CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE WIGGINS PRAIRIE MITIGATION BANK, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

For:

Southern States Land & Timber, LLC 2205 W. Pinhook Road, Suite 200 Lafayette, Louisiana 70508

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

November 2016 CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE WIGGINS PRAIRIE MITIGATION BANK, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

For:

Southern States Land & Timber, LLC 2205 W. Pinhook Road, Suite 200 Lafayette, Louisiana 70508

By:

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

Marion Almy – Project Manager Elizabeth A. Horvath – Project Archaeologist Katherine Baar – Archaeologist

November 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) performed a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) of 79 acres of the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank for Southern States Land & Timber, LLC in October 2016. Portions of the 492-acre parcel had been previously surveyed, and the current investigations focused on those areas where subsurface disturbance is anticipated. The purpose of the survey was to locate and identify any archaeological sites and historic resources within the project area of potential effects (APE) and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The archaeological APE consists of those lands that will be subject to subsurface disturbance and have not previously been surveyed for cultural resources. The historical APE consists of the entire property. The survey was requested by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), who reviewed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) file number SAJ-2016-00429-TMF (Parsons 2016). This work was conducted in compliance with the provision of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law [PL] 89-665), as amended; the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (PL 93-291) as amended; and Chapters 267 and 373, Florida Statutes (FS). The fieldwork meets the standards contained in Florida Division of Historical Resource’s (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual (FDHR 2003) and the report meets the specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code.

A review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) and NRHP indicated that two archaeological sites (8HI00062, 8HI06412) have been recorded within the project APE and another 10 have been recorded within one mile. 8HI00062, within the APE, is discussed as a temporally indeterminate mound and plotted in the FMSF as a “general vicinity” site, so its actual location is uncertain, and it has not been evaluated by the SHPO. 8HI06412 is also described as a culturally indeterminate lithic scatter determined ineligible for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO. The background research suggested a low to moderate probability for the discovery of additional archaeological sites. As a result of field survey, two archaeological sites (8HI13678 and 8HI13679) and two archaeological occurrences (AO) were discovered. An AO is defined as “one or two non-diagnostic artifacts, not known to be distant from the original context, which fit within a hypothetical cylinder of thirty meters diameter, regardless of depth below surface” (FMSF 1999:10). Each AO consisted of an isolated piece of lithic debitage and is not considered NRHP-eligible. No evidence of previously recorded 8HI00062 or 8HI06412 was discovered within the APE; each FMSF form has been updated to reflect the negative data. Newly discovered 8HI13678 is considered a Middle/Late Archaic lithic scatter and 8HI13679 is an isolated turtleback scraper that likely dates to the Early Archaic period. Although of interest in terms of settlement and land-use patterns, neither site is considered eligible for listing in the NRHP due to the low artifact density and diversity, lack of subsurface features, and subsequent low research potential.

A review of the FMSF and NRHP revealed that no historic buildings, bridges, cemeteries, or NRHP-listed sites are located within or proximate to the property. The Hillsborough County property appraisers’ web site listed no buildings within the tract (Henriquez 2016). Field survey verified the absence of historic structures.

Based on the background research and survey results, there are no cultural resources within the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank survey areas that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. No further investigations are deemed warranted within the areas examined. If subsurface disturbance is slated to occur in areas not previously surveyed, additional investigations may be warranted.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose ...... 1-1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 2-1 2.1 Location and Setting ...... 2-1 2.2 Physiography and Geology ...... 2-1 2.3 Soils and Vegetation ...... 2-1 2.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations ...... 2-3 3.0 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY ...... 3-1 3.1 Paleoindian ...... 3-1 3.2 Archaic ...... 3-3 3.3 Formative ...... 3-5 3.4 Mississippian ...... 3-6 3.5 Colonialism ...... 3-7 3.6 Territorial and Statehood ...... 3-8 3.7 Civil War and Aftermath ...... 3-13 3.8 Twentieth Century ...... 3-15 3.9 Project Area Specifics ...... 3-16 4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS ...... 4-1 4.1 Archaeological Considerations ...... 4-1 4.2 Historical/Architectural Considerations ...... 4-3 4.3 Field Methodology ...... 4-3 4.4 Unexpected Discoveries ...... 4-4 4.5 Laboratory Methods and Curation ...... 4-4 5.0 SURVEY RESULTS ...... 5-1 5.1 Archaeological Survey Results ...... 5-1 5.2 Historical/Architectural Survey Results ...... 5-4 5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 5-4 6.0 REFERENCES CITED ...... 6-1

APPENDICES Appendix A - SHPO/ACOE correspondence Appendix B - FMSF form Appendix C - Survey log

ii

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTOS

Figure Page

Figure 1.1. Location of the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank and the previously surveyed areas, Hillsborough County...... 1-2

Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank...... 2-2

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

Figure 3.2. 1839 sketch map of Fort Sullivan...... 3-10

Figure 3.3. 1845 Plat of Township 28 South, Range 22 East...... 3-12

Figure 3.4. 1938 and 1968 aerial photographs showing the property...... 3-17

Figure 4.1. Location of the previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank, the previously surveyed areas, and the zones of moderate archaeological potential...... 4-2

Figure 5.1. Location of the shovel tests, AOs, and archaeological sites within the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank...... 5-2

Table

Table 2.1. Soil types within the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank...... 2-4

Table 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the project APE...... 4-1

Photo

Photo 2.1. Ditched pasture, facing west-northwest...... 2-1

Photo 2.2. Drained prairie...... 2-3

Photo 2.3. Borrow pit...... 2-3

Photo 5.1. 8HI13678, facing southwest...... 5-1

Photo 5.2. 8HI13679, facing northeast...... 5-3

Photo 5.3. Turtleback scraper from 8HI13679...... 5-3

iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) performed a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) of 79 acres of the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank for Southern States Land & Timber, LLC in October 2016. Portions of the 492-acre parcel have been previously surveyed, and the current investigations focused on those areas where subsurface disturbance is anticipated, as well as the purported location of previously recorded 8HI00062. The archaeological area of potential effects (APE) is defined as those lands that will be subject to subsurface disturbance and have not previously been surveyed for cultural resources. The historical APE consists of the entire property. The survey was requested by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), who reviewed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers file number SAJ-2016-00429-TMF (Parsons 2016). This work was conducted in compliance with the provision of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law [PL] 89-665), as amended; the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (PL 93-291) as amended; and Chapters 267 and 373, Florida Statutes (FS). The fieldwork meets the standards contained in Florida Division of Historical Resource’s (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual (FDHR 2003) and the report meets the specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code.

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this CRAS was to locate and identify any archaeological sites and historic resources located within the project APE and to assess, to the extent possible, their significance as to eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Background research preceded field survey. Such research served to provide an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of cultural resources that might be anticipated to occur within the project APE, as well as a basis for evaluating any newly discovered sites.

1-1 P16087 CITRUS previously surveyed area LAKE ¹

PASCO

! POLK

HILLSBOROUGH

HIGHLANDS

SARASOTA

00.51 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri 012 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 Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank and the previously surveyed areas, Hillsborough County. Hatchmarks indicate previously surveyed areas.

1-2

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 Location and Setting

The Wiggin Prairie Mitigation Bank is located in Sections 12 and 13 of Township 28 South, Range 22 East (Figure 2.1) (United States Geological Survey [USGS] Plat City East). It is located between Charlie Taylor Road and the Hillsborough/Polk county line and between Swindell Road and Midway Road. The channelized Itchepackassa Creek forms the northeast boundary of the tract. The mitigation bank totals 492 acres, but only those areas that will suffer ground disturbance and have not been previously surveyed will be investigated, as will the area purported to contain 8HI00062 in the southwest corner of the property. Much of the property was previously used as borrow pits and extensive drainage ditching has occurred across the property, a few areas retain their natural vegetation (Photos 2.1-2.3).

Photo 2.1. Ditched pasture, facing west-northwest.

2.2 Physiography and Geology

The property is in the Midpeninsular physiographic zone which is characterized by a gently rolling topography with a series of low hills and valleys paralleling the coast (White 1970). The property is situated at the interface of the Zephyrhills Gap and the Polk Upland. The surface lithology consists of the Hawthorn Group, Peace River formation, Bone Valley member limestone, which is surficially evidenced as clayey sand (Knapp 1980; Scott 2001; Scott et al. 2001). The tract ranges in elevation from 34 to 35 meters (m) (110-115 feet [ft]) above mean sea level.

2.3 Soils and Vegetation

The project APE occurs within the Samsula-Basinger soil association, which is characterized by nearly level, very poorly drained soils around the exterior areas of swamps and sloughs and in broad, poorly defined drainageways on the flatwoods (Doolittle et al. 1989; USDA 2012). Table 2.1 provides a list of the specific soil types located within the mitigation bank. The natural vegetation would have included mixed stands of cypress, red maple, sweetgum, and black tupelo.

2-1 P16087 survey areas previously surveyed areas ¹

Midway Rd

Swindell Rd

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Wiggins Prairie Mitiga- tion Bank (USGS Plant City East).

2-2

Photo 2.2. Drained prairie.

Photo 2.3. Borrow pit.

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.

2-3 P16087

Table 2.1. Soil types within the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank. Soil Type Drainage Setting Basinger, Holopaw and Samsula Very poor Swamps and depressions on the flatwoods soils, depressional Eaton mucky fine sand, depressional Very poor Depressions on the flatwoods Holopaw fine sand, depressional Very poor Depressions Hontoon muck Very poor Swamps, depressions and freshwater marshes Lake fine sand, 0-5% Excessive Uplands Low-lying sloughs and shallow depressions on the Malabar fine sand Poor flatwoods Myakka fine sand Poor Broad plains on the flatwoods Ona fine sand Poor Broad plains on the flatwoods Pomona fine sand Poor Level areas or slight depressions Samsula muck Very poor Swamps and poorly defined drainageways Smyrna fine sand Poor Broad, low-lying, convex swells on the flatwoods St Johns fine sand Poor Low-lying plains on the flatwoods

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). The rise of sea level reduced xeric habitats over the next several millennia. Intermittent flow in the Hillsborough River some 8500 years ago was likely due to precipitation and surface runoff, and by 6000 years ago the river probably began flowing due to spring discharge from the Floridan aquifer (Dunbar 1981:99).

Around 5000 years ago, a climatic event marking a brief return to Pleistocene climatic conditions induced a change toward more open vegetation. Southern pine forests replaced the oak savannahs. Extensive marshes and swamps developed along the coasts and subtropical hardwood forests became established along the southern tip of Florida (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Northern Florida saw an increase in oak species, grasses, and sedges (Carbone 1983). At Lake Annie, in south central Florida, pollen cores were dominated by wax myrtle and pine. The assemblage suggests that by this time, a forest dominated by longleaf pine along with cypress swamps and bayheads existed in the area (Watts 1971, 1975). By about 3500 BCE (Before Common Era), surface water was plentiful in karst terrains and the level of the Floridan aquifer rose to 1.5 m (5 ft) above present levels. After this time, modern floral, climatic, and environmental conditions began to be established.

2-4 P16087

3.0 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY

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

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

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

3.1 Paleoindian

The Paleoindian stage is the earliest known cultural manifestation in Florida, dating from roughly 12,000 to 7500 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 sites have been inundated (Faught and Donoghue 1997).

The Paleoindian period has been sub-divided into three horizons based upon characteristic tool forms (Austin 2001). Traditionally, it is believed that the Clovis Horizon (10,500-9000 BCE) represents the initial occupation of Florida and is defined based upon the presence of the fluted Clovis points. These are somewhat more common in north Florida. Research suggests that Suwannee and Simpson points may be contemporary with or predate Clovis (Dunbar 2006a, 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 P16087 Post-500 BCE regions of precolumbian Florida ¹ (adapted from Milanich 1994: xix)

1 2

3 5 4

!

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

0 50 100 Miles Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 0100200 CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, Kilometers IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions. The project area is within the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast Region.

3-2

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

Archaeologists hypothesize that Paleoindians lived in migratory bands and subsisted by gathering and hunting, including the now-extinct Pleistocene megafauna. In addition, they likely trapped smaller animals such as mink, muskrat, and rabbit for their fur and medium sized mammal such as deer for food as well as raw materials for bone tools (Dunbar 2016; Dunbar and Vojnovski 2007). It is likely that these nomadic hunters traveled between permanent and semi-permanent sources of water, such as artesian springs, exploiting the available resources. These watering holes would have attracted the animals, thus providing food and drink. In addition to being tethered to water sources, most of the Paleoindian sites are close to good quality lithic resources. The settlement pattern consisted of the establishment of semi-permanent habitation areas and the movement of the resources from their sources of procurement to the residential locale by specialized task groups (Austin 2001:25).

Although the Paleoindian period is generally considered to have been cooler and drier, there were major variations in the inland water tables resulting from large-scale environmental fluctuations. There have been two major theories as to why most Paleoindian materials have been recovered from inundated sites. The Oasis theory, put forth by Wilfred T. Neill, was that due to low water tables and scarcity of potable water, the Paleoindians, and the game animals upon which they depended, clustered around the few available water holes that were associated with sinkholes (Neill 1964). Whereas, Ben Waller postulated that the Paleoindians gathered around river-crossings to ambush the large Pleistocene animals as they crossed the rivers (Waller 1970). This implies periods of elevated water levels. Based on the research along the Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, it appears that both theories are correct, depending upon what the local environmental conditions were at that time (Dunbar 2006b, 2016). As such, during the wetter periods, populations became more dispersed because the water resources were abundant and the animals they relied on could roam over a wider range.

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

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

3-3 P16087

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

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

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

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

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

Milanich (1994:86-87) suggests that while there may be little difference between Middle and Late Archaic populations, there are more Late Archaic sites and they were primarily located near wetlands. The abundant wetland resources allowed larger settlements to be maintained. It is likely that the change in settlement patterns was related to the environmental changes. By the end of the Middle

3-4 P16087

Archaic, the climate closely resembled that of today and the vegetation changed from those species which preferred moist conditions to pines and mixed forests (Watts and Hansen 1988). Sea levels rose, inundating many sites located along the shoreline. The adaptation to this environment allowed for a wider variety of resources to be exploited and a wider variation in settlement patterns. No longer were the scarce waterholes dictating the location of sites. Shellfish, fish, and other food sources were now available from coastal and freshwater wetlands resulting in an increased population size.

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

3.3 Formative

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

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

Temporal placement within the Manasota period can be determined based upon diagnostic ceramic rim and vessel forms (Luer and Almy 1982). The early forms (ca. 500 BCE to 400 CE) are characterized as flattened globular bowls with incurving rims and chamfered lips. Pot forms with rounded lips and inward curving rims were utilized from about 200 BCE until 700 CE. Deeper pot forms with straight sides and rounded lips were developed around 400 CE and continued into the Safety Harbor period. Simple bowls with outward curving rims and flattened lips were used from the end of the Late Weeden Island period (ca. 800 CE) into the Safety Harbor period. Vessel wall thickness decreased over time.

The lithic assemblage of the Manasota culture was scarce along the coast especially in the more southern portions of the region where stone suitable for tool manufacture was absent. Projectile point

3-5 P16087

types associated with the Manasota period include the Sarasota, Hernando, and Westo varieties (Luer and Almy 1982).

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

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

3.4 Mississippian

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

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

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

3-6 P16087

lack of the diagnostic Englewood ceramics at many sites may indicate that the Englewood phase was skipped in the developmental sequence from Manasota to Safety Harbor (Mitchem 2012).

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

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

3.5 Colonialism

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

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

The area that now constitutes the State of Florida was ceded to England in 1763 after two centuries of Spanish possession. England governed Florida until 1783 when the Treaty of Paris returned Florida to Spain; however, Spanish influence was nominal during this second period of ownership. Prior to the American colonial settlement of Florida, members of the Muskogean Creek, Yamassee, and Oconee tribes moved into Florida and repopulated the demographic vacuum created by the decimation of the original aboriginal inhabitants. These migrating groups of Native Americans became known as the Seminoles. They had an agriculturally based society, focusing upon cultivation of crops and the raising of horses and cattle. The material culture of the Seminoles remained similar to the Creeks, the dominant aboriginal pottery type being Chattahoochee Brushed. European trade goods, especially British, were common. The Creek settlement pattern included large villages located near rich agricultural fields and grazing lands.

3-7 P16087

Their early history can be divided into two basic periods: colonization (1716-1767) when the initial movement of Creek towns into Florida occurred, and enterprise (1767-1821) which was an era of prosperity under the British and Spanish rule prior to the American presence (Mahon and Weisman 1996). The Seminoles formed at various times loose confederacies for mutual protection against the new American Nation to the north (Tebeau 1980:72). The Seminoles crossed back and forth into Georgia and Alabama conducting raids and welcoming escaped slaves. This resulted in General Andrew Jackson’s invasion of Florida in 1818, which became known as the First Seminole War.

3.6 Territorial and Statehood

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

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

In 1823, Gadsden County was created from St. John’s County, and the following year Mosquito County was created out of Gadsden. This new county included all the Tampa Bay area and reached south to Charlotte Harbor (Historic Tampa/Hillsborough County Preservation Board [HT/HCPB] 1980:7). In 1824, Cantonment (later Fort) Brooke was established on the south side of the mouth of the Hillsborough River in what is now downtown Tampa by Colonel George Mercer Brooke. Frontier families followed the soldiers and the settlement of the Tampa Bay area began. This caused some problems for the military as civilian settlements were not in accord with the Camp Moultrie agreement (Guthrie 1974:10). By 1830, the U.S. War Department found it necessary to establish a military reserve around Fort Brooke with boundaries extending 16 miles to the north, west, and east (Chamberlin 1968:43). Within the military reservation were a guardhouse, barracks, storehouse, powder magazine, and stables.

By the early 1830s, governmental policy shifted in terms of relocating the Seminoles to lands west of the Mississippi River. Outrage at this policy of forced relocation resulted in the Second Seminole War (1835-1842). Following this conflict, the Seminoles who remained in Florida were driven further south, clearing the way for homesteaders. Hillsborough County was established in 1834 by the Territorial Legislature of Florida; it reached north to Dade City and south to Charlotte Harbor, encompassing an area that today comprises Pasco, Polk, Manatee, Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Highlands, Hardee, Pinellas, and Hillsborough counties. Due to its isolated location, Hillsborough County was slow to develop. The Tampa Bay post office was closed and reestablished as “Tampa” on September 13, 1834 (Bradbury and Hallock 1962). As settlement in the area increased, so did hostilities with Native Americans. The growing threat of Seminole invasion to the civilians near the fort propelled them to sign a petition asking for military protection. Only 25 men signed the petition showing the meager settlement in the area (Brown 1999:46).

3-8 P16087

By 1835, the Second Seminole War was underway, triggered by an attack on Major Francis Langhorne Dade as he led a company of soldiers from Fort Brooke to Fort King (now Ocala). As part of the effort to subdue Indian hostilities in Florida, military patrols moved into the wilderness in search of Seminole camps. As the War escalated, attacks on isolated settlers and communities became more common. To combat this, the U.S. Army and Navy converged on southwest Florida attempting to seal off the southern portion of the Florida peninsula from the estimated 300 Seminoles remaining in the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades (Covington 1958; Tebeau and Carson 1965).

In 1837, Fort Brooke became the headquarters for the Army of the South and the main garrison for the Seminole wars. It also served as a haven for settlers who left their farms to seek protection from the warring Seminoles (Piper et al. 1982). Fort Sullivan, which is about one mile northwest of the property, was established on January 20, 1839, and decommissioned less than one year later on November 5, 1839. It was the first in a line of forts between Fort Brooke (Tampa) and Fort Mellon (Sanford) constructed under the direction of General Zachary Taylor to provide protection to the settlers against Indian raids. Originally known as “Fort Hickapusassa,” the installation was garrisoned by Company G of the Third Artillery under the command of Captain Hezekiah Garner (Knetsch 1999). Although constructed as part of the general plan to capture or defeat the Seminoles, the men at Fort Sullivan did not engage in a single battle (Covington 1975). After the fort was decommissioned, the troops transferred to Fort Brooke (Bruton and Bailey 1984:20). Several other forts, including Fort Alabama (later Fort Foster), Fort Thonotosassa, and Fort Simmons were established during the Seminole War years (Bruton and Bailey 1984). Their uses varied from military garrisons to military supply depots; others were built to protect the nearby settlers during Indian uprisings.

Lt. Col. Alexander Cummings was tasked with the construction of the Fort Brooke to Fort Mellon Road, and the forts along it. He arrived at the “the old settlement of Hitchpucksassa” on January 11, and commenced construction of the fort, which was to be 110 feet square and contain two block houses and two store houses (Knetsch 2000). The fort and associated structures was finished on January 23, after which Cummings continued north on his road and fort construction mission. According to a sketch and description of the fort by Lieutenant W. A. Brown of the Third Artillery in August 1839, the fort was constructed of pine picketing with two limestone blockhouses at diagonal corners and storehouses at the extremity of the other diagonal. It was in the center of a small pine barren, surrounded by wet and dry marshes and small hammocks (Knetsch 1999). The sketch (Figure 3.2) also depicted stables, gardens, a nearby well and road to Tampa Bay.

The Second Seminole War ended in 1842 when the federal government withdrew troops from Florida. Some of the battle-weary Seminoles were persuaded to emigrate to the Oklahoma Indian Reservation where the federal government had set aside land for their occupation. However, those who wished to remain 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).

In 1840, the population of Hillsborough County was 452, with 360 of those residing at Fort Brooke (HT/HCPB 1980). Encouraged by the passage of the Armed Occupation Act in 1842, designed to promote settlement and protect the Florida frontier, settlers moved south through Florida. The Act made available 200,000 acres outside the already developed regions south of Gainesville to the Peace River, barring coastal lands and those within a two-mile radius of a fort. It stipulated that any family or single man over 18 able to bear arms could earn title to 160 acres by erecting a habitable dwelling, cultivating at least five acres of land, and living on it for five years. During the nine-month period the law was in effect, 1184 permits were issued totaling some 189,440 acres (Covington 1961a:48). Four homesteads were granted in Township 28 South, Range 22 East: Steven Hollingsworth (Section 2), his son John Henry Hollingsworth (Section 17), his son-in-law Samuel Rodgers (Section 10), and Rigdon Brown (Section 9) (State of Florida 1845).

3-9 P16087 Copy of a "sketch of Fort Sullivan E. F. and the surrounding country prepared by Lt. W. A. Brown" United States Army 3rd Artillery sent on August 31,1839 to Captain Garner. The locations of the gardens, target range, well, stable and parade ground are clearly drawn. Note the "Road to Tampa Bay" marked by an arrow leading west from the fort.

Figure 3.2. 1839 sketch map of Fort Sullivan (Knetsch 2000). (Copy of sketch courtesy of author.)

3-10

To hasten settlement of central Florida, the U.S. government commenced the official surveys of public lands (Figure 3.3). Township 28 South, Range 22 East, in which the property is located, was surveyed by A. M. Randolph and Henry Washington in 1842 and 1843 (State of Florida 1843b, 1843a). The Plat depicts the Road to Fort Mellon north and west of the mitigation bank (State of Florida 1845). Randolph’s plat map also shows the Seminole town of Echebucsassa in the center of Section 15, to the west-southwest of the property. In his notes, Randolph wrote, “This Township contains the Indian old town of Echebucsassa (many pipes) the remains of which are still distinct and numerous” (State of Florida 1843:401). Previously, W. A. Brown’s notes accompanying his 1839 sketch of Fort Sullivan stated: “the remains of two or three Indian villages, about two miles from the fort in a south-westerly direction and one close to the fort; these are supposed to have been deserted about two years since” (Knetsch 1999). The property was described as flat second rate pine, 3rd rate pine, wet savannah, and prairie (State of Florida 1842:329-330, 1843b:342-346).

In 1845, the State of Florida was admitted to the Union, and Tallahassee was selected as the capital. That same year, the Reverend Samuel Knight moved his family from Lowndes County, Georgia to just west of the site of Fort Sullivan. The original homesite was located about one mile south of the present Knights community. The Knights were cattlemen who eventually accumulated some 1200 acres; this area came to be known as Knights Settlement. Samuel Knight and his sons helped organize a Methodist Church in the Ichepuckesassa (Echebucsassa) community shortly after their arrival.

On November 5, 1849, a post office was established at Ichepuckesassa (Bradbury and Hallock 1962:68) and by the early 1850s, the community had a general store. In 1855, the mercantile store was taken over by Jacob Summerlin, who had married Samuel Knight’s daughter Frances. Summerlin, also operated a cotton gin. On March 5, 1860, the name of the post office was changed to the monosyllabic “Cork” in lieu of Echebucsassa or Ichepuckesassa, in honor of the Irish postmaster’s hometown (Bruton and Bailey 1984:45). During the late 1850s, the Summerlins moved to Polk County where Jacob became a successful cattle rancher.

Although most Florida’s Seminoles had been deported to the western territories by the end of Second Seminole War, many Seminoles remained in central and south Florida. In July 1849, an incident occurred at the Kennedy and Darling Store near Peas Creek (Peace River). A band of four Seminoles killed two men, and wounded William McCollough and his wife Nancy, before looting and burning the store. This incident created the “Indian Scare” of 1849 in central Florida and resulted in the federal government establishing a series of forts across the state (Brown 1991; Covington 1961b). In December 1855, the Third Seminole War, or the Billy Bowlegs War, started because of pressure placed on Native Americans remaining in Florida to migrate west. The war started when Seminole Chief Holatter-Micco, also known as 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 property belonging to Billy Bowlegs. This hostile action renewed state and federal interest in the final elimination of the Seminoles from Florida.

Military action was not decisive during the war; therefore, in 1858 the U.S. government resorted to monetary persuasion to induce the remaining Seminoles to migrate west. Chief Billy Bowlegs accepted $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 Third Seminole War was declared over (Covington 1982).

3-11 P16087 ¹

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers

Figure 3.3. 1845 Plat of Township 28 South, Range 22 East.

3-12

Residents turned to citrus, tobacco, vegetables, and lumber to make their living. Cattle ranching served as one of the first important economic activities reported in the area. Mavericks left by the early Spanish explorers provided the source for the herds raised by the mid-eighteenth century “Cowkeeper” Seminoles. As the Seminoles were pushed further south during the wars, their cattle were either sold or left to roam. Settlers captured or bought the cattle and branded them for their own. By the late 1850s, the cattle industry of southwest Florida was developing on a significant scale. Hillsborough and Manatee Counties constituted Florida’s leading cattle production region. By 1860, Fort Brooke and Punta Rassa were major cattle shipping points for southwest Florida. During this period, Jacob Summerlin became the first cattle baron of southwestern Florida. Known as the “King of the Crackers,” Summerlin herds ranged from Ft. Meade to Ft. Myers (Covington 1957).

3.7 Civil War and Aftermath

In 1861, Florida followed South Carolina’s lead and seceded from the Union in a prelude to the American Civil War. Florida had much at stake in this war as evidenced in a report released from Tallahassee in June 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, including the port of Tampa, experienced a naval blockade during the war, the interior of the state saw very little military action (Robinson 1928:43). Many male residents abandoned their farms and settlements to join the Union army at one of the coastal areas retained by the United States government or joined the Confederate cow cavalry. The 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). It was estimated that three-quarters of the beef supplied to the Confederacy from Florida came from Brevard and Manatee Counties (Shofner 1995). Summerlin originally had a contract with the Confederate government to market thousands of head a year at eight dollars per head. However, by driving his cattle to Punta Rassa and shipping them to Cuba, he received 25 dollars per head (Grismer 1946:83). Salt works along the Gulf Coast also functioned as a major contributor to the efforts of the Confederacy (Lonn 1965). Union troops stationed at Punta Rassa conducted several raids into the Peace River Valley to seize cattle and destroy ranches. In response, Confederate supporters formed the Cattle Guard Battalion, consisting of nine companies under the command of Colonel Charles J. Mannerlyn. The lack of railway transport to other states, the federal embargo, and the enclaves of Union supports and Union troops holding key areas such as Jacksonville and Ft. Myers prevented an influx of finished materials. Additionally, federal gunboats blockaded the mouth of the larger rivers throughout the state preventing the shipment of raw materials. The war lasted until 1865.

In general, the Civil War years were marked by a deterioration of the local economy. However, by the late 1870s, normalcy was restored. Population increased in eastern Hillsborough County, and during the 15 years following the Civil War, several villages developed into substantial communities. These included Cork and Shiloh, two miles to the south of Cork. Shiloh’s best years appear to have been in the early 1880s, prior to the construction of the railroad from Sanford to Tampa, which gave birth to Plant City. With the emergence of Plant City, Shiloh’s businesses and churches moved south. According to Bruton and Bailey (1984:58), all that remains of the Shiloh community today is the historic cemetery.

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). Civilian activity slowly resumed a normal pace after recovery from wartime depression, and the population continued to expand. The 1866 Homestead Act was passed to encourage settlement. The act allowed freedmen and loyal United States citizens to receive 80-acre tracts in Florida and the other four public

3-13 P16087

land states of the South. Former Confederates were not eligible to receive homesteads under the Act until 1876 when the lands were open to unrestricted sale (Tebeau 1980:266, 294). The Homestead Act encouraged growth and settlement during the Reconstruction era.

The post-war economic conditions of much of the rest of the South contributed to changes in the economy of the Tampa Bay area and communities to the south along the Gulf Coast. Post-war cattle shipments to Cuba varied considerably with changes in Cuban demand and the institution of a duty. The net result of Reconstruction-period cattle shipping was the movement of ranges and cattlemen farther south, closer to Charlotte Harbor and the Caloosahatchee River (Brown 1991:199). An influx of poor farmers, coinciding with the southward movement of cattle ranches, made the economic stability of the area dependent upon reliable sources of overland freight transport (Mormino and Pizzo 1983:68). During the 1870s and 1880s, the economy boomed with many winter visitors seeking the favorable subtropical climate, and an increase of agricultural production with the introduction of truck farming of tomatoes, cucumbers, and beans, as well as experimentation with oranges and lemons. Cattle continued to play a major role in the inland areas.

The State of Florida faced a financial crisis involving title to public lands in the early 1880s. By Act of Congress in 1850, the federal government turned over to the states for drainage and reclamation all “swamp and overflow land.” Florida received approximately ten million acres. To manage that land and the five million acres the state had received on entering the Union, the Florida legislature created the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund in 1851. In 1855, the legislature set up the trust fund in which state lands were to be held. The Fund became mired in debt after the Civil War, and under state law, no land could be sold until the debt was cleared. In 1881, the Trustees started searching for someone to buy enough state land to pay off the Fund’s debt to permit sale of the remaining millions of acres that it controlled.

By 1881, Hamilton Disston, a member of a prominent Pennsylvania saw manufacturing family and friend of then Governor William Bloxham, had entered into an agreement with the State of Florida to purchase four million acres of swamp and overflowed land for one million dollars. In exchange for this, he promised to drain and improve the land. Disston’s land holding company was the Florida Land and Improvement Company. He and his associates also formed the Atlantic and Gulf Coast Canal and Okeechobee Land Company in 1881 (Davis 1939:205). This company was established as part of the drainage contract with the State. This contract provided one-half of the acreage that they could drain, reclaim, and make fit for cultivation. The Disston Purchase enabled the distribution of large land subsidies to railroad companies, inducing them to begin extensive construction. Disston and the railroad companies in turn sold smaller parcels of land to developers and private investors (Tebeau and Carson 1965:252). Disston sold half of his contract to the British Florida Land and Mortgage Company, headed by Sir Edward James Reed, in 1882 (Tischendorf 1954). This was done to cover the second payment on the Purchase since Disston’s assets had been tied up in the drainage contract.

The first significant influence on the growth of Hillsborough County was the investment of capital in railroad construction during the 1880s. Such activity was encouraged by the State of Florida, which granted sizeable amounts of land to the railroad companies. In general, railroad development increased access, stimulated commerce, and promoted tourism, thus resulting in population growth and economic prosperity. It was during this time when the project APE was purchased by the Plant Investment Company (1887), William Burtchhael (1883), and Susan G. Jones (1883) (State of Florida n.d.:87-88). The coming of the railroads, and the concomitant development of Plant City, brought disruption and change to the older communities of Cork and Knights. The Cork post office was discontinued in 1867. Two years later it was reestablished, then was moved to Plant City on March 19, 1884 (Bradbury and Hallock 1962:68).

3-14 P16087

In the late 1880s, phosphate was discovered on the Alafia; but it was not until ca. 1894 that the Peruvian Mining Company was formed. In addition to the processing plant, the phosphate boom led to the construction of a hotel and some houses on the north bank of the river before the shallow deposit was depleted and mining proved too expensive (HT/HCPB 1980; Maio et al. 1998). However, it did add to the growth of the area, and by the turn of the century, the combined population of Peru and Riverview was over 500 residents. Through the early part of the century, more settlements sprung up. Agriculture expanded in the rural areas as locally grown fruits and vegetables could now be shipped to northern markets by rail. (HT/HCPB 1980:36).

The Spanish American War, in 1898, brought millions of dollars and many troops to Tampa. Tampa was the United States’ nearest shipping point for the war effort in Cuba. Consequently, it was the designated departure point for the troops. Henry Plant’s Tampa Bay Hotel became the headquarters of the Army (Evans 1972). Troops began arriving in April of 1898 and by May of that year, they outnumbered residents two to one (Friedel 1985; Grismer 1950). By early June, an estimated 20,000 troops had shipped out to Cuba with thousands more waiting. However, the war ended on July 5, and by the end of August, the troops were gone and Tampa returned to normal.

3.8 Twentieth Century

The turn of the century prompted optimism and an excitement over growth and development. A north/south connector from Tampa to Miami significantly opened the region. In 1915, a group of businesspersons met to discuss the feasibility of a cross-state highway from Tampa to Miami by way of Sarasota. A portion of this route, stretching from the Hillsborough county line to Sarasota, was constructed with the passage of a bond issue in 1911. This road was eventually designated as US 41, or the Tamiami Trail, but was not completed until 1928 (Scupholm 1997). Developers used propaganda promoting Florida as the eternal garden to attract tourists and new residents.

In 1917, the Tampa Southern Railroad was organized, and construction began a year later. It was initially constructed to provide for transportation of agricultural produce and industrial goods from Manatee County to Tampa (Turner 2005). This line became part of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad in the early 1920s, and by 1925, the line had been extended from palmetto and Bradenton southward to Sarasota and Fort Myers (Turner 2003). The line has since become part of CSX, and is still in use today.

The great Florida Land Boom of the 1920s saw widespread development of towns and highways. Several reasons prompted the boom, including the mild winters, the growing number of tourists, the larger use of the automobile, the completion of roads, the prosperity of the 1920s, and the promise by the state legislature never to pass state income or inheritance taxes.

Signs of growth were halted by the end of the Florida Land Boom and the Great Depression hit Florida earlier than the rest of the nation. By 1926-27, the bottom fell out of the Florida real estate market. Massive freight car congestion from hundreds of cars loaded with building materials sitting idle in the railroad yards caused the Florida East Coast Railway to embargo all but perishable goods in August of 1925 (Curl 1986). 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 (Eriksen 1994:172). 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 and the investors could not sell lots (Curl 1986). To make the situation even worse, two hurricanes hit south Florida in 1926 and 1928. The 1928 hurricane created a flood of refugees fleeing northward. The

3-15 P16087

following year, in 1929, the Mediterranean fruit fly invaded and paralyzed the citrus industry creating quarantines and inspections that further slowed an already sluggish industry.

The 1930s saw the closing of mines and mills and widespread unemployment. This included the cigar industry of nearby Tampa, the area’s economic backbone for a half century, which was severely impacted. Several cigar factories closed, eleven cigar firms moved, and three merged into one (Campbell 1939). In the mid-1930s, the New Deal programs of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration were aimed at pulling the nation out of the Depression, and Hillsborough County did benefit from these with the Public Works Administration’s projects (Lowry 1974). One of these projects was the Federal Writers’ Project (FWP). Seffner was described as “a prosperous town and shipping point for the farming and citrus industries of the localities” while Plant City was described as “a busy commercial center, with large warehouses, cold-storage plants, and long loading platforms on a web of railroad tracks for the shipment of agriculture” (FWP 1939:518).

It was not until World War II that the local economy recovered, along with the rest of the state. Federal roads, channel building, and airfield construction for the wartime defense effort brought many workers into the Tampa area. As World War II ended, Hillsborough County, like most of Florida, experienced a population boom in the 1950s. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), Florida’s population increased from 1,897,414 in 1940 to 2,771,305 in 1950 (Forstall 1995). After the war, car ownership increased, making the American public more mobile. Tourism, along with corporate investments, developed as one of the major industries for the Tampa Bay area. 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.

In the 1960s, construction of I-75 and I-4 began, generating a spurt of activity that has continued into the 21st century. Completion of I-275 provided convenient access within the metropolitan Tampa area. I-75, completed through eastern Hillsborough County in the early 1980s, provided access allowing continued growth. Throughout the last twenty years, commercial development, including tourist attractions such as Busch Gardens, restaurants, and hotels, have exploded along the interstate system, keeping tourism as a primary revenue source in Florida.

With the population explosion in Hillsborough County, the character of the area has changed dramatically. By 1970, development of residential communities, mobile home parks, and villages was well underway throughout the region. By 2010, the population of Hillsborough County totaled 1,229,226, making the county the fourth most populous in the state (USCB 2016). The largest employers are in the retail trade, services, and government sectors. Hillsborough, Hernando, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties have been designated as the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater Metropolitan Area. Most of the population is centered on Tampa Bay and the Gulf Coast, although the interior lands are increasingly becoming developed.

3.9 Project Area Specifics

A review of the aerial photographs of the property, available from the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM), indicates that in 1938 the property was undeveloped with very little development in the surrounding area (Figure 3.4). The property had many large drainage ditches at that time, and since then, more have been excavated (USDA 1938, 1948, 1957, 1968). In the 1990s, much of the eastern portion of the property was subject to massive ground disturbance through mining (Driscoll et al. 1997; Driscoll et al. 1996; Tucker and White 1998).

3-16 P16087 Nov 30 1938 BQF-4-173 ¹

00.51 00.250.5 Kilometers Miles

1-22-68 BQF-2JJ-159 ¹

00.51 00.250.5 Kilometers Miles

Figure 3.4. 1938 and 1968 aerial photographs showing the proper- ty. (USDA 1938, 1968).

3-17

4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS

A review of archaeological and historical literature, records, and other documents and data pertaining to the project APE was conducted. The focus of this research was to ascertain the types of cultural resources known in the general area, their temporal/cultural affiliations, site location information, and other relevant data. 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 APE, but also provides a valuable regional perspective, and a basis for evaluating any new sites discovered. This included a review of the sites listed in the NRHP, the FMSF (October 2016 GIS update), published books and articles, cultural resource survey reports.

4.1 Archaeological Considerations

A review of the FMSF indicated that twelve previously recorded archaeological sites are located within one mile of the project APE (Table 4.1, Figure 4.1). Two of the sites are within or proximate to the project APE. 8HI00062 is a culturally indeterminate mound that was recorded in the 1950s. It was reportedly 30 feet in diameter by five feet high, located in a pasture at the edge of Wiggins Prairie. It has not been evaluated by the SHPO as it has not been relocated since its original recording (ACI 2015; FMSF). 8HI06412 (B&B Borrow Pit # 47) was recorded during the survey of a borrow pit located within the current project APE (Driscoll et al. 1997). It is a small, culturally indeterminate lithic scatter that has been deemed ineligible for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO.

Table 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the project APE. FMSF # SITE NAME SITE TYPE CULTURE REFERENCE SHPO EVAL ACI 2014; FMSF ; Insufficient 8HI00024 Mt Enon Burial mound Indeterminate Stack 2016 Info Not 8HI00062 NN Mound Indeterminate ACI 2015; FMSF Evaluated 8HI05120 Ursa Bonita Artifact scatter Indeterminate Janus Research 1992b Ineligible 8HI05121 Desiree Lynn Artifact scatter Early Archaic Janus Research 1992b Ineligible 8HI05387 NN IF Indeterminate HDR Engineering 1993 Ineligible Campsite; 8HI06266 B&B PIT #23 Indeterminate Driscoll et al. 1996 Ineligible artifact scatter Campsite; 8HI06412 B&B PIT #47 Indeterminate Driscoll et al. 1997 Ineligible artifact scatter Middle Archaic; ACI 2015, 2016; 8HI11445 Fort Sullivan Campsite; fort Ineligible Manasota; 1821-45 Knetsch 1999 Charlie Taylor Middle Archaic; 8HI13457 Campsite ACI 2015 Ineligible Midway Manasota N of Austin 8HI13458 Campsite Indeterminate ACI 2015 Ineligible Trail Middle Archaic; 8HI13459 Varrea Campsite ACI 2015 Ineligible Manasota S of Peaceful 8HI13460 Campsite Indeterminate ACI 2015 Ineligible Ridge

4-1 P16087 archaeolgical sites archaeological probability areas ¹ survey areas previously surveyed areas

8HI11445

8HI13457

8HI13460

8HI13459 8HI06412 8HI13458

8HI00062 8HI06266

8HI00024

8HI05387 8HI05120

8HI05121

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Figure 4.1. Location of the previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank, the previously surveyed areas, and the zones of moderate archaeologi- cal potential (USGS Plant City East).

4-2

Three surveys have previously been conducted within the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank. These were conducted for the Borrow Pit # 47 and two surveys for Borrow Pit # 23 (Driscoll et al. 1997; Driscoll et al. 1996; Tucker and White 1998). Most of the surveys conducted within a mile of the mitigation bank were for transportation related projects (ACI 1995; ACI/Janus Research 2003; Almy 1995; HDR Engineering 1993; Janus Research 1992b). Other surveys were conducted for a natural gas pipeline (Athens et al. 1993) and two development properties (ACI 2015; Stack 2016). Based on these data, and other regional site location predictive models and studies (e.g., Austin et al. 1991; Burger 1982; de Montmollin 1983; Deming 1980; Janus Research 1990, 1992a, 2004; Weisman and Collins 2004) informed expectations concerning the types of sites likely to occur within the project APE, 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 including stone and clay. 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 found, often, on better-drained soils, and at the better-drained 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. 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 is evident during the later periods. The predictive model for Hillsborough County indicates that most of the property has a low archaeological potential; the areas of moderate potential are depicted on Figure 4.1 (Janus Research 2004).

4.2 Historical/Architectural Considerations

The background research revealed that no historic resources have been previously recorded within the project APE. No structures were reported in this area during the historic resources survey of Hillsborough County (Maio et al. 1998). A review of the property appraiser’s web site indicated no historic structures (Henriquez 2016). No structures have been constructed in the project APE based on a review of the historic aerial photographs (USDA 1938, 1948, 1957, 1968).

4.3 Field Methodology

Archaeological field methods consisted of surface reconnaissance and subsurface testing. Testing was restricted to those areas of anticipated ground disturbance and near 8HI00062. Shovel tests were placed at 50 m (164 ft) intervals throughout the moderate probability areas and judgmentally in the low probability areas. Testing within the purported location of 8HI00062 was conducted at 25 m (82 ft) intervals in the upland areas adjacent to the prairie. The 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. All soil removed was screened through 0.64 cm (0.25 in) mesh hardware cloth to maximize the recovery of artifacts. The locations of all shovel tests were plotted on the aerial map and following the recording of relevant data such as stratigraphic profile and artifact finds the shovel tests were refilled.

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 or adjacent to the project APE could be eligible for listing in the NRHP. If any such sites were encountered, an in-depth study of each identified historic resource would have been conducted. Photographs would have been taken and information needed for the completion of FMSF forms gathered. In addition to architectural descriptions, each historic property would have been reviewed to

4-3 P16087

assess style, historic context, and potential NRHP eligibility. Pertinent records housed at the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser’s Office would have been examined. In addition, residents or other knowledgeable persons would have 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 APE vicinity was also conducted to ascertain whether any potential historic district existed within or adjacent to the project APE.

4.4 Unexpected Discoveries

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

4.5 Laboratory Methods and Curation

All recovered cultural materials were initially cleaned and sorted by artifact class. Lithics were divided into tools and debitage based on gross morphology. Tools were measured, and the edges examined with a 7-45x stereo-zoom microscope for traces of edge damage and classified using standard references (Bullen 1975; Purdy 1981). Lithic debitage was subjected to a limited technological analysis focused on ascertaining the stages of stone tool production. Flakes and non-flake production debris (i.e. cores, blanks, tested cobbles) were measured, and examined for raw material types and absence or presence of thermal alteration. Flakes were classified into four types (primary decortication, secondary decortication, non-decortication, and shatter) based on the amount of cortex on the dorsal surface and the shape (White 1963). Aboriginal ceramics would have been classified based on the characteristics of temper type and decoration, utilizing standard references (Cordell 1987, 2004; Goggin 1948; Luer and Almy 1980; Willey 1949). In addition, standard references would have been used to aide in the identification of historic period artifacts to ascertain site function and temporal placement. Faunal material would have been initially sorted into class (mammal, reptile, bony fish, etc.); within these broad categories, identifiable elements would have been classified as to genus and species, where possible.

The artifacts project-related records, including maps, field notes, and photos, will be maintained at ACI in Sarasota (P16087) unless the client requests otherwise.

4-4 P16087

5.0 SURVEY RESULTS

5.1 Archaeological Survey Results

Archaeological field survey included surface reconnaissance and the excavation of 107 shovel tests within the survey areas. Eight were placed at 25 m (82 ft) intervals within the upland area plotted as 8HI00062; no evidence of the mound was discovered, nor were any artifacts recovered. No evidence of 8HI06412 was recovered. Sixty-eight shovel tests were excavated at 50 m (164 ft) intervals in the moderate probability areas and 16 were judgmentally placed throughout the low probability zones. Fifteen shovel tests were excavated at 15-25 m (50-82 ft) intervals to bound the sites and AOs (Figure 5.1). As a result of this testing, two new archaeological sites and two archaeological occurrences (AO) were discovered. An AO is defined as “one or two non-diagnostic artifacts, not known to be distant from the original context, which fit within a hypothetical cylinder of thirty meters diameter, regardless of depth below surface” (FMSF 1999:10). The two new archaeological sites have been recorded as 8HI13678 (Wiggins Prairie Lithic Scatter) and 8HI13679 (Wiggins Turtleback). The FMSF forms for these and the two previously recorded sites are in Appendix B, the survey log is contained in Appendix C.

The Wiggins Prairie Lithic Scatter (8HI13678) is in the northwest quarter of Section 13 in Township 28 South, Range 22 East (USGS Plant City East). It occurs on Malabar fine sand, a poorly drained soil of the flatwoods (Doolittle et al. 1989). The site is in a cattle pasture at an elevation of 34 to 35 m (110- 115 ft) amsl (Photo 5.1) Wiggins Prairie is adjacent to the east.

The site was discovered during systematic subsurface testing in a moderate probability zone. Seven shovel tests were excavated at 25 m (82 ft) intervals, of which one produced Photo 5.1. 8HI13678, facing southwest. cultural materials. Lithic debitage was recovered from 10 to 70 cm (4-28 in) below surface (cmbs). The stratigraphy consists of 0-25 cm (0-10 in) dark gray mottled sand, 25-65 cm (10-26 in) light grayish tan sand, and 65-100 cm (26-40 in) light brown sand; water intrusion occurred at 80 cmbs (32 in). Based on the testing, the site, as contained within the project area, is estimated as being 10 m (33 ft) in diameter, or 80 square meters (sq m) (845 sq ft). The property line marks the western site boundary.

The artifact assemblage consists of six piece of coral debitage, five of which had been thermally altered and a thermally altered coral flake tool. The debitage consists entirely of non-decortication flakes; there are four medium (1-2 cm2 / .15-.32 in2), one large (2-3 cm2 / .31-.46 in2), and one XL (3- 4 cm2 / .46-.62 in2). The flake tool was made from a large coral, non-decortication flake. It appears to have been used for cutting/slicing.

5-1 P16087 shovel test - positive shovel test - negative survey areas ¹ previously surveyed areas archaeological site

8HI13679

AO#1

AO#2

8HI13678

8HI00062

8HI06412

0 500 1,000 Feet Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, 0150300 USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Meters

Figure 5.1. Location of the shovel tests (not to scale), AOs, and archaeological sites within the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank.

5-2

The Wiggins Prairie Lithic Scatter represents a short-term encampment where lithic tool manufacture or maintenance tool place. Based on the use of coral and thermal alteration, the site probably dates from the Middle/Late Archaic period (cf., Ste. Claire 1987). Although of interest in terms of settlement and land-use studies, the low artifact density and diversity indicates a low research potential. Thus, 8HI13678 is considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP.

The Wiggins Turtleback (8HI13679) site is in the northeast quarter of Section 12 in Township 28 South, Range 22 East (USGS Plant City East). The site occurs on Malabar fine sand, which is a poorly drained soil of the flatwoods (Doolittle et al. 1989). The site is at an elevation of 34-35 m (110-115 ft) amsl in a cattle pasture (Photo 5.2). Wiggins Prairie is located northeast of the site.

The site was located during systematic subsurface Photo 5.2. 8HI13679, facing northeast. testing in a moderate probability area. Of the five shovel tests excavated in this area, one produced a turtleback scraper at 70-80 cmbs (28-32 in). The local stratigraphy consists of 0-20 cm (0-8 in) dark gray/gray mottled sand, 20-50 cm (8-20 in) very light grayish tan sand, 50-100 cm (20-40 in) light brown sand; dark brown hardpan was encountered at 1 m (40 in). Based on the testing, the site, as contained within the project area, is estimated as being 10 m (33 ft) in diameter, or 80 square meters (sq m) (845 sq ft). The property line marks the western site boundary.

The site consists on a turtleback scraper that had been manufactured from thermally altered chert (Photo 5.3). It is 7.6 cm (2.99 in) long, 3.8 cm (1.5 in) wide, and 3.2 cm (1.34 in) tall. Unifacial flake removal has occurred along all margins, but the tool does not seem to have been completed. Turtleback scrapers are attributed to the Early Archaic period, but the use of thermal alteration may indicate a Middle Archaic date (Purdy 1981; Ste. Claire 1987). It is also possible that it was manufactured during the earlier time, found during the Middle Archaic and subject to heat treatment at that time. Photo 5.3. Turtleback scraper from 8HI13679.

5-3 P16087 The Wiggins Turtleback site probably represents a lost item, as no additional debitage was recovered to suggest that it had been manufactured on site. Although of interest in terms of settlement and land-use patterns, the site consists of an isolated artifact and has a low research potential. 8HI13679 is considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP.

AO #1 is in the southeast quarter of Section 12 in Township 28 South, Range 22 East (USGS Plant City East). It occurs on Malabar fine sand at an elevation of 34-35 m (110-115 ft) amsl. It was recovered at a depth of 70-80 cm (28-32 in). The stratigraphy consists of 0-40 cm (0-16 in) dark gray sand, 40-90 cm (16-36 in) light brown sand with concretions, 90-100 cm (36-40 in) dark brown hardpan with concretions. It consists of a large, coral secondary decortication flake that had been thermally altered. Due to its low research potential, it is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.

AO #2 is in the southwest quarter of Section 12 in Township 28 South, Range 22 East (USGS Plant City East). It occurs on Malabar fine sand, a poorly drained soil of the flatwoods, at an elevation of 33-34 m (110-115 ft) amsl. It was recovered at a depth of 75-85 cm (30-34 in). The stratigraphy consists of 0-20 cm (0-8 in) very dark gray sand, 20-75 cm (8-30 in) light tan sand, 75-100 cm (30-40 in) light brown sand; water was encountered at 90 cmbs (36 in). It consists of flake tool that was manufactured from a non-heat-treated coral flake that was modified along a lateral margin. Due to its low research potential, it is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.

5.2 Historical/Architectural Survey Results

Background research revealed a low potential for historic structures on the property, and this was confirmed by the field reconnaissance. No historic resources were discovered.

5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the background research and survey results, there are no cultural resources within the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank survey areas that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. No further investigations are deemed warranted within the areas examined. If subsurface disturbance is slated to occur in areas not previously surveyed, additional investigations may be warranted.

5-4 P16087

6.0 REFERENCES CITED

ACI 1995 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Interstate 4 PD&E Study Polk County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2014 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, I-4 Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study from East of 50th Street to Polk Parkway in Hillsborough and Polk Counties, Florida. Work Program Segment Number: 431746-1. ACI, Sarasota. 2015 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Varrea Property, Hillsborough County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2016 Additional Archaeological Testing at 8HI11445 (Fort Sullivan Site) Within the Varrea Property, Hillsborough County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota.

ACI/Janus Research 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Report Florida High Speed Rail Authority Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study from Tampa to Orlando Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, and Orange Counties, 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 1995 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Ten Proposed Pond Sites on I-4, West of County Line Road, Hillsborough County to West of Memorial Boulevard, Polk County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota.

Athens, William P., Ralph B. Draughon, Jr., Charlotte Donald, Paul V. Heinrich, Jennifer Cohen, and Thomas Neumann 1993 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed 22-inch-diameter St. Petersburg Lateral Loop of the Florida Gas Transmission Company Phase III Expansion Pipeline Corridor. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., New Orleans.

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

Austin, Robert J., Howard Hansen, and Charles Fuhrmeister 1991 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Unincorporated Areas of Pinellas County, Florida. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa.

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

6-1 P16087

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

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

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

Brown, Canter, Jr. 1991 Florida's Peace River Frontier. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. 1999 Tampa Before the Civil War. Tampa Bay History Center, Tampa.

Bruton, Quintilla Geer and David E. Bailey 1984 Plant City: Its Origins and History. Hunter Publishing Co., Winston-Salem.

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

Burger, B. W. 1982 Cultural Resource Management in Manatee County, Florida: The Prehistoric Resource Base. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.

Campbell, A. Stuart 1939 The Cigar Industry of Tampa, Florida. University of Florida. Bureau of Economics and Business Research, Gainesville.

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

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.

Chamberlin, Donald L. 1968 Fort Brooke: A History. MA thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

6-2 P16087

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. 1958 Exploring the Ten Thousand Islands: 1838. Tequesta 18:7-13. 1961a The Armed Occupation Act of 1842. Florida Historical Quarterly 40(1):41-53. 1961b The Indian Scare of 1849. Tequesta 21:53-62. 1975 Fort Sullivan. The Sunland Tribune 2(1):2-4. 1982 The Billy Bowlegs War 1855-1858: The Final Stand of the Seminoles Against the Whites. The Mickler House Publishers, Chuluota.

Curl, Donald W. 1986 Palm Beach County: An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications, Northridge, CA.

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

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

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

Deming, Joan 1980 The Cultural Resources of Hillsborough County: An Assessment of Prehistoric Resources. Historic Tampa/Hillsborough County Preservation Board, Tampa.

Doolittle, James A., Gregg Schellentrager, and Susan Ploetz 1989 Soil Survey of Hillsborough County, Florida. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

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

6-3 P16087

Driscoll, Kelly A., Scott M. Grammer, and Nancy Marie White 1997 Cultural Resource Assessment of the B&B Borrow Pit # 47 Property Hillsborough County, Florida. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology, Tampa.

Driscoll, Kelly A., Terrance L. Simpson, and Nancy Marie White 1996 Cultural Resource Assessment of the B&B Borrow Pit #23 Property Hillsborough County, Florida. University of South Florida, Tampa.

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

Dunbar, James S. and Pamela K. Vojnovski 2007 Early Floridians and Late Mega-Mammals: Some Technological and Dietary Evidence from Four North Florida Paleoindian Sites. In Foragers of the Terminal Pleistocene in North America. Edited by R. B. Walker and B. N Driskell, pp. 167-202. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.

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.

Eriksen, John M. 1994 Brevard County, A History to 1955. Florida Historical Society Press, Tampa.

Evans, Mary K. 1972 National Register of Historic Places Nomination of the Tampa Bay Hotel. FDHR, Tallahassee.

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.

6-4 P16087

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.

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

FMSF Various site file forms. On file, FDHR, Tallahassee.

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

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

Friedel, Frank 1985 The Splendid Little War. Bramhall House, New York.

FWP 1939 Florida: A Guide to the Southernmost State. Federal Writers' Project. Oxford University Press, New York.

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

Grismer, Karl H. 1946 The Story of Sarasota. Florida Grower Press, Tampa. 1950 Tampa: A History of the City of Tampa and the Tampa Bay Region of Florida. St. Petersburg Printing Company, St. Petersburg.

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.

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

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

HDR Engineering, Inc. 1993 Archaeological/Historical Resource Reevaluation for Polk County Parkway (West Leg) Hillsborough and Polk Counties, Florida, US 98 Westerly and Northerly to I-4. HDR Engineering, Inc., Tampa.

6-5 P16087

Henriquez, Bob 2016 Property Records Search. Hillsborough County Property Appraiser, Tampa.

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

Janus Research 1990 Preliminary Cultural Resource Assessment of the Florida Power Corporation to Lake Tarpon to Kathleen 500 kV Transmission Line Corridor, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Polk Counties, Florida. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa. 1992a An Archaeological Resource Inventory and Archaeological Site Predictive Model for Manatee County, Florida. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa. 1992b 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. 2004 Updated Archaeological Site Predictive Model for the Unincorporated Areas of Hillsborough County, Florida. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa.

Knapp, Michael S. 1980 Environmental Geology Series: Tampa Sheet. Map Series 97. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee.

Knetsch, Joe 1999 The Creation of Fort Sullivan: Document and Commentary. The Sunland Tribune 25:43- 47. 2000 Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Cummings and the Fort Brooke to Fort Mellon Road. The Sunland Tribune 26:21-26.

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

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

Lowry, Charles B. 1974 The PWA in Tampa: A Case Study. Florida Historical Quarterly 52(4):363-380.

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

Luer, George M., Marion M. Almy, Dana Ste. Claire, and Robert J. Austin 1987 The Myakkahatchee Site (8SO397), A Large Multi-Period Inland from the Shore Site in Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 40(2):137-153.

6-6 P16087

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

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

Maio, Teresa, Geoffrey Mohlman, and DeAnn Capanna 1998 Hillsborough County Historic Resources Report. Hillsborough County Planning and Growth Management Department, Tampa.

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

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

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

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.

Parsons, Timothy A 2016 Letter to District Engineer, Department of the Army, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, September 12. RE: Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank, Hillsborough County. SAJ-2016-00429-TMF. FDHR, Tallahassee.

Piper, Harry M., Jacquelyn G. Piper, Kenneth W. Hardin, George R. Ballo, Mark M. Thomsen, Daniel F. Belknap, and Curtis W. Wienker 1982 Archaeological Excavations at the Quad Block Site, 8HI998, Located at the Site of the Old Fort Brooke Municipal Parking Garage, Tampa. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa.

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

Robinson, Earnest L. 1928 History of Hillsborough County. The Record Company Printers, St. Augustine.

6-7 P16087

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

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

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

Scott, Thomas M. 2001 Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida. Open File Report 80. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.

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

Scupholm, Carrie 1997 The Tamiami Trail: Connecting the East and West Coasts of the Sunshine State. The Society for Commercial Archeology Journal 15(2):20-24.

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

Stack, Meg 2016 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the True Builders Site, Hillsborough County, Florida. Cardno ENTRIX, Riverview.

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 1842 Field Notes. H. Washington. Volume 92. 1843a Field Notes. H. Washington. Volume 74. 1843b Field Notes. A. M. Randolph. Volume 122. 1845 Plat. Township 28 South, Range 22 East. A. M. Randolph. 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.

6-8 P16087

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

Tebeau, Charlton W. and Ruby Leach Carson, Eds. 1965 Florida -- From Indian Trail to Space Age. Southern Publishing Co., Delray Beach.

Tischendorf, A. P. 1954 Florida and the British Investor: 1880-1914. Florida Historical Quarterly 33(2):120-129.

Tucker, Lisa E. and Nancy Marie White 1998 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Bishop & Buttrey, Inc. Proposed Borrow Pit #23, Areas A and C, Hillsborough County, Florida. Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.

Turner, Gregg 2003 A Short History of Florida Railroads. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC.

2005 Florida Railroads in the 1920s. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC.

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

USDA 1938 Aerial Photograph - Nov 30 1938, BQF-4-173. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1948 Aerial Photograph - 11 Jan '48, BQF-2D-136. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1957 Aerial Photographs - 3-31-57, BQF-5T-10, 12. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1968 Aerial Photograph - 1-22-68, BQF-2JJ-159. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 2012 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Florida - June 2012. USDA, NRCS, Fort Worth, TX.

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. and Barbara C. S. Hansen 1988 Environments in Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site Archaeology. Edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 307-323. Telford Press, Caldwell.

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

6-9 P16087

Weisman, Brent R. and Lori Collins 2004 A GIS Archaeological Modeling and Testing of Nine ELAPP Preserves, Hillsborough County, FL. Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.

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.

6-10 P16087

APPENDIX A SHPO/ACOE Correspondence

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS POST OFFICE BOX 4970 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32232-0019

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF September 19, 2016

Regulatory Division North Permits Branch Mitigation Bank Team SAJ-2016-00429-TMF

Russell Walters Southern States Land & Timber LLC 2205 W Pinhook Road, Suite 200 Lafayette, LA 70508

Dear Mr. Walters:

This letter is in reference to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) file number SAJ-2016-00429, for the proposed establishment of the Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank (WPMB). The proposed WPMB is comprised of approximately 492 acres, which is located north of Swindell Road, east of Charlie Taylor Road, and adjacent to Country Class Meadows subdivision on the west within Sections 12, and 13, Township 28 south, and Range 22 east, Hillsborough County, Florida.

In response to the public notice issued on August 2, 2016, the Florida State Historic Preservation Office requested that the proposed project site be surveyed in order to assess any effects to cultural resources potentially located within the proposed project’s area of effect. In accordance with the National Preservation Act of 1966, it’s implementing authority, 36 CFR 800; and 33 CFR 325: Appendix C, the Corps is requesting that a cultural resources assessment survey (Survey) be conducted by an archeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualification Standards to identify and evaluate cultural resources, excluding previously surveyed areas, within the proposed project site. For extensive projects a predictive model or similar sampling strategy may be employed, to include, but not limited to high and medium probability areas.

The cultural resource assessment report (Report) generated to provide the results of the Survey, acceptable to Chapter 1A-46 Florida Administrative Code, must be submitted to the Corps project manager identified in the closing paragraph of this letter, in the form of one electronic copy and four bound copies. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines on Archeological Documentation can provide technical guidance pertinent to the development of the Report. Upon receipt of the Report, the Corps will initiate consultation with the appropriate entities which may include the Florida State Historic Preservation Office, federally recognized tribes, and concerned non-governmental organizations for cultural resource issues.

-2-

If you have any questions or comments concerning the proposed project, please contact the project manager, Ms. Teresa Frame at the letterhead address, by email at [email protected] or by phone at 904-232-1677. If you have any questions or comments concerning the cultural resources request addressed above, please contact Mr. Jacob Hemingway at 904-232-3270 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

for Donald W. Kinard Chief, Regulatory Division cc: (electronically) Mr. Ryan Deibler, GreenSource Environmental Professionals, Inc., 3824 W. San Juan St. Tampa, Florida 33629

RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Governor Secretary of State

District Engineer September 12, 2016 Department of the Army Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers Mitigation Bank Team P.O. Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019

RE: DHR Project File No.: 2016-3645, Received by DHR: August 2, 2016 Application No.: SAJ-2016-00429-TMF Project: Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank County: Hillsborough

To Whom It May Concern:

The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the referenced project for possible effects on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places. The review was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties.

A review of the Florida Master Site File indicates that archaeological site 8HI00062 is located within the project area. Since conditions in the area are favorable for the presence of additional resources, we request that the project area be subjected to a professional cultural resources assessment survey. The resultant survey report should conform to the provisions of Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code, and should be sent to our office upon completion. The report will help us complete the Section 106 review process and provide concurrence on federal determinations of effect, and recommend any necessary avoidance or mitigation measures.

The Division of Historical Resources cannot endorse specific archaeological or historic preservation consultants. However, the American Cultural Resources Association maintains a listing of professional consultants at www.acra-crm.org, and the Register of Professional Archaeologists maintains a membership directory at www.rpanet.org. The Division encourages checking references and recent work history.

If you have any questions, please contact Christopher Hunt, RPA, Historic Sites Specialist, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 850.245.6333 or 800.847.7278.

Sincerely,

Timothy A Parsons, Ph.D., RPA Director, Division of Historical Resources & State Historic Preservation Officer

Division of Historical Resources R.A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee, Florida 32399 850.245.6300 • 850.245.6436 (Fax) FLHeritage.com

APPENDIX B FMSF forms

HI00062 Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______Field Date ______10-19-2016 † Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Form Date ______10-26-2016 † Update Version 4.0 1/07 Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______NN Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______CRAS Wiggins Prairie MB, Hillsborough 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 ______PLANT CITY EAST USGS Date ______Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______Plant City In City Limits? †yes †no †unknown County ______Hillsborough Township ______28S Range______22E Section ______13 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. ______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) ______no evidence of mound/site discovered via surface ______reconnaissance and subsurface testing ______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]

HI00062 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) ______8 ST @ 25 m intervals along uplands margin______of ______prairie, all negative; 50 cm diameter, 1 m deep, 0.64 cm mesh ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______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 / mitigation bank construction / none ______Surface collection: area collected ______m2 # collection units ______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______0 †count †estimate Surface #______00 Subsurface #______COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for † 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 ______none ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. ______N=_____ 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. ______N=_____ 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______Wetland Name______Wiggins Prairie Distance from site (m) ______Natural community ______Topography ______Elevation: Min _____m Max _____m Local vegetation ______grass, oaks Present land use ______pasture SCS soil series ______Myakka & St. Johns fine sand Soil association ______Samsula-Basinger 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 ______notes, maps, photos File or accession #’s ______P16087 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 # 8HI00062 PHOTOGRAPH

AERIAL MAP

8HI00062 ¹

wet

0 50 100 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap Feet contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 02040 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, Meters and the GIS User Community Page 4 Archaeological Form Site # 8HI00062 USGS Plant City East Township 28 South, Range 22 East, Section 13 ¹

8HI00062

0 500 1,000 Feet 0150300 Meters Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed HI06412 Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______Field Date ______10-17-2016 † Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Form Date ______10-26-2016 † Update Version 4.0 1/07 Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______B&B Pit #47 Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______CRAS Wiggins Prairie MB, Hillsborough 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 ______PLANT CITY EAST USGS Date ______Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______Plant City In City Limits? †yes †no †unknown County ______Hillsborough Township ______28S Range______22E Section ______13 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. ______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) ______no evidence of site discovered via surface ______reconnaissance and subsurface testing; previously determined ineligible ______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]

HI06412 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) ______4 ST @ 50 m intervals , all negative 50______cm ______diameter, 1 m deep, 0.64 cm mesh ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______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 / mitigation bank construction / none ______Surface collection: area collected ______m2 # collection units ______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______0 †count †estimate Surface #______00 Subsurface #______COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for † 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 ______none ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. ______N=_____ 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. ______N=_____ 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______Wetland Name______Wiggins Prairie Distance from site (m) ______Natural community ______Topography ______Elevation: Min _____m Max _____m Local vegetation ______grass, oaks Present land use ______pasture SCS soil series ______Myakka & Malabar fine sand Soil association ______Samsula-Basinger 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 ______notes, maps, photos File or accession #’s ______P16087 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 # 8HI06412 PHOTOGRAPH

AERIAL MAP ¹

8HI06412

0 50 100 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap Feet contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 02040 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, Meters and the GIS User Community Page 4 Archaeological Form Site # 8HI06412 USGS Plant City East Township 28 South, Range 22 East, Section 13 ¹

8HI06412

0 500 1,000 Feet 0150300 Meters Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed HI13678 Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______Field Date ______10-20-2016 † Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Form Date ______10-26-2016 † Update Version 4.0 1/07 Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Wiggins Prairie Lithic Scatter Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______CRAS Wiggins Prairie MB, Hillsborough 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 ______PLANT CITY EAST USGS Date ______Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______Plant City In City Limits? †yes †no †unknown County ______Hillsborough Township ______28S Range______22E Section ______13 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, diversity, & 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]

HI13678 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) ______4 ST @ 25 m, 3 @ 50 m intervals, 1 positive;______50 cm diameter, 1 m deep, 0.64 cm mesh ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______80 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______artifacts @ 10-70 cm ______0-25 cm dark gray mottled sand, 25-65 cm light grayish tan sand, 65-100 cm light brown sand; water @ 80 cm ______ca. 10 m diameter 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 / mitigation bank construction / none ______Surface collection: area collected ______m2 # collection units ______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______7 †count †estimate Surface #______07 Subsurface #______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 coral; 6 flakes, 1 flake tool ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. thermal______alteration N=_____6 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. ______N=_____ 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______Wetland Name______Wiggins prairie Distance from site (m) ______10 Natural community ______Topography ______Elevation: Min _____m34 Max _____m 35 Local vegetation ______grass, oaks Present land use ______pasture SCS soil series ______Malabar fine sand Soil association ______Samsula-Basinger 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 ______P16087 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 # 8HI13678 PHOTOGRAPH

AERIAL MAP ¹

8HI13678

0 50 100 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap Feet contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 02040 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, Meters and the GIS User Community Page 4 Archaeological Form Site # 8HI13678 USGS Plant City East Township 28 South, Range 22 East, Section 13 ¹

8HI13678

0 500 1,000 Feet 0150300 Meters Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed HI13679 Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______Field Date ______10-21-2016 † Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Form Date ______10-26-2016 † Update Version 4.0 1/07 Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Wiggins Turtleback Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______CRAS Wiggins Prairie MB, Hillsborough 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 ______PLANT CITY EAST USGS Date ______Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______Plant City In City Limits? †yes †no †unknown County ______Hillsborough Township ______28S Range______22E Section ______12 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, diversity, & 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]

HI13679 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) ______5 ST @ 25 m intervals, 1 positive; 50 cm______diameter, 1 m deep, 0.64 cm mesh ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______80 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______artifact @ 70-80 cm ______0-20 cm dark gray/gray mottled sand, 20-50 cm light grayish tan sand, 50-100 cm light brown sand; hardpan @ ______100 cm; ca. 10 m diameter 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 / mitigation bank construction / none ______Surface collection: area collected ______m2 # collection units ______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______1 †count †estimate Surface #______01 Subsurface #______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 ______coral turtleback scraper ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. thermal______alteration N=_____1 4. ______N=_____ 7. ______N=_____ 2. turtleback______scraper N=_____1 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. ______N=_____ 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______Wetland Name______Wiggins prairie Distance from site (m) ______10 Natural community ______Topography ______Elevation: Min _____m34 Max _____m 35 Local vegetation ______grass, oaks Present land use ______pasture SCS soil series ______Malabar fine sand Soil association ______Samsula-Basinger 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 ______P16087 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 # 8HI13679 PHOTOGRAPH

AERIAL MAP ¹

8HI13679

0 50 100 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap Feet contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 02040 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, Meters and the GIS User Community Page 4 Archaeological Form Site # 8HI13679 USGS Plant City East Township 28 South, Range 22 East, Section 12 ¹

8HI13679

0 500 1,000 Feet 0150300 Meters Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 8HI13678

APPENDIX C Survey Log

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 Wiggins Prairie MB, Hillsborough Co. B BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW 7LWOH H[DFWO\ DV RQ WLWOH SDJH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Wiggins Prairie MitigationBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBank, Hillsborough 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 BBBBBBBBBBB44 3XEOLFDWLRQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ *LYH VHULHV QXPEHU LQ VHULHV SXEOLVKHU DQG FLW\ )RU DUWLFOH RU FKDSWHU FLWH SDJH QXPEHUV 8VH WKH VW\OH RI $PHULFDQ $QWLTXLW\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBP16087. Conducted for Southern Land and Timber, LLC, Lafayette, LA by BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBACI, Sarasota. 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 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBSouthern Land and Timber, LLC 2UJDQL]DWLRQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $GGUHVV3KRQH(PDLO BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB2205 W. Pinhook Road, Suite 200, Lafayette, LA 70508 BBBBBBBBBBB 5HFRUGHU RI /RJ 6KHHW BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBHorvath, Elizabeth A. 'DWH /RJ 6KHHW &RPSOHWHG BBBBBBBBBBB10-26-2016

,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\  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBHillsborough  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

86*6  0DS 1DPHV

'HVFULSWLRQ RI 6XUYH\ $UHD

'DWHV IRU )LHOGZRUN 6WDUW BBBBBBBBB10-17-2016 (QG BBBBBBBBB 10-21-2016 7RWDO $UHD 6XUYH\HG ILOO LQ RQH BBBBBBKHFWDUHV BBBBBB79 DFUHV 1XPEHU RI 'LVWLQFW 7UDFWV RU $UHDV 6XUYH\HG BBBBBBBBB1 ,I &RUULGRU ILOO LQ RQH IRU HDFK :LGWK BBBBBBPHWHUV BBBBBBIHHW /HQJWK BBBBBBNLORPHWHUV BBBBBBPLOHV

+5(5 HIIHFWLYH ;;;;;; )ORULGD 0DVWHU 6LWH )LOH  'LY RI +LVWRULFDO 5HVRXUFHV  5$ *UD\ %OGJ   6 %URQRXJK 6W 7DOODKDVVHH )ORULGD  5XOH $ )$& 3KRQH  )D[  (PDLO 6LWH)LOH#GRVP\IORULGDFRP 3DJH  6XUYH\ /RJ 6KHHW 6XUYH\ BBBBBBBBB

5HVHDUFK DQG )LHOG 0HWKRGV 7\SHV RI 6XUYH\ FKHFN DOO WKDW DSSO\  DUFKDHRORJLFDO DUFKLWHFWXUDO KLVWRULFDODUFKLYDO XQGHUZDWHU GDPDJH DVVHVVPHQW PRQLWRULQJ UHSRUW RWKHU GHVFULEH  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6FRSH,QWHQVLW\3URFHGXUHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBbackground research, systematic & judgmental subsurface testing (23 @BBBBBBBB 25 m, BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB68 @ 50m, 16 judgmentally placed), 50 cm diameter, 1 m deep, 1/4" screen;BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB historic resources survey BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'RFXPHQW 'HVWLQDWLRQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3ORWDELOLW\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

+5(5 HIIHFWLYH ;;;;;; )ORULGD 0DVWHU 6LWH )LOH  'LY RI +LVWRULFDO 5HVRXUFHV  5$ *UD\ %OGJ   6 %URQRXJK 6W 7DOODKDVVHH )ORULGD  5XOH $ )$& 3KRQH  )D[  (PDLO 6LWH)LOH#GRVP\IORULGDFRP survey areas previously surveyed areas ¹

Midway Rd

Swindell Rd

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

Wiggins Prairie Mitigation Bank Sections 12 and 13 of Township 28 South, Range 22 East USGS Plant City East Hillsborough County