ICP Parcel 417

2005219-13.9

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS REPORT FOR THE APPLICATION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT FOR THE VILLAGES OF SOUTHERN OAKS PHASE II NORTH MASS GRADE, SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA

Submitted to:

Southwest Florida Water Management District Tampa Service Center 7601 US Highway 301 Tampa, Florida 33637-6759 Phone: (813) 786-6127

On behalf of:

The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. 1100 Main Street The Villages, Florida 32159 Phone: 813-963-6400, Ext. 206 Fax: 813-964-8582

March 29, 2017

Submitted by:

______Jonathan R. McCurry, MS, C.W.B. W. Jeffrey Pardue, C.E.P., M.S., M.B.A. Associate Scientist III Senior Vice President

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ...... ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ...... 4

2.1 Vegetative Communities ...... 4 2.2 Uplands ...... 7 2.3 Wetlands and Surface Waters ...... 7 2.4 Soils ...... 8 2.5 Protected Wildlife and Plants...... 8

3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 19

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT REVIEW AND ISSUANCE CRITERIA ...... 21

4.1 Environmental Conditions for Issuance ...... 21 4.2 Elimination or Reduction of Impacts ...... 23 4.3 Fish, Wildlife, Protected Species, and Their Habitats ...... 24

4.3.1 Habitat Review Factors ...... 24

4.4 Water Quantity ...... 24 4.5 Public Interest Test ...... 25 4.6 Water Quality ...... 25 4.7 Secondary Impacts ...... 25 4.8 Cumulative Impacts ...... 27

5.0 MITIGATION ...... 28

APPENDIX A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VILLAGES OF SOUTHERN OAKS PHASE II NORTH MASS GRADE SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA

APPENDIX B THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CENSUS TRANSECTS ON THE VILLAGES OF SOUTHERN OAKS PHASE II NORTH MASS GRADE SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA

APPENDIX C TABLE ONE: PROJECT WETLAND AND OTHER SURFACE WATER AND IMPACT SUMMARY

APPENDIX D CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY FOR THE VILLAGES OF SOUTHERN OAKS PHASE II NORTH MASS GRADE SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1.0-1 Location of the Villages of Southern Oaks Phase II North Mass Grade, Sumter County, Florida...... 2

Figure 2.0-1 Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System Map of the Villages of Southern Oaks Phase II North Mass Grade, Sumter County, Florida...... 5

Table 2.1-1 Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System, Representative Acreage and Percent Cover for The Villages of Southern Oaks Phase II North Mass Grade, Sumter County, Florida...... 6

Figure 2.4-1 Natural Resource Conservation Service Soils Map of The Villages of Southern Oaks Phase II North Mass Grade, Sumter County, Florida...... 9

Table 2.5-1 Protected Plants and Animals with Potential for Occurrence on The Villages of Southern Oaks Phase II North Mass Grade, Sumter County, Florida...... 10

Figure 3.0-1 Development Plan for The Villages of Southern Oaks Phase II North Mass Grade, Sumter County, Florida...... 20

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Villages of Southern Oaks Phase II North Mass Grade project site (Site) is planned for mass grading

and stormwater management system (SWMS) construction (Project) to support future development of the

Site for residential uses. The entire Site consists of approximately 459.90 acres located in Section 34

Township 19 South, and Range 23 East, Sumter County, Florida (Figure 1.0-1). The Site is located south of County Road (CR) 468, east of CR 501. An aerial photograph depicting the project boundary has been

included as Appendix A. An individual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) is being sought through

the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) in order to carry out the proposed

Project.

An environmental assessment of the Site was conducted by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates, Inc. (BDA) scientists to evaluate existing conditions and provide information to support an environmental evaluation of the proposed Project. The assessment included; 1) a review of maps and in house environmental databases; 2) a field survey of the Site to document vegetative communities, hydrologic conditions, wildlife utilization, as well as delineating the approximate extent of wetlands that may be considered jurisdictional by the SWFWMD(6), the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (ACOE)(2, 19), or

Sumter County(15); 3) assess the Site for the occurrence and potential occurrence of wildlife or plant species listed as Threatened, Endangered (T&E) or Species of Special Concern (SSC) (Listed Species) under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(4) or Florida rules(11, 5); 4) compilation/analysis of data.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

1 La t : 28° 47' 27.255" N27.255" Lat: 28°47' Lo n: 81° 59' 51.377" W51.377" Lon: 81°59'

Legend BighamEast Property ac) (459.90 ^_

0 0.5 1

Source:Bigham Property boundary provided byFarner Barley;USGS20161107. Leesb urgWest, Wildwood, Bush nelland Miles CenterHillQuadrangle Fla. streamed from ESR I. °! inc1 miles1 h= FIGURE1.0-1 BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. LO CATIONOF THE VILLAGES OF SO UTHERNOAKS PHASENO RII THMASS GRADE Environmental Consultants (SECTIONTO 34, W RANGE NSHIP S, 19 SUMTER E), 23 CO UNTY,FLO R IDA. W.330CantonBDA WinterAve., Park FL32789407-677-1882• ,

LDP • 3/23/2017 • P:\ATG\2005067\BDA_USE\AR•LDP 3/23/2017 • CGIS\BighamEast\ER P_201702\Loc ation.mx d

The applicant is proposing to directly impact 0.25 acre of surface waters (SW2) as part of the Project.

Design and engineering information for the Project has been prepared and submitted by Farner, Barley and Associates, Inc. (FBA) under separate cover.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

2.0 ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

BDA scientists reviewed the Site in order to gather information relative to wetland jurisdictional limits, the vegetative community structure of the Site, and existing conditions of the various wetland areas, with respect to hydrologic functions and habitat characteristics. Data were also collected regarding wetland and upland habitat conditions and the occurrence and/or likelihood of occurrence for fish, wildlife, and

Listed Species on the Site.

The on-site land use and vegetative cover types were classified by BDA scientists through selective ground- truthing during field investigations and aerial photo-interpretation to characterize the habitats and provide the basis for an assessment of the occurrence or potential for occurrence of Listed Species. The characterization of the vegetative communities and land use types was based on the Florida Land Use,

Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS)(6) (Figure 2.0-1). The following describes the general composition and conditions of the various community types identified within the project. Botanical nomenclature (scientific names), as presented in this report, is per Wunderlin et al.(21).

2.1 Vegetative Communities

Upland communities within the Site comprise approximately 459.51 (99.9%) of the Site and surface waters (cattle ponds) comprise approximately 0.39 acres (0.1%) of the Site. Land use type, classification, approximate acreage, and percent areal coverage of the project are presented in Table 2.1-1.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

4 434

530

210

530

Leg e n d BighamEast Property ac) (459.90 ^_ S WFWMDFLUCFCS Data 210 - Cropland - 210 and Pastureland ac) (458.56 434 - Hardw - 434 oodConiferous - Mix ac) ed(0.95 530 - Reservoirs - 530 ac) (0.39 0 300 600 Feet Source:Bigham Property bound aryprovid edbyFarner Barley; 20161107. °! inc1 feet600 h= FIGURE2.0-1 BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. FLORIDALAND US COVER E, AND FORMS CLAS S IFICATIONSYS TEM(FLUCFCS MAP ) OFTHE Environmental Consultants VILLAGESOFSOUTHERN OAKS PHAS NORTH II EMAS SGRADE, SUMTER COUNTY, CantonW.BDA330 AveWinter Park,407-677-188232789FL ., •

LDP • 3/23/2017 • P:\ATG\2005067\BDA_USE\AR • 3/23/2017 LDP • CGIS\BighamEast\ER P_201702\FLUCFCS.mx d Table 2.1-1. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System, Representative Acreage and Percent Cover for The Villages of Southern Oaks Phase II North Mass Grade, Sumter County, Florida.

Code FLUCFCS1 Text Acreage Percent Cover

210 Cropland and Pastureland 458.56 99.7%

434 Hardwood-Coniferous Mixes 0.95 0.2%

530 Reservoirs 0.39 0.1%

Total 459.90 100%

1 Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\Table 2.1-1.doc

2.2 Uplands

The upland vegetation cover and land use types are described below and consisted of Cropland and

Pastureland (210) which encompasses approximately 458.56 acres and Hardwood-Conifer Mixed (434)

0.95 acres. The Site is currently utilized for cattle grazing and the majority of the Site including the

surface waters exhibit clear evidence of cattle usage.

The upland Cropland and Pastureland (210) was dominated by bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), with

occurrences of Mexican clover (Richardia sp.), senna (Senna sp.), grape (Vitis sp.) vine, dogfennel blackberry (Rubus sp.), beggarticks (Bidens alba), Mexican tea (Chenopodium ambrosioides),

bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), Hercules’-club (Zanthoxylum clava-herculis) tropical soda apple

(Solanum viarum), and woodsgrass (Oplismenus hirtellus). Scattered patches of live oak (Quercus

virginiana), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sand live oak (Quercus geminata), and turkey oak (Quercus

laevis) also occurred within this cover type.

In the Hardwood-Conifer Mixed (434) the majority of the trees from this cover type had been cleared and

herbaceous vegetation disturbed resulting from a gas pipeline installation. There were laurel oaks and

remnants of bahiagrass and bermudagrass.

2.3 Wetlands and Surface Waters

The extent of the SWFWMD jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters were delineated and field-flagged

in accordance with the Florida Unified Wetland Delineation Methodology as stated in Chapter 62-340,

Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)(5). A total of 0.39 acres of surface waters (cattle ponds) have been

identified within the proposed Site. The wetland vegetation cover and land use type is described below

and consisted of Reservoirs (530) 0.39 acres. The Reservoirs (530) were all small isolated systems with

heavy cattle usage and no vegetation within the interiors. Vegetation on the edges included

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

bermudagrass, tropical soda apple, senna, flatsedge (Cyperus sp.), live oak, and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto).

2.4 Soils

Soils on the Site are depicted on Figure 2.4-1. The Soil Survey Geographic database(13) created by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS for Sumter County, Florida, identifies the following soil types as occurring within the project: Candler sand, 0 to 5% slopes, (04), Kendrick fine sand 0 to 5% slopes (06),

Sparr fine sand, 0 to 5% slopes (10), Millhopper sand, 0 to 5% slopes (11), Tavares fine sand, 0 to 5% slopes (13), Adamsville fine sand, bouldery subsurface (15), Sumterville fine sand bouldery subsurface, 0 to 5% slopes (27), Astatula fine sand, 0 to 8% slopes (37), , Millhopper fine sand, bouldery subsurface, 0 to 5% slopes (40), Adamsville fine sand (42), and Basinger fine sand, depressional (43).

2.5 Listed Species

The vegetative cover types were visually inspected during the September 22 and 27, 2016 field study to determine the occurrence or likelihood of occurrence for Listed Species. Listed Species known to occur in Sumter County, Florida, are represented in Table 2.5-1. The FWC adopted revised rules for listing imperiled wildlife species effective on November 8, 2010, and amended October 9, 2013. Species previously classified by FWC as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or SSC were approved for reclassification as Federally Endangered (FE), Federally Threatened (FT), ST, or as SSC, a temporary category of protection for those species that needed additional data in order for FWC to determine whether they should be listed as ST or removed from the Florida list. Based on the regulatory changes to

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

8 11

37 04 13

27 04 15 42

11 10 42

Leg e n d Bigh a mEast Prope rtyac) (459.90 Adam - 15 svillefine sa bou nd, lderysu b su rfaac) ce(1.94 NRCSSo ils Sum - 27 tervillefine sa bou nd, lderysu b su rfato05% ce, slope ac) s(2.42 04 - Candler - 04 sa to05% nd, slope ac) s(44.66 Astatula - 37 fine sa to08% nd, slope ac) s(139.95 06 - Kendrick - 06 fine sa to05% nd, slope ac) s(14.53 Millhoppe - 40 sa r bou nd, lderysu b su rfato05% ce, slope ac) s(19.23 10 - Spa - 10 rrfine sa to05% nd, slope ac) s(5.58 Adam - 42 svillefine saac) nd(5.53 11 - Millhoppe - 11 sa r to05% nd, slope ac) s(39.69 Basing - 43 efine r sa depressiona nd, ac) (1.06 l 13 - Tavares - 13 fine sa to05% nd, slope ac) s(185.31 0 300 600 Fee t SouBre rce: e dlove,Dennis Associates,& Inc. °! inch1 fe600= e t FIGURE2.4-1 BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. NATURALRES OURCESCONS ERVATIONSERVICE (NRCS SOILS ) MAP OFTHE VILLAGES Environmental Consultants OFSOUTHERN OAKS PHAS NORTH II EMAS SGRADE, SUMTER COUNTY,FLORIDA CantoW.BDA330 nAveWinter 407-677-188232789FL• Park, .,

LDP • 3/23/2017 • P:\ATG\2005067\BDA_USE\ARCGIS\Bigh • 3/23/2017 LDP • a m East\ERP_201702\Soils.mxd Table 2.5-1 Protected Plants and Animals with Potential for Occurrence on The Villages of Southern Oaks Phase II North Mass Grade, Sumter County, Florida.

1 Likelihood of Designated Status Species Habitat of Occurrence Occurrence USFWS2 PLANTS Dicerandra cornutissima Sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub. Not Applicable E longspurred mint Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium Sandhill, scrub. Not Applicable T scrub buckwheat Justicia cooleyi Mesic hardwood hammocks over limestone. Not Applicable E Cooley’s water-willow Trichomanes punctatum ssp. Floridanum Tree trunks in hammocks, edges of limesinks, and limestone Not Applicable E Florida filmy fern boulders, often with mosses and liverworts.

1 Likelihood of Designated Status Species Habitat of Occurrence Occurrence USFWS2 FWC345 REPTILES Alligator mississippiensis Freshwater marsh, cypress swamp, mixed hardwood swamp, American alligator shrub swamp, bottomland hardwoods, lakes, ponds, rivers, Low T(S/A) FT(S/A) streams. Drymarchon corais couperi Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill, pine flatwoods, pine eastern indigo snake rocklands, tropical hardwood hammock, hydric hammock, wet Low T FT prairie, mangrove swamp. Gopherus polyphemus Sandhill, sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub, coastal strand, xeric gopher tortoise hammock, dry prairie, pine flatwoods, mixed hardwood–pine Moderate — ST forests, ruderal.

P:\ADMIN\PROJECTS\2005219\BIGHAM EAST\BIGHAMEAST_ERP\TABLE 2.5-1 SUMTER PROTECTED.DOC

Updated September 27, 2016 Table 2.5-1 Continued. 1 Likelihood of Designated Status Species Habitat of Occurrence Occurrence USFWS2 FWC345 Lampropeltis extenuate Sandhill, xeric hammock, sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub. Unlikely — ST short-tailed snake Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill, scrubby pine Low — ST Florida pine snake flatwoods, old fields on former sandhill and scrub sites. BIRDS Aphelocoma coerulescens Xeric oak scrub. Not Applicable T FT Florida scrub-jay Athene cunicularia floridana Sandhill, dry prairie, pastures, ruderal. Low — ST Florida burrowing owl Egretta caerulea Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, lakes, Low — ST little blue heron streams, salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats. Egretta tricolor Salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, tidal creeks, tricolored heron tidal ditches, freshwater marsh, various types of forested Low — ST wetlands, lakes and ponds. Falco sparverius paulus Sandhill, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, pasture, old field. Observed — ST southeastern American kestrel Grus canadensis pratensis Dry prairie, freshwater marsh, pasture. Observed — ST Florida sandhill crane Mycteria americana Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, ponds, wood stork salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, lagoons, flooded Low T FT pastures.

P:\ADMIN\PROJECTS\2005219\BIGHAM EAST\BIGHAMEAST_ERP\TABLE 2.5-1 SUMTER PROTECTED.DOC

Updated September 27, 2016 Table 2.5-1 Continued. 1 Likelihood of Designated Status Species Habitat of Occurrence Occurrence USFWS2 FWC345 MAMMALS Sciurus niger shermani Sandhill, pine flatwoods, pastures. Moderate — SSC Sherman’s fox squirrel Sorex longirostris eionis Hardwood swamp/mixed wetland forest, hydric and xeric Homosassa shrew hammocks, industrial/commercial pineland, mixed hardwood- Low — SSC pine forest, natural pineland, disturbed/transitional habitat.

1 Federal Designations: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; T(S/A) = Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance; State Designations: ST = State-designated Threatened; SSC = State Species of Special Concern; ST(S/A) = State-designated Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance; FE = Federally-designated Endangered; FT = Federally-designated Threatened; FT(S/A) = Federally-designated Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance. 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 4 Species are listed as “Federally-designated endangered or threatened species” on the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species list; however, regulatory authorizations for take are only provided by the federal agency administering the species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 5 State classifications are pending reclassification in accordance with revisions to Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.005, 68A-27.0012 and 68A-27.0021, Florida Administrative Code, for managing imperiled species as adopted by the FWC on September 1, 2010, effective November 15, 2010. Based on the regulatory changes to Chapter 68A-27 in 2010, the FWC officially adopted the imperiled species management system and initiated the drafting of the Draft Imperiled Species Management Plan (ISMP). The final Draft ISMP is currently planned for submittal to the FWC for approval in 2016. Since the plan remains in draft form, BDA intends to incorporate in our review any policy, regulatory, or permitting changes that are brought about by this plan once it has been formally approved, finalized, and implemented by the FWC.

P:\ADMIN\PROJECTS\2005219\BIGHAM EAST\BIGHAMEAST_ERP\TABLE 2.5-1 SUMTER PROTECTED.DOC

Updated September 27, 2016

Chapter 68A-27 in 2010, FWC officially adopted the imperiled species management system and initiated

preparation of the Draft Imperiled Species Management Plan (ISMP). The Draft ISMP is a strategic,

comprehensive plan designed to conserve 57 fish and wildlife species over the next 10 years. The Draft

ISMP includes supporting Draft Species Action Plans (SAPs) addressing individual species needs and

Integrated Conservation Strategies for multiple species and their shared habitats. The final Draft ISMP and SAPs were adopted by the FWC on November 16, 2016. BDA has incorporated the final adopted

ISMP and SAPs into our review.

The likelihood of occurrence for Listed Species is based on a comparison of known general habitat requirements by these species with the habitats found on or near the Site; the quantity, quality, and adjacency of these habitats; as well as any observations of these species during field investigations. The likelihood of occurrence for Listed Species referenced in this report was rated as high, moderate, low, unlikely, or not applicable based on knowledge of a species’ habitat preference and site conditions. A likelihood of occurrence given as “unlikely” indicates that no, or very limited, suitable habitat for this species exists on site, but the site is within the documented range of the species; “not applicable” indicates that the habitat for this species does not exist on or adjacent to the site and/or the site is not within the documented range of the species.

A minimum of 15% of all the cover types on Site were surveyed by BDA scientist during the September

22 and 27, 2016 field review. The surveys were conducted following standard pedestrian/vehicular line transect methodology for wildlife surveys.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

Amphibians/Reptiles

Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) (Candidate, USFWS; State Threatened [ST], FWC): The gopher tortoise is listed as ST by the FWC but is not listed by the USFWS. BDA scientists conducted an approximately 15% pedestrian/vehicular survey of the Site (Appendix B). This survey was in accordance with the FWC gopher tortoise survey protocol(10). No tortoise burrows were documented on or adjacent to the Site therefore, it is unlikely that the Project will have any effect on gopher tortoises. However, based on Site conditions gopher tortoises have a moderate likelihood to occur on the Site. Should gopher tortoises be documented on Site prior to construction and the Site cannot be developed without potentially impacting the gopher tortoises, a relocation permit will be obtained from the FWC. The tortoises will be relocated in accordance with FWC permitting guidelines.

Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (Threatened [T], USFWS): Eastern indigo snakes have not been observed on the Site and occurrence is considered unlikely. However, they have potential to occur based on the presence of a mix of habitats on and adjacent to the Site. In order to determine whether development may have an effect on the eastern indigo snake the USFWS developed the Eastern

Indigo Snake Programmatic Effect Determination Key(17). The key uses Site characteristics and pre- construction protocol implementation to determine whether development will have an effect on the eastern indigo snake. Utilizing the key, development of this Site will “Not Likely Adversely Affect” the eastern indigo snake based upon less than 25 acres of xeric habitat (scrub, sandhill, or scrubby flatwoods) on Site, less than 25 gopher tortoise burrows, and a commitment that the USFWS standard protection measures(18) for the eastern indigo snake will be implemented.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

Birds

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): The bald eagle is protected by the USFWS under provisions of

the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)(1) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(11) (effective

August 9, 2007). Recovery goals have been achieved for this species; therefore, the bald eagle is no longer listed or protected as a “Threatened” species under the ESA of 1973, as amended. The USFWS has implemented National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (National Guidelines)(16) to assist private landowners and others to plan land-use activities in proximity to active bald eagle nests by measures that will minimize the removed the bald eagle from classification and protection as a “Threatened” species under Florida Rule and likelihood of causing “disturbance” to nesting bald eagles, as defined under the

BGEPA. The FWC also implemented the Florida Bald Eagle Management Plan (Florida Plan)(8) effective May 9, 2008. The Florida Plan includes Florida Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (Florida

Guidelines) and permit provisions. Coordinating with both the USFWS and FWC for guidance prior to undertaking any activity that may result in “disturbance” of nesting bald eagles is recommended.

The FWC bald eagle nest database was reviewed to determine the locations of all nests that occur on or in close proximity to the Site. Nest No. SUO15 was last recorded active in 2011 and is located ~1 mile east of the Site. The FWC listed this as an inactive nest in 2015. There is a previously unrecorded bald eagle nest located ~0.6 miles east of the Site. All known bald eagle nests are over 660-feet from the Project boundary, therefore, consistent with the State and National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines it is unlikely that development activities on the Site will affect the nesting activities of bald eagles at any of these nest locations.

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) (Threatened [T], USFWS; FT, FWC): There are no records of a wood stork rookery on the Site based on the most recent FWC statewide survey in 1999(7) and based on data available from the USFWS through 2015(19). The nearest wood stork rookery is 20 miles northeast

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

of the Site. Wood storks typically return to the same rookery sites each year to nest, and will travel up to

18.6 miles from rookeries to forage in wetlands and return food to incubating adults and nestlings during

the nesting season. Wetlands within 15 miles of known rookeries are considered by USFWS to comprise

core foraging areas for nesting wood storks in this area of central Florida(14). The Site is not within the

core foraging area of any wood stork rookeries that have been active within the last ten years and the on

Site surface waters do not provide good foraging habitat. Therefore development is not expected to have any adverse effects on wood storks.

Wading Bird Rookeries (1999): The FWC wading bird rookery database from the 1999(7) statewide

survey contains no records of rookeries used by other species of wading birds on the Site, but the database

contains records of 12 wading bird rookeries within 9.3 miles of the Site. Listed species of wading birds,

other than wood storks, will fly up to approximately 9.3 miles from the nesting site to forage in wetlands

and return food to incubating adults and nestlings(2). The FWC considers wetlands within 9.3 miles of

active rookeries to be potentially important to wading bird nesting success. Field surveys conducted in

100% of the wetland/surface waters did not document any active nesting, the surface waters are

extensively used cattle and are without vegetation except for the margins. Within the general region there

are many potential wetlands outside the Site to support foraging. Based on the proximity of at least one

reported active rookery within normal foraging distances of the Site there is a potential for these wetlands

to contribute to the nesting success of listed species of wading birds. However, given the distance from

the rookery, the presence of many other foraging sites closer to the rookery, and the lack of wetlands and

poor quality of the surface waters on Site the importance of these surface waters is considered low. Note

also that in any development plan there will be substantial foraging opportunities associated with the

stormwater management system.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) (ST, FWC): The Site falls within the range of the Florida

burrowing owl. No burrowing owls or their burrows were observed during the field survey therefore it is

unlikely that the Project will have any effect on burrowing owls. Should any burrowing owls or their

burrows be documented prior to construction, coordination with the FWC should be initiated to address

any potential impacts that may occur. If owl burrows are found to be present and the Site cannot be

developed without impacting burrowing owls a Migratory Bird Nest removal permit may be obtained

from the FWC which will authorize the collapse of inactive nest burrows. Burrows can only be collapsed

if no eggs or flightless young are present in the nest.

Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) (ST, FWC): Kestrels (Falco spp.) were

observed on Site. The American kestrel (Falco sparverius) and the southeastern American kestrel are virtually indistinguishable while on wing. No potential nesting cavities were observed during the field review therefore, it is unlikely that Project development will have any effect on southeastern American kestrels. Should any southeastern American kestrel nesting be documented on Site prior to land clearing/development coordination/permitting with the FWC should be conducted as required based on survey results and the development plan. Generally, if an active nest is located on Site the nest tree/snag/power pole must be protected until the nest is no longer active. If the development plan must remove the inactive nest an Incidental Take Permit should be obtained from the FWC.

Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) (ST, FWC): Florida sandhill cranes were observed foraging on Site however, there are no nest records from the Site, no nests were observed on the

Site, and no suitable nesting habitat occurs on Site. Development is not expected to adversely affect

Florida sandhill cranes.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

Mammals

Sherman’s Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) (SSC, FWC): Suitable nesting habitat for the

Sherman’s fox squirrel occurs on the Site. This species is relatively common in this region of central

Florida. No fox squirrels or their nests were observed during field reviews therefore it is unlikely that the

Project will have any effect on Sherman’s fox squirrels. Should any nesting Sherman’s fox squirrels be

documented on Site prior to land clearing/development coordination with the FWC should be initiated to address any potential impacts that may occur to Sherman’s fox squirrels.

No state or federally listed plant species were observed on the Site during the field investigation.

USFWS’s publication County Lists of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species of the

Southeast United States (The Redbook), indicates no critical habitat for T&E species occurs on or within the vicinity of the Site.

Wildlife observed via direct visual confirmation, call, or sign included: kestrel (Falco sp.), mourning dove

(Zenaida macroura), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus).

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT

The proposed Project is for mass grading and SWMS construction to support residential use of the Site

(Figure 3.0-1). The Project will result in the elimination of 0.25 acres of surface waters (SW 2) that will

be dredged/filled for residential development.

The engineering and stormwater management design has been prepared by FBA as part of this ERP

application and provides complete detail on the proposed Project and SWMS. Table 1 from Form 62-

330.060(1) Section C and both the ERP Handbook Volume I, effective October 1, 2013 (Handbook) and

the SWFWMD Permit Information Manual implemented October 1, 2013 (Manual) is included as

Appendix C, and provides a summary of the acreage of surface waters present on the Site and the

proposed impacts.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

19 S W-2 (0.25 ac) (0.25

S W-1 (0.14 ac) (0.14

Legen d BighamEast Prope ac) rty(459.90 MassGrading Plan ^_ S urfaceWaters Impactedac) (0.25

NotImpacted ac) (0.14 0 300 600 Fee t Source:Bigham Prope rtyboun daryprovided Farnby eDeve20161107.Barley; r lopm e nplan tprovided Farnby e20170316Barley; rstream Aerial efrom d ESRI. °! fe600= inch e1 t FIGURE3.0-1 BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. DEVELOPMENTPLAN FOR THE VILLAGES OFSOUTHERN OAKS PHAS NORTH II EMAS SGRADE, Environmental Consultants S UMTERCOUNTY, FLORIDA. CantonW.BDA330 AveWin ., terPark, 407-677-188232789FL•

LDP • 3/23/2017 • P:\ATG\2005067\BDA_USE\ARCGIS\Bigham•LDP 3/23/2017 • East\ERP_201702\DevPlan.mxd

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT REVIEW AND ISSUANCE CRITERIA

The Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook Volume I (Handbook)(12) lists the environmental criteria for issuance of an ERP.

4.1 Environmental Conditions for Issuance

The Handbook (Section 10.1.1) lists seven conditions for the issuance of an ERP. The applicant provides, through this permit application, reasonable assurances that all seven conditions will be met.

1. A regulated activity will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife and listed species, including aquatic and wetland-dependent species, by wetlands and other surface waters.

As discussed in Section 2 only 0.39 acre of surface waters occur on Site. Impacts will occur to

0.25 acre of surface water (cattle pond) and the quality of the surface waters habitat is very low.

No Listed Species were documented using the surface water and none are expected to utilize this

habitat. There are no on Site fisheries. Therefore, no adverse impacts to the value of functions

provided to fish, wildlife and listed species by the surface waters are expected. Any functions

provided by the surface waters will be replaced by the SWMS.

2. A regulated activity located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such an activity significantly degrades or is located within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), that the regulated activity will be clearly in the public interest.

The mass grading and SWMS construction will prepare the Site for development for residential

uses. The Site was chosen for its location near existing Villages development as well as near

major roadways. The Project has been designed to meet local standards, comply with all local

regulations, and the stormwater management criteria of the SWFWMD. The Project is not

located within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) nor will it significantly degrade an OFW.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

3. A regulated activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-3, 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522 and 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of Sections 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), 62- 4.242(2) and (3), and 62-302.300 and any special standards for OFWs and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in Sections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated.

Development of the Site will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The appropriate

pollution abatement, storm water attenuation, and any need for flood control will be provided

pursuant to the storm water management criteria of the SWFWMD. No discharges to offsite

receiving waters are proposed. The storm water management submittal prepared by FBA

provides the appropriate engineering calculations and details. The engineering submittal from

FBA will provide the details.

4. A regulated activity located in, adjacent to or in close proximity to Class II waters or located in waters classified by the Department as approved, restricted, or conditionally restricted for shellfish harvesting pursuant to Chapter 16R-7, F.A.C., will comply with the additional criteria in Section 10.2.5 of the Handbook.

The Site is not adjacent to, or in close proximity of, a Class II water, nor is it located within areas

utilized for shellfish harvesting.

5. The construction of vertical seawalls in estuaries and lagoons will comply with the additional criteria in Section 10.2.6 of the Handbook.

The construction plans for the Site do not include any vertical seawalls. Furthermore, the Site is

not located within an estuary or lagoon.

6. A regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources.

Development of the Site will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources. The

Project’s storm water design will meet the SWFWMD’s criteria for pollution abatement and

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

storm water attenuation. Therefore, the physical, chemical, and biological treatment processes for

stormwater discharge will occur within the proposed stormwater pond. Consequently, no adverse

impacts to water quality are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed development.

Other Best Management Practices (BMPs) including, but not limited to, the construction of

swales, erosion and sediment control structures, and turbidity barriers will be used to ensure

sedimentation pollution will either be eliminated or maintained within acceptable limits. The

contractor shall be responsible for providing these temporary erosion and sedimentation control

measures during construction or until final controls become effective.

7. A regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.

Development of the Site is not anticipated to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands

or other surface waters. The Project proposes approximately 0.25 acres of direct surface water

impacts and no wetland impacts. The habitat quality in the surface water is very low. The

functions provided will be fully replaced by the SWMS, within the same drainage basin, thereby

avoiding unacceptable cumulative impacts. The SWMS will meet all water quality and quantity

criteria of the SWFWMD to prevent any cumulative impacts to the receiving waters.

4.2 Elimination or Reduction of Impacts

Pursuant to Section 10.2.1 of the Handbook, the following factors are considered in determining whether an application will be approved by the Agency: the degree of impact to wetland and other surface water functions caused by a proposed activity; whether the impact to these functions can be mitigated; and the practicability of design modifications for the site that could eliminate or reduce impacts to these

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

functions, including alignment alternatives for a proposed linear system. The Site is planned for mass grading and construction of the SWMS to support development of residential uses.

There are two surface waters on Site totaling 0.39 acre (0.08% of the Site) and there are no wetlands on

Site. Elimination of SW2 (0.25 acre) is proposed. Due to the location of surface water SW2 within the overall development plan there are no practicable design modifications that could eliminate or reduce impacts.

4.3 Fish, Wildlife, Protected Species, and Their Habitats

The surface waters on Site are wholly owned, constructed in uplands and do not provide significant habitat for Listed Species. Therefore pursuant to Section 10.2.2.2 of the Handbook demonstrating compliance with

Sections 10.2.2 through 10.2.2.3, 10.2.3 through 10.2.3.7, and 10.2.5 through 10.3.8 is not required.

4.3.1 Habitat Review Factors

The surface waters on Site are wholly owned, constructed in uplands and do not provide significant habitat for endangered or threatened species. Therefore pursuant to Section 10.2.2.2 of the Handbook demonstrating compliance with Sections 10.2.2 through 10.2.2.3, 10.2.3 through 10.2.3.7, and 10.2.5 through 10.3.8 is not required.

4.4 Water Quantity

Pursuant to Section 10.2.2.4 of the Handbook, the development of the Site will not result in any adverse impacts to water quantity characteristics of the remaining wetlands. The SWMS will be utilized to maintain and further establish the site’s drainage and provide floodwater storage. The engineering submittal prepared by FBA provides appropriate geotechnical and civil engineering analysis as the basis

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

for reasonable assurance there will not be any adverse impacts to the water quantity characteristics of

wetlands/surface waters.

4.5 Public Interest Test

4.6 Water Quality

Pursuant to Section 10.2.4 of the Handbook, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance the regulated activity will not violate water quality standards in areas where water quality standards apply. The SWMS to be constructed for the proposed Project will meet the requirements and standards of the SWFWMD, and BMPs will be utilized to ensure water quality criteria will not be violated. These factors are addressed in the stormwater management plan prepared by FBA.

4.7 Secondary Impacts

Section 10.2.7 of the Handbook provides four criteria for the SWFWMD to determine whether a

regulated activity will cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource. Responses to the four

criteria are summarized below and demonstrate the development of the Site will not cause adverse

secondary impacts to the water resource.

1. Impacts to Water Quality

There are no discharges to off Site receiving waters proposed. The proposed Project will comply

with all water quality design criteria. Please refer to the accompanying engineering submittal for

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

additional detail. BMPs will be utilized to ensure water quality criteria will not be violated

during the short-term construction and long-term operation of the SWMS on the Site.

2. Impacts to Upland Habitat for Bald Eagles or Aquatic and Wetland-Dependent Listed Species

Other than the Florida sandhill crane no species listed in Table 10.2.7-1 of the Handbook were

observed on the Site. Florida sandhill cranes often forage in open pasture areas. Florida sandhill

cranes do not nest or den in uplands and the on Site surface water is not suitable nesting habitat

therefore, there are no impacts to aquatic and wetland dependent species expected to result from

the Project. The nearest bald eagle nest is 0.6 miles from the Project. Therefore consistent with

the Florida Guidelines and National Guidelines adverse impacts to bald eagles is not expected

3. Impacts to Historical and Archaeological Resources

Please refer to Appendix D. The Site was reviewed for cultural resources and was determined to

not contain any resources or sites eligible for listing in the NRHP. Should any objects be

revealed during construction having historical or archeological value, the DHR will be

immediately notified. Therefore, this Project is not expected to adversely affect significant

historical and archaeological resources.

4. Impacts to Wetland and Surface Water Functions as a Result of Future Phases or System Expansions

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

The Villages of Southern Oaks Phase II South Mass Grade is planned. This phase will only

impact the remaining 0.14 acres of surface waters (SW 1). The condition and habitat suitability is

the same as described above for SW2; therefore, adverse impacts for this future phase is not

expected.

4.8 Cumulative Impacts

Please refer to section 4.1.7.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

5.0 MITIGATION

The Project proposes to impact 0.25 acres of SWFWMD jurisdictional surface waters located within the

Site. The surface water is isolated, wholly owned, constructed in uplands, <1.0 acre and not used by endangered or threatened species. As discussed above in Section 4.0 the regulated activities will not cause adverse impacts to the surface waters functions, therefore no mitigation is required.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

End References

1. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 1940. 16 United States Code 668-668d. Washington D.C.

2. Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlife habitat conservation system. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

3. Endangered Species Act. 1973. 16 United States Code 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976-1982, 1984, and 1988.

4. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2016. Chapter 5B-40 Florida Administrative Code. Preservation of Native Flora of Florida.

5. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. July 1994. Chapter 62-340 Florida Administrative Code. Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters.

6. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Third Edition. 91pp.

7. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 1999. Wading Bird Colonies Florida 1999. Tallahassee, Florida.

8. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. Bald Eagle Management Plan. Tallahassee, Florida.

9. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2015. Chapter 68A-27 Florida Administrative Code. Rules Relating to Endangered or Threatened Species.

10. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2015. Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines: Gopherus polyphemus. Tallahassee, FL.

11. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 1918. 16 United States Code 703-712. Washington D.C.

12. Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2013. Environmental Resource Permitting Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I (General and Environmental). 251pp.

13. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2016. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Geographic Database. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm .

14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Florida Wood Stork Colonies Core Foraging Areas. North Florida Ecological Services Field Office. Jacksonville, Florida. 1p.

15. Sumter County Florida. 2016. Land Development Code, Section 13-641.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

16. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Washington D.C.

17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Eastern Indigo Snake Effects Determination Key. Addendum Letter Dated August 13, 2013, From Ms. Dawn Jennings, Acting Field Supervisor, North Florida Ecological Services Field Office, to Col. Alan M. Dodd, District Engineer (Attn: Mr. David S. Hobbie), Jacksonville District, Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida.

18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake. North Florida and South Florida Ecological Field Services Field Offices. Jacksonville and Vero Beach, Florida.

19. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Florida Nesting Colonies and Core Foraging Areas 2015. Jacksonville, Florida.

20. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Survey Protocol for the Eastern Indigo Snake, Drymarchon couperi, in North and Central Florida. North Florida Ecological Services Field Office. Jacksonville, Florida.

21. Wunderlin, Richard P. and Bruce F. Hansen. 2003. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida, second edition. University Press of Florida. 787 pp.

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

APPENDIX A

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VILLAGES OF SOUTHERN OAKS PHASE II NORTH MASS GRADE SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

Legend Bigh amEast Prop ertyac) (459.90 ^_

0 300 600 Feet Source:Bigh amPro p ertyboundary provided byFarnerstreamed Aerial 20161107.Barley; fro mESRI. °! feet600= inch 1 APPENDIXA BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. AERIALPHOTOGRAPH OFTHE VILLAGES OFSOUTHERN OAKS PHASENORTH II MASS GRADE, Environmental Consultants SUMTERCOUNTY, FLORIDA. CantonW.BDA330 WinterAve., 407-677-1882 Park,32789FL•

LDP • 3/23/2017 • P:\ATG\2005067\BDA_USE\ARCGIS\Bigh•LDP 3/23/2017 • amEast\ERP_201702\Aerial.mxd

APPENDIX B

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CENSUS TRANSECTS ON THE VILLAGES OF SOUTHERN OAKS PHASE II NORTH MASS GRADE SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

! T 29 ! ! T 28 !

! T 27 ! ! !

! ! T 24

T 30

! ! T 31 ! T 25

! T 23 !

! ! T 22 ! T 32 ! !

T 26 ! ! !

! !

! ! !

T 14 ! !

! !

T 13 15T

! !

T 16 T 17

6 T !

T 7

T 8

19T

T 18 !

! 10T

T 9 !

T 12 T 20

! T 21

! T 11 !

! ! !

! !

Legend Bigh amEast Prop ertyac) (459.90 ^_ ! ! T&ETransects

0 300 600 Feet Source:Breedlove, Dennis Asso& ciates,Inc. °! feet600= inch 1 APPENDIXB BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. T HREAT ENEDAND ENDANGERED SPECIES CENSUS TRANSECT ON S THE VILLAGES Environmental Consultants OFSOUT HERNOAKS PHASENORT II HMASS GRADE, SUMT ERCOUNT FLORIDA Y, CantonW.BDA330 WinterAve., Park,407-677-188232789FL•

LDP • 3/23/2017 • P:\ATG\2005067\BDA_USE\ARCGIS\Bigh•LDP 3/23/2017 • am East\ERP_201702\TnE.mxd

APPENDIX C

TABLE ONE: PROJECT WETLAND AND OTHER SURFACE WATER AND IMPACT SUMMARY

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

TABLE 1 - PROJECT WETLAND (WL) AND OTHER SURFACE WATER (SW) AND IMPACT SUMMARY

TEMPORARY PERMANENT WL & SW UMAM WL & SW WL & SW WL & SW IMPACTS WL & SW IMPACTS WL & SW NOT MITIGATION ID ASSESSMENT TYPE SIZE ID IMPACTED AREA NAME(S) (acres) IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT (acres) SIZE TYPE SIZE TYPE (acres) (acres) No mitigation SW1 SW1 530 0.14 0.00 0.14 D/F required No mitigation SW2 SW2 530 0.25 0.00 0.25 D/F required PROJECT TOTALS: 0.39 0.00 ─ 0.39

Comments:

Codes (multiple entries per cell not allowed): • Wetland & Surface Water ID: Include ID on submitted wetland and surface water impact maps • Wetland Type: from an established wetland classification system • Impact Type: D=dredge; F=fill; H=change hydrology; S=shading; C=clearing; O=other

Form #62-330.060(1) - Joint Application for Environmental Resource Individual Permit/ Authorization to Use State-Owned Submerged Lands/ Federal Dredge and Fill Permit Incorporated by reference in subsection 62-330.060(1), F.A.C. (Effective Date) Section C, Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX D

CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY FOR THE VILLAGES OF SOUTHERN OAKS PHASE II NORTH MASS GRADE SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA

P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Bigham East\BighamEast_ERP\VOSO Phase II N ERP App.doc

CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE 786-ACRE LAND AND DIRT (BIG) PROPERTIES SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA

Prepared for:

The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. 1020 Lake Sumter Landing The Villages, Florida 32162

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

October 2016

CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE 786-ACRE LAND AND DIRT (BIG) PROPERTIES SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA

Prepared for:

The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. 1020 Lake Sumter Landing The Villages, Florida 32162

By:

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

Marion Almy - Principal Investigator Elizabeth A. Horvath - Project Archaeologist Justin Winkler – Archaeologist Kim Irby – Architectural Historian

October 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a cultural resource assessment survey of the 786-acre Land and Dirt (Big) properties in Sumter County for the Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. The purpose of this project was to locate and identify any archaeological sites or historic resources within the tract and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This CRAS was undertaken as due diligence in anticipation of permitting requirements. The survey and resulting report meet requirements set forth in Chapters 267 and 373, Florida Statutes (FS), and implementing state regulations regarding possible impact to significant historic properties. All work was carried out in conformity with the specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code as well as the Florida Division of Historical Resources’ (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operations Manual (FDHR 2003).

Background research indicated that no archaeological sites have been recorded within the property, but one site (8SM00528) is located adjacent to the property (Ambrosino 2009; Dunn 2011). That site has been determined ineligible for listing in the NRHP by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The current testing found no evidence of the site within the project area, but three new archaeological sites were discovered, as well as three archaeological occurrences (AO). An AO is defined as “one or two non-diagnostic artifacts, not known to be distant from the original context, which fit within a hypothetical cylinder of thirty meters diameter, regardless of depth below surface” (Florida Master Site File [FMSF] 1999:10). Each AO consisted of an isolated piece of lithic debitage. The archaeological sites consist of two lithic scatters (8SM00953, 8SM00955) and a ceramic scatter (8SM00954). Neither the AOs nor the archaeological sites are considered eligible for listing in the NRHP due to the lack of subsurface features, diversity of artifacts, and low research potential.

Historical background research, including a review of the FMSF and the NRHP, revealed that one historic resource has been recorded within the property. 8SM00784 is a Masonry Vernacular style residence that has been determined ineligible for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO (Chambless et al. 2015). A review of the property appraiser data and historic aerial photos suggested the potential for one additional historic resource (Hooten 2016; USDA 1941, 1952, 1953, 1960, 1969, 1984). The Masonry Vernacular style residence at 5519 CR 468 has been recorded as 8SM00956. It is a typical example of a Masonry Vernacular style building with alterations found throughout Sumter County, and research revealed no significant historic associations. As such, 8SM00956 is considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.

Mr. James Dyals, resident at 5519 CR 468, reported that while he was planting citrus trees in the early 1990s, he uncovered an intact burial adjacent to the house. Citrus trees and other dense vegetation are apparently over and near the burial. He described the burial as a single individual draped in a blue coat with a rifle. He reportedly contacted the National Cemetery in Bushnell and was advised to replace the soil over the burial and leave it undisturbed, which is what he said he did. No archaeological investigations were conducted in this area (immediately adjacent to the south elevation of a previously recorded house [8SM00789]) as per the Florida Unmarked Burial Law. However, prior to development, ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey will be conducted by client and ACI will monitor the survey and provide a brief report to pertinent agencies, including the FDHR.

Based on the results of this CRAS, development of the 786-acre Land and Dirt (Big) Properties, except for the potential burial area (roughly a 10 x 2 meter [m] area), will have no effect on any resources listed or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. Thus, no additional work, with the exception of GPR survey and report, is recommended.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose ...... 1-1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 2-1 2.1 Location and Setting ...... 2-1 2.2 Soils ...... 2-3 2.3 Botanical and Faunal Resources ...... 2-4 2.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations ...... 2-4 3.0 CULTURE HISTORY ...... 3-1 3.1 Paleoindian ...... 3-1 3.2 Archaic ...... 3-3 3.3 Formative ...... 3-6 3.4 Mississippian ...... 3-7 3.5 Colonialism ...... 3-8 3.6 Territorial and Statehood ...... 3-9 3.7 Civil War and Aftermath ...... 3-10 3.8 Twentieth Century ...... 3-13 3.9 Project Area Specifics ...... 3-16 4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODOLOGIES ...... 4-1 4.1 Background Research and Literature Review ...... 4-1 4.2 Archaeological Considerations ...... 4-1 4.3 Historical Considerations ...... 4-5 4.4 Field Methodology ...... 4-5 4.5 Unexpected Discoveries ...... 4-6 4.6 Laboratory Methods and Curation ...... 4-6 5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 5-1 5.1 Archaeological Results ...... 5-1 5.2 Historic Resources ...... 5-6 5.3 Conclusions ...... 5-6 6.0 REFERENCES CITED ...... 6-1

APPENDICES Appendix A: FMSF Forms Appendix B: Survey Log

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Page Figure

Figure 1.1. Location of the Land and Dirt (Big) properties, Sumter County...... 1-2

Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Land and Dirt (Big) properties...... 2-2

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

Figure 3.2. 1849 Plat showing the project area...... 3-11

Figure 3.3. 1941 and 1969 aerial photographs of the project area...... 3-17

Figure 4.1. Location of the previously recorded cultural resources proximate to the project area and the zones of archaeological potential...... 4-2

Figure 5.1. Location of the shovel tests, AOs, archaeological sites, and historic resources within the Land and Dirt (Big) properties...... 5-2

Figure 5.2. Location of the shovel tests, AOs, archaeological sites, and historic resources within the Land and Dirt (Big) properties...... 5-3

Table

Table 2.1. Soil types, drainage characteristics, and setting...... 2-3

Table 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the Land and Dirt (Big) properties...... 4-3

Table 4.2. CRAS reports for surveys conducted within one mile of the Land and Dirt (Big) properties...... 4-4

Photo

Photo 2.1. Upland pasture with live oaks surrounding sinkholes...... 2-1

Photo 2.2. Agricultural field...... 2-3

Photo 5.1. Turnpike South Sink (8SM00953) site, facing north...... 5-1

Photo 5.2. Bigham South Plain (8SM00954), site, facing south...... 5-4

Photo 5.3. Bigham South Sink (8SM00955), site, facing north...... 5-4

Photo 5.4. Purported location of a historic burial, immediately south of the house (8SM00784) .... 5-5

Photo 5.5. 5519 E CR 468 (8SM00956) looking south...... 5-6

iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) performed a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) of the 786-acre Land and Dirt (Big) Properties in Sumter County for the Villages of Lake- Sumter, Inc. (Figure 1.1). It was conducted as due diligence in anticipation of future permitting needs. This survey and resulting report meet the requirements set forth in Chapters 267 and 373, Florida Statutes (FS), and implementing state regulations regarding possible impact to significant historic properties. In addition, all work was carried out in conformity with the standards contained in the Florida Division of Historical Resources’ (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual (FDHR 2003). All work was carried out in conformity with the specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code.

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of the CRAS, conducted in October 2016, was to locate and identify any archaeological sites and historic resources located within the properties, and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Field survey was preceded by background research (ACI 2016a). Such work served to provide both an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of cultural resources that might be anticipated to occur within the project area, as well as a basis for evaluating any new sites discovered.

1-1 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big) LEVY ¹ ¨¦§75

! LAKE

PASCO

00.51 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, 012 Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Kilometers 2015 Figure 1.1. Location of the Land and Dirt (Big) properties, Sumter County.

1-2

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

It has long been realized that archaeological sites are not randomly distributed across the landscape. Rather, many environmental factors had a direct influence on site location selection. Among these variables are soil drainage, distance to water, relative topography, and proximity to food and other resources. To develop a site location predictive model, an understanding of the prominent physiographic features and distribution of natural vegetation communities must be obtained.

2.1 Location and Setting

The approximately 786-acre Land and Dirt (Big) Properties are in Sections 33 and 34 of Township 19 South, Range 23 East in eastern Sumter County (United States Geological Survey [USGS] Wildwood and Leesburg West) (Figure 2.1). The properties are located south of SR 468, east and west of CR 501, and east and west of Florida’s Turnpike The land is primarily pasture with some peanut fields. There are several karst depressions, all of which appear to retain the native vegetation (Photos 2.1 and 2.2).

Photo 2.1. Upland pasture with live oaks surrounding sinkholes.

In general, the project area is characterized by level land with a general elevation of 23 to 24 m (75-80 ft) above mean sea level (amsl), with lower elevations at the base of the karst depressions. It lies at the junction of the Western Valley and the Lake Harris Cross Valley (White 1970). The area is underlain by undifferentiated sediments of the Plio-Pleistocene and Ocala limestone, which are surficially evidenced by limestone (Florida Department of Environmental Protection [FDEP] 2001a, 2001b).

2-1 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big) ¹

Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Land and Dirt (Big) properties.

2-2

Photo 2.2. Agricultural field.

2.2 Soils

The eastern two-thirds of the project area is underlain by soils of the Tavares-Adamsville soil association, which consists of nearly level to gently sloping moderately well and somewhat poorly drained sandy soils. The western third of the project area is underlain by the Sparr-Millhopper- Sumterville soil association, which is characterized by nearly level to gently sloping somewhat poor and moderately well drained sandy soils. Both associations consist of sandy soils of the upland ridges. The native vegetation of the former includes longleaf pine, live oak, laurel oak, turkey oak, and sweetgum with an understory of running oak, saw palmetto, and various grasses. The latter supports live oak, water oak, and turkey oak with an understory of pineland threeawn, saw palmetto, and greenbrier (Yamataki et al. 1988). Table 2.1 provides a list of the specific soil types within the Land and Dirt (Big) properties.

Table 2.1. Soil types, drainage characteristics, and setting. Soil Type/slope Drainage Setting Adamsville fine sand (fs) Somewhat poor Low, broad flats and low knolls Adamsville fs, bouldery subsurface (bs) Somewhat poor Low, broad flats and knolls Astatula fine sand, 0-8% Excessive Sandhills Basinger fs, depressional Very poor Depressions Candler sand, 0-5% Excessive Ridges, knolls, and broad uplands Kendrick fs, 0-5% Well Uplands Mabel fs, bs, 0-5% Somewhat poor Broad ridges and knolls on the flatwoods Millhopper fs, 0-5% Moderately well Uplands Millhopper sand, bs, 0-5% Moderately well Large areas on uplands Pits NA Excavated areas Smyrna fs Poor Broad flatwoods Sparr fs, 0-5 Somewhat poor Broad, low ridges and knolls Sparr fs, bs, 0-5% Somewhat poor Broad, low ridges and knolls Sumterville fs, bs, 0-5% Somewhat poor Broad ridges and knolls on uplands Tavares fs, 0-5% Moderately well Low, broad ridges and knolls

2-3 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

2.3 Botanical and Faunal Resources

With the onset of the modern environmental conditions, numerous microenvironments were available to the aboriginal inhabitants. By 2000 BCE (Before Common Era), ground water had reached current levels and the shift to warmer, moister conditions saw the appearance of hardwood forests, bayheads, cypress swamps, prairies, and marshlands. The General Map of Natural Vegetation of Florida indicates that the project area is at the junction of the upland forests of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and xerophytic oak and areas of swamp forests where bay, gum, titi, and cypress abound (Davis 1980). Soil types are often associated with a certain vegetative regime; thus, information can be inferred concerning the environmental setting for the past 5000 years. The better-drained soils would have most likely been covered with turkey, live, laurel, and blackjack oaks with some hickory while the more poorly drained soils would have been covered in longleaf and slash pine with an understory of palmetto (Yamataki et al. 1988).

Soils play a major role in determining what plant and animal species are available in the region. The soil survey of the county provides information on the soil’s ability to support various wildlife habitats (Yamataki et al. 1988: Table 9). These include openland, woodland, and wetland. Openland consists of cropland, pasture, meadows, and areas overgrown with grasses, herbs, shrubs, and vines. This area attracts a variety of bids, rabbit, and red fox. The Millhopper, Smyrna, Sparr, Sumterville, and Tavares soils are ranked as fair for this wildlife habitat. The woodland wildlife habitat consists of areas of deciduous and/or coniferous plants with associated legumes, grasses, and herbaceous plants. Wildlife attracted to these locales includes turkey, other birds, squirrels, gray fox, raccoon, deer, and bear. The Adamsville, Millhopper, Smyrna, Sparr, Sumterville, and Tavares soils are ranked fair for this wildlife habitat; Kendrick and Mabel fine sands are well suited to this habitat. The wetland habitats are open, marshy, or swampy shallow water areas. Wildlife associated with these locales includes ducks, geese, herons, egrets, shore birds, otter, mink, alligator, and beaver. Basinger fine sand, depressional is well suited for wetland habitats.

2.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations

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

Due to the arid conditions between 16,500 and 12,500 years ago, the perched water aquifer and potable water supplies were absent (Dunbar 1981:95). Palynological studies conducted in Florida and Georgia suggest that between 13,000 and 5000 years ago, this area was covered with an upland vegetation community of scrub oak and prairie (Watts 1969, 1971, 1975). However, the environment was not static. Evidence recovered from the inundated Page-Ladson Site in north Florida has clearly demonstrated that there were two periods of low water tables and dry climatic conditions and two episodes of elevated water tables and wet conditions (Dunbar 2006c). The rise of sea level reduced xeric habitats over the next several millennia.

By 5000 years ago, a climatic event marking a brief return to Pleistocene climatic conditions induced a change toward more open vegetation. Southern pine forests replaced the oak savannahs. Extensive marshes and swamps developed along the coasts and subtropical hardwood forests became

2-4 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

established along the southern tip of Florida (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Northern Florida saw an increase in oak species, grasses, and sedges (Carbone 1983). At Lake Annie, in south central Florida, pollen cores were dominated by wax myrtle and pine. The assemblage suggests that by this time, a forest dominated by longleaf pine along with cypress swamps and bayheads existed in the area (Watts 1971, 1975). At that time, surface water was plentiful in karst terrains and the level of the Floridan aquifer rose to 1.5 m (5 ft) above present levels. With the establishment of warmer winters and cooler summers than in the preceding early Holocene, the fire-adapted pine communities prevailed. These depend on the high summer precipitation caused by the thunderstorms and the accompanying lightning strikes to spark the fires (Watts et al. 1996; Watts and Hansen 1994). The increased precipitation also resulted in the formation of the large swamp systems such as the Okefenokee and Everglades (Gleason and Stone 1994). After this time, modern floral, climatic, and environmental conditions began to be established.

2-5 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

3.0 CULTURE HISTORY

A discussion of the regional culture history is included to provide a framework within which to examine the local archaeological and historical record. Archaeological and historic sites are not individual entities, but were once part of a dynamic cultural system. Thus, individual sites cannot be adequately examined or interpreted without reference to other sites and resources in the area. The culture history of an area (i.e. the archaeological region) outlines the sequence of archaeological and historical cultures through time. These are defined largely in geographical terms, but also reflect shared environmental and cultural traits. The project area is within the East and Central archaeological region Milanich (1994 (Figure 3.1). The Paleoindian, Archaic, Formative, and Mississippian stages have been defined based on material culture traits such as stone tool forms and ceramics, as well as subsistence, settlement, and burial patterns.

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

3.1 Paleoindian

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

The Paleoindian period has been sub-divided into three horizons based upon characteristic stone tool forms (Austin 2001). Traditionally, it is believed that the Clovis Horizon (10,500-9000 BCE) represents the initial occupation of Florida and is defined by the presence of the fluted Clovis points. These are more common in north Florida. However, recent work, may indicate that Suwannee and Simpson points are contemporary with or predate Clovis (Dunbar 2016; Stanford et al. 2005).

The Suwannee Horizon (9000-8500 BCE) is the best known of the three Paleoindian horizons. The lanceolate-shaped, unfluted Simpson and Suwannee projectile points are diagnostic of this time (Bullen 1975; Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987; Purdy 1981). The Suwannee tool kit includes a variety of scrapers, adzes, spokeshaves, unifacially retouched flakes, and blade-like flakes as well as bone and ivory foreshafts, pins, awls, daggers, anvils, and abraders (Austin 2001:23).

3-1 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big) ¹ Post-500 BCE regions of precolumbian Florida (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 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 0100200 CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS Kilometers User Community Figure 3.1.. Florida Archaeological Regions.

3-2

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

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

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

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

3.2 Archaic

Climatic changes occurred, resulting in the disappearance of the Pleistocene megafauna and the demise of the Paleoindian culture. The disappearance of the mammoths and mastodons resulted in a reduction of open grazing lands, and thus, the subsequent disappearance of grazers such as horse, bison, and camels. With the reduction of open habitat, the herd animals were replaced by the more

3-3 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

solitary, woodland browser: the white-tailed deer (Dunbar 2006a:426). The intertwined data of megafauna’ extinction and cultural change suggests a rapid and significant disruption in both the faunal and floral assemblages. The Bolen people represent the first culture adapted to the Holocene environment (Carter and Dunbar 2006). Theirs included a more specialized toolkit and the introduction of chipped-stone woodworking implements.

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

During the Middle Archaic, wetter conditions prevailed, sea levels began to rise, and pine forests and swamps began to emerge (Watts et al. 1996). The climate was changed to one of more pronounced seasonality with warmer summers and colder winters and by 4000 BCE the climate became essentially the same as that of today (Watts et al. 1996:29). Miller (1998:68) suggests that when sea levels reached their current positions, the St. Johns River changed its riverine characteristics to become like a lake in the upper reaches and estuarine in the lower reaches. This allowed for the development of a wide resource base. Settlement became focused within coastal and riverine locales (Milanich 1994:64). The Mount Taylor period has been identified for the period 5000-2000 BCE (Milanich 1994). Subsistence was based on hunting, fishing, shellfish collecting, and plant gathering. Sites are generally located along the Atlantic coast, the upper reaches of the St. Johns River, and the Ocklawaha and Wekiva Rivers (Ste. Claire 1990; Weisman 1993; Wheeler et al. 2000). The theory that Archaic populations practiced a seasonal migration pattern between the interior and the coast has been called into question as investigations have confirmed year-round occupation of some sites (Russo 1992, 1996b; Russo et al. 1993; Russo and Ste. Claire 1992; Ste. Claire 1990).

The archaeobotanical research at the Groves’ Orange Midden and the Lake Monroe Outlet Midden confirms an environment like today (ACI/Janus Research 2001; Newsom 1994; Purdy 1994b). Most of the botanical remains were from wetland species common along the lake’s margin, river swamp, and backwaters. Upland species were also utilized. Middens of mystery snail, apple snail, and mussel provide evidence of occupation and resource exploitation along the rivers of east and central Florida (Cumbaa 1976; Ellis et al. 1994; Fryman et al. 1978).

Mount Taylor sites include large base camps, smaller special-use campsites, burial areas, and extensive shell middens. The artifact inventory of the Mt. Taylor people includes stone projectile points, tools, and microliths, as well as tools and decorative items of shell, bone, and wood (ACI/Janus Research 2001; Purdy 1994a; Wheeler and McGee 1994a, 1994b). The large stemmed projectile points, especially the Newnan type, are diagnostic of this time. Other common point types include Hillsborough, Levy, Putnam, Alachua, and Marion (Bullen 1975). Silicified coral was more prevalent as a raw material (Milanich 1994) and thermal alteration of the stone became common (Ste. Claire 1987). Numerous shell and bone items indicate contact with coast.

One of the most interesting aspects of the Mount Taylor culture is evidence for mass burial interments in specially prepared areas within shell middens (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Such burials were found at Tick Island along the St. Johns River (Aten 1999; Bullen 1962; Jahn and Bullen 1978). Milanich (1994:81) suggests that Early and Middle Archaic peoples used aquatic environments for burial. The Early Archaic Windover Site contained primary and flexed burials within a peat pond.

3-4 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

These were held in place with wooden stakes and the interments included grave goods such as textiles and worked bone, shell, and wood (Doran 2002). The Gauthier cemetery, situated on a palm island within a slough between a pond and Lake Poinsett, contained primary and flexed burials (Carr and Jones 1981; Sigler-Eisenberg 1984b).

Interior sites include the smaller lithic and ceramic scatter campsites that were most likely used for hunting or served as special use extractive sites for such activities as gathering nuts or other botanical materials (Ste. Claire 1989, 1990). The Tomoka Site is a complex of nine mounds and a surrounding village midden located near the confluence of the Tomoka and Halifax River. Occupants utilized estuarine and coastal resources as evidenced by the midden of coquina and oysters. No ceramics have been recovered from this site complex (Douglass 1882; Piatek 1992, 1994). The burial mound at Tomoka is one of the earliest in Florida (Piatek 1994). Russo (1996a:284) suggests that Florida’s Archaic burial mounds were not the precursors to the extensive burial mound use seen in the more recent past, rather, they were short-lived, dead-end traditions.

Evidence from the Groves’ Orange Midden indicates contact, either physically or through trade, with the Tampa Bay and possibly the Suwannee River valley areas (Purdy 1994a). The occupants of the Lake Monroe Outlet Midden obtained most of their chert from Ocala limestone (ACI/Janus Research 2001). More specifically, the materials were attributed to the Gainesville, Ocala, Lake Panasoffkee East, and Lake Panasoffkee West quarry clusters (Endonino 2007). Other evidence of trade is seen in the use of soapstone, which was imported from Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia (Yates 2000). Soapstone transportation most likely occurred via canoe, and evidence for canoe usage is well- documented (Newsom and Purdy 1990; Purdy 1988; Wheeler et al. 2003).

By about 2000 BCE, fired clay pottery was introduced in Florida. The first ceramic types, tempered with fiber (Spanish moss or palmetto), are referred to as the Orange series. It was originally believed that the ceramics lacked decoration until about 1650 BCE when they were decorated with geometric designs and punctations. Recent research, however, has called the entire Orange chronology into question (Sassaman 2003). Based on a series of AMS dates on soot from Orange Incised sherds from the middle St. Johns Valley and from radiocarbon dates on oyster and charcoal in association with Orange ceramics near the mouth of the river, all the various Orange ceramic types occur within the time span of roughly 2150-1650 BCE. The incidence of incising is also a function of site type as well as time; incising occurs more frequently at shell ring sites that were used for feasting (Saunders and Wrenn 2014). In addition, research by Cordell (2004) has documented the presence of sponge spicules in the Orange ceramic paste (the diagnostic trait of St. Johns wares) which suggest that the St. Johns ceramic tradition extends back to the beginning of ceramic use in the region (Sassaman 2003:11). The projectile point assemblage included the addition of the Clay, Culbreath, and Lafayette types (Bullen 1975).

There is little difference between Middle/Late Archaic and Orange populations except that there are more Orange sites and the density of sites is higher. Orange settlements were primarily located near wetland locales. The abundance of resources located in and near the wetlands permitted larger settlements. The adaptation to this environment allowed for a wider variety of resources to be exploited and greater variability in settlement patterns. Shellfish, fish, and other food sources were now available from coastal and freshwater wetlands resulting in an increase in population size.

Bridging the end of the Archaic and the beginning of the Formative stage is the Transitional period (1200 to 500 BCE), which was characterized by increased regionalism, population growth, and socio-cultural complexity (Bullen 1959, 1970). The diffusion of culture traits, resulting from the movements of small groups of people, led to the spread of several ceramic and tool traditions (Bullen 1959). The major changes in post-Transitional cultures cannot be attributed to environmental changes

3-5 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

but rather the result of social, political, religious, and technological innovations introduced from elsewhere in the eastern U.S. (Miller 1998:76).

3.3 Formative

The period from about 500 BCE until 750 CE (Common Era) in this area is referred to as St. Johns I, which has been divided into three sub-periods: St. Johns I (500 BCE – 100 CE), St. Johns Ia (100 – 500 CE), and St. Johns Ib (500 – 750 CE) based on characteristic ceramic types (Milanich 1994:247). There are two regional variants of this tradition: St. Marys to the north and Indian River to the south. The St. Marys Region is located at the mouth of the St. Johns and extends northward into Georgia (Russo 1992). Sites in this area contain a mixture of Georgia ceramics as well as St. Johns ceramics. At the southern end is the Indian River Region which was first defined by Rouse (1951). There is a higher prevalence of sand-tempered wares in this region. Malabar I is coeval with St. Johns I. Malabar II occurs at the same time as St. Johns.

Settlement patterns during this time were virtually the same as that seen for the earlier periods, i.e. along the coastal estuaries and larger rivers. The Twin Mounds Site faunal analysis suggests that there was a slight decrease in the dependence on freshwater shellfish during the St. Johns periods as opposed to the preceding Orange period (Weisman 1993). Based on that analysis, there was an increase in the use of reptilian resources. There was also a tremendous increase in the number of archaeological sites during this time. An apparent trend from St. Johns I through Ib times was a population shift into the northern part of the St. Johns River valley, possibly due to the need for more arable land (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:158).

Village wares were almost all St. Johns Plain throughout this period. St. Johns Incised is associated with the early St. Johns I period. Deptford and Swift Creek pottery or copies are occasionally present in St. Johns I and Ia periods. St. Johns Cordmarked ceramics are associated with the St. Johns Ia period while Dunns Creek Red is associated with the St. Johns Ia and Ib periods. In her analysis of the ceramics from Edgewater Landing, Cordell (Russo et al. 1989:68) notes that through time, St. Johns Plain ceramics become sandier due to increased use of quartz sand as an aplastic agent.

Evidence of the continuous use of burial mounds begins at this time. Many of the burials were found in large central pits, probably the result of secondary interments. Some changes in the burial practices include the possible use of log tombs during the St. Johns Ia period as well as inclusion of Hopewellian-Yent complex exotic trade items (Milanich 1994:261). Much of the information on St. Johns I period burial practices have been obtained from the Ross Hammock Site in Volusia County (Bullen et al. 1967). This site complex consists of two large burial mounds and an extensive village midden located on the west shore of Mosquito Lagoon (Bullen et al. 1967:16). The Benton Mound dates to the St. Johns Ia period (Miller 1994). Other ceremonial activities associated with these sites include the “killing” of ceramic pots.

Year-round occupation of the coast and along the rivers occurred with special use-activity sites located in other locales, including short-term coastal campsites. Excavations at the Sligh and Lake Jessup South sites suggest that they served as villages or long-term encampments (Dickinson and Wayne 1996; Wayne and Dickinson 1993). The wide variety of tools and abundance of ceramics suggests a relatively sedentary group. Hunting, food preparation, and tool making were common site activities. The site pattern consists of small, probably individual household midden deposits with structural evidence limited to arcs of shallow post holes, often shell-filled, and fire pits (Dickinson and Wayne 1996:108). Hontoon Island has provided a wealth of data due to the preservation of many classes of artifacts within the inundated midden deposits. Evidence of an extensive wood-working tradition is

3-6 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

noted by the numerous carved items recovered from the river as well as the debitage remaining from the carving activities (Purdy 1987). The faunal and botanical analyses suggested that the site was occupied on a year-round basis and that most of the resources were collected within 5-10 kilometer [km] (3-6 miles [mi]) of the site (Newsom 1987; Wing and McKean 1987).

The survey of the Edgewater Landing tract recorded several shell midden deposits that date to this period (Johnson and Ste. Claire 1988). Excavations conducted at two of the sites indicated occupation during the St. Johns Ia and St. Johns Ib periods. Both sites were characterized as short-term camps established to harvest oysters and hardshell clams. The sites were occupied irregularly throughout the year, but contained evidence indicating that the sites were utilized during all seasons of the year (Russo et al. 1989). The Seminole Rest site is a large quahog clam-processing center located along Mosquito Lagoon (Horvath 1995). The faunal analysis indicated that the site was used throughout the year, but did not appear to be occupied on a year-round basis (Quitmyer 1995). Although located along the lagoon’s shore, fish made up only a small portion of the diet, less than 15%, and mammals even less (Kozuch 1995).

3.4 Mississippian

The St. Johns II period has been divided into three sub-periods: St. Johns IIa (750 – 1050 CE), St. Johns IIb (1050 – 1513 CE), and St. Johns IIc (1513 – 1565 CE). These periods are marked by the presence of St. Johns Check Stamped pottery. St. Johns II carries on the tradition and is marked only by the introduction of check-stamped pottery (Goggin 1952:70). Occupation of riverine and coastal shell middens continued, although Miller (1998:80) notes that there is a relative increase in the number of non-riverine and non-coastal sites, perhaps as the result of locating sites in more agriculturally suited locales.

Hunting and gathering remained important but the dependence upon cultivated crops such as maize, squash, and gourds increased in some areas. The use of gourds as domesticates is still being studied as there is no evidence for cultivation even though gourds and squashes have been around for thousands of years prior to this period (Newsom et al. 1993). In the upper St. Johns basin, the practice of horticulture was not adopted because the wetland ecology and subsistence strategies were different (Russo 1984; Sigler-Eisenberg 1984a; Sigler-Eisenberg et al. 1985). At the Gauthier site, fish and aquatic turtles were the primary subsistence items, with relatively little reliance upon terrestrial game or freshwater shellfish (Sigler-Eisenberg 1984b).

There was an increase in the number and size of villages during the St. Johns IIa period suggesting population expansion. A ranked society may have evolved as evidenced by the differential burial customs. No longer were all people interred in burial mounds. Deagan (1978:109) notes that around 1000 CE a population shift from the more southern and southwestern areas into the northern areas is evidenced by changes in relative frequencies of burial mounds in the areas over time. Excavations of several burial mounds revealed a new pattern in that the burials were placed on their backs with their heads or feet pointing toward the mound center (Jennings et al. 1957; Willey 1954).

The St. Johns IIb period (ca. 900-1250/1300 CE) is characterized by the adoption of some Mississippian traits into the ceremonial system as well as the presence of St. Johns Simple Stamped ceramics. The Mississippian lifestyle, however, never became dominant, possibly because the soils were not suitable for full agricultural pursuits. A more complex socio-political organization is suggested by the presence of platform mounds at the ceremonial centers: Mill Cove Complex near the mouth of the St. Johns River and Mt. Royal just north of Lake George (Ashley 2012). Copper beads and ornaments, as well as greenstone celts, have been recovered from several sites, indicating contact with

3-7 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

the Mississippian world. Mt. Royal has been considered a center of dispersal in the marine shell trade due to the tremendous quality of unmodified whelk shells recovered from the mound (Ashley 2005). By around 1300 CE, influence from the Mississippian world waned, probably due to the fall and abandonment of the Macon Plateau to the north and the disruption of the existing interaction networks. At that time, the major sites were apparently abandoned and the St. Johns II people moved further south, up the St. Johns River. However, within two centuries, the introduction of corn farming and the shift from long-distance trading to territorial raiding created the volatile landscape that was encountered by the Europeans when they first arrived (Ashley 2012:125).

The St. Johns IIc period is marked by the introduction of European artifacts. Three Native American ethnic groups were known to inhabit east central Florida at the time of Spanish contact: the Ais, the Mayaca, and the Jororo. The Ais lived along the Atlantic Coast and were closely involved with the Spanish. They inhabited the coastal strand and Indian River areas. They apparently mixed indigenous hunting/gathering/fishing economy with the salvaging of Spanish shipwrecks (Milanich 1995:64-65). The Mayaca occupied eastern Lake, western Volusia, and Seminole counties. The Jororo occupied the area of Orange and Seminole Counties, extending southward into Polk and Highlands Counties (Milanich 1995). They pursued a hunting-gathering-fishing economy (Newsom 1987). Although these Indians apparently continued the St. Johns tradition, they did not share the same Timucuan language as the St. Johns people further north (Milanich 1995).

3.5 Colonialism

The cultural traditions of the native Floridians ended with the advent of European expeditions to the New World. The initial events, authorized by the Spanish crown in the 1500s, ushered in devastating European contact. The first European to have contact with the west coast of Florida was Ponce de León. Arriving in St. Augustine in 1513, his journals record his exploration of the Gulf Coast of Florida from Charlotte Harbor to Apalachee Bay. Next, Pánfilo de Narvaéz arrived in the Tampa Bay area in 1528. His party explored northward from Tampa Bay eventually crossing the Withlacoochee River near present day Dunnellon and investigating the mouth of the river in search of the Gulf of Mexico. Finally, Hernando DeSoto landed in the Tampa Bay area in 1539; he sought the allegedly rich Indian village of Cale. By the early 1700s, the native populations were largely destroyed by conquest and disease, the typical effects of European contact.

In 1757, Francisco Maria Celi traveled up the Hillsborough River to a point located in what is now probably Hillsborough River State Park (Arnade 1968). During the same century, Bernard Romans conducted another exploration of the Hillsborough River area (Romans 1961). Romans, commissioned by the British authorities to map and survey the southern district of North America, named the Hillsborough River in honor of Lord Hillsborough, England's Secretary of State for the Colonies.

The area that now constitutes the State of Florida was ceded to England in 1763 after two centuries of Spanish possession. England governed Florida until 1783, when the Treaty of Paris returned Florida to Spain. Spanish influence was nominal during this second period of ownership. Prior to the American colonial settlement of Florida, portions of the Creek Nation and remnants of other Indian groups from Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina moved into Florida and repopulated the vacuum created by the decimation of the aboriginal inhabitants. The Seminoles, as these migrating groups of Indians became known, formed at various times loose confederacies for mutual protection against the new American Nation to the north (Tebeau 1980).

3-8 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

3.6 Territorial and Statehood

The bloody conflict between the Americans and the Seminoles over Florida first came to a head in 1818, and was subsequently known as the First Seminole War. Florida became a United States Territory in 1821 because of the war and the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819. Andrew Jackson, named provisional governor, divided the territory into St. Johns and Escambia Counties. At that time, St. Johns County encompassed all of Florida lying east of the Suwannee River including present day Sumter County, and Escambia County included the land lying to the west. In the first territorial census in 1825, some 5077 persons reportedly lived east of the Suwannee River; by 1830 that number had risen to 8956 (Tebeau 1980:134).

Even though the First Seminole War was fought in north Florida, the Treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823, at the end of the War, was to affect the settlement of South Florida. The Seminoles relinquished their claim to the whole peninsula in return for an approximately four million-acre reservation south of Ocala and north of Charlotte Harbor (Mahon 1985). The treaty never satisfied the Indians or the Anglo- Americans. The inadequacy of the reservation and desperate situation of the Seminoles living there, plus the mounting demand of the whites for their removal, soon produced another conflict.

In 1824, Cantonment (later Fort) Brooke was established by Colonel George Mercer Brooke on the south side of the mouth of the Hillsborough River to overseeing the angered Seminoles. Frontier families followed the soldiers and initiated the settlement of the Tampa Bay area. This caused problems for the military as civilian settlements were not in accord with the Treaty of Moultrie Creek (Guthrie 1974). By 1830, the War Department established a military reserve around Fort Brooke with boundaries extending 16 miles to the north, west, and east. The military reservation contained a guardhouse, barracks, storehouse, powder magazine, and stables. Two years before, William G. Saunders of Mobile, Alabama had opened a general store (Tebeau 1980:146). In 1825, a military road, called Fort King Road, was cleared between Fort Brooke and Fort King (now Ocala) (Horgan et al. 1992).

On December 28, 1835, Major Francis Langhorne Dade was leading a company of soldiers from Fort Brooke to Fort King along the Fort King Road. Only three of the 108 men under Dade’s command survived the Seminole attack led by Chief Jumper. The attack served as a trigger for the Second Seminole War and as a battle cry for the removal of the Seminoles. In 1837, General Thomas Jessup was traveling from Fort King to Fort Brooke when he realized the need for a supply depot between the two forts. To commemorate the slain company and their leader General Jessup established Fort Dade in 1837 near the site of the original battle. It operated for only a few months before closing (Horgan et al. 1992).

In 1837, Fort Brooke became the headquarters for the Army of the South and the main garrison for the Seminole wars. The fort also served as a haven for settlers who had to leave their farms and seek protection from the warring Seminoles (Janus Research 1992). The Second Seminole War lasted until 1842 when the federal government decided to end the conflict by withdrawing troops from Florida. Some of the battle-weary Seminoles were persuaded to migrate west where the federal government had set aside land for them. By 1843, 3824 Seminoles were shipped west. However, those who were adamant about remaining could do so, but were pushed further south into the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp. This area became the last stronghold for the Seminoles (Mahon 1985:321). The surveys, military trails, and forts resulting from the war provided invaluable assistance in the settlement of Florida.

Encouraged by the passage of the Armed Occupation Act in 1842, which was designed to promote settlement and protect the Florida frontier, pioneers and their families moved south through Florida. The Act made available 200,000 acres outside the already developed regions south of

3-9 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Gainesville to the Peace River, barring coastal lands and those within a two-mile radius of a fort. It stipulated that any family or single man over 18 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).

In 1845, the Union admitted the State of Florida, with Tallahassee as the state capital. During this period, the federal government initiated surveys near the project area. The exterior boundaries of Township 19 South, Range 23 East were surveyed by L. M. Prevost and Henry Washington in the 1840s; the interior section lines were surveyed by B. F. Whitner in 1848 (Figure 3.2). The Plat depicts no historic features within the project area, other than the Ahapopka Road, which ran through the north half of Section 34 (State of Florida 1849). The land around the project area was described primarily as third rate pine land, with some second-rate pine along the northern line of Section 34 (State of Florida 1843:506-507, 1848:247-259).

Marion County, north of the project area, was formed in 1844 from parts of Alachua, Hillsborough, and Mosquito (later Orange) Counties (Florida Preservation Services [FPS] 1986). Soon after, in 1853, the legislature established Sumter County, which was named after General Thomas Sumter, a Revolutionary War hero. Although Adamsville was chosen as the first county seat, within a few years the government moved to Leesburg. In 1858, the county seat moved to Sumterville, at which time the community received postal service (Bradbury and Hallock 1962; Turner 1989). The 1860 census revealed a population of 1429. In 1887, portions of Sumter and Orange Counties were divided to create Lake County with Tavares as the county seat (Gordon 1989:84).

In December of 1855, the Third Seminole War or the Billy Bowlegs War (1855-1858) started because of pressure placed on Native Americans remaining in Florida to emigrate to the west. The war started in what is now Collier County when Seminole Chief Holatter-Micco, Billy Bowlegs, and 30 warriors attacked an army camp killing four soldiers and wounding four others. The attack was in retaliation for damage done by several artillerymen to banana plants belonging to Billy Bowlegs. This hostile action renewed state and federal interest in the final elimination of the Seminoles from Florida (Covington 1982).

Military action was not decisive in this Third Seminole War; therefore, in 1858 the U.S. Government resorted to monetary persuasion to induce the remaining of Seminoles to migrate west. Chief Billy Bowlegs accepted $5000 for himself and $2500 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 123 Seminoles. Stopping at Egmont Key, 41 captives and a Seminole woman guide were added to the group. On May 8, 1858, the War was declared over (Covington 1982:78-80).

3.7 Civil War and Aftermath

In 1861, Florida followed South Carolina’s lead and seceded from the Union in a prelude to the Civil War. Florida had much at stake in this war as evidenced in a report released from Tallahassee in June of 1861. It listed the value of land in Florida as $35,127,721 and the value of the slaves at $29,024,513 (Dunn 1989:59). Even though the coast of Florida experienced a naval blockade during the war, the interior of the state saw very little military action.

3-10 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big) ¹

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers

Figure 3.2.. 1849 Plat showing the project area.

3-11

Many male residents abandoned their farms and settlements to join the Union army at one of the coastal areas retained by the U.S. government or joined the Confederate cow cavalry. The Confederate cow cavalry provided one of the major contributions of the state to the Confederate war effort by supplying and protecting the transportation of beef to the government (Akerman 1976). Salt works along the Gulf Coast also functioned as a major contributor to the efforts of the Confederacy (Lonn 1965). The war lasted until 1865 when General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant.

Immediately following the war, the South underwent a period of “Reconstruction” to prepare the Confederate States for readmission to the Union. The program was administered by the U.S. Congress, and on July 25, 1868, Florida officially returned to the Union (Tebeau 1980:251). During the Reconstruction period, Florida's financial crisis, born of pre-war railroad bonded indebtedness, led Governor William Bloxham to search for a buyer for an immense amount of state lands. Bloxham's task was to raise adequate capital in one sale to free from litigation the remainder of state lands for desperately needed revenue. In 1881, Hamilton Disston, a Philadelphia investor and friend of Governor Bloxham, formed the Florida Land and Improvement Company, which purchased four million acres of swamp and overflowed land for one million dollars from the State of Florida to clear the state's debt. This transaction, which became known as the Disston Purchase, enabled the distribution of large land subsidies to railroad companies, inducing them to begin extensive construction programs for new lines throughout the state. Hamilton Disston and the railroad companies in turn sold smaller parcels of land (Tebeau 1980).

The end of the Civil War stimulated growth in the area. Southerners sought new homes to escape the unrest in the neighboring ex-Confederate states, and the war brought prosperity to many Northerners who sought vacation homes in warmer climates. After the war, most of the plantations in the area converted from cultivating sugar cane and cotton to growing citrus. The first groves in the region were established near Orange Lake, north of Ocala, and around Lake Weir, immediately north of the boundary between Sumter, Marion, and Lake Counties. The region was well known for producing two varieties of oranges: the “Parson Brown” and the “Pineapple.” Reverend Nathan Brown, a retired Methodist circuit rider, arrived in the Lake Weir area in 1847. He planted several seedlings that he had grown from fruit brought from Savannah, which developed into the “Parson Brown” variety. By the late 1870s and the early 1880s, Lake Weir was ringed with orange and lemon trees. Although citrus developed into the principal crop of the area, lumber, cotton, cattle, and truck farming also played an important role in the local economy (FPS 1986:31-33).

The railroad, with its ability to rapidly transport produce and people, had an immediate impact on the entire region. The Florida Railroad & Navigation Company (later the Florida Central and Peninsular [FCP] Railroad Company) laid tracks through Sumter County on its way from Fernandina to Tampa. In 1885, the railroad arrived in Bushnell, which was named after railroad surveyor J. W. Bushnell. By 1892, the railroad featured stops in Marion County at Citra, Anthony, Ocala, and Belleview before entering Sumter County and stopping at Oxford, Wildwood, Panasoffkee, Sumpterville [sic], Bushnell, and St. Catherine. This railway was eventually incorporated into the Seaboard Air Line (FPS 1986:45; Mann 1983:124). New residents and the increased income due to the sale of products to distant markets prompted the creation of new communities that prospered. Wildwood (1881), Oxford (1882), Summerfield (1885), Weirsdale (1885), Dallas (1888), and Bushnell (1885), all near the project area, received post offices during the 1880s (Bradbury and Hallock 1962). In addition, the FCP Railroad also constructed a line from Wildwood to Leesburg and points east in 1884, the communities of Bamboo and Orange Home developed because of the railroad. The Land and Dirt (Big) properties were initially owned by Matthew Cineton (1884), FCP (1893, 1896), David B. Leigh (1884), Hamilton Disston (1881), John D. Ward (1884), and Andrew I Haney (1889) (State of Florida n.d.:298).

3-12 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Immediately south of Sumter County, the Orange Belt Railroad Company, organized by Peter A. Demens (Piotr DeMentieff), constructed a rail line from Lake Monroe to the Gulf Coast location of St. Petersburg, a town Demens named after his native city of St. Petersburg, Russia. The railroad entered Pasco County, immediately south of Sumter County, in 1888, linking the county diagonally from Lacoochee in the northeast through San Antonio to Odessa in the southwest. The railway had many financial difficulties while under construction and in its early operation. Consequently, the Orange Belt Railroad was overtaken by the Plant System in 1895, thereafter operating under the names Sanford & St. Petersburg Railroad and the FCP Railroad. In 1902, it became the Atlantic Coast Line (Covington 1957; Horgan et al. 1992). Because of the stimulus caused by the capital of the railroads and the improved transportation systems, central Florida prospered. More settlers gained access to the state, land for citrus groves grew more accessible, and adequate and economical transportation for citrus crops and naval stores destined for northern markets became a reality.

Many small communities developed largely as lumber and turpentine towns along the route of the railroads. From the 1870s until World War II, turpentine and lumber played a major role in the economy of the region. Lumber, mill, crate, and turpentine companies thrived and mill towns were built. Harvesting of naval stores -- turpentine and resin -- brought turpentine camps. Each camp included a turpentine still, living quarters, buildings for producing barrels and pots, maintenance sheds for wagons, along with mule barns, and a commissary (Federal Writers' Project [FWP] 1939:61). During the 1910s, large tracts were leased for turpentine operations, and included those of the Marion Phosphate and Peninsular Naval Stores Co. (Sumter County Deed Book 1853-1928). Along the Sumter County side of the Withlacoochee, modern campgrounds now cover the site of a logging camp. Canals allowed the rolling of logs into the Withlacoochee by the operator, Cummer & Sons, headquartered in Jacksonville. Tramways covered the surrounding lands, a two- or three-story hotel, a commissary, and general store were constructed in the company logging town. Children of the company town attended school in nearby communities. Lumber and turpentine also played a major role in the development of Marion and Lake Counties along the Ocklawaha River and surrounding lakes (Almy et al. 1991).

The Great Freeze of 1894-95 severely affected the citrus industry in the region. In 1894, growers in the state had shipped more than one billion oranges to markets in the nation; only three percent of that amount was shipped the following year. The freeze in 1894-95 not only destroyed the fruit on the trees, but also killed the trees. In 1891-92, 171,610 trees bore fruit in Marion County, however, in 1895-1900 there were no fruit bearing trees in the county. The region entered a period of depression with many residents leaving Florida, thereby causing the dissolution of many small towns. Growers that remained diversified into cattle and truck crops including watermelons, cantaloupes, cabbages, and cucumbers. Over the twenty years following the freeze, small growers increasingly joined together to form cooperative associations and packing houses to jointly market their produce (FPS 1986:34-37).

3.8 Twentieth Century

The turn of the century prompted optimism and an excitement over growth and development. With increased financial resources and machinery, extensive reaches of the county’s lands were now available for development. An improving road system, increasing services, and a growing population were additional significant features of the era. The first twenty years of the new century witnessed the advent of progressivism in which governments expanded their services beyond the traditional limits of the previous century. In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt signed a proclamation establishing the first national forest east of the Mississippi. This national forest, the Ocala National Forest, is located between the Ocklawaha and St. Johns Rivers in eastern Marion and northern Lake Counties (Ott and

3-13 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Chazal 1966). The Ocala National Forest, as well as continuing efforts to develop Silver Springs, which had attracted visitors since the 1870s, drew an increasing number of tourists to the region.

In 1911, the Sumter County Seat moved to Bushnell, which incorporated in 1913. After the move, the county constructed a brick Neoclassical Revival courthouse in 1913 and 1914. The region also received the first modern conveniences such as telephones, automobiles, and electric. In 1910, D. W. Swicord constructed a hotel in Coleman, which had been settled in 1882, to serve businesspeople that arrived to purchase crops. Each room in the hotel contained a phone as the town owned its own telephone system (Turner 1989:98). Florida’s prosperity during the 1910s led to a surge in corporate investment. Among companies organized to develop and sell real estate in north Sumter County were the Terrell Land & Development Co. (1910s), the Batchelor Co., the McNair & Wade Land Co. (1914), Florida National Land Co., and Florida Garden Land Co. (Sumter County Deed Book 1853-1928).

The expanding road system, mild winters, new hotels, and propaganda, which advertised the state as a tropical paradise, prompted the Florida Land Boom of the 1920s, spurring widespread development of towns and highways. The “good roads movement” of the early twentieth century and the passage by Congress of the Bankhead Act, which provided federal funds for the construction of roads, prompted the creation of the State Road Department in 1915. Cities and counties, anticipating continued prosperity, approved enormous bond issues during the 1920s to build roads and bridges. In 1921, the first state gasoline tax passed, and by 1923, the legislature had created a system of state roads thereby assuming responsibility for road designation, construction, and maintenance. From 1925 to 1929, the state constructed over 2000 miles of highway and 17 miles of bridges. By 1926, the state had constructed State Road 36 (now State Road 44) to link Inverness to Wildwood to Leesburg and points east (Citrus County Chamber of Commerce 1926; Jackson 1992).

New tourists and residents prompted the construction of new buildings and subdivisions throughout Florida, often in the popular Mediterranean Revival style. During the 1920s land boom, Joseph Moreland developed Moreland Park, north of Wildwood, as the county’s first planned subdivision with electric lights, city water, parks, and playgrounds. In 1925, the city of Coleman, then known as the “cabbage capital of the world,” paved the town’s streets, and installed electric lights (Reeves 1989). By 1926-27, the bottom fell out of the Florida real estate market. Massive freight car congestion from hundreds of loaded cars sitting in railroad yards caused the Florida East Coast Railway to embargo all but perishable goods in August of 1925. The embargo spread to other railroads throughout the state, and, thus, most construction halted. The 1926 real estate economy in Florida was based upon such wild land speculations that banks could not keep track of loans or property values. By October, rumors were rampant in northern newspapers concerning fraudulent practices in the real estate market in south Florida. Confidence in the Florida real estate market quickly diminished, investors could not sell lots, and depression hit Florida earlier than the rest of the nation.

At the same time, the agriculture industry suffered a devastating infestation by the Mediterranean fruit fly, which endangered the future of the entire citrus industry (Mormino and Pizzo 1983). To make the situation even worse two hurricanes hit south Florida in 1926 and 1928. The hurricanes destroyed confidence in Florida as a tropical paradise and created a flood of refugees fleeing northward. Soon after, the October 1929 stock market crash and the onset of the Great Depression left the area in a state of stagnation. The 1930s saw the closing of mines and mills and widespread unemployment.

By the mid-1930s, the New Deal programs implemented by the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration started employing large numbers of workers, helping to revive the economy of the state. The programs, aimed at pulling the nation out of the Depression, were instrumental in the construction of roads, bridges, parks, and public buildings. Legislation, such as the Hayden-Cartwright Act of 1934,

3-14 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

expended approximately one million dollars of federal funds for highway construction between 1933 and 1938. In Florida, spending increased from over $12 million in 1930 to over $62 million in 1934 with an average of $54 million during the mid-1930s (Jackson 1992). One project, the Federal Writers’ Project of the Work Projects Administration, recorded descriptions of Summerfield, Wildwood, Coleman, Sumterville, and Bushnell. The stretch of road between Summerfield and Wildwood was described in the following way:

...the terrain changes from rolling, densely forested lands to open flat pine woods. Although the soil in low areas is sour, wild flowers grow profusely in all but the coldest months, notably gallberry, an evergreen with tiny white blossoms. In early spring the swamps are filled with blue iris. Later, red and yellow deergrass appears, and scarlet- striped tiger lilies. In places the highway is bordered with wide-spreading, moss- draped oaks planted before 1880, and in others with stone fences covered with wild blackberry vines. Most of the land is under cultivation; fields of tomatoes and corn are harvested throughout April; by late May watermelons are sent to market (FWP 1939:535).

Wildwood, with a population of 1409, was described as “a railroad center...[with] the freight classification yards of the Seaboard Air Line, ... [and] the repair shops and icing stations for refrigerator cars.” Coleman, with 786 occupants, served as “a railroad shipping point for agricultural products...[with] a crate factory and several hardwood lumber mills. Naval stores operations and the cutting of ties furnish additional employment.” Bushnell, with only 591 residents, was a “shipping point for winter vegetables, citrus fruit, dairy and poultry products” (FWP 1939:535-536).

By 1940, recovery from the Great Depression was imminent. The incoming service men and women renewed the area economy. Federal roads, channel building, and airfield construction for the wartime defense effort brought numerous Americans into Florida. As World War II ended, Sumter County, like most of Florida, experienced a population boom in the 1950s. For example, the population of Wildwood nearly doubled between 1940 and 1950 and Florida’s population increased from 1,897,414 to 2,771,305 (Almy et al. 1991; Forstall 1995). After the war, car ownership increased making the American public more mobile, making vacations less expensive and easier. Many who had served at Florida’s military bases during World War II also returned with their families to live. As veterans returned, the trend in new housing focused on the development of small tract homes in new subdivisions. Development and settlement patterns over the latter half of the twentieth century have pushed outward along coastal areas and through the center of the state along the Interstate 4 corridor. Largely, the post-World War II development of Sumter County is like that of the rest of America: increasing numbers of automobiles and asphalt, an interstate highway system, suburban sprawl, and strip development along major state highways.

Despite the arrival of the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 75, completed through Sumter County in the 1960s and 1970s, much of the region remains rural in nature. In the early 1970s, Harold Schwartz purchased the Orange Blossom Garden Manufactured Home Park and began developing the area with his son Gary Morse, into what has become known as The Villages Retirement Community. There are about 40,000 homes, with an estimated 110,000 individuals expected by the time the community has been completed (Barbiarz Law Firm 2012). In 2010, the population of Sumter County totaled 93,420, ranking as the 36th most populous county in the state, increasing in population 57% from the previous decade (USCB 2016). The 2010 population of The Villages was 51,442, with 52.9% of the county’s population being over 65. The largest employers are corrections, supermarkets and retail, and education (Sumter County Economic Development 2016). Agricultural products included tomatoes, cucumber, eggplant, and peppers as well as cattle and poultry with lumber and wood products firms accounting for the greatest share of manufacturing employment (Purdum 1994).

3-15 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

3.9 Project Area Specifics

A review of the aerial photographs available from the Publication of Archival and Museum Materials (PALMM) indicates no major development of the project area in 1941, but over the years, the area has been converted to pastures and agricultural fields, and several structures were constructed (USDA 1941, 1952, 1953, 1960, 1969, 1984) (Figure 3.3).

3-16 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big) 2-13-41 CTV-5B-74 ¹

00.250.5 00.51 Miles Kilometers

12-4-69 CTV-1LL-30 ¹

00.250.5 00.51 Miles Kilometers

Figure 3.3. 1941 and 1969 aerial photographs of the project area (USDA 1941, 1969).

3-17

4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODOLOGIES

4.1 Background Research and Literature Review

A review of archaeological and historical literature, records, and other documents and data pertaining to the project area was conducted. The focus of this research was to ascertain the types of cultural resources known in the project area and vicinity, their temporal/cultural affiliations, site location information, and other relevant data. This included a review of sites listed in the NRHP, the FMSF, cultural resource survey reports, published articles, and unpublished manuscripts and maps. The FMSF October 2016 data were examined, but may not reflect all resources recorded, as there is some delay in input of newly received site file forms and survey reports. In addition to the FMSF, other documents relevant to the research were obtained from the Sumter County Property Appraiser’s Office, the Historical Society of Sumter County, and from the files of ACI.

4.2 Archaeological Considerations

The purpose of a preliminary archaeological assessment is to understand, based on prior investigations, the spatial distribution of known (recorded) archaeological resources in an area. Such knowledge serves not only to generate an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of sites which might be anticipated to occur within the project area, but also provides a valuable regional perspective, and thus, a basis for evaluating any new sites discovered.

The archaeological background research indicated that one archaeological (8SM00528) is located adjacent to the project area, and an additional 26 sites are located within one mile (Figure 4.1). All but four of the sites have been deemed ineligible for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO; three have insufficient data to decide as to NRHP-eligibility, and one has not been evaluated by the SHPO. Data on all the sites are presented in Table 4.1, with a more in-depth discussion of 8SM00528 (Susan B) as it is adjacent to the project area. Table 4.2 provides a list of the CRAS reports for projects conducted within one mile of the Land and Dirt (Big) properties.

The Susan B site was recorded during the survey of the Southern Oaks DRI (Ambrosino 2009). Lithic debitage, a biface fragment, Pasco Plain pottery, and historic glass were recovered during the initial investigation. One shovel test was excavated at 8SM00528 during the reconnaissance survey of Bigham property, but no additional materials were recovered (Dunn 2011). The survey of the Hunt parcel included the excavation of nine shovel tests adjacent to the western boundary of the site; all were negative (ACI 2016b). The SHPO has deemed this site ineligible for listing in the NRHP.

Based on these data, and other regional site location predictive models developed for the Villages of Lake-Sumter (ACI 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006b, 2006c, 2012, 2016a; Almy 2001, 2003) informed expectations concerning the types of sites likely to occur within the project area, as well as their probable environmental settings, was generated. As archaeologists have long realized, aboriginal populations did not select their habitation sites and activity areas in a random fashion. Rather, many environmental factors had a direct influence upon site location selection. Among these variables are soil drainage, distance to freshwater, relative topography, and proximity to food and other resources. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that non-coastal archaeological sites are most often located near a permanent or semi-permanent source of potable water. In addition, aboriginal sites are generally found on better-drained soils, and at the upland margins of wetland features such as swamps, sinkholes, lakes, and ponds. Upland sites well removed from potable water are rare. In the pine flatwoods, sites tend to be situated on ridges and knolls near a freshwater source.

4-1 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big) Legend archaeological site ¹ historic structure ZAP 8SM00528

8SM00524 8SM00242

8SM00781 8SM00525

8SM00622 8SM00526

8SM00523 8SM00402 8SM00780 8SM00784 8SM00527 8SM00494 8SM00512

8SM00511

8SM00773

8SM00144 8SM00514 8SM00529 8SM00360

8SM00364 8SM00516 8SM00142 8SM00515 8SM00145 8SM00513 8SM00141 8SM00365

Figure 4.1. Location of the previously recorded cultural resources proximate to the project area and the zones of archaeological potential (ZAP).

4-2

Table 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the Land and Dirt (Big) properties. SITE SHPO FMSF # SITE TYPE CULTURE REFERENCE NAME EVAL Campsite; lithic Louis Berger & 8SM00141 Wright #4 Indeterminate Ineligible scatter Associates 1992 Chambless et al. 2015; Campsite; lithic 8SM00142 Wright #5 Indeterminate Louis Berger & Ineligible scatter Associates 1992 Campsite; lithic Louis Berger & 8SM00144 Wright #7 Indeterminate Ineligible scatter Associates 1992 Campsite; lithic Louis Berger & 8SM00145 Wright #8 Indeterminate Ineligible scatter Associates 1992 Campsite; artifact 8SM00242 CCC-3 Archaic Dickinson et al. 2002 Ineligible scatter Campsite; artifact Louis Berger & 8SM00360 Frost Indeterminate Ineligible scatter Associates 1991 Farmstead Building remains; 19th & 20th Louis Berger & Insufficient 8SM00364 # 2 artifact scatter century Associates 1991 Info Tobacco Agriculture/Farm Louis Berger & Insufficient 8SM00365 20th century Barn structure Associates 1991 Info Bingham Campsite; lithic Middle Archaic; ACI 2004, 2006a; Dunn 8SM00402 Ineligible Ranch scatter St. Johns 2011 Bigham Indeterminate; 8SM00494 Artifact scatter Cremer 2006 Ineligible Sink Safety Harbor Late Archaic; 8SM00511 Clara Artifact scatter Weeden Island; Ambrosino 2009 Ineligible Post-1821 8SM00512 Desmond Artifact scatter Indeterminate Ambrosino 2009 Ineligible 8SM00513 Ernest Lithic scatter Indeterminate Ambrosino 2009 Ineligible 8SM00514 Fanny Artifact scatter Indeterminate Ambrosino 2009 Ineligible Artifact scatter; 8SM00515 George 20th century Ambrosino 2009 Ineligible historic refuse Campsite; artifact Ambrosino 2009; Austin 8SM00516 Hector Post-Archaic Ineligible scatter 2009 Indeterminate; 8SM00523 Winnie Artifact scatter Ambrosino 2009 Ineligible Weeden Island 8SM00524 Xerxes Lithic scatter Indeterminate Ambrosino 2009 Ineligible 8SM00525 Yorick Artifact scatter Indeterminate Ambrosino 2009 Ineligible Indeterminate; 8SM00526 Zillah Lithic scatter Ambrosino 2009 Ineligible Weeden Island Indeterminate; 8SM00527 A Neville Artifact scatter Ambrosino 2009 Ineligible Weeden Island Campsite; lithic Post-Archaic; ACI 2016b; Ambrosino 8SM00528 Susan B Ineligible scatter; historic refuse 20th century 2009; Dunn 2011 Campsite; artifact ACI 2011; Ambrosino Insufficient 8SM00529 MaudE Weeden Island scatter 2009; Austin 2009 Info Bigham Campsite; lithic Not 8SM00622 Indeterminate Dunn 2011 scatter scatter Evaluated Cardno ENTRIX and 8SM00773 FL-754 Lithic scatter Indeterminate Ineligible SEARCH 2014 8SM00780 FL-844 Artifact scatter St. Johns Cardno ENTRIX 2015 Ineligible 8SM00781 FL-846 Lithic scatter Indeterminate Cardno ENTRIX 2015 Ineligible

4-3 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Table 4.2. CRAS reports for surveys conducted within one mile of the Land and Dirt (Big) properties. # of # of SURVEY previously PROJECT new REFERENCE # recorded sites sites Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey (CRS): Proposed Federal Correctional Complex, Louis Berger & 2750 0 0 Federal Bureau of Prisons, Sumter County, Associates 1991 Florida. Phase 1B CRS of the Proposed Federal Louis Berger & 3395 Correctional Complex, Federal Bureau of 12 0 Associates 1992 Prisons, Coleman, Sumter County, Florida CRS and Assessment Continental Country 7109 1 0 Dickinson et al. 2002 Club - Phase III Sumter County, Florida CRAS, Bigham Properties at CR 468 and the 10166 1 0 ACI 2004 Florida Turnpike, Sumter County, Florida A Phase I Level Cultural Resources 13697 Assessment (CRA) of the Wildwood Springs 5 0 Cremer 2006 DRI. Tract, Sumter County, Florida CRAS CR 468/Florida Turnpike Interchange 14486 1 0 ACI 2006a Sumter County, Florida An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the 16668 Southern Oaks DRI Project Area in Sumter 22 3 Ambrosino 2009 County, Florida Cultural Resource Analysis and Reconnaissance Survey Technical 18329 Memorandum Florida Turnpike Widening from 4 3 ACI 2011 SR 50 to I-75 (MP 273 to MP 309) Orange, Lake, and Sumter Counties, Florida Trip Report, NRCS Bigham EQIP Sumter 18811 County Cultural Resources Reconnaissance 1 2 Dunn 2011 Survey Sabal Trail Transmission Phase I CRAS (Alachua, Citrus, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lake, Cardno ENTRIX and 21431 216 40 Levy, Madison, Marion, Orange, Osceola, SEARCH 2014 Polk, Suwannee, Sumter Counties, Florida) CRAS of CR 501 From CR 470 to CR 468, 21988 1 2 Chambless et al. 2015 Sumter County, Florida CRAS: Sabal Trail Project Phase I Addendum 21991 20 7 Cardno ENTRIX 2015 Report CRAS of the Hunt Property, Sumter County, NA 2 0 ACI 2016b Florida

It should be noted that this settlement pattern could not be applied to sites of the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, which precede the onset of modern environmental conditions. These were tied to water and lithic resources much more so than during the later periods. The property was considered to have a moderate potential for archaeological sites within the better drained areas proximate to the karst depressions (Figure 4.1). Areas greater than 200 m (656 ft) from a water source were considered to have low archaeological potential.

4-4 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

The potential for yet unrecorded historic period archaeological sites was also assessed and found to be low. The exterior boundaries of Township 19 South, Range 23 East were surveyed by L. M. Prevost and Henry Washington in the 1840s; the interior sections were surveyed by B. F. Whitner in 1848. The Plat depicts no historic features within the project area, other than the Ahapopka Road, which ran through the north half of Section 34 (State of Florida 1849). A review of the historic aerial photos indicated no major development of the project area in 1941, but over the years, the area has been converted to pastures and agricultural fields (USDA 1941, 1952, 1953, 1960, 1969, 1984) (see Figure 3.3). A couple of structures appear to have been constructed in the 1950s, so archaeological deposits associated with these occupations may be expected.

4.3 Historical Considerations

Background research also indicated that one recorded historic (50 years of age or more) resource (buildings, structures, cemeteries, bridges) is located within the project area. 8SM00784, located at 2467 CR 501, is a Masonry Vernacular style residence that was built around 1952 (Chambless et al. 2015). It was adjudged ineligible for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO. The historic aerial photos and the Sumter County property appraiser’s data suggests the potential for one other historic structure on the property (Hooten 2016; USDA 1941, 1952, 1953, 1960, 1969, 1984).

4.4 Field Methodology

The archaeological field methodology consisted of an initial reconnaissance of the parcels. Following ground surface inspection, systematic subsurface shovel testing was carried out. Shovel tests were placed at 25 m (82 ft) intervals proximate to the previously recorded site, and at 50 m (164 ft) intervals around the wetland/karst depression margins, and at 100 m (328 ft) intervals or judgmentally throughout the remainder of the tract. Ten-meter (33 ft) interval testing was conducted to delimit the archaeological occurrences (AOs). An AO is defined as “one or two non-diagnostic artifacts, not known to be distant from the original context, which fit within a hypothetical cylinder of thirty meters diameter, regardless of depth below surface” (FMSF 1999:10). Shovel tests were circular, and measured approximately 50 centimeters (cm) (20 inches [in]) in diameter by at least 1 m (3.3 ft) in depth, unless precluded by natural impediments such as water intrusion. The soil removed from the shovel tests was screened through .64 cm (.25 in) mesh hardware cloth to assure the recovery of any artifacts. The locations of the shovel tests were recorded using a Trimble 7X or plotted on the aerial map, and, following the recording of relevant data such as environmental setting, stratigraphic profile, and artifact finds, all shovel tests were backfilled. Any cultural materials recovered were placed in resealable plastic bags with the appropriate provenience information recorded on them.

Historical field methodology consisted of a reconnaissance of the area to determine the location of all historic properties believed to be 50 years of age or older, and to ascertain if any resources within the project area could be eligible for listing in the NRHP. This was followed by an in-depth study of each identified historic resource. Photographs were taken and information needed for the completion of FMSF forms was gathered. In addition to architectural descriptions, each historic property was reviewed to assess style, historic context, and potential NRHP eligibility. Pertinent records housed at the FMSF, State Library of Florida, and Property Appraiser’s office were examined. In addition, residents or other knowledgeable persons were interviewed to obtain information concerning site- specific building construction dates and/or possible association with individuals or events significant to local or regional history. A visual reconnaissance survey of the project area vicinity was also conducted to ascertain whether any potential historic district existed within or adjacent to the project area.

4-5 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

4.5 Unexpected Discoveries

If human burial sites such as Indian mounds, lost historic and prehistoric cemeteries, or other unmarked burials or associated artifacts were found, then the provisions and guidelines set forth in Chapter 872.05, FS (Florida’s Unmarked Burial Law) were to be followed. However, it was not anticipated that such sites would be found during this survey.

4.6 Laboratory Methods and Curation

The cultural materials were cleaned and sorted by artifact class. The lithic debitage was subjected to a limited technological analysis focused on ascertaining the stages of stone tool production. The flakes were measured, and examined for raw material types and absence or presence of thermal alteration. They were classified into four types (primary decortication, secondary decortication, non- decortication, and shatter) based on the amount of cortex on the dorsal surface and the shape (White 1963). Aboriginal pottery was classified based on the characteristics of temper type and decoration (Cordell 1987, 2004; Goggin 1948; Luer and Almy 1980; Willey 1949). In addition, standard references would have been used to aide in the identification of historic period artifacts to ascertain site function and temporal placement. Faunal material would have been initially sorted into class (mammal, reptile, bony fish, etc.); within these broad categories, identifiable elements would have been classified as to genus and species, where possible.

The artifacts, field notes, and other project documentation will be housed at ACI in Sarasota (P16082) unless the client requests otherwise.

4-6 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Archaeological Results

Archaeological field survey entailed surface reconnaissance combined with systematic and judgmental subsurface testing. This resulted in the excavation of 282 shovel tests. Seventy-six were placed at 25 m (82 ft) intervals, 94 were placed at 50 m (164 ft) intervals and 43 were placed at 100 m intervals. Sixty-nine shovel tests were judgmentally placed (Figure 5.1). This resulted in the recording of three new archaeological sites and three AOs. These each consisted of an isolated piece of lithic debitage. The archaeological sites consist of two lithic scatters (8SM00953, 8SM00955) and a ceramic scatter (8SM00954). 8SM00528 (Figure 4.1) is adjacent to the north edge of the property, but testing in that area revealed no evidence of the site; the site form has not been updated. The new FMSF forms are contained in Appendix A and the survey log is contained in Appendix B.

The Turnpike South Sink (8SM00953) site is in the northwest quarter of Section 34 in Township 19 South, Range 23 East (USGS Leesburg West). The site occurs on Tavares fine sand, 0-5% slopes, which is a moderately well drained soil of low, broad ridges and knolls (Yamataki et al. 1988). The soil stratigraphy consists of 0-30 cm (0-12 in) grayish brown sand and 30-100 cm (12-40 in) light brown sand. The site is situated around a sinkhole at an elevation is between 21 and 24 m (70-80 ft) amsl. The area is currently a pasture.

Twenty-two shovel tests were excavated in Photo 5.1. Turnpike South Sink (8SM00953) this area at 25 m (82 ft) intervals, of which nine site, facing north. produced cultural materials from a depth of 30-100 cm (12-40 in). Based on the testing, the site extends roughly 250 m (820 ft) north/south by 100 m (328 ft) east/west and covers area of roughly 6590 square meters (sq m) or 1.6 acres (ac).

The artifact assemblage consists of lithic debitage (N=69), all of which is chert. Almost half (N=30) of the debitage had been thermally altered, which suggests and Middle/Late Archaic occupation (cf., Ste. Claire 1987). There are 57 non-decortication flakes, one primary decortication flake, eight secondary decortication flakes, and two pieces of shatter. In terms of size, there are three small (0-1 cm2 / 0-.15 in2), 35 medium (1-2 cm2 / .15-.31 in2), 28 large (2-3 cm2 / .31-.46 in2), two X4 (3-4 cm2 / .46-.62 in2), and one X6 (.78-.93 in). The assemblage suggests the middle to late stages of tool manufacture and/or maintenance.

The Turnpike South Sink (8SM00953) site most likely represents a series of short-term encampments established to utilize the resources associated with the adjacent sinkhole. Although of interest in terms of settlement pattern and land use studies, the relatively low artifact density and diversity suggest a low research potential, and as such, is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.

5-1 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big) Legend A! match point ¹ GF Shovel test - positive Shovel test - negative " Historic house & burial (south side of house) Archaeological site

8SM00954

8SM00953

AO #2

AO #1

GF GF GF A! GF GF GFGF GFGF GFGF

GF " GF 8SM00784 GFGF GF

8SM00955

0 500 1,000 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap Feet contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 0150300 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, Meters IGN, and the GIS User Community Figure 5.1.. Location of the shovel tests, AOs, archaeological sites, and historic resources within the Land and Dirt (Big) properties.

5-2 Legend A! match point ¹ GF Shovel test - positive Shovel test - negative " Historic house & burial (south side of house) " Historic structure Archaeological site

8SM00956

GF " GF GFGF GF AO #3

8SM00784

8SM00955

0 500 1,000 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap Feet contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 0150300 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, Meters IGN, and the GIS User Community Figure 5.2. Location of the shovel tests, AOs, archaeological sites, and historic resources within the Land and Dirt (Big) properties.

5-3

The Bigham South Plain (8SM00954) site is in the northwest quarter of Section 34 in Township 19 South, Range 23 East (USGS Leesburg West). The site occurs on Tavares fine sand, 0-5% slopes, which is a moderately well drained soil of low, broad ridges and knolls (Yamataki et al. 1988). The soil stratigraphy consists of 0-30 cm (0-12 in) grayish brown sand and 30-100 cm (12-40 in) light brown sand. The site is situated in a pasture at an elevation of 24 m (80 ft) amsl.

Nine shovel tests were excavated in this area at 10 m (33 ft) intervals, of which one produced cultural materials from a depth of 70-90 Photo 5.2. Bigham South Plain (8SM00954), cm (28-36 in). Based on the testing, the site site, facing south. extends roughly 10 m (33 ft) north/south by 10 m (33 ft) east/west, or 94 sq m (.025 ac).

The limited artifact assemblages contained one piece of sand tempered plain (STP) pottery and a piece of Pasco Brushed pottery that had broken into three pieces. This suggests site utilization during the Weeden Island or Safety Harbor period.

The Bigham South Plain (8SM00954) site most likely represents a short-term encampment established to utilize the locally available resources. Although of interest in terms of settlement pattern analysis, the low artifact density and diversity suggest a low research potential, and as such, is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.

The Bigham South Sink (8SM00955) site is in the southwest quarter of Section 34 in Township 19 South, Range 23 East (USGS Wildwood). The site occurs on Astatula fine sand, 0-8% slopes, which is an excessively drained soil of the sandhills (Yamataki et al. 1988). The soil stratigraphy consists of 0-30 cm (0-12 in) grayish brown sand and 30-100 cm (12-40 in) light brown sand. The site is situated in a pasture at an elevation between 21 and 24 m (70-80 ft) amsl.

Seventeen shovel tests were excavated in this area at 25 m (82 ft) intervals, of which five produced cultural materials from a depth of 30-100 cm (12-40 in). Based on the testing, the site extends Photo 5.3. Bigham South Sink (8SM00955), roughly 100 m (328 ft) north/south by 100 m (328 site, facing north. ft) east/west, or 4872 sq m (1.2 ac).

Thirty-one pieces of chert debitage were recovered from the site, of which nine had been thermally altered. The use of thermal alteration was most common during the Middle/Late Archaic period (Ste. Claire 1987). There are 20 non-decortication flakes, three primary decortication flakes, seven secondary decortication flakes, and one piece of shatter. In terms of size, there are there are 10 medium (1-2 cm2 / .15-.31 in2), 14 large (2-3 cm2 / .31-.46 in2), one X4 (3-4 cm2 / .46-.62 in2), and one

5-4 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

X5 (.46-.78 in). The assemblage suggests the middle to late stages of tool manufacture and/or maintenance.

The Bigham South Sink (8SM00955) site most likely represents a series of short-term encampments established to utilize the locally available resources. Although of interest in terms of settlement pattern and land use studies, the low artifact density and diversity suggest a low research potential, and as such, is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.

Archaeological Occurrences. All AOs were bounded at 10 m (33 ft) intervals, with the adjacent sinkhole margins being identified as the site boundary. AO #1 consists of a small chert non- decortication flake. It was recovered at 90 cm below surface (cmbs) (36 in) on the northeast side of a sinkhole. AO #2 is located on the southwest side of the same sinkhole. A X5 size chert non- decortication flake was recovered at 60 cmbs (24 in). AO #3 consists of a small chert non-decortication flake that was recovered at the west end of a sinkhole at 60-70 cmbs. (24-28 in). These isolated pieces of lithic debitage simply represent the ephemeral use of this area over several thousands of years. These are not considered significant cultural resources.

Potential Human Remains: Mr. James Dyals, resident at 5519 County Road 468, located in the northwest corner of the project area (Figure 5.2), reported that while he was planting citrus trees in the early 1990s, he uncovered an intact burial adjacent to the south side of the house (Photo 5.4). He described the burial as a single individual draped in a blue coat with a rifle. He reportedly contacted the National Cemetery in Bushnell and was advised to replace the soil over the burial and leave it undisturbed, which is what he said he did. The reported location was recorded, but no subsurface investigations were conducted as per the Florida Unmarked Burial Law. The area is overgrown with grass and weeds, and scattered with a variety of debris (Photo 5.4). The burial was reported to have been located between the lawn tractor and the third window over from the tractor. The client will have a GPR survey conducted prior to development. ACI will monitor the survey and coordinate with appropriate agencies, including the FDHR.

Photo 5.4. Purported location of a historic burial, immediately south of the house (8SM00784)

5-5 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big) 5.2 Historic Resources

Historical background research, including a review of the FMSF and the NRHP, revealed that one historic resource has been recorded within the property. 8SM00784 is a Masonry Vernacular style residence that has been determined ineligible for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO (Chambless et al. 2015). The FMSF form was not updated during this survey because the structure was recently recorded and no changes were noted. A review of the property appraiser data and historic aerial photos suggested the potential for one additional historic resource (Hooten 2016; USDA 1941, 1952, 1953, 1960, 1969, 1984). This structure, located at 5519 CR 468 has been recorded as 8SM00956 and the FMSF form is contained in Appendix A.

Photo 5.5. 5519 E CR 468 (8SM00956) looking south.

8SM00956: The Masonry Vernacular style residence at 5519 E County Road 468 was constructed circa 1950 (Photo 5.5). The one-story, rectangular plan building rests on a continuous foundation of concrete block and has painted concrete block walls partially sheathed in rectangular wood siding panels. The gable roof over the principal mass with a shed extension is clad in composition shingles. The main entrance is on the north elevation through a single door atop a three-step stoop beneath a gable roof overhang with a shed roof extension. Windows are a mixture of rectangular, metal, paired fixed pane and 4-pane casement units; independent, rectangular and square, metal, four- & three- pane casement units. The building appears to have been reroofed at some point. Distinguishing features include brick window sills, end gable vents, three-hole crawl-space concrete vents, and extended eaves with exposed rafter beams. The building is in fair condition but retains little original exterior fabric. Overall, it is a typical example of a Masonry Vernacular style building with alterations found throughout Sumter County; research revealed no significant historical associations. Thus, 8SM00956 is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP, either individually or as part of a historic district.

5.3 Conclusions

Based on the results of this CRAS, development of the 786-acre Land and Dirt (Big) Properties, except for the potential burial area adjacent (south) of previously recorded 8SM00784, will have no effect on any resources listed or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. Thus, no additional work is recommended for the property except a GPR survey by the client prior to land altering activities. ACI will be available to document the GPR survey and assist in developing a report for appropriate agencies, including the FDHR.

5-6 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

6.0 REFERENCES CITED

ACI 1999 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, The Villages of Sumter DRI, Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2001 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Substantial Deviation the Villages of Sumter DRI Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 1171 Acre Addition, VOS Substantial Deviation, The Villages of Sumter DRI, Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2004 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Bigham Properties at CR 468 and the Florida Turnpike. ACI, Sarasota. 2006a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey CR 468/Florida Turnpike Interchange Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2006b Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of Nine Parcels for the Villages of Sumter DRI Second N.O.P.C. to the Second Substantial Deviation Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2006c Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Villages of Sumter Third Substantial Deviation, Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2011 Cultural Resource Analysis and Reconnaissance Survey Technical Memorandum Florida Turnpike Widening from SR 50 to I-75 (MP 273 to MP 309) Orange, Lake, and Sumter Counties, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2012 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey The Baker Property at The Villages Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2016a Cultural Resoruce Assessment Desktop Analysis of the Bigham South Properties Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2016b Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Hunt Property, Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota.

ACI/Janus Research 2001 Phase III Mitigative Excavation at the Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (8VO53), Volusia County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota and Janus Research, Tampa.

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

Almy, Marion M. 2001 Letter to Ms. Laura Kammerer RE: Zones of Archaeological Probability - VOS Substantial Deviation, The Villages of Sumter DRI, Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2003 Letter to Ms. Laura Kammerer RE: Zones of Archaeological Probability - +/- 1000 Acre Addition, VOS Substantial Deviation: The Villages of Sumter DRI, Sumter County, Florida. On file, ACI, Sarasota.

Almy, Marion M., Joan Deming, Rebecca Spain-Schwarz, and Janet Snyder Mathews 1991 A Cultural Resources Survey of a Segment of State Road 44 from SR 45 (US 41) to I-75 in Citrus and Sumter Counties, Florida. ACI, Sarasota.

6-1 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Ambrosino, James N. 2009 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Southern Oaks DRI Project Area in Sumter County, Florida. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tampa.

Arnade, Charles W. 1968 Celi's Expedition to Tampa Bay: A Historical Analysis. Florida Historical Quarterly 47(1):1-7.

Ashley, Keith H. 2005 Archaeological Overview of Mt. Royal. The Florida Anthropologist 58(3-4):265-286. 2012 Early St. Johns II Interaction, Exchange, and Politics: A View from Northeastern Florida. In Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World. Edited by Keith Ashley and Nancy Marie White, pp. 100-125. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Aten, Lawrence E. 1999 Middle Archaic Ceremonialism at Tick Island, Florida: Ripley P. Bullen's 1961 Excavation at the Harris Creek Site. The Florida Anthropologist 52(3):131-200.

Austin, Robert J. 2001 Paleoindian and Archaic Archaeology in the Middle Hillsborough River Basin: A Synthetic Overview. SEARCH, Jonesville. 2009 Archaeological Summary Report of Previous Research and NRHP Eligibility Recommendations, Progress Energy Central Florida South Substation, Sumter County. SEARCH, Jonesville.

Barbiarz Law Firm, PA 2012 History of The Villages, FL. Accessed 5/17/16. http://www.golfcartsafety.com/history-of- the-villages.

Bradbury, Alford G. and E. Storey Hallock 1962 A Chronology of Florida Post Offices. Handbook 2. The Florida Federation of Stamp Clubs.

Bullen, Ripley P. 1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 6(1):43-53. 1962 Indian Burials at Tick Island. Year Book of the American Philosophical Society 1961:477- 480. 1970 The Transitional Period of Southern Southeastern United States as Viewed from Florida, or the Roots of the Gulf Tradition. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 13:63-70. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville.

Bullen, Ripley P., Adelaide K. Bullen, and William J. Bryant 1967 Archaeological Investigations at Ross Hammock Site, Florida. American Studies Report 7. The William L. Bryant Foundation, Orlando.

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

6-2 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Cardno ENTRIX 2015 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey: Sabal Trail Project Phase I Addendum Report. Cardno ENTRIX, Riverview.

Cardno ENTRIX and SEARCH 2014 Sabal Trail Transmission Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment Survey in Alachua, Citrus, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lake, Levy, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Sumter, and Suwannee Counties, Florida. Cardno ENTRIX, Riverview.

Carr, Robert S. and B. Calvin Jones 1981 Florida Anthropologist Interview with Calvin Jones, Part II -- Excavations of an Archaic Cemetery. The Florida Anthropologist 34(2):81-89.

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

Chambless, Elizabeth J., Melissa Dye, Mikel Travisano, and Benjamin Roberts 2015 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of CR 501 from CR 470 to CR 468, Sumter County, Florida. SEARCH, Jonesville.

Citrus County Chamber of Commerce 1926 Map of Citrus County, Florida. On file, P. K. Younge Collection, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Clausen, Carl J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman, and J. J. Stipp 1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203(4381):609-614.

Cordell, Ann S. 1987 Ceramic Technology at a Weeden Island Period Archaeological Site in North Florida. Ceramic Notes 2. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 2004 Paste Variability and Possible Manufacturing Origins of Late Archaic Fiber-Tempered Pottery from Selected Sites in Peninsular Florida. In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast. Edited by Rebecca Saunders and Christopher T. Hays, pp. 63-104. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Covington, James W. 1957 The Story of Southwestern Florida. Volume 1. Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., New York. 1961 The Armed Occupation Act of 1842. Florida Historical Quarterly 40(1):41-53. 1982 The Billy Bowlegs War 1855-1858: The Final Stand of the Seminoles Against the Whites. The Mickler House Publishers, Chuluota.

Cremer, David 2006 A Phase I Level Cultural Resources Assessment of the Wildwood Springs D.R.I. Tract, Sumter County, Florida. PBS&J, Tallahassee.

6-3 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Cumbaa, Stephen L. 1976 A Reconsideration of Freshwater Shellfish Exploitation in the Florida Archaic. The Florida Anthropologist 29(2, Part 1):49-59.

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

Davis, John H. 1980 General Map of Natural Vegetation of Florida. Circular S-178. Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Deagan, Kathleen A. 1978 Cultures in Transition: Assimilation and Fusion among the Eastern Timucua. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia During the Historic Period. Edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor, pp. 89-119. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

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

Dickinson, Martin F., Brian Erbe, and Lucy B. Wayne 2002 Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment Continental Country Club - Phase III Sumter County, Florida. SouthArc, Inc., Gainesville.

Dickinson, Martin F. and Lucy B. Wayne 1996 The Sligh Site (8Se1332): Data Recovery Excavations on Lake Jessup, Winter Springs, Seminole County, Florida. SouthArc, Inc., Gainesville.

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

Douglass, Andrew E. 1882 A Find of Ceremonial Axes in a Florida Mound. American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal 4:100-109.

Dunbar, James S. 1981 The Effect of Geohydrology and Natural Resource Availability on Site Utilization at the Fowler Bridge Mastodon Site (8Hi393c/uw) in Hillsborough County, Florida. In Report on Phase II Underwater Archaeological Testing at the Fowler Bridge Mastodon Site (8Hi393c/uw), Hillsborough County, Florida. Edited by Jill Palmer, James S. Dunbar and Danny H. Clayton, pp. 63-106. Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeological Report 5. FDHR, Tallahassee. 2006a Paleoindian Archaeology. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Edited by S. David Webb, pp. 403-435. Springer, The Netherlands. 2006b Paleoindian Land Use. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Edited by S. David Webb, pp. 525-544. Springer, The Netherlands. 2006c Pleistocene-Early Holocene Climate Change: Chronostratigraphy and Geoclimate of the Southeast US. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Edited by S. David Webb, pp. 103-155. Springer, The Netherlands.

6-4 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Dunbar, James S. 2016 Paleoindian Societies of the Coastal Southeast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

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

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

Dunn, Shannon 2011 Trip Report, NRCS Bigham EQIP Sumter County Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey. NRCS, Gainesville.

Ellis, Gary D., Russell A. Dorsey, and Robin Denson 1994 Cultural Resources Study of Seminole County, Florida: Archaeology. Gulf Archaeological Research Institute, Lecanto.

Endonino, Jon C. 2007 A Reevaluation of the Gainesville, Ocala, and Lake Panasoffkee Quarry Clusters. The Florida Anthropologist 60(2-3):77-96.

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

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

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

FDEP 2001a Geology (Environmental). Florida Geographic Data Library, Gainesville. 2001b Surficial Geology. Florida Geographic Data Library, Gainesville.

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

FMSF 1999 Guide to the Archaeological Site Form, Version 2.2. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Forstall, Richard L. 1995 Population of Counties by Decennial Census. www.census.gov/population/cencounts/fl190090.txt.

6-5 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

FPS 1986 Marion County Historic and Architectural Survey. Florida Preservation Services. On file, FDHR, Tallahassee.

Fryman, Mildred, John W. Griffin, and James Miller 1978 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Seminole Electric Property, Putnam County, Florida. On file, FDHR, Tallahassee. FWP 1939 Florida: A Guide to the Southernmost State. Federal Writers' Project. Oxford University Press, New York.

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

Goggin, John M. 1948 Some Pottery Types from Central Florida. Gainesville Anthropological Association, Bulletin 1 1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archaeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 47. 1998 Reprint, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Gordon, Michael 1989 Lake County. In A Guide to Florida's Historic Architecture. Edited by F. Blair Reeves, pp. 84-85. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Guthrie, Sarah M. W. 1974 Land of Promise, Land of Change: An Examination of the Population of Hillsborough County, Florida. MA thesis, Emory University, Atlanta.

Hooten, Joey 2016 Records Search. http://sumterpa.com/GIS/.

Horgan, James J., Alice F. Hall, and Edward J. Herrmann 1992 The Historic Places of Pasco County. Pasco County Historical Preservation Committee, Dade City.

Horvath, Elizabeth A. 1995 Conclusions. In Final Report on the Archaeological Investigations at the Seminole Rest Site (CANA-063 / 8VO124), Canaveral National Seashore, Volusia County, Florida. Edited by Elizabeth A. Horvath, pp. 133-144. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Jackson, Roy Adlai, Ed. 1992 The Historic Highway Bridges of Florida. Environmental Management Office, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.

Jahn, Otto L. and Ripley P. Bullen 1978 The Tick Island Site, St. Johns River, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 10

6-6 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Janus Research 1992 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Interstate 4 Improvements Project Right- of-Way from 50th Street to the Hillsborough/Polk County Line, Hillsborough County, Florida. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa.

Jennings, Jesse D., Gordon R. Willey, and Marshall T. Newman 1957 The Ormond Beach Mound, East Central Florida. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 164:1-28.

Johnson, Robert E. and Dana Ste. Claire 1988 Edgewater Landing - Archaeological Investigations Along the Indian River North, Volusia County, Florida. Florida Archaeological Services, Inc., Jacksonville.

Kozuch, Laura 1995 Shellfish Gatherers of Florida's East Coast. In Final Report on the Archaeological Investigations at the Seminole Rest Site (CANA-063 / 8VO124), Canaveral National Seashore, Volusia County, Florida. Edited by Elizabeth A. Horvath, pp. 59-91. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Lonn, Ella 1965 Salt as a Factor in the Confederacy. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Louis Berger & Associates 1991 Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey: Proposed Federal Correctional Complex, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Sumter County, Florida. Louis Berger & Associates Inc., Washington D. C. 1992 Phase 1B Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Federal Correctional Complex, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Coleman, Sumter County, Florida. Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., Washington D. C.

Luer, George M. and Marion M. Almy 1980 The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast of Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 33(4):207-225.

Mahon, John K. 1985 History of the Second Seminole War 1835-1842. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Mann, Robert W. 1983 Rails 'Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

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

Miller, James J. 1994 The Benton Mound: Evidence of Burial Ceremonialism in the St. Johns I Period. The Florida Anthropologist 47(2):207-222. 1998 An Environmental History of Northeast Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

6-7 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Mormino, Gary and Tony Pizzo 1983 Tampa: The Treasure City. Continental Heritage Press, Tulsa.

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

Newsom, Lee A. 1987 Analysis of Botanical Remains from Hontoon Island (8VO202), Florida: 1980-1985 Excavations. The Florida Anthropologist 40(1):47-84. 1994 Archaeobotanical Data from Groves' Orange Midden (8VO2601), Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4):404-417.

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

Newsom, Lee A., S. David Webb, and James S. Dunbar 1993 History and Geographical Distribution of Curcubita pepo Gourds in Florida. Journal of Ethnobiology 13(1):75-98.

Ott, Eloise Robinson and Louis Hickman Chazal 1966 Ocali Country: Kingdom of the Sun. Marion Publishers, Inc., Ocala.

Piatek, Bruce J. 1992 Tomoka State Park Survey and Preliminary Test Excavation Results. The Florida Anthropologist 45(4):326-335. 1994 The Tomoka Mound Complex in Northeast Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 13(2):109- 118.

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

Purdy, Barbara A. 1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Tool Technology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1987 Investigations at Hontoon Island (8-VO-202), An Archaeological Wetsite in Volusia County, Florida: An Overview and Chronology. The Florida Anthropologist 40(1):4-12. 1988 Wet Site Archaeology. Telford Press, Caldwell, NJ. 1994a The Chipped Stone Tool Industry at Grove's Orange Midden (8VO2601), Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4):390-392. 1994b Excavations in Water-Saturated Deposits at Lake Monroe, Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4):326-332.

Quitmyer, Irvy R. 1995 Mercenaria Season of Harvest and Age Structure. In Final Report on the Archaeological Investigations at the Seminole Rest Site (CANA-063 / 8VO124), Canaveral National Seashore, Volusia County, Florida. Edited by Elizabeth A. Horvath, pp. 92-132. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

6-8 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Reeves, F. Blair (compiler) 1989 A Guide to Florida's Historic Architecture. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Romans, Bernard 1961 A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida. Published 1775, Reprinted by Pelican Publishing Company, New Orleans.

Rouse, Irving 1951 A Survey of Indian River Archaeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 44. 1981 Reprint, AMS Press, Inc., New York.

Russo, Michael 1984 The Evolution of Subsistence Strategies of Faunal Resources at the Gauthier Site. Paper presented at the 41st Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Pensacola. 1992 Chronologies and Cultures of the St. Marys Region of Northeast Florida and Southeast Georgia. The Florida Anthropologist 45(2):107-138. 1996a Southeastern Archaic Mounds. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. Edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 259-287. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1996b Southeastern Mid-Holocene Coastal Settlements. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. Edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 177-199. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Russo, Michael, Ann S. Cordell, Lee A. Newsom, and Robert J. Austin 1989 Phase III Archaeological Excavations at Edgewater Landing, Volusia County, Florida. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa.

Russo, Michael, Ann S. Cordell, and Donna L. Ruhl 1993 The Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Phase III Final Report. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Russo, Michael and Dana Ste. Claire 1992 Tomoka Stone: Archaeological Evidence for Early Coastal Adaptations. The Florida Anthropologist 45(4):336-346.

Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2003 New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery from the Middle St. Johns Valley and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(1):5-13.

Saunders, Rebecca and Margaret K. Wrenn 2014 Crafting Orange Pottery in Early Florida. In New Histories of Pre-Columbian Florida. Edited by Neill Wallis and Asa R. Randall, pp. 183-202. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Sigler-Eisenberg, Brenda 1984a Foraging Strategies in a Malabar I Period Household. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Pensacola. 1984b The Gauthier Site: A Microcosm of Biocultural Adaptation in the Upper St. Johns River Basin. Paper presented at the 41st Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Pensacola.

6-9 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Sigler-Eisenberg, Brenda, Ann S. Cordell, Richard W. Estabrook, Elizabeth A. Horvath, Lee A. Newsom, and Michael Russo 1985 Archaeological Site Types, Distribution, and Preservation within the Upper St. Johns River Basin. Miscellaneous Project and Report Series 27. Department of Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Stanford, Dennis J., Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggars, and Gentry Steele 2005 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Edited by R. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford and M. R. Waters, pp. 313-353. Center for the Study of the First Americans, College Station, TX.

State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection 1843 Field Notes. L. M. Prevost. Volume 72. 1848 Field Notes. B. F. Whitner. Volume 136. 1849 Plat. Township 19 South, Range 23 East. B. F. Whitner, L. M. Prevost and H. Washington. n.d. Tract Book. Volume 19.

Ste. Claire, Dana 1987 The Development of Thermal Alteration Technologies in Florida: Implications for the Study of Prehistoric Adaptation. The Florida Anthropologist 40(3):203-208. 1989 Archaeological Investigations at the McDonald Farm Site, Volusia County, Florida. On file, FDHR, Tallahassee. 1990 The Archaic in East Florida: Archaeological Evidence for Early Coastal Adaptations. The Florida Anthropologist 43(3):188-197.

Sumter County Deed Book 1853-1928 L-R:189-190, A-F:195-196, A-D:25. Sumter County Courthouse, Bushnell.

Sumter County Economic Development 2016 Sumter County's Top Ten Employers. http://sumterbusiness.com/top-employers/.

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

Turner, Susan 1989 Sumter County. In A Guide to Florida's Historic Architecture. Edited by F. Blair Reeves, pp. 98-99. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

USCB 2016 Florida Quick Facts. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00.

USDA 1941 Aerial Photograph - 2-13-41, CTV-B5-74. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1952 Aerial Photograph - 1-17-52, CTV-7H-204. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1953 Aerial Photograph - 3-9-53, CTV-6H-116. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1960 Aerial Photograph - 1-20-60, CTV-5AA-91. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1969 Aerial Photograph - 12-4-69, CTV-1LL-30. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1984 Aerial Photograph - 1-29-84, 27-93. On file, PALMM, Gainesville.

6-10 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

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

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

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

Watts, William A. and Barbara C. S. Hansen 1994 Pre-Holocene and Holocene Pollen Records of Vegetation History for the Florida Peninsula and their Climatic Implications. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 109:163-176.

Wayne, Lucy B. and Martin F. Dickinson 1993 Archaeological Excavations, Lake Jessup South Site (8SE580), Seminole County, Florida. SouthArc, Inc., Gainesville.

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

Weisman, Brent R. 1993 An Overview of the Prehistory of the Wekiva River Basin. The Florida Anthropologist 46(1):20-36.

Wheeler, Ryan J. and Ray M. McGee 1994a Technology of Mount Taylor Period Occupation, Groves' Orange Midden (8VO2601), Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4):350-379. 1994b Wooden Artifacts from Groves' Orange Midden. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4):380- 389.

Wheeler, Ryan J., James J. Miller, Ray M. McGee, Donna L. Ruhl, Brenda Swann, and Melissa Memory 2003 Archaic Period Canoes from Newnan's Lake, Florida. American Antiquity 68(3):533-551.

Wheeler, Ryan J., Christine Newman, and Ray M. McGee 2000 A New Look at the Mount Taylor and Bluffton Sites, Volusia County, with an Outline of the Mount Taylor Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 52(2-3):132-157.

6-11 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

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

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

Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113. 1982 Reprint. Florida Book Store, Gainesville. 1954 Burial Patterns in the Burns and Fuller Mounds, Cape Canaveral Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 7(3):79-90.

Wing, Elizabeth S. and Laurie McKean 1987 Preliminary Study of the Animal Remains Excavated from the Hontoon Island Site. The Florida Anthropologist 40(1):40-46.

Yamataki, Howard, Alfred O. Jones, Darrell E. Leach, William E. Puckett, and Kevin J. Sullivan 1988 Soil Survey of Sumter County, Florida. USDA, Soil Conservation Services.

Yates, William Brian 2000 Implications to Late Archaic Exchange Networks in the Southeast as Indicated by the Archaeological Evidence of Prehistoric Soapstone Vessels Throughout Florida. MS thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

6-12 P16082 – Land & Dirt (Big)

Appendix A

FMSF forms

P16082 – Land & Dirt Big Page 1 Site #8 ______SM00953 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Field Date ______10-11-2016 Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Form Date ______10-25-2016 Update Version 4.0 1/07 Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Turnpike South Sink Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______CRAS 786-acre Land & Dirt (BIG), Sumter Co. Survey # (DHR only) ______Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown LOCATION & MAPPING

USGS 7.5 Map Name ______LEESBURG WEST USGS Date ______Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______In City Limits? yes no unknown County ______Sumter Township ______19S Range______23E Section ______34 ¼ section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: ______Township ______Range______Section ______¼ section: NW SW SE NE Landgrant ______Tax Parcel # ______UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing Other Coordinates: X: ______Y: ______Coordinate System & Datum ______Address / Vicinity / Route to: ______Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) ______

TYPE OF SITE (select all that apply) SETTING STRUCTURES OR FEATURES FUNCTION Land (terrestrial) Wetland (palustrine) log boat fort road segment campsite Lake/Pond (lacustrine) usually flooded agric/farm building midden shell midden extractive site River/Stream/Creek (riverine) usually dry burial mound mill shell mound habitation (prehistoric) Tidal (estuarine) Cave/Sink (subterranean) building remains mission shipwreck homestead (historic) Saltwater (marine) terrestrial cemetery/grave mound, nonspecific subsurface features farmstead aquatic dump/refuse plantation surface scatter village (prehistoric) earthworks (historic) platform mound well town (historic) Other Features or Functions (Choose from the list or type a response.) quarry 1. ______lithic scatter 2. ______CULTURE PERIODS (select all that apply) ABORIGINAL Englewood Manasota St. Johns (nonspecific) Swift Creek (nonspecific) NON-ABORIGINAL Alachua Fort Walton Mississippian St. Johns I Swift Creek, Early First Spanish 1513-99 Archaic (nonspecific) Glades (nonspecific) Mount Taylor St. Johns II Swift Creek, Late First Spanish 1600-99 Archaic, Early Glades I Norwood Santa Rosa Transitional First Spanish 1700-1763 Archaic, Middle Glades II Orange Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Weeden Island (nonspecific) First Spanish (nonspecific) Archaic, Late Glades III Paleoindian Seminole (nonspecific) Weeden Island I British 1763-1783 Belle Glade Hickory Pond Pensacola Seminole: Colonization Weeden Island II Second Spanish 1783-1821 Cades Pond Leon-Jefferson Perico Island Seminole: 1st War To 2nd Prehistoric (nonspecific) American Territorial 1821-45 Caloosahatchee Malabar I Safety Harbor Seminole: 2nd War To 3rd Prehistoric non-ceramic American Civil War 1861-65 Deptford Malabar II St. Augustine Seminole: 3rd War & After Prehistoric ceramic American 19th Century American 20th Century Other Cultures (Choose from the list or type a response. For historic sites, give specific dates.) American (nonspecific) 1. ______3. ______ African-American 2. ______4. ______OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially eligible individually for National Register of Historic Places? yes no insufficient information Potentially eligible as contributor to a National Register district? yes no insufficient information Explanation of Evaluation (required if evaluated; use separate sheet if needed) ______low artifact density and diversity; low research ______potential ______Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action ______none ______

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

HR6E045R0107 Florida Master Site File / Div. of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Bldg / 500 S Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)-245-6439 / E-mail [email protected]

SM00953 Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______FIELD METHODS (select all that apply) SITE DETECTION SITE BOUNDARY no field check exposed ground screened shovel bounds unknown remote sensing unscreened shovel literature search posthole tests screened shovel-1/4” none by recorder exposed ground screened shovel informant report auger tests screened shovel-1/8” literature search posthole tests block excavations remote sensing unscreened shovel screened shovel-1/16” informant report auger tests estimate or guess Other methods; number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size (attach site plan) ______22 ST @ 25 m intervals, 9 positive; 50 ______cm ______diameter, 1 m deep, 0.64 cm mesh ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______6,590 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______artifacts @ 30-100 cm ______0-30 cm grayish browns sand, 30-100 cm light brown sand ______ca. 250 m N/S x 100 m E/W Temporal Interpretation - Components (check one): single component multiple component uncertain Describe each occupation in plan (refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretations: ______Integrity - Overall disturbance: none seen minor substantial major redeposited destroyed-document! unknown Disturbances / threats / protective measures ______agriculture / development / none ______Surface collection: area collected ______m2 # collection units ______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______69 count estimate Surface #______06 Subsurface #______9 COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for A Lithics unknown unselective (all artifacts) ____ - ______each artifact category selected at left selective (some artifacts) ____ - ______ mixed selectivity ____ - ______A - category always collected SPATIAL CONTROL ____ - ______S - some items in category collected uncollected general (not by subarea) ____ - ______O - observed first hand, but not collected unknown controlled (by subarea) ____ - ______R - collected and subsequently left at site variable spatial control ____ - ______I - informant reported category present other (describe in comments below) ____ - ______U - unknown Artifact Comments ______all chert; 57 non-decortication, 2 primary, 8 secondary, 2 shatter ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. thermal______alteration N=_____30 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. ______N=_____ 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______Sink Name______Distance from site (m) ______25 Natural community ______Topography ______Ridge slope Elevation: Min _____m70 Max _____m 80 Local vegetation ______pasture with oaks surrounding sinkhole Present land use ______pasture SCS soil series ______Tavares fs Soil association ______Tavares-Adamsville DOCUMENTATION Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents Document type ______All materials at one location Maintaining organization ______Archaeological Consultants Inc 1) Document description ______artifacts, notes, maps, photos File or accession #’s ______p16082 Document type ______Maintaining organization ______2) Document description ______File or accession #’s ______RECORDER & INFORMANT INFORMATION Informant Information: Name ______Address / Phone / E-mail ______Recorder Information: Name ______Horvath, Elizabeth A. Affiliation ______Archaeological Consultants Inc Address / Phone / E-mail ______98 Hickorywood Dr., Crawfordville, FL 32327 / 850.926.9285 / [email protected]______

Required n PHOTOCOPY OF 7.5’ USGS QUAD MAP WITH SITE BOUNDARIES MARKED and SITE PLAN Attachments Plan at 1:3,600 or larger. Show boundaries, scale, north arrow, test/collection units, landmarks and date. Page 3 Archaeological Form Site # 8SM00953 PHOTOGRAPH

AERIAL MAP ¹

8SM00953

0 50 100 Feet Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 02040 CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS Meters User Community Page 4 Archaeological Form Site # 8SM00953 USGS Leesburg West Township 19 South, Range 23 East, Section 34 ¹

8SM00953

0 500 1,000 Feet 0150300 Meters Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Page 1 Site #8 ______SM00954 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Field Date ______10-18-2016 Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Form Date ______10-25-2016 Update Version 4.0 1/07 Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Bigham South Plain Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______CRAS 786-acre Land & Dirt (BIG), Sumter Co. Survey # (DHR only) ______Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown LOCATION & MAPPING

TYPE OF SITE (select all that apply) SETTING STRUCTURES OR FEATURES FUNCTION Land (terrestrial) Wetland (palustrine) log boat fort road segment campsite Lake/Pond (lacustrine) usually flooded agric/farm building midden shell midden extractive site River/Stream/Creek (riverine) usually dry burial mound mill shell mound habitation (prehistoric) Tidal (estuarine) Cave/Sink (subterranean) building remains mission shipwreck homestead (historic) Saltwater (marine) terrestrial cemetery/grave mound, nonspecific subsurface features farmstead aquatic dump/refuse plantation surface scatter village (prehistoric) earthworks (historic) platform mound well town (historic) Other Features or Functions (Choose from the list or type a response.) quarry 1. ______ceramic scatter 2. ______CULTURE PERIODS (select all that apply) ABORIGINAL Englewood Manasota St. Johns (nonspecific) Swift Creek (nonspecific) NON-ABORIGINAL Alachua Fort Walton Mississippian St. Johns I Swift Creek, Early First Spanish 1513-99 Archaic (nonspecific) Glades (nonspecific) Mount Taylor St. Johns II Swift Creek, Late First Spanish 1600-99 Archaic, Early Glades I Norwood Santa Rosa Transitional First Spanish 1700-1763 Archaic, Middle Glades II Orange Santa Rosa-Swift Creek Weeden Island (nonspecific) First Spanish (nonspecific) Archaic, Late Glades III Paleoindian Seminole (nonspecific) Weeden Island I British 1763-1783 Belle Glade Hickory Pond Pensacola Seminole: Colonization Weeden Island II Second Spanish 1783-1821 Cades Pond Leon-Jefferson Perico Island Seminole: 1st War To 2nd Prehistoric (nonspecific) American Territorial 1821-45 Caloosahatchee Malabar I Safety Harbor Seminole: 2nd War To 3rd Prehistoric non-ceramic American Civil War 1861-65 Deptford Malabar II St. Augustine Seminole: 3rd War & After Prehistoric ceramic American 19th Century American 20th Century Other Cultures (Choose from the list or type a response. For historic sites, give specific dates.) American (nonspecific) 1. ______3. ______ African-American 2. ______4. ______OPINION OF RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE

SM00954 Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______FIELD METHODS (select all that apply) SITE DETECTION SITE BOUNDARY no field check exposed ground screened shovel bounds unknown remote sensing unscreened shovel literature search posthole tests screened shovel-1/4” none by recorder exposed ground screened shovel informant report auger tests screened shovel-1/8” literature search posthole tests block excavations remote sensing unscreened shovel screened shovel-1/16” informant report auger tests estimate or guess Other methods; number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size (attach site plan) ______9 ST @ 10 m intervals, 1 positive; 50 cm______diameter, 1 m deep, 0.64 cm mesh ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______94 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______artifacts @ 70-90 cm ______0-30 cm grayish brown sand, 30-100 cm light brown sand ______ca. 10 m N/S x 10 m E/W Temporal Interpretation - Components (check one): single component multiple component uncertain Describe each occupation in plan (refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretations: ______Integrity - Overall disturbance: none seen minor substantial major redeposited destroyed-document! unknown Disturbances / threats / protective measures ______agriculture / development / none ______Surface collection: area collected ______m2 # collection units ______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______2 count estimate Surface #______02 Subsurface #______COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for A Aboriginal ceramics unknown unselective (all artifacts) ____ - ______each artifact category selected at left selective (some artifacts) ____ - ______ mixed selectivity ____ - ______A - category always collected SPATIAL CONTROL ____ - ______S - some items in category collected uncollected general (not by subarea) ____ - ______O - observed first hand, but not collected unknown controlled (by subarea) ____ - ______R - collected and subsequently left at site variable spatial control ____ - ______I - informant reported category present other (describe in comments below) ____ - ______U - unknown Artifact Comments ______2 sherds ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. STP______N=_____1 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. Pasco______Plain N=_____1 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______Sink Name______Distance from site (m) ______125 Natural community ______Topography ______Ridge slope Elevation: Min _____m24 Max _____m 24 Local vegetation ______pasture Present land use ______pasture SCS soil series ______Tavares fine sand Soil association ______Tavares-Adamsville DOCUMENTATION Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents Document type ______All materials at one location Maintaining organization ______Archaeological Consultants Inc 1) Document description ______artifacts, notes, maps, photos File or accession #’s ______p16082 Document type ______Maintaining organization ______2) Document description ______File or accession #’s ______RECORDER & INFORMANT INFORMATION Informant Information: Name ______Address / Phone / E-mail ______Recorder Information: Name ______Horvath, Elizabeth A. Affiliation ______Archaeological Consultants Inc Address / Phone / E-mail ______98 Hickorywood Dr., Crawfordville, FL 32327 / 850.926.9285 / [email protected]______

AERIAL MAP ¹

8SM00954

0 50 100 Feet Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 02040 CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS Meters User Community Page 4 Archaeological Form Site # 8SM00954 USGS Leesburg West Township 19 South, Range 23 East, Section 34 ¹

8SM00954

0 500 1,000 Feet 0150300 Meters Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Page 1 Site #8 ______SM00955 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Field Date ______10-11-2016 Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Form Date ______10-25-2016 Update Version 4.0 1/07 Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Bigham South Sink Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______CRAS 786-acre Land & Dirt (BIG), Sumter Co. Survey # (DHR only) ______Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown LOCATION & MAPPING

USGS 7.5 Map Name ______WILDWOOD USGS Date ______Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______In City Limits? yes no unknown County ______Sumter Township ______19S Range______23E Section ______34 ¼ section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: ______Township ______Range______Section ______¼ section: NW SW SE NE Landgrant ______Tax Parcel # ______UTM Coordinates: Zone 16 17 Easting Northing Other Coordinates: X: ______Y: ______Coordinate System & Datum ______Address / Vicinity / Route to: ______Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) ______

SM00955 Page 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______FIELD METHODS (select all that apply) SITE DETECTION SITE BOUNDARY no field check exposed ground screened shovel bounds unknown remote sensing unscreened shovel literature search posthole tests screened shovel-1/4” none by recorder exposed ground screened shovel informant report auger tests screened shovel-1/8” literature search posthole tests block excavations remote sensing unscreened shovel screened shovel-1/16” informant report auger tests estimate or guess Other methods; number, size, depth, pattern of units; screen size (attach site plan) ______17 ST @ 25 m intervals, 5 positive; 50 ______cm ______diameter, 1 m deep, 0.64 cm mesh ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______4,873 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______artifacts @ 30-100 cm ______0-30 cm grayish brown sand, 30-100 cm light brown sand ______ca. 100 m N/S x 100 m E/W Temporal Interpretation - Components (check one): single component multiple component uncertain Describe each occupation in plan (refer to attached large scale map) and stratigraphically. Discuss temporal and functional interpretations: ______Integrity - Overall disturbance: none seen minor substantial major redeposited destroyed-document! unknown Disturbances / threats / protective measures ______agriculture / development / none ______Surface collection: area collected ______m2 # collection units ______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______31 count estimate Surface #______03 Subsurface #______1 COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for A Lithics unknown unselective (all artifacts) ____ - ______each artifact category selected at left selective (some artifacts) ____ - ______ mixed selectivity ____ - ______A - category always collected SPATIAL CONTROL ____ - ______S - some items in category collected uncollected general (not by subarea) ____ - ______O - observed first hand, but not collected unknown controlled (by subarea) ____ - ______R - collected and subsequently left at site variable spatial control ____ - ______I - informant reported category present other (describe in comments below) ____ - ______U - unknown Artifact Comments ______all chert; 20 non-decortication, 3 primary, 7 secondary, 1 shatter ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. thermal______alteration N=_____9 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. ______N=_____ 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______Sink Name______Distance from site (m) ______25 Natural community ______Topography ______Ridge slope Elevation: Min _____m Max _____m Local vegetation ______pasture with oaks surrounding sinkhole Present land use ______pasture SCS soil series ______Astatula fine sand Soil association ______Tavares-Adamsville DOCUMENTATION Accessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents Document type ______All materials at one location Maintaining organization ______Archaeological Consultants Inc 1) Document description ______artifacts, notes, maps, photos File or accession #’s ______p16082 Document type ______Maintaining organization ______2) Document description ______File or accession #’s ______RECORDER & INFORMANT INFORMATION Informant Information: Name ______Address / Phone / E-mail ______Recorder Information: Name ______Horvath, Elizabeth A. Affiliation ______Archaeological Consultants Inc Address / Phone / E-mail ______98 Hickorywood Dr., Crawfordville, FL 32327 / 850.926.9285 / [email protected]______

AERIAL MAP ¹

8SM00955

0 50 100 Feet Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 02040 CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS Meters User Community Page 4 Archaeological Form Site # 8SM00955 USGS Wildwood Township 19 South, Range 23 East, Section 34 ¹

8SM00955

0 500 1,000 Feet 0150300 Meters Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed SM00956 Page 1 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM SSite #8 ______FField Date ______10-21-2016 Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE FForm Date ______10-24-2016 Update Version 4.0 1/07 RRecorder # ______SShaded Fields represent the minimum acceptable level of documentation. Consult the Guide to Historical Structure Forms for detailed instructions.

SSite Name(s) (address if none) ______5519 E CR 468 MMultiple Listing (DHR only) ______SSurvey Project Name ______CRA of the Bigham South Properties SurveyS # (DHR only) ______NNational Register Category (please check one) building structure district site object OOwnership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown LOCATION & MAPPING Street Number Direction Street Name Street Type Suffix Direction AAddress: 5519 E CR 468 CCross Streets (nearest / between) ______Between CR 501 & CR 503 UUSGS 7.5 Map Name ______WILDWOOD UUSGS Date ______1967 PPlat or Other Map ______CCity / Town (within 3 miles) ______Wildwood IIn City Limits? yes no unknown CCounty ______Sumter TTownship ______19S RRange ______23E SSection ______33 ¼ section: NW SW SE NE Irregular-name: ______TTax Parcel # ______G33-002 LLandgrant ______SSubdivision Name ______BBlock ______LLot ______UUTM Coordinates: ZZone 16 17 EEasting 401208 NNorthing 3186048 OOther Coordinates: X: ______Y: ______CCoordinate System & Datum ______NName of Public Tract (e.g., park) ______HISTORY CConstruction Year: ______1950 approximately year listed or earlier year listed or later OOriginal Use ______Private Residence (House/Cottage/Cabin) From (year):______1950 To (year):______curr CCurrent Use ______Private Residence (House/Cottage/Cabin) From (year):______To (year):______curr OOther Use ______From (year):______To (year):______MMoves: yes no unknown Date: ______Original address ______AAlterations: yes no unknown Date: ______Nature ______fenestration changes AAdditions: yes no unknown Date: ______Nature ______AArchitect (last name first): ______BBuilder (last name first): ______OOwnership History (especially original owner, dates, profession, etc.) ______BIGHAM PROPERTIES LLC (2014), R.G. BIGHAM (1972) ______IIs the Resource Affected by a Local Preservation Ordinance? yes no unknown Describe ______DESCRIPTION SStyle ______Masonry Vernacular EExterior Plan ______Rectangular NNumber of Stories ______1 EExterior Fabric(s) 1. ______Stucco 2. ______Wood siding 3. ______RRoof Type(s) 1. ______Gable 2. ______3. ______RRoof Material(s) 1. ______Composition shingles 2. ______3. ______RRoof secondary strucs. (dormers etc.) 1. ______Shed extension 2. ______WWindows (types, materials, etc.) ______casement, metal, rectangular, 4-pane; casement, metal, square, 3-pane; fixed pane & ______casement, metal, rectangular, 4-pane; boarded up DDistinguishing Architectural Features (exterior or interior ornaments) ______brick window sills, end gable vents, three-hole crawl-space concrete______vents, extended eaves with exposed rafter beams ______AAncillary Features / Outbuildings (record outbuildings, major landscape features; use continuation sheet if needed.) ______

HR6E046R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building / 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail [email protected] SM00956 Page 2 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM SSite #8 ______

DESCRIPTION (continued)

CChimney: No.____0 CChimney Material(s): 1. ______2. ______SStructural System(s): 1. ______Concrete block 2. ______3. ______FFoundation Type(s): 1. ______Continuous 2. ______FFoundation Material(s): 1. ______Concrete Block 2. ______MMain Entrance (stylistic details) ______N elevation: single door atop a three step stoop beneath a shed roof extension. ______Door type is unknown. PPorch Descriptions (types, locations, roof types, etc.) ______CCondition (overall resource condition): excellent good fair deteriorated ruinous NNarrative Description of Resource ______This one-story, Masonry Vernacular residence is in fair condition and retains ______most of its original exterior fabric. This is a typical example of a mid-20th century building found ______throughout the state. AArchaeological Remains ______ CCheck if Archaeological Form Completed

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

AAppears to meet the criteria for National Register listing individually? yes no insufficient information AAppears to meet the criteria for National Register listing as part of a district? yes no insufficient information EExplanation of Evaluation (requiredd, whether significant or not; use separate sheet if needed) ______This is a common Masonry Vernacular style and limited______research did not reveal any significant historical associations. Therefore, 8SM00956 is considered ineligible______for listing in the NRHP. AArea(s) of Historical Significance (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.) 1. ______Architecture 3. ______5. ______2. ______Agriculture 4. ______6. ______DOCUMENTATION

AAccessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents DDocument type ______All materials at one location MMaintaining organization ______Archaeological Consultants Inc 1) DDocument description ______Field photographs, notes, maps FFile or accession #’s ______P16082 DDocument type ______MMaintaining organization ______2) DDocument description ______FFile or accession #’s ______RECORDER INFORMATION

RRecorder Name ______Kim Irby AAffiliation ______Archaeological Consultants Inc RRecorder Contact Information ______8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A, Sarasota, FL 34240/941-379-6206/[email protected] (address / phone / fax / e-mail)

n USGS 7.5’ MAP WITH STRUCTURE LOCATION PINPOINTED IN RED Required o LARGE SCALE STREET, PLAT OR PARCEL MAP (available from most property appraiser web sites) Attachments p PHOTO OF MAIN FACADE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable). Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. Page 3 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM Site # 8SM00956

PHOTOGRAPH

AERIAL MAP ¹

8SM00956

0 50 100 Feet Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 02040 CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS Meters User Community Page 4 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM Site # 8SM00956 USGS Wildwood Township 19 South, Range 23 East, Section 33 ¹

8SM00956

Appendix B

Survey Log

P16082 – Land & Dirt Big 3DJH

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

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

,GHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG %LEOLRJUDSKLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ

6XUYH\ 3URMHFW QDPH DQG SURMHFW SKDVH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCRAS Land & Dirt (BIG) properties, Sumter Co. B BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW 7LWOH H[DFWO\ DV RQ WLWOH SDJH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCultural Resource Assessment Survey of the 786-Acre Land and Dirt (BIG)BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBProperties Sumter 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 BBBBBBBBBBB51 3XEOLFDWLRQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ *LYH VHULHV QXPEHU LQ VHULHV SXEOLVKHU DQG FLW\. )RU DUWLFOH RU FKDSWHU FLWH SDJH QXPEHUV. 8VH WKH VW\OH RI $PHULFDQ $QWLTXLW\. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBP16082. Conducted by ACI, Sarasota for the Villages of Lake-Sumter, TheBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB Villages BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6XSHUYLVRUV RI )LHOGZRUN HYHQ LI VDPH DV DXWKRU 1DPHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBAlmy, Marion $IILOLDWLRQ RI )LHOGZRUNHUV 2UJDQL]DWLRQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBArchaeological Consultants Inc &LW\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBSarasota .H\ :RUGV3KUDVHV 'RQuW XVH FRXQW\ QDPH RU FRPPRQ ZRUGV OLNH DUFKDHRORJ\ VWUXFWXUH VXUYH\ DUFKLWHFWXUH HWF . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

6XUYH\ 6SRQVRUV FRUSRUDWLRQ JRYHUQPHQW XQLW RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU SHUVRQ GLUHFWO\ IXQGLQJ ILHOGZRUN 1DPH. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBThe Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. 2UJDQL]DWLRQ. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $GGUHVV3KRQH(PDLO. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB1020 Lake Sumter Landing, The Villages, FL 32162 BBBBBBBBBBB 5HFRUGHU RI /RJ 6KHHW BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBHorvath, Elizabeth A. 'DWH /RJ 6KHHW &RPSOHWHG BBBBBBBBBBB10-25-2016

,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\ . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBSumter . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

86*6 0DS 1DPHV

'HVFULSWLRQ RI 6XUYH\ $UHD

'DWHV IRU )LHOGZRUN 6WDUW BBBBBBBBB (QG BBBBBBBBB 7RWDO $UHD 6XUYH\HG ILOO LQ RQH BBBBBBKHFWDUHV BBBBBB786 DFUHV 1XPEHU RI 'LVWLQFW 7UDFWV RU $UHDV 6XUYH\HG BBBBBBBBB4 ,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, historic resources reconnaissance, systematic andBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBjudgmental subsurface testing (76 @ 10 & 25 m; 94 @ 50 m; 43 @ 100 m; BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB69 judgmental); .25 in mesh BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBscreen; 50 cm diameter, 1 m deep BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'RFXPHQW 'HVWLQDWLRQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3ORWDELOLW\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

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

Land and Dirt (Big) properties Sections 33 and 34 of Township 19 South, Range 23 East USGS Wildwood and Leesburg West Sumter County