic tool assemblage is more diverse than the preceding Paleo-Indian tool kits, and includes specialized stone tools for performing a variety of tasks. Also, many Early Archaic sites are small, seasonal campsites suggesting seasonal migration or travel in search of food (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Widmer (1988) has hypothesized a post-Kirk Horizon within the Early Archaic for South Florida as a bridge between the preceding Late Paleo-Indian (Kirk Horizon) and the subsequent Middle Archaic. Austin (2001) notes possible post-Kirk Horizon sites such as the Fletcher Davis, Tampa Palms and West Williams sites in Hillsborough County. Discoveries at Little Salt Spring in Sarasota County (Clausen et al. 1979) and the Windover Site (Doran 2002) in Brevard County indicate that bone and wood tools were also manufactured and used for a variety of tasks during the Early to Middle Archaic.

During the Middle Archaic, ca. 5000 to 3000 BCE, the archaeological record (a procession of Middle Archaic projectile point types) indicates the spread of people across Florida (Milanich 1994; Purdy 1981). There may have been a shift from the dispersed settlement pattern of the preceding period to a system of central-base camps with numerous, smaller satellite or special-use camps. These changes in settlement pattern may have resulted in maximizing the use of forest resources and the ability of larger bands of people to live together for part of the year. Russo (1991) has also suggested that research on Horr’s Island in southwest Florida provides evidence of a large, permanent (year- round) preceramic Archaic habitation with a large and diverse assemblage of shell and bone tools. The DeLeon Springs 2 Canoe, the earliest yet found in Florida, dates to the Middle Archaic Period (Wheeler at al. 2003).

Lithic artifacts associated with the Middle Archaic include broad-bladed, stemmed projectile points such as the Newnan, Marion, and Putnam types. Also, specialized tools such as microliths and burins, large chopping implements, as well as an array of expedient tools, have been found at archaeological sites. Ste. Claire (1987) has reported extensive use of thermal alteration which enabled poor-quality, raw material to be used for the manufacture of tools, principally hafted bifaces. Other researchers report a noticeable decrease in the use of shaped tools other than bifaces as well as a dependency on flake tools (Austin 2001). In addition, several cemetery sites, with human burials in

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 2-4 bogs, springs, and other wetlands, provide the first evidence for mortuary ceremonialism during the Middle Archaic. One of these, the Hazeltine Site (Luer 2002), is associated with a large Archaic Period camp or village site in southern Sarasota County (Clausen et al. 1979).

During the Late Archaic, ca. 3000 to 500 BCE, many settlements were located near wetlands. The abundance of resources located in and near the wetlands permitted larger settlements. Broad- bladed, stemmed projectile points of the Middle Archaic continued to be manufactured. However, hafted scrapers, “thumb” scrapers and discoidal scrapers appear in the archaeological records. Austin (2001:47) writes that “…presumably this is related to maintenance activities associated with habitation…” Other researchers note that a greater reliance on marine resources is indicated at coastal sites as subsistence strategies and technologies were adapted to maximize the rich source of aquatic foods. In Sarasota County, a number of very large coastal and riverine shell middens begin to accumulate along the bays (Almy 1976; Williams et al. 1990). This apparent increased exploitation of maritime resources might be due to rising sea levels. Early coastal sites might lie offshore along the former shorelines (Goodyear and Warren 1972; Faught 1996)

During the Late Archaic, the earliest pottery, a fiber-tempered ware, was introduced in Sarasota and elsewhere in Florida (Bullen and Bullen 1976; Sassman 2003). To the south in Collier County, recent investigations at Heineken Hammock (8CR231) have evidenced a temporary camp site dating to 2500 BCE and situated “…well back from the Gulf shore suggesting the presence of a stable community within a practical hiking or canoeing distance…” of the coast (Lee et al. 1998:223). Also, based on a surface collection at Cedar Point shell midden (8CH18/8CH61) on Lemon Bay which consisted of sand and fiber-tempered sherds and a thick, chalky fiber-tempered ware, Luer (1999a) has hypothesized a “Late or Terminal Archaic Period occupation just north of Charlotte Harbor.”

2.3 Transitional

The Transitional Period (1200 - 500 BCE) was defined by Bullen (1959) to explain the transition from the Late Archaic, fiber-tempered period to the Formative or Woodland Stage which manifests a greater regional diversity. However, the period remains difficult to identify clearly in the archaeological record (Milanich 1994). Nonetheless, it appears that as population size increased, fiber-tempered pottery was replaced by sand-tempered or limestone- and sand-tempered wares. For example, limestone-tempered and sand-tempered pottery developed along the west-central and southwest coast, whereas a temperless chalky ware developed along the St. Johns River and northeast coast of Florida. In addition, there is evidence of regional interaction with other cultures such as the Poverty Point complex of the lower Mississippi Valley. Among the west-central Florida sites dating to the Transitional Period are the Canton Street Site in St. Petersburg (Bullen et al. 1978) and the Apollo Beach Site on Tampa Bay (Warren 1968).

2.4 Manasota

The 1300 years from ca. 500 BCE to Current Era (CE) 800 in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast archaeological region is known as the Manasota Period. The subsistence practices of the Manasota people combined marine and hinterland exploitation. Large shoreside sites, i.e., major villages, were located on or very near the mainland. Small, perhaps seasonal villages or camp sites were located 12 to 18 miles inland from the shore. During this long period, sand-tempered pottery became the dominant ceramic type, and burial practices became more elaborate, evolving from

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 2-5 interments, often in shell middens, to sand burial mounds (Luer and Almy 1982). As currently defined, the Manasota culture is a coastal manifestation, and recent research has helped (Ardren et al. 2003) to further define coastal subsistence patterns dating between CE 400-800 on Lemon Bay. While not directly assignable to the Manasota Period, several small sites in the interior part of the region may be contemporaneous with coastal Manasota sites, including those along Fox and Salt Creeks (Williams et al. 1990).

Gradually, the people of the region were influenced by the Weeden Island culture from the north, and became what archaeologists refer to as a Weeden Island-related culture, one of the peninsular Weeden Island-related cultures identified and described by Milanich (1994). The subsistence pattern continued to be based on a hunting and gathering of land, marine, riverine, and swamp resources. The people seem to have led a fairly sedentary lifestyle, with villages located along the coast as well as at inland areas. Barrier islands like Manasota, Longboat and Siesta Keys were utilized for both habitation as well as burials (Dickel 1991; Luer and Almy 1979; ACI 2001).

Usually sites are identified by the presence of shell middens or habitation areas and a sand burial mound. As not all villages possessed the labor force to construct a mound, it is likely that many communities shared a single continuous-use mound (Willey 1949). Burial mound customs, artifactual evidence of an extensive trade network, and settlement pattern data suggest a complex socio-religious organization for this period. Weeden Island-related sites in the interior portion of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region include the Parrish Mound 5 (Willey 1949) and Stanley Mound (Deming 1976) in Manatee County, as well as the South Prong I Site in Hillsborough County (Martin 1976). A sand mound situated to the south of Payne Creek in Hardee County, discovered by Batcho (Batcho and Milanich 1978), may also date to this period.

One of the best known archaeological complexes in Sarasota County is the Osprey Archaeological and Historic Site (listed in the NRHP in 1975) (Bullen and Bullen 1976). The earliest record of this 29 acre tract dates to 1867, when John G. Webb homesteaded the property (Almy and Luer 1993). The complex consists of nine archaeological sites which range in date from the Late Archaic Period to the Weeden Island Period. Recently, Dale Hutchinson (2004), a physical anthropologist, reevaluated the skeletal population of the Palmer Burial Mound (ca. 800 CE to 1000 CE; 8SO2) using currently available technologies. Hutchinson’s analysis has elucidated the health status, dietary practices, and population dynamics not only of the Palmer Burial Mound, but of comparative sites along the Florida Gulf Coast. On the whole, the Palmer population appears to have enjoyed good heath with sustained nutrition and fewer infectious diseases, cavities, and cranial blunt trauma than interior populations. However, as with most coastal groups, they did suffer greater periodontal (gum) infections (the likely result of dental damage due to shell inclusions in the diet), anemia (the probable consequence of intestinal parasites), and osteoarthritis (Hutchinson 2004:151). Interestingly, of the Gulf Coastal populations, the inhabitants of Tampa Bay exhibited a greater degree of outer ear canal damage (external auditory exostese). This pathology may be congenital or environmentally induced by recurrent ear infections associated with swimming and diving (Hutchinson 2004:120). Isotopic analyses and dental microwear studies have determined that the inhabitants of the Palmer Burial Mound were primarily utilizing nearshore fish species and shellfish. The presence of the Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead shark specimens in the archaeological record suggests deeper water fishing as well (Hutchinson 2004:50). Terrestrial species were recovered, however, are much less abundant. As for much of peninsular Florida, no evidence of agricultural activities was found (Hutchinson 2004:151).1

1 Zea maize (corn) pollen was recovered from the Fort Center Site in Glades County (Sears 1982).

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 2-6

2.5 Mississippian

During the Mississippian Period, the Weeden Island–related culture evolved into the Safety Harbor culture. As in the previous periods, major Safety Harbor sites remained primarily along the shore and many were situated at the same locations as Late Manasota sites (Luer and Almy 1981). Large towns, many having a temple mound, plaza, midden, and nearby burial mound, characterized the Safety Harbor Period which can be correlated with the growth of a religious-political complex. This is evidenced in the archaeological record of increasingly complex mortuary practices and burial goods (Luer 1999b). Although most Safety Harbor sites are located along coastal bays and rivers, inland sites are also known in Sarasota County (Willey 1949).

The large population centers of the Safety Harbor Period are recorded near Tampa Bay at Safety Harbor (Sears 1958; Griffin and Bullen 1950), Maximo Point (Bushnell 1962; Sears 1958), the Narvaez Midden (Bushnell 1966; Simpson 1999), and Tierra Verde (Sears 1967), all in Pinellas County. Inland Safety Harbor sites include Parrish Mounds 1, 2, and 3 in Manatee County (Willey 1949), the Davis Mound in Hardee County (Bullen 1954), and the Arcadia Site (Willey 1949) and Keen Mound (Willis and Johnson 1980) in DeSoto County. In Sarasota County, the Whitaker temple mound, nearby burial mound and village site, were situated on Sarasota Bay in today’s Indian Beach neighborhood (Luer 1992). This complex appears to be the southern-most manifestation of the temple mound and plaza complex typically associated with Safety Harbor ceremonial centers (Luer and Almy 1981; Luer 1992).

Whereas the earlier cultural periods are defined exclusively with the archaeological record, historical documents provide the tribal names of the bearers of the Safety Harbor culture. These groups were variously referred to as the Tocobaga, Uzita, Mocoso, Pohoy and Alafay by writers during the Contact Period. Although these groups were associated with the Tampa region, it should be noted that “... during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the name ‘Tampa’ was not associated with today’s Tampa Bay area. Instead, the name was associated with the Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Sound, and Estero Bay areas” (Luer 2000:9). Cartographers did not move the name Tampa northward until the eighteenth century (Luer 2000:9). Thus, the location of aboriginal groups along the coast of west-central and southwest Florida is difficult to document.

South of Sarasota County, the Calusa dominated Florida’s southwest coast during the Mississippian Period. Utilizing the warm, shallow, food-rich estuaries, they developed a powerful chiefdom. Widmer (1988) has argued for the appearance of the Calusa chiefdom in the region as a result of population growth and a need to control fixed territories and limited fishing resources. Luer (1986) has hypothesized increasing social complexity through the controlled production and access to valued shell tools, particularly those fashioned from robust whelk shells. According the Hernando d’ Escalante Fontaneda, a Spanish captive, the Calusa King, Calos, controlled a vast empire with 50 towns along the southwest coast and extending eastward to Lake Okeechobee (Milanich and Hudson 1993). The principal town of the Calusa is thought to be the site of Mound Key in Estero Bay near Fort Myers Beach. Although the project area in Sarasota County is typically thought of as being more Safety Harbor affiliated, the presence of Glades Tooled pottery at the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker mound at Indian Beach “… suggests direct contact with the Calusa of coastal southwest Florida …” (Luer 1992: 239). Thus, the archaeological record suggests that the Sarasota County region was at a cultural boundary and was influenced by both the Safety Harbor culture of the north and the Calusa chiefdom of the south.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 2-7

2.6 Contact and the Colonial Period

The cultural traditions of the native Floridians ended with the 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 and circumnavigation of the peninsula in 1513, official Spanish explorations were confined to the west coast of Florida until 1565. Florida’s east coast, lacking deep water harbor’s like Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor was left to a few shipwrecked sailors from treasure ships which, by 1551, sailed through the Straits of Florida on their way to Spain.

Between 1513 and 1558, Spain launched several expeditions of exploration and, ultimately failed, colonization of La Florida. Along west-central Florida, archaeological evidence of contact can be found in the form of European trade goods such as glass beads, bells, and trinkets recovered from village sites. The Blackburn Site (8SO403) reportedly contained glass beads as well as Culbreath and Pinellas type bifaces. Williams et al. (1989) placed the mound in the Englewood/Safety Harbor and Contact periods. Similarly, glass beads were reported from the Crowley Homestead Mound (8SO72), in east Sarasota County, suggesting a Contact period of utilization (Williams et al. 1989).

In northern Florida, much of the surviving Native American population was converted by Jesuit and Franciscan missions (McEwan 1993). However, similar efforts in peninsular Florida were unsuccessful, not for a lack of effort, but because the remaining peninsular populations were intractable (Hann 1991). In time, some of the missionized Indians fled south along the Gulf Coast (Luer 1999b). Evidence of missionized Indians has been found around Tampa Bay at locales like the Safety Harbor and Narvaez sites, and at the Fort Brooke Midden in downtown Tampa. South of Tampa Bay, archaeological evidence is scarce (cf., Luer 1994 re: Cedar Point), but historic documents mention various activities along the Gulf Coast in the 1600s and early 1700s, as refugees fleeing mission sites probably joined indigenous Indians (Luer 1999b).

Along the Gulf Coast between Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay, Spanish and Cuban fishermen established communities, or "ranchos," with the earliest being at Useppa Island and San Carlos Bay (Hammond 1973). There is growing archaeological evidence that the surviving Native Americans of the region were assimilated into these Creole communities (Neill 1968; Hann 1991; Almy 2001). These west coast ranchos supplied dried fish to Cuban and northern markets until the mid-1830s, when onset of the Seminole Indian Wars and customs control closed the fisheries.

During the political machinations between 1763 and 1819, Native Americans continued to move into the unchartered lands of Florida. These migrating groups became known to English speakers as Seminioles or Seminoles. This term is thought to be either a corruption of the Creek ishti semoli (wild men) or the Spanish cimarron (wild or unruly). Their presence curtailed settlement of the region and hostilities increased. The conflict between the Americans and the Seminoles over Florida came to a head in 1818, and was subsequently known as the First Seminole War.

2.7 American Period

As a result of the First Seminole 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

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 2-8 persons reportedly lived in South Florida; by 1830 that number had risen to 517 (Tebeau 1971:134). Although the project area in present-day Sarasota County was initially included in St. Johns County, the area transferred to Mosquito County when it was created in 1824 and then to Hillsborough County when it was established in 1834 (Grismer 1946). The earliest American attempts to settle what is now Sarasota County occurred in 1842 when William H. Whitaker homesteaded 145 acres along Sarasota Bay (Marth 1973:12).

Although 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 south Florida. In exchange for occupancy of approximately four million acres of reservation land south of Ocala and north of Charlotte Harbor, the Seminoles relinquished their claim to the remainder of the peninsula (Mahon 1967:46-50; Covington 1958). The treaty satisfied neither the Native Americans nor the settlers. The inadequacy of the reservation, the desperate situation of the Seminoles, and the mounting demand of the whites for their removal, soon produced another conflict.

By 1835, the Second Seminole War was under way. As part of the effort to subdue Indian hostilities in southwest Florida, military patrols moved into the unchartered and unmapped wilderness in search of Seminole populations outside the reservation. As the Second Seminole War escalated, attacks on isolated settlers and communities in southwest Florida became more common. To combat this, the combined service units of the U.S. Army and Navy converged on southwest Florida. This joint effort attempted to isolate the southern portion of the Florida peninsula against the estimated 300 Seminoles remaining in the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades (Covington 1958:7; Tebeau 1966:39). The federal government ended the conflict by withdrawing troops from Florida. At the war's end, some of the battle-weary Seminoles were persuaded to emigrate to the Oklahoma Indian Reservation where the federal government had set aside land for Native American inhabitation. However, those who wished to remain in Florida were allowed to do so, but were pushed further south into the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp. This area became the final stronghold of the Seminoles (Mahon 1967:321).

Encouraged by the passage of the Armed Occupation Act in 1842, which was designed to promote settlement and protect the Florida frontier, settlers moved south through Florida. The Act made available 200,000 acres south of Gainesville to the Peace River, barring coastal lands and those within a two mile radius of a fort. The Armed Occupation Act stipulated that any family or single man over 18 years of age able to bear arms could earn title to 160 acres by erecting a habitable dwelling, cultivating at least five acres of land, and living on it for five years. During the nine month period the law was in effect, 1184 permits were issued totaling some 189,440 acres (Covington 1961:48; Dunn 1989:24-25).

The resulting increase in settlement of the region precipitated the need for cadastral cartographic surveys. In 1843, Samuel Reid surveyed the exterior lines of Township 36 South, Range 19 East (State of Florida 1843). Four years later, in 1847, A. H. Jones surveyed the interior lines of the Township and Range (State of Florida 1847a). In his survey notes, Jones describes the project area as “mostly 3rd rate pine land” (State of Florida 1847a:102, 104, 124). The resulting Plat depicts no man-made features within the project area (State of Florida 1847b).

In 1845, the Union admitted the State of Florida with Tallahassee as the state capital. Ten years later, Manatee County, which at that time included the project area, was carved from portions of Hillsborough and Mosquito Counties, with the village of Manatee as the county seat (Marth 1973:13; Purdum 1994:82). In December 1855, the Third Seminole War, or the Billy Bowlegs War, started as a result of additional pressure placed on the few remaining Native Americans in Florida to emigrate west (Covington 1982). The war started when Seminole Chief Holatter-Micco, also known as Billy

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 2-9

Bowlegs, and 30 warriors attacked an army camp south of present-day Immokalee, killing four soldiers and wounding four others. The attack was in retaliation for damage done by several artillerymen to property belonging to Billy Bowlegs. This hostile action renewed state and federal interest in the final elimination of the Seminoles from Florida. Despite this effort, military action was not decisive during the war. Therefore, in 1858 the U.S. government resorted to monetary persuasion to induce the remaining Seminoles to migrate west. Chief Billy Bowlegs accepted $5,000 for himself, $2,500 for his lost cattle, each warrior received $500 and $100 was given to each woman and child. On May 4, 1858, the ship Grey Cloud set sail from Fort Myers with 38 Seminole warriors and 85 Seminole women and children. Stopping at Egmont Key, 41 captives and a Seminole woman guide were added to the group. This made a total of 165 Seminoles migrating west. On May 8, 1858, the Third Seminole War was declared officially over (Covington 1982:78-80).

Cattle ranching served as one of the earliest important economic activities reported in Manatee County. Mavericks left by early Spanish explorers such as DeSoto and Narvaez provided the stock for the herds raised by the mid-eighteenth century “cowkeeper” Seminoles. As the Seminoles were pushed further south during the Seminole Wars and their cattle were either sold or left to roam, settlers captured or bought the cattle. By the late 1850s, the cattle industry of southwestern Florida was developing on a significant scale. Hillsborough and Manatee Counties constituted Florida’s leading cattle producing region. By 1860, cattlemen from all over Florida drove their herds to Fort Brooke (Tampa) and Punta Rassa (south of Fort Myers) for shipment to Cuba, at a considerable profit. During this period, Jacob Summerlin became the first cattle baron of southwestern Florida. Known as the “King of the Crackers,” Summerlin herds ranged from Fort Meade to Fort Myers (Covington 1957).

In 1861, Florida followed South Carolina's lead and seceded from the Union as a prelude to the American Civil War. Florida had much at stake in this war as evidenced in a report released from Tallahassee in June 1861. It listed the value of land in Florida’s 35 counties as $35,127,721 and the value of the slaves in the state at $29,024,513 (Dunn 1989:59). Although the Union blockaded the coast of Florida during the war, the interior of the state saw very little military action. Florida became one of the major contributors of beef to the Confederate government (Shofner 1995:72). Summerlin originally had a contract with the Confederate government to market thousands of head a year at eight dollars per head. However, by driving his cattle to Punta Rassa and shipping them to Cuba, he received $25 per head (Grismer 1946:83). In an attempt to limit the supply of beef transported to the Confederate government, Union troops stationed at Fort Myers conducted several raids into the Peace River Valley to seize cattle and destroy ranches. In response, Confederate supporters formed the Cattle Guard Battalion, consisting of nine companies under the command of Colonel Charles J. Mannerlyn (Akerman 1976:91-93).

During the late 19th century, the rural community of Fruitville became home to many settlers. Pioneers like Charles Reaves, Emmett Tucker, Frank Tucker, and the Walkers (Zilles n.d.:2) arrived probably after Charles “Charlie” L. Reaves, considered to be the first settler to arrive in Fruitville. He may have planted the first citrus grove, later known as “Bailey’s grove” (Zilles n.d.:1). Other early settlers to the Fruitville area included Jesse H. Tucker and his two sons Emmett and Frank H. Tucker. Jesse Tucker was the son of John Tucker, who in 1845 was noted as “the only missionary in Florida” by the Baptist Home Mission Board (Lastinger 1975:5).

The State of Florida faced a financial crisis involving title to public lands in the early 1880s. By Act of Congress in 1850, the federal government turned over to the states for drainage and reclamation all “swamp and overflow land.” Florida received approximately 10,000,000 acres. To manage that land and the 5,000,000 acres the state had received on entering the Union, the state legislature in 1851 created the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund. In 1855, the

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 2-10 legislature established the actual fund (the Florida Internal Improvement Fund), in which state lands were to be held. The fund became mired in debt after the Civil War and under state law no land could be sold until the debt was cleared. In 1881, the Trustees started searching for a buyer capable of purchasing enough acreage to pay off the fund’s debt and permit the sale of the remaining millions of acres that it controlled. Hamilton Disston, a member of a prominent Pennsylvania saw manufacturing family, in 1881 entered into agreement with the State of Florida to purchase four million acres of swamp and overflowed land for one million dollars. In exchange, he promised to drain and improve the land. 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. The purchase, although technically legal, was extremely generous with the designation “swamp and overflow land.” Grismer (1946) estimates that at least half of the acreage was “high and dry.” Disston’s purchase effectively removed four million acres of public lands from would-be homesteaders. Even worse, some of the earliest homesteaders of Sarasota County actually lost their properties because, in the absence of the land survey information, they could not file their claims (Grismer 1946).

As Disston’s drainage efforts resulted in increased railroad construction in Florida, rail service was introduced to the Fruitville area in the early 1880s through the construction of the Florida Southern Railroad which ran from Bartow in Polk County southward to Punta Gorda. With the railroad as a catalyst, the 1880s witnessed a sudden surge of buying land for speculation, agriculture, and settlement in Manatee County. This prompted the creation of DeSoto County in 1887 out of eastern Manatee County (from which Sarasota County would later be created). Although the settlement at Fruitville was established, it was considered “merely groupings of widely scattered homes, nothing more,” and there was not a “graded road, sidewalk, or community meeting place” (Grismer1946:76).

The first community building in Fruitville, the Missionary Baptist Church, was constructed in 1887 as a result of an experimental failure. John Hamilton Gillespie, promoter of the development of Sarasota by a settlement of colonists from Scotland in 1885, engaged in experimental farming in Fruitville in 1887. The 40-acre experimental farm was meant to prove that the Scotch company owned the most fertile land in the state; however, the forty acres was not productive despite the addition of fertilizer and lime. The members of the Missionary Baptist congregation were able to sell enough lime to Gillespie to earn the funds necessary to construct their church (Hughes 2006). In 1903, another major railroad, the Seaboard Air Line Railway extended its line from Sarasota to Fruitville.

Settlers flocked to Florida’s southwest coast during the close of the nineteenth century, but the Big Freeze of 1894 and 1895 damaged the citrus groves and dampened enthusiasm for the newly found paradise. However, as settlement in the Fruitville area continued, a post office was built so that mail was no longer routed to Sarasota. The post office was established on June 7, 1895 on Tree Road, off Fruitville Road, east of present-day I-75. Charles Reaves, the first postmaster, chose the name “Fruitville” which “has been regarded as one of the most agriculturally productive sections of the entire state” (Lastinger 1975:17; Meserve 1897:56). Reaves built a one-room addition onto his home to use as the post office. He later constructed a small structure on his property, separate from his house, which served as a store and post office (Lastinger 1975:17). In 1897, Fruitville consisted of 22 families and was noted as having fine pine and sawgrass. Although the rural settlement was showing signs of increased development, there was still no doctor and only a traveling dentist, who would visit once a year (Lastinger 1975:55, 41, 49; Sarasota Times 1910; Sarasota County School Board n.d.).

Between 1900 and 1911, William Nelson Camp and his wife, Texanna Gay Camp, owned much of this sawgrass land and may be the reason why the names Big Camp and Little Camp appear

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 2-11 on a 1923 topographical map. The Camps later sold the land to Joseph and Franc Lord, land agents, who had been acquiring large tracts of land near Sarasota, Venice, and Myakka since 1885 (Sarasota Herald-Tribune 1997).

Settlement in the Fruitville area continued, and in 1902, the United States & West Indies Railroad & Steamship Co., a subsidiary of the Seaboard line, began construction of a rail line from Tampa to Sarasota via Bradenton. The track was extended into Venice in 1912 (Marth 1973:40). Other modes of transportation and communication, including the automobile, telephone, and electricity brought a national perspective into small southwest Florida towns. By 1914, Sarasotans became tired of waiting on Manatee County to create better roads within the area, so they established their own ‘adequate road district,’ and Bee Ridge Road and Fruitville Road (Matthews 1983:150), as well as US Highway 41, or the Tamiami Trail (Scupholm 1997) were constructed.

In 1910, Mrs. Bertha Honoré Palmer, widow of Chicago financier Potter Palmer, traveled to Sarasota to consider a land offer made by J.H. Lord. Bertha Palmer was accompanied by her brother Adrian Honoré and her sons Potter Jr. and Honoré. Mrs. Palmer was so taken with the area that she purchased land for a winter home in what is today the community of Osprey, and ultimately bought 26,000 acres east of Sarasota by 1911. The quartet established companies, including the Sarasota- Venice Company, which would ultimately come to hold a fourth of the land of present-day Sarasota County (Matthews 1997).

During the eight years Mrs. Palmer wintered in Sarasota County, she devoted considerable energy to agricultural experimentation and land development, continuously improving the agriculture in Sarasota County and was also attracted to the rich muck land area east of Fruitville (Zilles n.d.:27). Palmer’s projects included “road building, ditching, and clearing property, expert farm supervision and cooperative marketing facilities” (Federal Writers’ Project 1939:270).

After Mrs. Palmer’s death, her sons Honoré and Potter Jr., focused on the sawgrass area east of Fruitville for horticultural experimentation and farming. Before the sawgrass land could be plowed and planted, it had to be drained. For that purpose the Palmer brothers formed the Fruitville Drainage District in 1921 and hired Arcadia engineer J.G. Kimmel, of Cravens and Kimmel engineering firm, to create a topographic map and drainage plan for the district. Execution of the plan began in 1923 with steam shovels mounted on barge-like platforms to dig the main canals: A, B, and C. By 1926, the Fruitville Drainage District was completed, allowing previously non-farmable lands to be available for agricultural production (Zilles n.d.:28, 118).

The new “tillable land” was formed by removing water from historic Cow Pen Slough and dredging a straight drainage canal through the snaking bed of Phillipi Creek, draining about 26,000 acres. In its entirety, the project encompassed more than 40 square miles and included a network of 50 linear miles of canals. The drained area included 2,000 acres of muck land, of which 1,400 acres was used in the planting of celery. The estimated cost for this massive project was $750,000. Since Honoré and Potter Palmer were heavily involved in the formation of the District, the land became known as the Palmer Farms.

To help turn the drained land into a profitable agricultural enterprise, the Palmers hired Ed Ayers, county agent from Manatee County. About half of the drained land was a mucky black soil. Experimentation applied to innovative farming equipment as well as crops on the Palmer Farms. After about a year of experimenting with various crops, celery was finally chosen as the crop most appropriate to the area, both horticulturally and economically.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 2-12

In January 1927, the first crops were planted, and in March of that year, the first cart of celery was cut (Palmer Farms n.d.). This crop was soon producing as much as 1,000 to 1,200 crates per acre, and Sarasota was packing and shipping an average of 1,200 carloads annually (Zilles n.d.:28; FWP 1939:270). Fourteen-hundred of the original 2,000 acres were used for celery production by 1946 (Grismer 1946:255) (Figures 2.2, 2.3; note southern portion of project area show celery fields). With results like these, celery became the largest cash crop in the county, with Sarasota being the third largest celery producer in the state of Florida. High production of celery crops became the main draw for new farmers and residents, attracting them from as far north as New York, New Jersey, and Maine (Herald n.d.:1-2). Early celery growers in Sarasota included T. and J. Bell, W. Burquest, W. Stockbridge, T. Petty, W. Chase, K. Millar, R. Miller, R. Watts, R. Treadway, R. Caruse, G. Martin, L. Raul, F. Brown, T. Thompson, G. Sweeting, J. Raymond, G. Porter, J. Crosby and A. Smith (Zilles n.d:29-30).

The produce from Palmer Farms was marketed by the Palmer Farms Growers Association. The members of this group were those individuals who purchased land from Palmer Farms (Grismer 1946:255) (Palmer Farms n.d.). As part of the incentive to purchase a tract of land, the Palmers set up the experimental farm station. This station, 4.5 miles east of Sarasota off Fruitville Road, provided service to the farmers with information and tests on soil fertility, seed, average yields, fertilizers, irrigation and drainage. Although celery was the main crop, various farmers associated with the Palmer Farms also experimented with growing strawberries, flower bulbs, eggplant, beans, English peas, cabbage, tobacco, peppers, sugar cane, and other fruits and vegetables.

In 1926-27, the Florida real estate market collapsed. The wild land speculation that preceded the land “bust” resulted in banks finding it impossible to track loans or property values. The hurricanes of 1926 and 1928, the Mediterranean fruit fly invasion and subsequent paralysis of the citrus industry, the October 1929 stock market crash, and the onset of the Great Depression only worsened the situation. Sarasota County, along with the rest of Florida, was in a state of economic stagnation.

To combat the economic hardships, the Murphy Act was passed in 1931. As early as 1928, struggling land owners had stopped paying taxes on their property. The Murphy Act allowed for any man to pay taxes on a property for two years and get a quit claim deed that would legally stand in court (Zilles n.d.:12). Much of the land in rural Sarasota County was acquired during this period including those areas around Fruitville and Bee Ridge. In contrast, developers of the Sugar Bowl Drainage District, A.F. Myman, D.P. Breen, Abe Barker, and Lee Day, located south of the Fruitville Drainage District, faced financial loss and began selling off their land as their aspirations of sugar plantations never reached fruition. They were out of business in the early 1930s, where as the Fruitville Drainage District continued to serve farmers, and eventually development (Zilles n.d.:125, 12).

By the late 1940s, the small farms and agricultural land that once characterized the rural portions of Sarasota County, including the Fruitville area, had begun to disappear. This may have been due to the canned vegetable and fruit processing that became a big industry during World War II, when much of the labor force was deployed and large amounts of food supplies needed to be produced. In the Fruitville Drainage District, these trends were evident, as small farms were absorbed by larger enterprises. In addition, the Florida legislature barred cattle from open roads in 1949, thus, the open ranges in inland Sarasota ceased to exist. The canals continued to provide drainage for the cattle pastures (Mathews 1997:147).

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 2-13

26 Feb '48 DEW-2D-87 ¹

0 500 1,000 Feet 0150300 Meters

Figure 2.2. 1948 aerial photo of the Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Exten- Lakewood Ranch Boulevard sion project area (PALMM 1948). Extension, Sarasota County, Florida 2-14

3-23-57 DEW-1T-104 ¹

0 500 1,000 Feet 0150300 Meters

Figure 2.3. 1957 aerial photo of the Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Exten- Lakewood Ranch Boulevard sion project area (PALMM 1957). Extension, Sarasota County, Florida 2-15

Sarasota County experienced growth in residential development after World War II. Car ownership made the American public more mobile, and vacations less expensive. Many of the servicemen stationed in the Sarasota area during the war returned with their families. This resulted in the rapid development of small tract homes in new subdivisions. Many of these homes and subdivisions were constructed near the waterfront, but continued inland, east of the urban core and slowly expanded toward the Fruitville area (Matthews 1997:147). The maintenance and use of the canal system provided a vital mechanism whereby naturally inundated soil were converted to arable land that could be developed.

Since 1960, Sarasota County, like the rest of Florida, has benefited from the influx of retirees and tourists. Between 1960 and 1970, the population of Sarasota County exploded by 64 percent (Tebeau 1971:492). However, as a result of this accelerated development, flooding again became a problem in the District; particularly to the south around the Phillippi Creek Watershed. As a result, maintenance of over 50 miles of canals continues and the value of the Fruitville Drainage District has again proven its significance to a growing county’s population (Zilles n.d:58).

Development and settlement patterns have followed the construction of Interstate-75 along Florida’s west coast. This major thoroughfare has greatly impacted the community of Fruitville when it began to be constructed in the 1980s, along with the continued widening of Fruitville Road.

This has led to further large scale development of residential subdivisions, strip malls, and reduction of agricultural fields. Widespread flooding in 1992 necessitated the construction of the Celery Fields Regional Stormwater Facility. This was built in 1998 adjacent to the historic Main “C” Canal of the Fruitville Drainage District. The facility now provides flood control for the densely populated areas downstream (McKnight, et al. 1995).

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 3-1

3.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND FIELD METHODS

3.1 Background Research and Literature Review

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

It should be noted that data obtained for background research from the FMSF are current as of April 2016. In addition, in keeping with standard archaeological convention, English units along with their metric equivalents are used in this and the following section.

3.1.1 Archaeological Considerations

Background research revealed that in the general project vicinity, one prehistoric archaeological site has been recorded (Figure 3.1). 8SO05321 (Fruitville Pond Site) was found during a survey of Fruitville Road and consisted of four chert and one coral waste flake (ACI 2005); it was found to be not eligible for listing in the NRHP. Therefore, low-density lithic and/or artifact scatters were anticipated within the project areas. Other surveys conducted in the general area did not produce any historic or prehistoric archaeological sites (ACI 2002, 2006, 2008, 2009).

When drainage of the general area began in the 1920s, it was discovered that much of the land consisted of mucky soils and that in this muck were several wood canoes. These canoes were found in “muck from two to three feet deep and all boats are resting in the hard sand underneath” (Tallant 1935b). Although the exact location of where the canoes came from is unknown, the letters between Dr. M. W. Stirling and Montague Tallant indicate that they came from the general area southeast of the I-75/Fruitville Road intersection (Tallant 1935a, 1935b). These canoes were evidence of prehistoric people in the general Fruitville Drainage District area.

3.1.2 Historical Considerations

A review of the 1847 Plat indicated no potential for the presence of homesteads, forts, or villages within the project area (State of Florida 1847b). A review of the USGS Bee Ridge, Fla. (1973) and Sarasota County Property Appraiser records revealed several segments of the Fruitville Drainage District (8SO06275) are within and adjacent to the project (Figure 3.1). SHPO determined this resource to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP in 2012. Also, one building complex resource group (8SO6979) comprised of four historic buildings (8SO06975-06978), is located near the project area. In addition, there are two other buildings located just south of Richardson Road (8SO06971 and 8SO06972). The historic buildings and the building complex resource group do not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or the SCRHP, either individually or as part of a potential historic district. The SHPO has not evaluated these resources but the recorders believed that none of these resources were eligible for listing in the NRHP (ACI 2014).

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 3-2

Legend Historic structure ¹ Archaeological site Historic resource group/linear resource

¨¦§75

8SO06976

8SO06975

8SO06971 Richardson Rd 8SO06972

8SO06977 Fruitville Rd

8SO06978 8SO06979 Coburn RdCoburn 8SO05321

8SO06275

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

Figure 3.1. Location of previously recorded historic and archaeo- Lakewood Ranch Boulevard logical resources (USGS Bee Ridge). Extension, Sarasota County, Florida 3-3

3.2 Field Methodology

Shovel tests pits were circular, and measured approximately 1.6 ft (0.5 meter [m]) in diameter by 3.3 ft (1 m) in depth. All soil removed from the test pits was screened through 0.25 inch (in) (6.4 millimeter [mm]) mesh hardware cloth to maximize the recovery of artifacts. The locations of all shovel tests were plotted on aerial maps, and following the recording of relevant data such as stratigraphic profile and artifact finds, all test pits were refilled. The project areas were considered to have varying zones of high, moderate, and low archaeological potential and was tested at 25 m (82 ft) and 50 m (164 ft), and judgmentally.

Historical field methodology consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the project area to determine the location of all historic resources believed to be 50 years of age or older, and to ascertain if any resources within the property could be eligible for listing in the NRHP. Photographs would be taken and information needed for the completion of FMSF forms would be gathered if such features were present. In addition to an architectural description, any historic identified resources would be reviewed to assess style, historic context, condition, and potential NRHP and/or SCHRP eligibility. Pertinent records housed at the Sarasota County Property Appraiser’s Office would be examined to obtain site-specific building construction dates.

3.3 Laboratory Methods and Curation

No artifacts were found thus no laboratory methods were necessary. All project related material, including maps, photographs, and field notes will be on file and curated at ACI.

3.4 Unexpected Discoveries

It was anticipated that 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 Burial Law) would be followed. It was not anticipated that such sites would be found during this survey.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 4-1

4.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Archaeological Results

Archaeological field survey included both ground surface reconnaissance, and the excavation of 41 shovel test pits at 25 m (82 ft), 50 m (164 ft) intervals, and judgmentally (Figure 4.1). As a result of this effort, no evidence of prehistoric canoes was located and no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites were discovered. Soil stratigraphy was variable throughout all of the shovel tests. Some contained an upper layer of grey sand followed by brown compact sand; others had a dark brown clay layer on top underlain by brown, grey, and orange mottled sand; and a few had either an upper layer of humic material or fill with the layers beneath consisting of dark grey sand.

4.2 Historical Architecture Results

As a result of historical/architectural field survey, no previously unrecorded historic resources (with the exception of the Fruitville Drainage Canal which Richardson road crosses) were identified in the project area. The FMSF form for the previously recorded Fruitville Drainage District (8SO06275) was not updated for this survey previously since the SHPO determined the canal is not eligible for NRHP listing in 2012 (FMSF). One building complex resource group (8SO06979) comprised of four historic buildings (8SO06975-06978), is located near the project area (Figure 3.1) but not within the project area of potential effect. These resources were recorded during a survey of the CAP for the Fruitville Initiative (ACI 2014). The historic resource group does not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or the SCRHP, either individually or as part of a potential historic district. The SHPO has not evaluated these resources but the recorders stated that none were eligible for listing in the NRHP or SCRHP (ACI 2014). Since the resources were just recorded in 2014, the FMSF forms were not updated. However, following is a description of 8SO06275 and 8SO06975- 06979.

Photo 4.1. A portion of the Fruitville Drainage District (8SO6275), facing north between Parcels.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 4-2

Pond 9 ¹

Pond 8

Pond 7

Pond 5 Pond 4

Pond 6 Richardson Rd 8SO06976

8SO06975

Pond 2

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Pond 3 8SO06977 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, 8SO06978 swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Pond 1

0 500 1,000 8SO06979 Feet 0150300 Meters Fruitville Rd

Figure 4.1. Location of the shovel tests (not to scale) and the Lakewood Ranch Boulevard historic resources within resource group 8SO06979. Extension, Sarasota County, Florida 4-3

8SO06275: An approximately one mile long portion of the Fruitville Drainage District (8SO06275) is traversed by Richardson Road and lies adjacent to Coburn Road (Photo 4.1). This linear resource varies in width between 25 ft and 75 ft. Potter Palmer Jr. and Honore Palmer, sons of Bertha Palmer, had the canal planned and dug in the 1920s to drain the 26,000 acres. They then had celery fields planted approximate to the project area, and it became known as Potter Farms. SHPO determined the Fruitville Drainage District ineligible for NRHP listing in 2012 (FMSF). An updated FMSF form was not prepared for the portion of the canal within the project area per instructions by Sarasota County Archaeologist Ryan Murphy (Murphy 2014).

8SO06979: The building complex located at 900 Coburn Road includes two Frame Vernacular style buildings (8SO06975 and 8SO06976) and both a Masonry Vernacular and a Frame Vernacular style barn (8SO06977 and 8SO06978). The building complex contains typical examples of both the Masonry and Frame Vernacular styles found throughout Sarasota County. Furthermore, research revealed no significant historical associations or unique features, and most of the buildings have been extensively altered. Therefore, it is the opinion of ACI’s architectural historian that 8SO06979 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP or SCRHP (ACI 2014).

Photo 4.2. Building A, the Frame Vernacular style building at 900 Coburn Road, facing east.

8SO06975: The Frame Vernacular style residential building (Building A) at 900 Coburn Road was constructed ca. 1936 (Photo 4.2). The one-story, rectangular plan building sits on a pier foundation and has wood frame walls clad in wood drop siding. The gable roof is faced with 5V- crimp metal panels. The main entry, 3-light wood panel door, is located within partial-width shed roof porch with wood posts on the west elevation. Window types include single-hung 2/2, metal sash, 2- light metal awning, double-hung 1/1 wood sash, and 3-light wood casement. Other structural and decorative features include wide eaves, gable vents, wood window and door surrounds, and corner boards. The original ca. 1936 structure has undergone extensive alterations which include replacement windows, an altered roof form and replacement roofing material, a porch addition on the west elevation, and additions to the north and south elevations. This building is a typical example of its style and research reveals no associations with historic people or events or unique features. Thus, it is the professional opinion of ACI's historian that it is not eligible for NRHP or SCRHP listing, individually or as part of a district (ACI 2014).

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 4-4

Photo 4.3. Building B, the Frame Vernacular style residence at 900 Coburn Road, facing northeast (February 2014).

8SO06976: The Frame Vernacular style residential building (Building B) at 900 Coburn Road was constructed ca. 1925 (Photo 4.3). The one-story, rectangular plan building sits on a concrete pier foundation and has wood frame walls clad with wood drop siding with areas of replacement plywood. The gable roof is faced with 5V-crimp metal panels. The main entry, a wood panel door, is located within a full-width shed roof porch with wood posts on the south elevation. A screened-in, full-width shed roof porch is located on the west elevation. Window types include single- light, metal sash, double-hung 1/1, wood sash, and fixed, 6-light wood frame. Other structural and decorative features include wide eaves, exposed rafter tails, gable vents, wood window and door surrounds, and corner boards. The building has been extensively modified with replacement materials and additions, as well as siding and additions to the west and east elevations. This building is a typical example of its style and research reveals no associations with historic people or events or unique features. Thus, it is the professional opinion of ACI's historian that it is not eligible for NRHP or SCRHP listing, individually or as part of a district (ACI 2014).

Photo 4.4. Barn A, the Masonry Vernacular style barn at 900 Coburn Road, facing southeast.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 4-5

8SO06977: The Masonry Vernacular style barn (Barn A) at 900 Coburn Road was constructed ca. 1949 (Photo 4.4). The one-story, rectangular plan building sits on a concrete slab foundation and has concrete block walls. The gable roof is faced with 5V-crimp sheet metal. A replacement vinyl swing door is located on the west elevation, and the window openings have been boarded-over. The original structure has been extensively altered with replacement materials and additions. These include boarded-over entries and windows, a replacement door, and additions on the east and south elevations. This building is a typical example of its style and research reveals no associations with historic people or events or unique features. Thus, it is the professional opinion of ACI's historian that it is not eligible for NRHP or SCRHP listing, individually or as part of a district (ACI 2014).

Photo 4.5. Barn B, the Frame Vernacular style barn at 900 Coburn Road, facing northeast.

8SO06978: The Frame Vernacular style barn (Barn B) at 900 Coburn Road was constructed ca. 1949 (Photo 4.5). The one-story, rectangular plan building sits on a concrete slab foundation and has wood frame walls clad in vertical plank siding. The gable roof is faced with 5V-crimp sheet metal. Corrugated metal barn doors are located on the west and east elevation. Structural and decorative features include wide eaves with exposed rafter tails and composite wood siding in the gables. A shed roof addition has been appended to the north elevation. This building is a typical example of its style and research reveals no associations with historic people or events. Thus, it is the professional opinion of ACI's historian that it is not eligible for NRHP listing, individually or as part of a district (ACI 2014).

4.3 Conclusions

No archaeological sites were identified or evaluated as the result of this CRAS.

Background research, including a review of the FMSF and the NRHP, indicated that a portion of the Fruitville Drainage Canal (8SO06275) is in the project area; SHPO determined the canal ineligible for NRHP listing in 2012. As per Sarasota County Archaeologist Ryan Murphy, the canal’s FMSF form was not updated during ACI’s 2014 survey and was not updated during this survey since the canal is ineligible for NRHP listing. As a result of historical/architectural field survey, no previously unidentified historic resources were located. One building complex resource group (8SO06979) comprised of four historic buildings (8SO06975-06978), is located in the area (Figure

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 4-6

3.1). The four historic buildings that comprise the resource group do not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or the SCRHP due to extensive alterations and lack of unique features and historic association, either individually or as part of a potential historic district. The SHPO has not evaluated these resources but the recorders believed that none of these resources were eligible for listing in the NRHP (ACI 2014).

Thus, it is the opinion of ACI that, based on the results of the background research, field survey and analyses, the proposed project development will not impact any archaeological or historical resources eligible for listing in the NRHP or the SCRHP. No further work is recommended.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 5-1

5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

Almy, Maranda 2001 The Cuban Fishing Ranchos of Southwest Florida 1600-1850s. Unpublished Honors Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Almy, Marion 1976 A Survey and Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites in Sarasota County, Florida. Master Thesis on file, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.

Almy, Marion and George Luer 1993 Guide to the Prehistory of Spanish Point. Historic Spanish Point, Osprey.

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) 1985 An Archaeological Survey of Select Portions of the City of Venice, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 1997 Archaeological Survey of the King Lighting Supply Property, Sarasota County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2001 Archaeological Monitoring: Hidden Bay Boardwalk Removal/Relocation. ACI, Sarasota. 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Calvary Community Church Property SE 1562 (PIN 0213-03-0001). ACI, Sarasota 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Porter Commerce Park PCD Rezone #03-06 PID#0238-14-0001, Sarasota County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2004 Addendum to the Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Bahia Vista Roadway Improvements Project, Sarasota County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2005 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of Fruitville Road from Coburn Road to Debrecen Road, Sarasota County, Florida. ACI, Florida. 2006 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Cattleman Commerce Center, Sarasota, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2007 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey Hidden Creek, Sarasota County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota 2008 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey PD&E I-75 from South of SR 681 to North of University Parkway, Sarasota and Manatee Counties, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2009 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey North Cattleman Road Between Fruitville Road and University Parkway, Sarasota County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2010 Historic Resource Assessment Sarasota-Fruitville Drainage District, Sarasota County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2014 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Critical Area Plan (CAP) for the Fruitville Initiative, Sarasota County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota

Ardaman and Associates, Inc. 2003 Subsurface Soil Exploration (Muck Probing) Analysis and Recommendations for 4.3- Acre and 10-Acre Parcels, Palmer Boulevard and Bell Road, Sarasota County, Florida. Ardaman and Associates, Sarasota.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 5-2

Ardren, Traci, Bill Burger, and Brian Keith Sullivan 2003 The Mystery River Point Site, Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida The Florida Anthropologist 53:47-56.

Austin, Robert 2001 Paleoindian and Archaic Archaeology in the Middle Hillsborough River Basin: A Synthetic Overview. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Batcho, David G. and Jerald T. Milanich 1978 Archaeological and Historical Resources within the Little Payne Mining Tract, Polk and Hardee Counties, Florida. Manuscript on file, Florida State Museum, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Bullen, Ripley P. 1954 The Davis Mound, Hardee County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 7(3):97-102. 1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. 15th Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter, Volume 6:43-62. Chapel Hill. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville.

Bullen, Ripley and Adelaide K. Bullen 1976 The Palmer Site, Florida Anthropological Society Special Publication, Number 8.

Bullen, Ripley P., Walter Askew, Lee M. Feder, and Richard L. McDonnell 1978 The Canton Street Site, St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publications Number 9.

Bushnell, Frank 1962 The Maximo Point Site 1962. The Florida Anthropologist 15(4):89-101. 1966 A Preliminary Excavation of the Narvaez Midden, St. Petersburg, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 19(2-3):115-124.

Burger, William 1990 Firethorne Estates Phase I, Sarasota, Florida. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Clausen, Carl J., A.D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J.A. Holman, and J.J. Stipp 1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203:609-614.

Covington, James W. 1957 The Story of Southwestern Florida. Lewis Historical Publishing Company, New York. 1958 “Exploring the Ten Thousand Islands: 1838.” Tequesta 18:7-13. 1961 “The Armed Occupation Act of 1842.” Florida Historical Quarterly 40:41-53. 1982 The Billy Bowlegs War 1855-1858 The Final Stand of The Seminoles Against the Whites. The Mickler House Publishers, Chuluota.

Dammon, A.W.H. and T.W. French 1987 The Ecology of Peat Bogs of the Glaciated Northeastern United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Biological Report 85 (7.16). Washington, D.C.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 5-3

Daniel, Randy 1985 A Preliminary Model of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement in Central Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 38:261-275.

Daniel, Randy and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., New York.

Davis, J. H. 1943 The Natural Features of Southern Florida. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin Number 25. Tallahassee.

Deming, Joan 1976 An Archaeological Survey of the Beker Phosphate Corporation Property in Manatee County, Florida with a Research Design for Future Archaeological Surveys in the Manatee Region. MA Thesis on file, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.

Dickel, David N. 1991 Descriptive Analysis of the Skeletal Collection from the Prehistoric Manasota Key Cemetery, Sarasota County, Florida (8SO1292). Florida Archaeology Report 22, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

Dobyns, H.F. 1983 Their Number Became Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

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

Dunbar, James S. 1981 The Effect of Geohydrology and Natural Resource Availability on Site Utilization at the Fowler Avenue Bridge Mastodon Site (8HI393c/uw) in Hillsborough County, Florida. In Report on Phase II Underwater Archaeological Testing at the Fowler Bridge Mastodon Site (8HI393c/uw) Hillsborough County, Florida by Jill Palmer, James Dunbar, and Danny H. Clayton. Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeological Report, Number 5. FDHR, Tallahassee. 1991 Resource Orientation of Clovis and Suwannee Age Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. Turnmeir, pp. 185- 213. Center for the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Dunbar, James and Ben Waller 1983 A Distribution Analysis of the Clovis/Suwannee Paleo-Indian Sites of Florida: A Geographic Approach. The Florida Anthropologist 36:18-30.

Dunn, Hampton 1989 Back Home: A History of Citrus County, Florida. 2nd edition, Citrus County Historical Society, Inc., Inverness.

Estabrook, Rich 1999 Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Sarasota Christian School Project Area in Sarasota County. FDHR, Tallahassee.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 5-4

Estabrook, Rich 1999 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Porter Commerce Park. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Faught, Michael K. 1996 Clovis Origins and Underwater Prehistoric Archaeology in Northwestern Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona.

Federal Writers’ Project - Work Projects Administration 1939 Florida: A Guide to the Southernmost State. Oxford University Press, New York.

Florida Master Site File (FMSF) Var. Various files accessed FDHR, Tallahassee, Florida

Goodyear, Albert C. and Lyman O. Warren 1972 Further Observations on the Submarine Oyster Shell Deposits of Tampa Bay. The Florida Anthropologist 25:52-66.

Goodyear, Albert C., Sam B. Upchurch, Mark J. Brooks, and Nancy N. Goodyear 1983 Paleo-Indian Manifestations in the Tampa Bay Region, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 36:40-66.

Griffin, John W. and Ripley P. Bullen 1950 The Safety Harbor Site, Pinellas County, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publication, Number 2.

Grismer, Karl 1946 The Story of Sarasota. Florida Grower Press, Tampa.

Hammond, E.A. 1973 “The Spanish Fisheries of Charlotte Harbor.” Florida Historical Quarterly 51:355- 380.

Hartman, M.J. 1996 Development of Watercraft in Prehistoric in the Southeastern United States. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Hann, John 1991 Missions to the Calusa. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Herald n.d. “Crops to be Marketed by Association” (date unknown). Article on file, SCHC, Sarasota County Historical Archives, Sarasota.

Hughes, Skye W. 2006 Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Walmart-Sarasota Project Area, Sarasota, Florida. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Hutchinson, Dale L. 2004 Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 5-5

Lastinger, Eula Tucker 1975 The First One Hundred Years in the Life of Friendship Baptist Church 1875-1975. The Print Shop, Atlanta.

LeBaron, J.F. 1887 Drainage of the Sarasota Saw-Grass –Report of the Committee on Drainage and Reclamation. Proceedings of the Southern Society of Civil Engineers, Annual Reports for 1885-1886 with Professional Papers (Number 3). Dacosta Printing and Publishing House, Jacksonville.

Lee, Arthur R., John G. Beriault, Jean Belknap, Walter M. Buschelman, John W. Thompson, and Carl B. Johnson 1998 Heineken Hammock, 8CR231: A Late Archaic Corridor Site in Collier County. The Florida Anthropologist 51(4):223-239.

Lowe, J.J. and M.J.C. Walker 1997 Reconstructing Quaternary Environments, 2nd edition. Addision Wesley Longman, Essex.

Luer, George M. 1986 Some Interesting Archaeological Occurrences of Quahog Shells on the Gulf Coast of Central and Southern Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 12. 1992 Urban Archaeology in the City of Sarasota, Florida: The Whitaker Archaeological Complex. The Florida Anthropologist 45(3):226-241. 1994 A Third Ceremonial Tablet from the Goodnow Mound, Highlands County, Florida; with Notes on Some Peninsular Tribes and Other Tablets. The Florida Anthropologist 47:180-1888. 1999a An Introduction to the Maritime Archaeology of the Lemon Bay, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 14. 1999b Cedar Point: A Late Archaic through Safety Harbor Period Occupation on Lemon Bay, Charlotte County, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 14. 2000 Three Metal Ceremonial Tablets, With Comments on the Tampa Bay Area. The Florida Anthropologist, Volume 53 (1):2-11. 2002 Three Middle Archaeological Sites in North Port. The Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 15.

Luer, George M. and Marion M. Almy 1979 Three Aboriginal Shell Middens on Longboat Key, Florida. Manasota Period Sites of Barrier Island Exploitation. The Florida Anthropologist 32:34-45. 1981 Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area. The Florida Anthropologist 34:127-155. 1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 35:34-58.

Mahon, John K. 1967 History of the Second Seminole War 1835-1842. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Marth, Del 1973 Yesterday’s Sarasota. E.A. Seemann Publishing, Inc., Miami.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 5-6

Martin, John 1976 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Borden Big Four Mine Property in Southeastern Hillsborough County, Florida. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Report, Number 2, Tampa.

Matthews, Janet Snyder 1983 Edge of Wilderness: A Settlement History of Manatee River and Sarasota Bay 1528- 1885. Coastal Press, Sarasota. 1997 Journey to Centennial, revised edition. Sesquicentennial Productions, Inc., Sarasota.

McEwan, Bonnie G. 1993 The Spanish Missions of La Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

McKnight, Mitchell D., Daniel J. Homblette, and Terry W. Liby 1995 Integration of Flood Control, Wetland Habitat, Reuse, Recreational Features and Stormwater Treatment. Florida Water Resources Journal. Published September.

McNab, W. Henry and Peter E. Avers 1996 Ecological Subregions of the United States. http://www.fs.fed.us/ land/pubs/ecoregions (22 July 2002). Prepared in Cooperation with Regional Compilers and the ECOMAP Team of the Forest Service, July 1994.

Meserve, Andrew 1897 Complete General Directory, Manatee County, Florida. Manuscript available at the Sarasota County Historical Archives at the SCHC, Sarasota.

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.

Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles Hudson 1993 Hernando de Soto and the Indians of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Milliman, John D. And K.O. Emery 1968 Sea Levels During the Past 35,000 Years. Science 162:1121-1123.

Murphy, Ryan 2014 Correspondence with ACI regarding the Fruitville Drainage District (8SO6275), January 20.

Neill, Wilfred T. 1968 An Indian and Spanish Site on Tampa Bay, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 21:106-116.

Newsome, Lee Ann and Barbara A. Purdy 1990 Florida Canoes: A Maritime Heritage from the Past. The Florida Anthropologist, 43 (3):164-180.

The North Port Times Union 1989 March 29. Pages 1-39.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 5-7

Pettengill, G. W., Jr. 1952 The Story of the Florida Railroads 1834-1903. The Railway and Locomotive Historical Society Boston Bulletin, 86.

Publication of Archival Library & Museum Materials 1957 Historic Aerial 2-23-57 DEW IT-103.

Purdum, Elizabeth D., ed. 1994 Florida County Atlas and Municipal Fact Book. Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Tallahassee.

Purdy, Barbara 1981 Florida’s Prehistoric Stone Technology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Ramenofsky, Ann F. 1987 Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Rollins, Coakley 2004 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Station. Unpublished Manuscript Written for the Sarasota County Marker Program, Sarasota County Historical Commission. Available at the Sarasota County Historical Archives, SCHC, Sarasota.

Ruppé, Reynold J. 1980 The Archaeology of Drowned Terrestrial Sites: A Preliminary Report. In Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Bulletin Number 6. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Russo, Michael 1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Gulf Coast: A Case Study from Horr’s Island. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Sarasota-Fruitville Drainage District n.d. Topographic Map Showing the Plan of Reclamation, Township 36 South, Range 19 East. Sarasota History Center, Sarasota.

Sarasota County History Center (SCHC), 1992 Fruitville School Marker Narrative. Manuscript on file, Sarasota County Historical Archives, Vertical File MSS 48, HM – FES. SCHC, Sarasota. 2004 http://newsltr.com/sarasota/timeline2.htm. n.d. Truckload of Celery Crates, Sarasota Celery Fields. Photograph on file, SCHC, Sarasota.

Sarasota Times 1910 Fruitville News. Newspaper Article, December 15. Filed under: Fruitville and Vicinity. On file at the Sarasota County Historical Archives, SCHC, Sarasota

Sassman, Kenneth E. 2003 New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery from the Middle St. John’s Valley and Their Implications for Cultural History in Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist, Volume 56:1-14.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 5-8

Ste. Claire, Dana 1987 The Development of Thermal Alteration Technologies in Florida. Implications for the Study of Prehistoric Adaptation. The Florida Anthropologist 40:203-208.

Scholl, David W., Frank C. Craighead, and Minze Stuiver 1969 Florida Submergence Curve Revisited: Its Relation to Coastal Sedimentation Rate. Science 163:562-564.

Sears, William H. 1958 The Maximo Point Site. The Florida Anthropologist 11(1-10). 1967 The Tierra Verde Burial Mound. The Florida Anthropologist 20(1-2):23-75. 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Shofner, Jerrell H. 1995 History of Brevard County, Volume 1. Brevard County Historical Commission, Stuart.

Simpson, Terrance L. 1999 The Narvaez/Anderson Site (8PI54), A Safety Harbor Cultural Shell Mound and Midden, A.D. 1000-1600. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, Tampa.

Smith, Marvin T. 1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast: Depopulation During the Early Historic Period. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection 1843 Field Notes. Volume 76. 1847a Field Notes. Volume 161. 1847b Plat. Township 36 South, Range 19 East.

Suau, Stephen 2014 Fruitville Road Initiative Project Description, March 17.

Sulzer, Elmer G. 1971 Ghost Railroads of Sarasota, Manatee, and Desoto Counties. Sarasota County Historical Commission, Sarasota County Historical Society, Sarasota.

Tallant, Montague 1935a Letter from Montague Tallant, Tallant Furniture Co, to Dr. Matthew Stirling, Smithsonian Institution. September 17. Document on file, SCHC, Sarasota. 1935b Letter from Montague Tallant, Tallant Furniture Co, to Dr. Matthew Stirling, Smithsonian Institution. November 1. Document on file, SCHC, Sarasota.

Tebeau, Charlton W. 1966 Florida’s Last Frontier: The History of Collier County. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables. 1971 A History of Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.

Turner, Gregg M. 1999 Railroads of Southwest Florida. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina. 2003 A Short History of Florida Railroads. South Carolina.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 5-9

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1991 Soil Survey of Sarasota County, Washington, D.C.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1973 Bee Ridge, Fla. Photorevised 1987.

Von Post L. and Granlund, E. 1926 Sodra Sveriges Torvtillgangar 1. Sver.Geol. Unders., C335, 1-127.

Walker, Karen Jo 1995 Archaeological Evidence for a 1750-1450 BP Higher-Than-Present Sea Level Along Florida’s Gulf Coast. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue Number 17:205- 218.

Warren, Lyman O. 1968 The Apollo Beach Site, Hillsborough County. The Florida Anthropologist 21:83-88.

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

Wayne, Lucy and Martin Dickinson 2012 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Bobwhite Manatee Transmission Line, Segment 1, Manatee and Sarasota Counties, Florida. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Wheeler, Ryan J., James J. Miller, Ray M. McGee, Donna Ruhl, Branda Swann, and Melissa Memory 2003 Archaic Period Canoes from Newnans Lake, Florida. American Antiquity, 68(2):533- 551.

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

Widmer, Rolf 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Volume 113. Washington, D.C.

Williams, M.A., D.L. Dunkerley, P. DeDeckker, A.P. Kershaw, and T. Stokes 1993 Quaternary Environments. Edward Arnold, London.

Williams, J. Raymond, Joan Deming, Rebecca Spain-Schwarz, Patricia Carender, and Daniel Delahaye 1989 A Historic Resources Survey of Old Miakka and Selected Portions of the Myakka River, Sarasota County, Florida. SCHC, Sarasota.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 5-10

Williams, J. Raymond, Joan Deming, Rebecca Spain-Schwarz, Patricia Carender, and Daniel Delahaye 1990 An Historic Resources Survey of the Coastal Zone of Sarasota County, Florida. SCHC, Sarasota.

Willis, Raymond F. and Robert E. Johnson 1980 AMAX Pine Level Survey. An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Properties in Manatee and DeSoto Counties, Florida. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Wise, S. Dawn 1995 An Institutional History of the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works and Sarasota County, Florida 1933-1939. Master’s Thesis, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro.

Zilles, Jack n.d. A History of Agriculture of Sarasota County, Florida. Sarasota County Agriculture Fair Association and Sarasota County Historical Society. SCHC, Sarasota.

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension

APPENDIX: Survey Log

P9041E Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Extension 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 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBLakewood Ranch Boulevard Exstension, Sarasota County B BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW 7LWOH H[DFWO\ DV RQ WLWOH SDJH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCultural Resource Assessment Survey, Lakewood Ranch Boulevard Extension,BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBSarasota County, Florida BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW $XWKRUV DV RQ WLWOH SDJH ODVW QDPHV ILUVW . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBACI . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3XEOLFDWLRQ 'DWH \HDU BBBBBBBBBB2016 7RWDO 1XPEHU RI 3DJHV LQ 5HSRUW FRXQW WH[W ILJXUHV WDEOHV QRW VLWH IRUPV BBBBBBBBBBB43 3XEOLFDWLRQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ *LYH VHULHV QXPEHU LQ VHULHV SXEOLVKHU DQG FLW\. )RU DUWLFOH RU FKDSWHU FLWH SDJH QXPEHUV. 8VH WKH VW\OH RI $PHULFDQ $QWLTXLW\. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBP9041E, ACI, Sarasota BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6XSHUYLVRUV RI )LHOGZRUN HYHQ LI VDPH DV DXWKRU 1DPHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBMarion Almy $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 . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBFruitville .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

6XUYH\ 6SRQVRUV FRUSRUDWLRQ JRYHUQPHQW XQLW RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU SHUVRQ GLUHFWO\ IXQGLQJ ILHOGZRUN 1DPH. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBKimley-Horn 2UJDQL]DWLRQ. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $GGUHVV3KRQH(PDLO. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB1777 Main Street, Suite 200 Sarasota, Florida 34326 BBBBBBBBBBB 5HFRUGHU RI /RJ 6KHHW BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBLee Hutchinson 'DWH /RJ 6KHHW &RPSOHWHG BBBBBBBBBBB5-27-2014

,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\ . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBSarasota . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

86*6  0DS 1DPHV

'HVFULSWLRQ RI 6XUYH\ $UHD

'DWHV IRU )LHOGZRUN 6WDUW BBBBBBBBB5-11-16 (QG BBBBBBBBB 5-11-16 7RWDO $UHD 6XUYH\HG ILOO LQ RQH BBBBBBKHFWDUHV BBBBBB50 DFUHV 1XPEHU RI 'LVWLQFW 7UDFWV RU $UHDV 6XUYH\HG BBBBBBBBB10 ,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, archaeological field survey, 25 and 50 m intervalsBBBBBBBB and BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBjudgmental; historical field reconnaissance, photos taken, report prepared.BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

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

Pond 9 ¨¦§75

Pond 8

Pond 7

Pond 5

Pond 4 Pond 6

Richardson Rd Pond 2

Pond 3 Fruitville Rd

Pond 1

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

Lakewood Ranch Boulevard Extension Lakewood Ranch Boulevard Sections 7, 18 and 19 of Township 36 South, Range 19 East Extension, USGS Bee Ridge Sarasota County, Florida Sarasota County