CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY GROVE LAND RESERVOIR INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA

Prepared for:

Hazen and Sawyer 4000 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 750N DRAFTHollywood, Florida 33201

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

December 2016 CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY GROVE LAND RESERVOIR INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA

Prepared for: DRAFT Hazen and Sawyer 4000 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 750N Hollywood, Florida 33201

Prepared by:

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

Marion Almy - Project Manager Christine Newman - Project Archaeologist Katie Baar - Chief Field Archaeologist

With assistance from Greg Smith, Ph.D.

December 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) of the 2000 acre Grove Land Reservoir property in Indian River County, Florida, for Hazen and Sawyer. The purpose of this investigation was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the project area and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

The archaeological and historical field surveys, conducted in October and November, 2016, were conducted as due diligence and were in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The survey also complies with Chapters 267 and 373 Florida Statutes (FS), Florida’s Coastal Management Program, and implementing state regulations for possible impacts to historic properties listed, or eligible for listing in the NRHP, or otherwise of historical, architectural, or archaeological value. All work was carried out in conformity with the standards contained in the Florida Division of Historical Resource’s (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual (FDHR 2003). The resulting report meets specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code (FAC).

ACI conductedDRAFT extensive background research and prepared a cultural resources predictive model for the Grove Land Reservoir property in Indian River County, Florida. The model included a review of data at the Florida Master Site File (FMSF), the NRHP, CRAS reports, regional predictive models, 19th century federal surveyor’s field notes and Plat maps, Seminole and U.S. military histories, as well as 20th century data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Indian River County soil survey, to address the area’s historic settlement and agriculture industries.

ACI further refined the predictive model using historic aerial photographs as recommended in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) (Smith 2008). During ACI’s survey, 16 zones of archaeological potential (ZAPs) were identified and 15 were tested (one was within a pond), with supplemental testing of low probability areas throughout the study area.

The archaeological background research indicated that no archaeological sites were recorded within the project tract and only two sites were recorded within two miles of the project area. Both sites, 8IR00066 and 8IR00079, are low density artifact scatters where only faunal material was recovered, thus cultural affiliation is unknown.

Archaeological and historical field survey, based on the predictive model (CERP) and refinements, resulted in the discovery of one prehistoric archaeological site. Site 8IR01725, Grove Land, is a small disturbed midden from an unspecified prehistoric period. It is limited in size and does not appear to have the potential to provide data relative to subsurface features, seasonality, subsistence patterns, and technology at interior sites in southern Florida. Therefore, the site is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.

A review of the FMSF and the NRHP, indicated that no historic resources (50 years of age or older) were previously recorded within the project area. As a result of the field survey, no historic resources were identified.

Given the results of background research and field survey, it is the opinion of ACI archaeologists that the development of the project area will have no effect on any archaeological sites

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir i

or historic resources that are listed, determined eligible, or considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP.

DRAFT

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose ...... 1-1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 2-1 2.1 Project Location and Environment ...... 2-1 2.2 Geology and Physiography ...... 2-1 2.3 Soils ...... 2-1 2.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations ...... 2-5 3.0 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY ...... 3-1 3.1 Paleoindian ...... 3-1 3.2 Archaic Period ...... 3-3 3.3 Glades ...... 3-5 3.3.1 Glades I ...... 3-5 3.3.2 Glades II (sub periods a, b, and c) ...... 3-6 3.3.3DRAFT Glades III (sub periods a, b and c) ...... 3-6 3.4 East Okeechobee ...... 3-6 3.5 East and Central ...... 3-7 3.6 Colonialism ...... 3-7 3.7 Territorial and Statehood ...... 3-10 3.8 American Period: 1900s ...... 3-14 3.9 Project Specific Background ...... 3-16 4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS ...... 4-1 4.1 Archaeological Considerations ...... 4-1 4.2 Identification of ZAPs for Grove Land Reservoir ...... 4-3 4.3 Historic Site Considerations ...... 4-5 4.4 Field Methodology ...... 4-5 4.5 Informant Interviews ...... 4-6 4.6 Unexpected Discoveries ...... 4-6 4.7 Laboratory Methods and Curation ...... 4-6 5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 5-1 5.1 Archaeological Survey Results ...... 5-1 5.2 Historical /Architectural Survey Results ...... 5-6 5.3 Conclusions ...... 5-6 6.0 REFERENCES CITED ...... 6-1

APPENDICES Appendix A: FMSF forms Appendix B: Survey Log

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir iii

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTOGRAPHS

Page Figure

Figure 1.1. Location of the Grove Land Reservoir project area, Indian River County...... 1-2 Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Grove Land Reservoir project area, St. Lucie County. .... 2-2 Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions...... 3-2 Figure 3.2. 1859 plat of Township 33 South, Range 36 East and 1853 plat of Township 33 South, 37 East showing the project area...... 3-12 Figure 3.3. 1958 and 1962 aerial photographs showing the project area ...... 3-17 Figure 3.4. 1971 aerial photograph showing the project area ...... 3-18 Figure 4.1. Location of zones of archaeological potential within, and archaeological sites within two miles of the project area ...... 4-2 Figure 5.1. Location of the shovel tests and zones of archaeological potential within the project area...... 5-2 Figure 5.2. Location of shovel tests, newly recorded site (8IR01725) and zones of archaeological potential within the project area...... 5-3 Figure 5.3. ShovelDRAFT test locations at 8IR01725...... 5-5

Table

Table 2.1. Soil types, drainage, setting, and vegetation of the project area...... 2-5 Table 3.1. Glades Chronology ...... 3-6 Table 3.2. East Okeechobee Chronology...... 3-7 Table 3.3. Prehistoric cultural chronology for East Central archaeological region...... 3-8 Table 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within two miles of the project area...... 4-1 Table 5.1. Summary of results...... 5-1

Photo

Photo 2.1. Looking to the southeast from one of the berms on the property...... 2-3 Photo 2.2. Looking to the northeast at the water storage area in the northeastern portion of the property...... 2-3 Photo 2.3. Looking to the south at one of the areas of high probability based on the historic aerial photographs ...... 2-4 Photo 2.4. Looking to the southeast at ditching, road, and abandoned grove found on the property...... 2-4 Photo 5.1. Looking south at location of site 8IR01725...... 5-4

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) for the 2000 acre Grove Land Reservoir project in Indian River County, Florida for Hazen and Sawyer. The project area is located immediately north of SR 91 (Florida’s Turnpike), SR 60 is to the north, and 154th Avenue SW is to the east. The property is within Indian River County at the junction of Okeechobee, St. Lucie, and Indian River counties (Figure 1.1). The St. Johns River Water Management District’s Ft. Drum Marsh Conservation Area lies to the west.

The investigations, conducted in October and November of 2016, were conducted as due diligence and were in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The survey also complies with Chapters 267 and 373 Florida Statutes (FS), Florida’s Coastal Management Program, and implementing state regulations for possible impacts to historic properties listed, or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or otherwise of historical, architectural, or archaeological value. All work was carried out in conformity with the standards contained in the FloridaDRAFT Division of Historical Resource’s (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual (Module 3; FDHR 2003). The resulting report meets specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code (FAC).

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this investigation was to locate and identify any prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites and historic resources within the project area, to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The field survey was preceded by background research, which served to provide an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of cultural resources that might be anticipated within the project area, as well as a basis for evaluating any new sites discovered.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 1-1 BREVARD ¹ POLK

¨¦§95 ! STLUCIE

HIGHLANDS

MARTIN DRAFT

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

1-2

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

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

2.1 Project Location and Environment

The 2000 acre Grove Land Reservoir project area falls within Sections 19, 30 and 31 of Township 33 South, Range 37 East and Sections 24, 25 and 36 of Township 33 South, Range 36 East of the Fellsmere 4SW (Gum Slough) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Figure 2.1). The project area is located immediately north of SR 91 (Florida’s Turnpike), SR 60 is to the north, and 154th Avenue SW is to the east. The property is within Indian River County at the junction of Okeechobee, St. Lucie, and Indian River counties. The St. Johns River Water Management District’s Ft. Drum Marsh ConservationDRAFT Area lies to the west. The marsh area represents the southernmost reach of the St. Johns River’s headwaters (St. Johns River Water Management District 2016).

The topography of the project area is nearly level with slight elevation changes and is privately owned. The land has been altered by an extensive network of ditching, roads, canal construction, and berm creation, and has been used for citrus grove production since the 1980s. Both abandoned grove with trees is still present and areas where trees have been removed are found on the property. A large water storage area is found in the northwestern portion of the property. Photos 2.1-2.4 provide a representation of current environmental conditions across the project area.

2.2 Geology and Physiography

Physiographically, the project area is located within the Eastern Valley region, a flat, relict beach plain with elevations ranging from 15 to 30 feet (ft) above mean sea level (amsl) and is characteristically pocketed with shallow lakes and marshes with poor natural drainage (White 1970). Both the Pamlico Terrace and the St. Johns Marsh encompasses the Eastern Valley. The flatland occurring on the terrace consist mostly of flatwoods that have numerous, small depression, low hammocks and grassy sloughs while the St. Johns Marsh consists of freshwater swamps and marshes (USDA 1989:3). The project falls within the Eastern Flatwood district, St. Johns Marsh province (Brooks 1981).

Historically, the northern portion of the property was freshwater marsh and the southern portion was grasslands of prairie type (Davis 1967). The elevation, as shown on the 1953 USGG quadrangle maps, is 20 to 25 ft amsl (USGS 1953a).

2.3 Soils

The project area is composed of three soil associations; Terra Ceia-Gator-Canova to the north, Rivera-Pineda-Wabasso to the southwest, and Winder-Riviera-Manatee to the southeast. The Terra Ceia-Gator-Canova association is found in freshwater swamps and marshes, is nearly level and very

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 2-1 ¹

DRAFT

0 0.25 0.5 Miles Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed, Esri, 00.51 HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors Kilometers Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Grove Land Reservoir project area; Sections 24, 25 and 36 of Township 33 South, Range 36 East, and Sections 19, 30 and 31 of Township 33 South, Range 37 East (USGS Fellsmere 4SW).

2-2

DRAFT

Photo 2.1. Looking to the southeast from one of the berms on the property.

Photo 2.2. Looking to the northeast at the water storage area in the northeastern portion of the property.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 2-3

DRAFT

Photo 2.3. Looking to the south at one of the areas of high probability based on the historic aerial photographs. Note the differences in elevation between the planted citrus rows and the depression between the rows.

Photo 2.4. Looking to the southeast at ditching, road, and abandoned grove found on the property.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 2-4

poorly drained. The natural vegetation consists of a dense swamp growth of red maple, redbay, cypress, Carolina willow, primrose willow, waxmyrtle, pickerelweed, sawgrass, cattail, buttonbush, arrowhead, ferns cutgrass, and maidencane. The Rivera-Pineda-Wabasso and the Winder-Riviera-Manatee associations are found in sloughs, poorly defined drainageways, and hammocks. Both associations are nearly level and poorly drained. The natural vegetation found in the areas of Riviera-Pineda-Wabasso of south Florida consist of slash pine, cabbage palm, waxmyrtle, scattered sawpalmetto, laurel oak, pineland threeawn, blue maidencane, and various sedges and grasses. In Winder-Rivera-Manatee association the natural vegetation consists of south Florida slash pine, cabbage palm, waxmyrtle, laurel oak, scattered sawpalmetto, pineland threeawn, little blue maidencane, chalky bluestem, sand cord grass, sawgrass, and various sedges and grasses. Other vegetation can be found within all three associations depending on openness, depressions, and other factors (USDA 1989:15-16, 12-13).

Soil types specific to the project area, as well as the drainage and environmental setting, are listed in Table 2.1 (USDA 1989, 2016). The soils that potentially would support hardwood trees, according to the USDA, and potentially more of a hammock type environment are highlighted in green. These areas would have a higher archaeological potential based on native vegetation, as well as a slightly higher elevation relative to the surrounding terrain. It should be noted that sites might also be expected to occur in small, elevated areas adjacent to water that contain hammocks that are not characterized as such in the following table. DRAFT Table 2.1. Soil types, drainage, setting, and vegetation of the project area. NAME DRAINAGE SETTING Arents, 0-5% slopes Somewhat poorly drained Rises Boca fine sand Poorly drained Flats Canova muck Very poorly drained Depressions Chobee loamy fine sand Very poorly drained Depressions, Drainageways Chobee mucky loamy fine sand, Very poorly drained Depressions depressional Floridana sand Very poorly drained Drainageways Gator muck Very poorly drained Depressions Jupiter fine sand Poorly drained Flats Manatee loamy fine sand Poorly drained Drainageways Pineda fine sand Poorly drained Drainageways Rivera fine sand, 0-2% slopes Poorly drained Drainageways Rivera fine sand, depressional, 0-1% Very poorly drained Depressions Wabasso fine sand Poorly drained Flatwoods Flats, drainageways on Winder fine sand, 0-2% Poorly drained depressions

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.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 2-5

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

By 5000 years ago, a climatic event marking a brief return to Pleistocene climatic conditions induced a change toward more open vegetation. Southern pine forests replaced the oak savannahs. Extensive marshes and swamps developed along the coasts and subtropical hardwood forests became established along the southern tip of Florida (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Northern Florida saw an increase in oak species, grasses, and sedges (Carbone 1983). At Lake Annie, in south central Florida, pollen cores were dominated by wax myrtle and pine. The assemblage suggests that by this time, a forest dominated by longleaf pine along with cypress swamps and bayheads existed in the area (Watts 1971, 1975). About 5000 years ago, surface water was plentiful in karst terrains and the level of the Floridan aquifer rose to 1.5 m (5 ft) above present levels. With the establishment of warmer winters and cooler summers than in the preceding early Holocene, the fire-adapted pine communities prevailed. These depend on the high summer precipitation caused by the thunderstorms and the accompanying lightning strikes DRAFTto spark the fires (Watts et al. 1996; Watts and Hansen 1994). The increased precipitation also resulted in the formation of the large swamp systems such as the Okefenokee and Everglades (Gleason and Stone 1994). After this time, modern floral, climatic, and environmental conditions began to be established.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 2-6

3.0 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY

A discussion of the culture history the region provides a framework within which the local archaeological and historical record can be examined. Archaeological sites and historic resources are not individual entities, but are the remains of once dynamic cultural systems. As a result, they cannot be adequately examined or interpreted without reference to other sites and resources in the area. In general, the culture history of an area (i.e., an archaeological region) outlines the sequence of archaeological cultures through time. The primary prehistoric cultures that developed in the project region of southern Florida include the Paleoindian, Archaic, and Glades periods, as discussed more fully below.

The post-Archaic cultures of Florida are defined largely in geographical (regional) terms but also reflect shared environmental and cultural factors. The project area is situated within the Glades Archaeological Region; however, cultural influence from the Okeechobee Basin and the East and Central regions undoubtedly played important roles through time (Figure 3.1). Additionally, it should be recognized that many researchers identify “districts” within the larger Glades Region, while others view the Indian River area as a transitional zone. One such district, the East Okeechobee, has been identified as present in the general area, and the Malabar sequence has been used in place of Glades and/or St. Johns (seeDRAFT Carr and Beriault 1984; Goggin 1949; Griffin 1988, 2002; Janus 2008; Rouse 1951; Smith, et al. 2009 for further discussion). Both are included in the cultural discussion that follows.

The area is best understood chronologically after the introduction of pottery (ca. 500 BCE [Before Common Era]). Prior to this, regional characteristics of native populations are not easily identified, as malleable materials such as textiles and basketry, which lend themselves to cultural expression, are typically destroyed through time by environmental processes. With the arrival of pottery, the clay medium provided both a means of cultural expression and an archaeologically durable artifact. Thus, pottery, as a marker of cultural change and diversity, post-dates the inception of Florida’s Paleoindian and Archaic cultures by many centuries.

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 United States 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 transportation systems were dramatically increased and development throughout the state expanded. The Twentieth Century period has subperiods based on 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 archeological site distribution.

3.1 Paleoindian

Current archaeological evidence indicates that the earliest human occupation of the Florida peninsula dates back some 13,500 years ago or ca. 11,500 BCE (Widmer 1988). The earliest occupation is referred to as the Paleoindian period. It lasted until approximately 7000 BCE. During this time, the climate of South Florida was much drier than today. Sea level was 80 to 130 m (260-425 ft) lower than present and the coast extended approximately 160 kilometers (km) (100 miles [mi]) seaward on the Gulf coast. With lower sea levels, today’s well-watered inland environments were arid uplands

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-1 Post-500 BCE regions of precolumbian Florida ¹ (adapted from Milanich 1994: xix)

1 2

3 5 DRAFT 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.

3-2

(Milanich 1994). Major water bodies including Lake Okeechobee, the Big Cypress, and the Everglades were probably dry. Because of drier global conditions and little or no surface water available for evaporation, Florida’s rainfall was much lower than at present (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Potable water was obtainable at sinkholes where the lower water table could be reached. Plant and animal life were also more diverse around the oases that were frequented by both people and game animals (Milanich 1994; Widmer 1988).

Thus, the prevailing environmental conditions were largely uninviting to human habitation during the Paleoindian period (Griffin 1988:191). Given the inhospitable climate, it is not surprising that the population was sparse and Paleoindian sites are uncommon in south Florida. Exceptions include two sites to the west in Sarasota County, Little Salt Springs (Clausen et al. 1979) and Warm Mineral Springs (Clausen et al. 1975a, 1975b; Cockrell and Murphy 1978); one site to the south, Cutler Fossil Site, in Dade County (Carr 1986); and sites to the north in Brevard County. Melborne Golf Course and Singleton were reported to have human remains and artifacts in association with the bone of now extinct animals (Rouse 1951). The Helen Blazes Site, located roughtly 12 miles inland from Melborne, also has a reported late Paleoindian component (Bense and Mattick 1994; Edwards 1954). A number of archaeological sites in southern Florida have also been found that lack diagnostic artifacts yet are associated with extinct Pleistocene megafauna; these types of sites remain wanting of better temporal interpretation (Smith 2008). DRAFT Although Paleoindian chronology remains a matter for discussion, some archaeologists have hypothesized that this period was characterized by small groups utilizing a hunting and gathering mode of subsistence. Dunbar (2006:540, 2007) suggests that Paleoindians identified and migrated to “unexploited resource-rich areas” of food. Permanent sources of water, scarce during this time, were very important in settlement selection as well (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). This settlement model, referred to as the Oasis Hypothesis (Milanich 1994:41), has a high correlation with geologic features in southern Florida such as deep sink holes like those noted in Sarasota and Dade Counties. Sites of this period are most readily identified based on distinctive lanceolate shaped stone projectile points including the Simpson and Suwannee types (Bullen 1975). The tool assemblage also included items manufactured of bone, wood, and very likely leather, as well as plant fibers (Clausen et al. 1979).

3.2 Archaic Period

The succeeding Archaic period is divided into three temporal periods: the Early Archaic (ca. 7000 to 5000 BCE), Middle Archaic (ca. 5000 to 2000 BCE), and the Late Archaic (ca. 2000 to 500 BCE). According to Widmer (1988), the extreme aridity of southern Florida during the Early Archaic period may have caused the abandonment of the area as sites from this time are extremely rare (Janus Research 2008:8).

Around 4500 BCE, marked environmental changes occurred which had profound influence upon human settlement and subsistence practices. Humans adapted to this changing environment and regional differences are reflected in the archaeological record (Russo 1994a, 1994b; Sassaman 2008). Among the landscape alterations were rises in sea and water table levels that resulted in the creation of more available surface water. It was during this period that the environments were becoming subtropical, as evidenced by the Cutler Fossil and the Deering Estate sites in Miami-Dade County. Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, the Big Cypress, and major rivers, such as the St. Johns, may have been developing, as were interior ponds (Janus Research 2008; Miller 1998). In addition to hydrological changes, this period is characterized by the spread of mesic forests and the beginnings of modern vegetation communities including pine forests and cypress swamps (Griffin 1988; Widmer 1988).

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-3

The archaeological record for the Middle Archaic is better understood than the Early Archaic. At sites where preservation is good, such as sinkholes and ponds, an elaborate bone tool assemblage is recognized; shell tools and complicated weaving have also been reported (Beriault et al. 1981; Wheeler 1994). In addition, artifacts have been found in the surrounding upland areas, as exhibited by projectile points found in the palmetto and pine flatwoods surrounding the Bay West Site (Beriault et al. 1981).

In the general project area, populations may have begun to develop year-round adaptations near estuaries and the developing Everglades ecosystem as well as the dispersed wetlands north of Lake Okeechobee. These environments supported a broader range of animal and plant resources. Subsistence most likely focused on freshwater resources, with occasional upland resources such as deer (Austin 1997:135). Along the west coast, excavations on both Horr’s Island in Collier County and Useppa Island in Lee County (Milanich et al. 1984; Russo 1991) have uncovered pre-ceramic shell middens that date to the Middle Archaic period. To the north, in the East and Central archaeological region, settlement became focused within riverine locales as evidenced by large freshwater shell middens along the St. Johns River (Milanich 1994). Occupation became more sedentary and village life began in the region. Investigations in northeast Florida confirm year-round occupation at some sites (Russo 1992, 1996; Russo et al. 1993; Russo and Ste. Claire 1992). Preceramic cultural horizons beneath tree island sites also have been reported in the eastern Everglades (Carr and Beriault 1984; Mowers and Williams 1972; Schwadron 2005, 2010). Population growth, as evidenced by the increased number of Middle Archaic sites and DRAFTaccompanied by increased socio-cultural complexity, is also assumed for this time (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Russo 1994b, 2008; Widmer 1988).

Mortuary sites, characterized by interments in shallow ponds and sloughs as discovered at the Little Salt Spring Site in Sarasota County (Clausen et al. 1979) and the Bay West Site in Collier County (Beriault et al. 1981), are also distinctive of the Middle Archaic. On the east coast, just north of the Glades region, two mortuary sites, the Gauthier Site and the Windover Site, have been recorded in Brevard County (Carr 1981; Doran 2002; Doran and Dickel 1988); to the south in Dade County at the Cheetum Site, located on what would have been the eastern edge of the still incompletely formed Everglades, Middle to Late Archaic period burials were found (Newman 1986). Village middens were located along the periphery of these mortuary ponds. In addition to these sites, small campsites, evidenced by lithic tools and debitage, are common, though not well represented in southern Florida, most likely due to the lack of suitable lithic raw materials.

Phase III excavations were conducted at site 8SL01181 within the Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area in St. Lucie County (Loubser et al. 2005). In the deepest levels, Putnam and Archaic Stemmed lithic tools suggested an arc-shaped occupation during the Middle Archaic that is overlain by a deposit of lithic artifacts, fiber tempered pottery, and structural remains (daub) from the Late Archaic. An overlying Formative Period occupation indicates a much more intensive and widespread use of this long-occupied site during later times.

In terms of lifeways, the beginning of the Late Archaic (sometimes referred to as the Ceramic Archaic) period is similar in many respects to the Middle Archaic. With respect to material culture, however, the Late Archaic is most easily identified at sites by the presence of pottery that contains vegetal fiber (usually Spanish moss/English beard) as a tempering agent in the paste. Radiocarbon dating from the Middle St. Johns Valley, both radiometric and AMS, suggests that fiber was used as a temper between 3100 and 1500 BCE (Sassaman 2003).

However, recent research notes that many of the ubiquitous faunal bone middens in the interior wetlands of southern Florida date to the Late Archaic, despite many of them lacking pottery of any type (Janus Research 2008:17). Further, such sites are very difficult to date because they often lack diagnostic artifacts and the faunal bone may be difficult to radiocarbon date due to a lack of bone

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-4

collagen caused by changing wet/dry soil conditions. Nevertheless, many sites clearly have aceramic components that underlie pottery-bearing strata, logically indicating that these aceramic components most likely date at least as far back as the Late Archaic times (Janus Research 2008:17).

3.3 Glades

The project area lies near a juncture of the westernmost extent of the Glades region, the eastern extent of the Okeechobee Basin region, and the southern extent of the East and Central region (Milanich 1994: xix) where, as elsewhere, the end of the Late, or Ceramic, Archaic was a period of environmental change. The maturing of productive estuarine systems was accompanied by cultural changes leading to the establishment of what John Goggin originally defined as the “Glades Tradition” (Griffin 2002:124). The Glades area, which is the largest archaeological area in southern Florida, is environmentally diverse with distinct ecological regions.

An important physiographic feature is the “tree island,” typically a hammock that can be seen as a slight rise in elevation within the Everglades and similar environments. The islands are usually surrounded by water on all sides, and these hardwood hammocks may be surrounded by wetland species. These islands of dry ground, often quite small, provided an opportunity for settlement with an abundance of resourcesDRAFT within the surrounding marshes (Carr 2002).

The tree islands frequently contain black dirt, accretionary middens that until recently were considered temporary, seasonal campsites used by coastal dwelling populations during forays into interior wetlands (Griffin 2002; Widmer 1988). During the survey of the Big Cypress, four major types of sites were defined: primary habitation sites, secondary habitation sites, resource procurement and processing sites, and mound sites (Athens 1983). More recently, archaeologists have suggested that at least some of the sites were utilized permanently by populations who lived in the interior marshlands (Janus Research 2008:29).

Unlike much of peninsular Florida, the region does not contain deposits of chert, and as such stone artifacts are rare, usually the result of trade. Instead, shell and bone were used as raw materials for tools (Milanich 1994:302). Bone artifacts were manufactured from deer, shark teeth, fish spines and vertebrae, and turtle shell, as well as marine shell such as Busycon (Janus Research 2008:28). The Glades Tradition has been divided into three periods based on changes in surface decoration seen in the ceramic assemblage through time (Table 3.1). There was little change in the other categories of Glades material culture, except for the apparent increase in bone ornaments during Glades III. Similarly, no significant changes occurred within the subsistence economy during the Glades period (Griffin 2002:160). Widmer believed that once the basic adaptation was fully achieved by the beginning of Glades II, the culture persisted until it was ultimately destroyed by the effects of European contact (Widmer 1988).

3.3.1 Glades I

Beginning around 500 BCE, the earlier fiber-tempered/semi-fiber-tempered pottery was replaced by sand tempered pottery (Glades Plain). The sand tempering marks the beginning of the Glades cultural tradition. For 700 years, sand tempered plain (STP) pottery dominated the assemblage. In late Glades I (ca. 200 Common Era [CE] to 800 CE), decorated pottery, including Fort Drum Incised, Fort Drum Punctate, Cane Patch Incised, Gordons Pass Incised, as well as Opa Locka Incised and Sanibel Incised ceramics are found in addition to Glades Plain pottery (Carr and Beriault 1984; Griffin 2002). The tremendous increase in Glades I archaeological sites within the Big Cypress indicates an

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-5

Table 3.1. Glades Chronology (Griffin 2002; Janus Research 2008). Period Dates Distinguishing Characteristics Glades IIIc 1513–ca. 1700 Same as previous period with the addition of historic artifacts Current Era (CE) Glades IIIb 1400–1513 CE Glades Tooled, Glades Plain and St. Johns Check Stamped are present, Surfside Incised and grooved lips are not present Glades IIIa 1200–1400 CE Plantation Pinched is no longer present; Glades Plain and grooved lips persist; appearance of Surfside Incised and St. Johns Check Stamped Glades IIc 1100–1200 CE Almost no decorated pottery; some grooved lips but no more lip arcs or crimped rims; Plantation Pinched appears Glades IIb 900–1100 CE Glades Plain and Key Largo Incised persist; Matecumbe Incised appears; none of the earlier decorated types are present; incised lip arcs, lip crimping, grooving appear for the first time Glades IIa 750–900 CE Appearance of Key Largo Incised and Miami Incised; Glades Plain and Opa Locka Incised persist; none of the earlier decorated types are present Glades I late 500–750 CE First appearance of decorated pottery: Fort Drum Incised, Fort Drum Punctate, Cane Patch Incised, Gordon’s Pass Incised, Opa Locka Incised, Sanibel Incised; Glades Plain persists Glades I early DRAFT 500 BCE–500 CE First appearance of sand tempered pottery; no decoration increase in the use of that area, and the geographic extent of Glades I diagnostics indicates a considerable degree of interchange and interaction throughout the larger region (Griffin 2002; Widmer 1988).

3.3.2 Glades II (sub periods a, b, and c)

The Glades II era (800 to 1200 CE) begins with tremendous diversity in decorated pottery types. Goggin (n.d.) described the decorations as being “neatly and cleanly cut and apparently made with swift cutting strokes while the clay is partially dry.” The number of archaeological sites continues to increase and the period would appear to be one of “relative stability in technology and subsistence” (Griffin 2002:158). The appearance of Miami Incised pottery, ca. 900 CE, marks the beginning of the Glades IIb period. Without explanation, the century from ca. 1100 to 1200 CE (Glades IIc) contains a conspicuous absence of decorated pottery and the number of sites drops dramatically (Griffin 2002:158). This cultural hiatus has been correlated to the NeoAtlantic warm period and associated with high sea levels (Fairbridge 1984:431; Gleason et al. 1984:321).

3.3.3 Glades III (sub periods a, b and c)

The Glades III era begins with the reintroduction of decorated pottery, however, the motifs and techniques are noticeably different from previous styles. There is also an accompanying increase in bone ornaments. Around 1400 CE, the use of incising as a decorative technique ceases and the appearance of Glades Tooled pottery, which has a thickened lip that has been tooled with a small round tool (Griffin 2002:77, 159).

3.4 East Okeechobee

The East Okeechobee area or district includes interior portions of Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie counties (and extends into southwestern Indian River County) and, while researchers differ on its designation, most seem to agree that the area is distinct as a cultural region, and seems to exhibit

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-6

traits from neighboring areas; specifically pottery types. Carr and Beriault (1984) consider East Okeechobee to be an area or district; Griffin (2002) considers the area to be undefined archaeologically, although perhaps a district within the Glades area; and Milanich considers it a district within the Glades area.

Extending the East Okeechobee into the Late Archaic is a possibility based on research of Pepe and Jester (1995), Janus Research (1998), and Russo and Heide (2002) although gaps still exist in the chronology, the ceramic sequence does differ from the Glades and Okeechobee basin areas (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2. East Okeechobee Chronology (Janus Research 2008). Period Dates Distinguishing Characteristics Late Archaic I 4000-3700 BP Fiber tempered pottery only Late Archaic II 3500-3200 BP Only thick, deep chalky vessels with flat bottoms and straight sides Late Archaic III 3200-at least Same as preceding period but with addition of sand tempered plain 2700 BP East Okeechobee I 2700-1200 BP Only sand tempered plain East Okeechobee II 1200-1000 BP Sand tempered plain with some St. Johns Plain Same as preceding but with addition of St. Johns Check Stamped, East Okeechobee III 1,000-500 BP St. Johns wares increase in abundance while sand tempered wares DRAFTdecrease BP =Before present

3.5 East and Central

The East and Central region is composed of the lower and central portion of the St. Johns River, its tributaries, adjacent portions of the coastal barrier island-salt marsh-lagoon system, and the central Florida lake district (Milanich 1994:243). The transitional zone of the region encompasses the Indian River coastal lagoon from near Merritt Island, south to St. Lucie inlet, as well as the wet marshlands, stream systems, and lakes of the St. Johns River basin (Milanich 1994:249). As Milanich and Fairbanks note, “along the Atlantic Coast below Cape Canaveral, the Formative and post-Formative cultures of the St. Johns area blend into those of the Circum-Glades region at about Indian River County” (1980:28). Rouse (1951) referred to the transition zone as the “Indian River Area” and noted that the sequence of pre-Columbian cultures parallels that of the St. Johns region. Rouse's Malabar I period is coeval to the St. Johns I period, and Malabar II is the temporal equivalent of St. Johns II (Milanich 1994:250). Goggin (1949) referred to the area as the Melbourne Region and Griffin referred to it as unclassified (Griffin 1988, 1989). Table 3.3 shows the prehistoric cultural chronology for the region.

3.6 Colonialism

The cultural traditions of the native Floridians ended with the European expeditions to the New World. The initial events, authorized by the Spanish crown in the 1500s, ushered in sustained European contact and its devastating effects (see Dobyns 1983; Mulroy 1993; Ramenofsky 1987; Smith 1987). After Ponce de Leon’s landing in northeast Florida and circumnavigation of the peninsula in 1513, official Spanish explorations were confined to the west coast of Florida until 1565, when the Spanish Admiral, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés settled St. Augustine in response to the French settlement of Fort Caroline, near present day Jacksonville.

Shipwrecks were occurring as early as 1530 on the eastern shores of Florida around settlements of the Ais tribe, near the Indian River Inlet. Marooned by a shipwreck in 1545, Hernando d’Escanlante Fontenada lived amongst the Calusa tribes, until he was given over to Menéndez twenty years later. He

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-7

documented his experiences and noted several ships grounded on the coast near the Ais, who would recover the gold and silver, and trade with the Calusa on the west coast of Florida (Milanich 1995:39- 42).

Table 3.3. Prehistoric cultural chronology for East Central archaeological region.

Cultural Period Cultural Traits Time Frame

Paleo-Indian Migratory hunters and gatherers; Clovis, Suwannee and Simpson projectile 14,000 - 9500 BP points; unifacial scrapers.

Early Archaic Hunters and gatherers; less nomadic; increased utilization of coastal 9500 - 7000 BP resources; Arredondo, Hamilton and Kirk Serrated points; increase in population size and density.

Middle Archaic/ Mount First occupation of the St. Johns River valley; evidenced by large freshwater Taylor shell middens; burials in wet environment cemeteries and middens; increased 7000 - 4000 BP sedentism; shellfish is an increasingly important part of the diet; more evidence for coastal occupation; stemmed, broad bladed projectile points, Newnan points most common. DRAFT Late Archaic/Orange Appearance of ceramics; Orange series is fiber-tempered and molded; plain 4000 - 2500 BP ceramics early on, incising during later periods; increased occupation of the coastal lagoons; cultigens may have been utilized; toward end of period increased use of sand as a tempering agent and an apparent increase in population size, socio-political complexity, and territorial range

St. Johns I Plain and incised varieties of St. Johns ceramics; ceramics coiled, not molded; 2500 - 1900 BP some pottery has fiber and quartz sand tempering; first use of burial mounds.

St. Johns Ia Village pottery was primarily plain; burial mounds increase in size, some 1900 - 1500 BP containing log tombs; trade evidenced by exotic materials within the burial mounds; Dunns Creek Red ceramics are common.

St. Johns Ib Village pottery is plain; increased influence of Weeden Island populations; 1500 - 1250 BP central pit burials within the mounds.; some pottery caches in mounds

St. Johns IIa St. Johns Check Stamped ceramics appear; increased use of burial mounds; 1250 - 950 BP mound burials seem to be saved for higher status individuals; pottery caches found in mounds; increase in size and number of villages; increase in the variety of burial patterns.

St. Johns IIb Evidence of Mississippian influence seen; continued use of plain and check 950 - 487 BP stamped ceramics; platform mounds make their appearance at some of the ceremonial complexes.

St. Johns IIc European artifacts occasionally found in the burial mounds and middens; 487 - 435 BP Timucuan speaking groups; disease beginning to decimate the aboriginal populations.

Menéndez proceeded southward, passing a number of villages from which the Native American inhabitants had fled. He left mirrors, knives, scissors, and bells as a sign of good will and received hospitality and food in return from the Ais who lived near the Indian River Inlet (Barcia 1723:91 in Rouse 1951). Menéndez remained four days arranging for 200 of his men, under Juan Velez de Medrano, to settle nearby. Menéndez continued on to Havana for supplies and to turn over the French

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-8

prisoners from Fort Caroline. However, upon his departure, the Ais attacked the soldiers, and Velez moved the survivors to the southern end of the Indian River where the more friendly Guacata Native Americans, and a better supply of food, could be found. Velez relocated south of the Ais settlement, establishing the new settlement Santa Lucia, or St. Lucie, near the St. Lucie River (Barrientos 1902:96- 97 in Rouse 1951; Lyon 1983:140; Menéndez 1893:111 in Rouse 1951).

During Spain's first period of occupancy (1565-1763), no permanent settlements were located near the project area. From the 1570s into the 1700s, there are references to Spanish contact with the Ais and Hobe tribes (Rouse 1951:50-56; Milanich 1995:56). Other groups are also noted such as the Viscaynos, from whom Biscayne Bay probably received its name, and the Sanaluces, who probably resided near the Spanish fortified settlement of Santa Lucia (Milanich 1995:56). Contact with the Ais tribes however, reveals the most information. The most significant description of the Ais in the 17th century was recorded by Jonathan Dickinson who, with his family and other members of his party, was shipwrecked in September 1696 while en route from Port Royal, Jamaica to Philadelphia. The group walked from the coast of the Jaega and Hobe territories, thought to be located to the south of the Ais, northward to St. Augustine. Although the party spent only a brief time among the natives, Dickinson provided a vivid account of Ais appearance, dress, subsistence, ceremonies, and other customs (Andrews and Andrews 1985).

During theDRAFT two centuries following the settlement of St. Augustine, the Spanish widened their Florida holdings to include the settlement at Pensacola and a garrison at Saint Marks. With the English to the north and the French to the west, the Spanish colony of La Florida was extremely fragile. In the early 1700s, Spain invited some of the Lower Creek Indians displaced by British settlements into La Florida to provide a hostile buffer against the British (Mulroy 1993). What formed as a border population evolved as other bands of Lower Creek extraction moved into the peninsula. This first migration formed a confederation, which included Cowkeeper and his Alachua band, the Apalachicolas, and the Mikasukis (Mulroy 1993).

The Treaty of Paris (1763) reallocated the English, French, and Spanish holdings in the New World. As a result, Florida was ceded to the English. After this, bands of Upper Creek, Muskogee speakers, began moving into Florida, increasing the Native American population to around two thousand by 1790 (Mulroy 1993). Although cultural distinctions existed between the various Native American groups entering Florida, Europeans collectively called them Seminoles:

The word Seminole means runaway or broken off. Hence Seminole is a distinctive appellation, applicable to all the Indians in the Territory of Florida, as all of them run away, or broke off, from the Creek or Nuiscoge [Muskogee] nation (United States Congress 1837).

The Seminoles formed, at various times, loose confederacies for mutual protection against the new American Nation to the north (Tebeau 1980:72) which considered them to be the wildest and fiercest remnant of a tribe which has been distinguished for their ceaseless opposition to the arts of civilization (United States Congress 1850). The Seminoles were joined by escaped slaves from South Carolina and Georgia (Porter 1996), many of whom were seduced from the service of their masters (Jackson et al. 1817-1818). The loss of slave labor, particularly in light of the abolitionists’ movement in the northeast, coupled with the anxiety of having a free and hostile slave population immediately to the south, caused great concern among plantation owners. This historically underestimated nuance of the Seminole Wars prompted General Thomas S. Jesup to say: This you may be assured is a negro and not an Indian War (Knetsch 2003:104).

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-9

Following the treaty of Paris (1763), the ensuing decades witnessed the American Revolution during which English loyalists immigrated to Florida. Following the Revolution, the second Treaty of Paris (1783) returned Florida to Spain; however, Spanish influence was nominal during this second period of ownership. For the next 36 years, Spain, from the vantage of Florida, watched with growing concern as the infant American Nation to the north gained momentum. When the United States acquired the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803, Spain was hemmed in by the aggressive young nation.

When the Seminoles began cross-border raids from Spanish Florida into the United States, General Andrew Jackson was commissioned to defend the nation. His orders permitted him to cross the international border to pursue Seminoles, but he was to respect Spanish authority. General Jackson’s subsequent actions belie either tacit instructions or a personal agenda, as he killed hundreds of Indians and runaway slaves, took control of several Spanish garrisons and towns, confiscated the Spanish royal archives, named an American as governor of the area, and announced that the Spanish economic laws would be replaced by the revenue laws of the United States (Tebeau 1980). This aggression understandably strained relations between the United States and Spain. Spain had pressing concerns with its Central and South American colonies, and thus ceded Florida to the United States in the Adams- Onis Treaty of 1819 in exchange for the territory west of the Sabine River.

3.7 TerritorialDRAFT and Statehood

Andrew Jackson, named provisional governor of Florida, 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. The project area was initially included in St. Johns County, and was incorporated into Mosquito County when it split from St. Johns County in 1824. In the first territorial census in 1825, some 317 persons reportedly lived in South Florida; by 1830 that number had risen to 517 (Tebeau 1980:134).

Mosquito County, which encompassed present day Indian River, was sparsely occupied with mostly sugar plantations along the rivers near the coast. Seminoles ransacked or torched sixteen of these plantations on the northern Mosquito Lagoon by January 1836 (Eriksen 1994:36). Commanding General Thomas Jesup launched a plan to surround the Seminoles within the Everglades. From northern Mosquito County, he ordered four main columns to form a staggered front to begin marching south (Eriksen 1994:36). The Second Seminole War lasted until 1842 when the federal government decided to end the conflict by withdrawing troops from Florida. Some of the battle-weary Seminoles were persuaded to migrate west where the federal government had set aside land for Native American occupation. However, those who were adamant about remaining were allowed to do so, but were pushed further south into the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp. This area became the last stronghold for the Seminoles (Eriksen 1994:36-42; Shofner 1995:38-43; Mahon 1967:321). Forts Ann, Pierce, Taylor, Christmas, and Bassinger were a few of the forts established during this period in the region. Fort Pierce, established in 1838, remained active through the end of the war but the buildings burned in December 1843 (Rights 1994:33). The area later served as the site around which the city of Ft. Pierce developed.

The surveys and maps of the Florida peninsula and the establishment of improvements, such as trails and forts resulting from the war, provided invaluable assistance in the settlement of Florida. The South Florida area was not well known to Americans until after 1835. Indeed, as late as 1837 when John Lee Williams authored Territory of Florida, no mention of Lake Okeechobee was made, nor did his map show any indication of the lake’s existence (Steele 1987; Williams 1837). It was not until the United States Army moved into the interior of the peninsula in pursuit of the Seminoles that accurate maps and descriptions of South Florida became available.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-10

Encouraged by the passage of the Armed Occupation Act in 1842, which was designed to promote settlement and protect the Florida frontier, Anglo-American pioneers and their families moved south through Florida. The Act made available 200,000 acres outside the already developed regions south of Gainesville to the Peace River, barring coastal lands and those within a two-mile radius of a fort. The Armed Occupation Act stipulated that any family or single man over 18 years of age able to bear arms could earn title to 160 acres by erecting a habitable dwelling, cultivating at least five acres of land, and living on it for five years. During the nine-month period the law was in effect, 1184 permits were issued totaling some 189,440 acres (Covington 1961:48; Dunn 1989:24-25). Prospective settlers filed 112 patents for land along the Indian River between Merritt Island and Lake Worth. These settlements collectively received the name of the Indian River Colony (Shofner 1995:45). In 1845, the Union admitted the State of Florida with Tallahassee as the state capital.

In 1844, the territorial government formed Santa Lucia County from Mosquito County. In 1855, with a population of 163, Santa Lucia was renamed Brevard County and the area was reduced again (Rights 1994:71-73). Repeated boundary adjustments granted portions of Brevard County to Polk, Orange, Dade, and Manatee Counties throughout the next 20 years. In 1879, the southern part of Volusia County, which included Titusville, transferred to Brevard. At that time, the county stretched from the head of the Indian River to Jupiter on the south and west to Fort Drum. In 1887, the western portion shifted to DRAFTOsceola, and in 1905, the southern section lobbied for their own county which was granted and named St. Lucie with Ft. Pierce as the county seat. In 1917, Okeechobee County was established from portions of St. Lucie, Osceola, and Palm Beach Counties (Rights 1994:74-75; Shofner 1995:11-12). Indian River County, in which the project area lies, was formed from St. Lucie County in the 1920s.

During the 1840s, the U.S. government started surveying land in the project area. The exterior lines of Township 33 South, Range 36 East and Township 33 South, Range 37 East were surveyed in 1853 by M.A. Williams (State of Florida 1853a, 1853b). Williams also surveyed the interior lines of Township 33 South, Range 37 East in 1853 (State of Florida 1853c), but the interior lines of Township 33 South, Range 36 were not surveyed until 1858 by W. S. Harris (State of Florida 1858). The Plat maps that accompanied the survey notes do not depict any manmade features including roads, trails, forts, or villages within the project area, and the area is shown as “grass marsh and prairie” (State of Florida 1853c, 1859). Gen. Twiggs Road is shown approximately three miles to the east of the project area, but does not cross the property (1859) (Figure 3.2). The field notes for the project area describe the property as low prairie, sawgrass prairie, and sawgrass swamp (State of Florida 1853b:263-264, 274, 280, 323, 324, 1859: 711:713).

In December of 1855, the Third Seminole War, or the Billy Bowlegs War, started as a result of pressure placed on Native Americans remaining in Florida to emigrate west (Covington 1982). In 1850, the U.S. Congress had debated turning over the federally-owned Everglades swamp to Florida (Tebeau 1966). Once again, the Seminoles found themselves in competition with the U.S. Government over land. The war started in Collier County 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.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-11 ¹

DRAFT

00.51 00.51 Kilometers Miles

Figure 3.2. 1859 plat of Township 33 South, Range 36 East and 1853 plat of Township 33 South, 37 East showing the project area.

3-12

Raids upon settlers residing along the Indian River renewed tensions on the east coast. As a result, Fort Capron was established in 1850, approximately five miles north of the former site of Fort Pierce, and continued as an active post until June 14, 1859. Five hundred officers and soldiers stationed at the fort mounted patrols and mapped the surrounding countryside while the majority of the war was fought elsewhere in the state. A military road was constructed across the state to connect Fort Capron with Fort Brooke (Tampa) which was named the Capron Trail. Caleb Brayton, who stayed near the fort after a raid damaged his home, described the fort in a letter on January 24, 1850:

It looks like a New England village here, all is bustle and activity. The Sound is white with sail. Buildings are going up daily. Vessels are on the Stocks. Three Stores are open. Teams are moving in every direction. Roads are being constructed. A splendid road is nearly completed from here to Tampa Bay and a military post established every ten miles the whole length of it, from one side of the peninsula to the other (Rights 1994:40).

Indrio Road, east of the project area in St. Lucie County roughly follows this former military trail today. Another trail, also called the Capron Trail, eventually extended south from Fort Capron to Fort Dallas (Miami) (Federal Writers’ Project [FWP] 1939; Rights 1994; Van Landingham 1988).

Military actionDRAFT was not decisive during the Third Seminole War; therefore, in 1858, the U.S. government resorted to monetary persuasion to induce the remaining Seminoles to migrate west. Many accepted and on May 4, 1858, the ship Grey Cloud set sail from Fort Myers with 123 Seminole Indians. A stop was made at Egmont Key, where more individuals were added to the group. On May 8, 1858, the Third Seminole War officially ended (Covington 1982:78-80).

In 1860, the Indian River region had a population of less than ten people per square mile. Slaves comprised a third of the population, and many of those slaves were owned by farmers of little means. Most of the settlers in the Indian River area grew subsistence crops, but, according to the 1860 census taker, no individual or firm yielded any product that valued above $500 per year. Cattle ranching composed the largest industry in the county; 39 people owned cattle with five of those owning more than 3,000 head (Shofner 1995:65-66).

In 1861, Florida followed South Carolina’s lead and seceded from the Union as a prelude to the American Civil War. Florida had much at stake in this war as evidenced in a report released from Tallahassee in June of 1861. It listed the value of land in Florida’s 35 counties as $35,127,721 and the value of the slaves in the state at $29,024,513 (Dunn 1989:59). Even though the Union blockaded the coast of Florida during the war, the interior of the state saw very little military action. One of the major contributions of the state to the war effort was in the supplying of beef to the Confederate Government. The Confederate Government estimated that three-fourths of the cattle that Florida supplied to the Confederacy originated from neighboring Brevard and Manatee counties (Shofner 1995:72). The war lasted until 1865, when General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia.

The year 1865 marked the beginning of documented settlement of Indian River County. That year, August Park, a native of Danzig, Germany, settled his family in the area of what is now Sebastian, located north of the project area. Park built a house on Barker’s Bluff and operated a trading post along the Indian River. By 1884, he had obtained some 43 acres near Sebastian.

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).

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-13

The Civil War stimulated growth in the Indian River area in two ways: many Southerners sought new homes to escape the unrest in the neighboring ex-Confederate states, and the war brought prosperity to a large number of Northerners who sought vacation homes in warmer climates (Shofner 1995:83). During the years after the Civil War, many settlements along the Indian River that originated before the war developed into towns by the 1880s. Improvements in the transportation systems to the communities played a major role in fostering growth within the area. By the early 1880s, steamboats regularly serviced the Indian River communities. Northern visitors could enter Florida by train to Jacksonville and then board a steamer that carried them to the shores of Lake Poinsett. From there they traveled to Rockledge by wagon where they could continue south on the Indian River (Shofner 1995:97- 100).

By 1881, Hamilton Disston, a member of a prominent Pennsylvania saw manufacturing family and friend of then Governor William Bloxham, had entered into 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. This transaction, which became known as the Disston Purchase, enabled the distribution of large land subsidies to railroad companies, inducing them to begin extensive construction programs for new lines throughout the state. Disston and the railroad companies in turn sold smaller parcels of land to developers and private investors (Tebeau and Carson 1965:252). Companies such as the Florida Southern Railway (Section 36 in Township 37 South, Range 37 East and Section 30 ofDRAFT Township 33 South, Range 37 East), the Pensacola and Atlantic Railway Company (Section 25 of Township 33 South, Range 36 East), and the Jacksonville, and Key West Railway (Section 32 of Township 33 South, Range 37 East) were all deeded property within the project area in 1895, 1888, and 1890 respectively (State of Florida n.d.a-b).

Henry T. Gifford was one of the first settlers of what is now Indian River County, establishing a homestead near Vero in 1887. By 1890, Gifford had purchased approximately 150 acres in and around Vero. On portions of those lands, he planted citrus groves. Located approximately three miles north of the center of Vero Beach, the town of Gifford later became a settlement for blacks who worked for the railroad and in the citrus industry. In 1895, the Florida East Coast Railway established a station at Gifford, and in 1900, the U.S. Post Office opened a branch there (Newman 1953).

3.8 American Period: 1900s

By 1910, present day Indian River County had a population of 1,039. Most of the settlements were supported by the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway, which hauled their agricultural products to market, and delivered dry goods to their general stores. Sebastian was the largest community with 323 residents. It was named after Saint Sebastian. Other local communities and their populations included Quay (250), Vero (202), and Wabasso (138). Oslo totaled only forty people, but directories indicate that fruit growers and market gardeners were in higher concentration there than anywhere else in the region (Tebeau 1980).

The turn of the century prompted optimism and an excitement over growth and development. With increased financial resources and machinery, extensive reaches of the county’s lands were now available for development. In most cases, the land required intensive drainage for agricultural development and settlement. Drainage led to an improved road system and an increasing population. Two large companies were responsible for draining much of the wetlands: Fellsmere Farms and the Indian River Farms Company. Fellsmere Farms, located in the north/central portion of what became Indian River County, was one of the largest privately funded reclamation projects in Florida (Kettle 1912). Fellsmere was conceived as an isolated self-sufficient farm community. Organized as a farming settlement in 1910, by 1911, the Fellsmere Farm Company had platted 118,000 acres of muck, prairie,

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-14

and pinelands west of the Sebastian River (Lockwood 1976). Fellsmere seemed to be an instant success. By 1912, the railroad company was advertising with its own timetable as well as in that of the FEC Railway, and a local newspaper, “Fellsmere Farmer,” began publication (Kettle 1912). Land drainage in Fellsmere prompted further land reclamation activity. The Indian River Farms Company was organized about 1912, with a capital stock of $1,000,000. In 1915, the Indian River Farms Company platted its drainage plan, which included a nine by twelve mile area from north of Quay, south to the county line, and west to Fellsmere.

By the end of World War I in 1919, Indian River County was prepared for the boom of the 1920s. 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. The Dixie Highway network of roads completed at this time essentially connected Florida to the rest of the nation. Other improvements included the construction of bridges across the Indian River that provided easy access to the beaches (Eriksen 1994:164-168). During this time the automobile, telephone, and electricity transformed Indian River County from isolation into a county linked with the rest of the state and nation. In 1916, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company obtained a franchise to operate in Titusville, Miami, and Key West, providing the first significant long distance service (Shofner 1995:229). Cheney Highway, today’s State Road 50, linked the Indian River area with Orlando. It was started in 1916 and eventually completed in 1925DRAFT (Shofner 1995:228; Eriksen 1994:168). In addition, by 1925, construction on present day State Road 60 had begun. This east/west corridor originated in Vero and ultimately connected with Tampa. By late September, newspapers described the tourist traffic as “very brisk” at 50 to 60 automobiles every day (Shofner 1995:227-228). In 1925, Indian River County was officially established as a county from a portion of St. Lucie County and named for the Indian River (Purdum 1994).

By 1926-27, the bottom fell out of the Florida real estate market. Massive freight car congestion from hundreds of loaded cars sitting in railroad yards caused the Florida East Coast Railway to embargo all but perishable goods in August of 1925 (Curl 1986). The embargo spread to other railroads throughout the state, and, as a result, 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. To counteract the reports, T. Coleman du Pont, chair of the Mizner Development Corporation of Palm Beach County, held an open meeting to try to convince the public that the increase in property values represented real worth. However, the next week du Pont and several other board members resigned in a public letter to the New York Times. Du Pont had brought stability to the Corporation, which was undertaking the development of Boca Raton in Palm Beach County. After the public letter, confidence in the Florida real estate market quickly diminished, investors could not sell lots, and the Great Depression hit Florida earlier than the rest of the Nation (Curl 1986).

To make the situation even worse, two hurricanes hit south Florida in 1926 and 1928. Neither hurricane caused much damage to Indian River County but they destroyed confidence in Florida as a tropical paradise and created a flood of refugees fleeing northward. Soon after, the collapse of the Florida Land Boom, the October 1929 stock market crash, and the onset of the Great Depression left the Indian River County area in a state of stagnation. Residents managed to survive on fish, oranges, deer, and turtles. By the mid-1930s, federal programs, implemented by the Roosevelt administration, started employing large numbers of construction workers, helping to revive the economy of the state. The programs were instrumental in the construction of parks, bridges, and public buildings. In 1930, Indian River County had a population of 6,724 (Key 1949).

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-15

By 1938, recovery from the Great Depression was imminent with the population in Indian River County approaching 8,957 in 1940 and nearly half of the county population living in Vero Beach (Key 1949). Through the 1940s, the county population remained stable, increasing only slightly. Income was derived from agriculture and citrus production, tourism, commercial fishing, and the railroad. According to the Enterprise Florida (2016), Indian River County experienced a 51 percent increase in population between the years 1980 and 1990 and a 22 percent increase between 2000 and 2010. The estimated population for 2015 was 143,320 with the largest percent (20 percent) employed in the trade, transportation and utilities section and 19 percent employed in education and health services (Enterprise Florida 2016).

3.9 Project Specific Background

Based on aerial photographs from Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM) (USDA 1951a-c, 1958, 1962, 1981), historic USGS quadrangle maps (1953a-b), other aerial imagery (Google Earth 2016), and interviews (Greene 2016; Lane 2016; McDowell 2016), the project area appears to have remained relatively undeveloped until at least the early 1980s (Figure 3.3). The aerial photographs from 1951, 1958 and 1962 show no development within the project area (USDA 1951a-c, 1958, 1962),DRAFT but by 1971, some ditching and evidence of agriculture are present (USDA 1971) (Figure 3.4). Through the years, additional ditching and activities related to citrus projection has occurred, and today, all but the northwestern corner of the property is citrus grove (Google Earth 2016). No structures are shown on the property on the 1981 aerial or on earlier aerials or maps. No structures are listing on the Indian River County property appraiser’s website (Nolte 2016).

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 3-16 1-18-58 CZB-3V-40 ¹

DRAFT

00.51 0 0.25 0.5 Kilometers Miles 1-31-1962 DSL-1CC-34 ¹

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers

Figure 3.3. 1958 and 1962 aerial photographs showing the project area (USDA 1958, 1962).

3-17 1-17-71 CYX-3MM-51 ¹

DRAFT

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers

Figure 3.4. 1971 aerial photograph showing the project area (USDA 1971).

3-18

4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS

ACI conducted extensive background research and prepared a cultural resources predictive model for the property. The background research included a review of data at the FMSF, the NRHP, CRAS reports, regional research and predictive models (Azzarello and Loubser 2005; Bense and Mattick 1994; Campbell et al.1984; Carr and Pepe 2000; Caulk 2005, 2007; Smith 2008, Smith et al. 2009), 19th century federal surveyor’s field notes and Plat maps, Seminole and U.S. military documents, as well as 20th century data from the Indian River County soil survey (USDA 1989), to address the area’s historic settlement. The methodology used for the predictive model was developed for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and has been used on similar projects in the area (ACI 2014, 2016a, 2016b; Smith 2008; Smith et al. 2009).

4.1 Archaeological Considerations

The archaeological background research indicates that no archaeological sites are recorded within the project tract and only two sites are recorded within two miles of the project area (Table 4.1; Figure 4.1). Both sites, 8IR00066 and 8IR00079, are low density artifact scatters where only faunal material was recovered,DRAFT thus cultural affiliation is unknown. Site 8IR00066 was found on a slightly elevated knoll within an oak and cabbage palm hammock, and site 8IR00070 was found in a flatwood and cabbage palm hammock. The cultural components were recorded at 15 and 45 centimeters below surface (cmbs) (6 and 18 in) respectively (FMSF). The sites were recorded in 1987 during a survey of the Upper St. Johns River Archaeological Project; however, a report detailing the work was not located in the FMSF. The sites have not been evaluated by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

Table 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within two miles of the project area. SHPO FMSF # SITE NAME SITE TYPE CULTURE REFERENCE EVAL 8IR00066 NWR43 Artifact scatter Prehistoric FMSF Not evaluated 8IR00079 NWR47 Artifact scatter Prehistoric FMSF Not evaluated

One cultural resource survey has been conducted within the project area and six have been conducted proximate to the property. In 1982, a transmission line survey was conducted along the southern boundary of the property resulting in the discovery of no resources (De la Fuente and Poe 1982). Proximate surveys include an historic resource survey of St. Lucie County (Janus Research 2003), a reconnaissance survey in the Upper St. Johns River flood control project area (Campbell et al. 1884); a second transmission line survey (Poe 1981), and three surveys conducted for proposed development (ACI 2006; Chance 1980; Waters and Wayne 2006).

Based on these data and the successful predictive model developed for the C23/24 Canal and other similar projects, Dr. Greg Smith was retained to refine the ACI predictive model and delineate discrete zones or areas of archaeological potential (ZAPs) for the project. Smith had served as the Principal Investigator and author of the survey strategy for the CERP prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) by New South Associates (Smith 2008), and had experience using historic black and white aerial photographs which, in combination with modern aerials, have proven to be the most effective method for identifying site probability areas in southern Florida (Carr 1974, 1988; Ehrehhard et al. 1978; Smith 2008). As in the CERP and much of southern Florida, the land within the project area has undergone multiple changes as the result of ditching, berm construction, clearing, agriculture, and the timber, citrus, and cattle industries. Even so, using the historic aerials, ACI was able to locate targets

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 4-1 ¹

DRAFT8IR00066

8IR00070

0 0.5 1 Miles Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed, Esri, 012 HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors Kilometers Figure 4.1. Location of zones of archaeological potential within, and archaeological sites within two miles of the project area (USGS Fellsmere 4SW).

4-2

visible on the aerials from the 1940s (ponds, tree islands, ridge formations, and the like) as well as on more recent aerials, that represent high ZAPs.

Also, it was anticipated that given the generally wet and seasonally inundated nature of the project area, it was unlikely that prehistoric year-round village sites would be found; rather sites would be small, short-term camp sites. The likelihood of burial sites was considered low due to the lack of burial sites adjacent to the project area (Smith et al. 2009) and, if encountered, Florida Statutes 872.05 and the ACOE, Jacksonville District agreement with the Seminole Tribe of Florida (ACOE 2015) was to be followed.

New South’s research identified high ZAPs in the CERP that are similar to those in the Grove Land Reservoir project area. These occur on slightly elevated areas within a wet environment near/between ponds, sloughs, sinkholes, marshes, and other water sources or drainages (Smith 2008:35). Similarly, The Preliminary Revision to the Existing South Florida Archaeological Context (Janus Research 2008), prepared as a companion to the CERP survey strategy, noted that almost every tree island hammock in the interior of southern Florida had the potential to contain an archaeological site, and most sites were black dirt, accretionary middens (Janus Research 2008:9).

An examination of the 1930 map Approximate Location of Permanent Seminole Camps indicated that the DRAFTBilly Smith camp may have been located on the property (Nash 1930) (see Section 4.3 Historic Site Considerations for additional information); however, the amount of disturbance caused by agricultural activity combined with the generally accepted ephemeral nature of Seminole sites makes the recovery of artifacts associated with the camp unlikely. Additionally, the historic aerials, U.S. Quadrangle maps, and other documents did not indicate the presence of historic archaeological sites.

4.2 Identification of ZAPs for Grove Land Reservoir

In many parts of Florida, the most common variables considered in predicting the locations of archaeological sites involve well-drained soil in elevated areas with proximity to a water source. Clearly, this model is not wholly applicable to precontact southern Florida, where a flat landscape and extensive areas covered by slow-moving water are primary characteristics, while elevated, well-drained landscapes are in limited supply. While there are some areas in the region where elevated and relatively better-drained soil types can assist in locating sites, the interior region does have limitations with respect to elevation change and dry soils.

Instead, the key to site location in the project vicinity lies in an understanding of the environment prior to land modifications (canals, agricultural ditches, clear cutting, etc.), and the identification of landscape signatures visible today in existing data (aerial photographs, historic maps, GIS imagery, on-the-ground inspection, and others) that, in combination with elevation and soil data, can be used to isolate high site probability areas for archaeological survey. A survey strategy for use in southern Florida was recently prepared for ACOE (Smith 2008) that provides a detailed discussion of site location techniques in southern Florida, as summarized below.

Prior to the late nineteenth century, the wetland environment of southern Florida extended from north of Lake Okeechobee to the southern tip of the peninsula. Up until large scale ditching and compartmentalization in the early twentieth century, it was possible to travel that distance by canoe or skiff (Simmons and Ogden 1998). Since that time, two-thirds of Florida’s original freshwater wetlands have been filled or drained (Whitney et al. 2004:127). It is widely accepted that the upland areas, tree islands, and hammocks of southern Florida frequently contain prehistoric midden deposits (Carr 1974, 1981, 2002; Ehrenhard et al. 1978; and others). Hammock is the name given in Florida to non-

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 4-3

pine upland areas that are usually made up of hardwood trees with inclusions such as cabbage palm and red cedar (Whitney et al. 2004). Hammocks and tree islands comprise natural, living communities composed of ancient or enduring plant types. They are the products of relatively long periods of ecologically stable conditions and are the evolutionary product of the adaptation of existing plants and animals (Whitney et al. 2004:87).

Accordingly, it is reasonable to create a research design that focuses on the investigation of upland locations where human occupation within the unique wetland portions of the Florida environment have increasingly been found; some of these occur as individual sites, while others cluster. While seemingly inconsequential, slight differences in elevation were highly significant in pre-drainage southern Florida. In the pre-drainage system, native species were adapted to the multiple habitats provided by tree islands, ridges, sloughs, and other elevated locations. Aquatic organisms depended on the wettest areas as extensive habitats that would remain inundated throughout all but exceptionally dry years (Smith 2008:4-9).

Over the last 30-40 years, the most productive method used by archaeologists for isolating site probability areas in southern Florida has involved the interpretation of historic black and white aerial photographs that predate many of the region’s drainage and compartmentalization (ditching) activities. Following Willey’s (1953) early 1940s work in Peru, the first recorded use of aerial imagery in southernDRAFT Florida was by William Sears and William Kennedy (Sears et al. 1966) during an archaeological site inventory of Everglades National Park. By the early 1970s, the use of color aerial photographs was found to be the most effective means for isolating site probability areas in the interpretation of the Lake Okeechobee area (Carr 1974).

During the late 1970s, Robert Carr and Robert Taylor further developed the aerial photograph approach while working on the survey of Big Cypress National Preserve (Ehrenhard et al. 1978). A predictive model for precontact middens and campsites was developed that proposed that such sites are usually situated on the higher, dry hammock islands. A second element of the model acknowledged that sites would tend to occur on the portion of the hammock island opposite the deepest, adjacent pond, slough, or marsh (Ehrenhard et al. 1978:13-14). Further application of this approach on a large scale was incorporated as part of the methodology for surveys of Miami-Dade (Carr 1981) and Broward Counties (Carr et al. 1991) and remains perhaps the most critical element in evaluating the potential for sites to occur throughout much of southern Florida.

The current project area is primarily flat with poorly to very poorly drained soils. Today, however, the land has been ditched, drained, and consists of abandoned grove. Archaeological survey in such areas is most successful when it uses a research design that identifies the location of hammocks and tree islands that exist near ponds or other water sources. The tools used in the development of such a survey strategy include historic aerial photographs from the 1951, 1958, and 1962 (see Figure 3.3) and these were supplemented by various maps (soil, vegetation, historic, etc.), as available for a specific project area, as previously noted.

For the Grove Land Reservoir survey, multiple cartographic sources were considered in combination with historic and modern aerial photographs. Initially, probability areas for prehistoric sites in the project area were identified using 1951, 1958 and 1962 aerial photographs as palm/oak hammocks adjacent to a pond, marsh, slough, or drainageways, or other water bodies. These presumed upland locations were shovel tested at 25 m (82 ft) or less unless found to be underwater or nonexistent upon inspection. Additionally, areas of poorly drained soils adjacent to the very poorly drained soils were tested at 100 m (328 ft) intervals. Seven high probability ZAPs and nine linear ZAPs (low probability) were identified for the project (Figure 4.1).

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 4-4

4.3 Historic Site Considerations

A review of the FMSF, the NRHP, previous surveys in Indian River and St. Lucie counties, as well as the U.S. federal surveyor’s Plats and field notes (State of Florida 1853 a-c, 1958, 1959), the Indian River County Soil Survey (USDA 1989, 2016), historic USGS quadrangle maps (1953a-b) pertinent U.S. military and government maps and documents (Ives 1856; Nash 1930), and other sources (Carr and Steele 1993; MacCauley 2000; Weisman 1989, 1999) were consulted for information regarding potential historic archaeological sites, including other historic resources.

No previously documented historic resources are located within the project area; however, the 1930 map Approximate Location of Permanent Seminole Camps shows the Billy Smith camp in the general location of the project area. The 1930 report describes the permanent camps as “habitations which can not be packed up and moved; many of them are occupied only a part of the year (Nash 1930:21).” Billy Smith, according to Nash, was a “medicine man for all these Okeechobee Indians [and] has his camp in the swamp six miles northeast of Fort Drum, in the southwest corner of Indian River County (Nash 1930:21).” Nash describes the camp houses as open platforms three feet from the ground with sections for sleeping and dining with narrow alleys between the platforms. Some camps have several structures, depending on the size. Gardens, unroofed structures for cooking, stockades, pens, and various other structures are also found in the camps (Nash 1930:5). The date of site abandonment is unknown.DRAFT

No structures are evident on the quadrangle map or aerial within the project area and the property appraiser’s website does not list any structures, thus, there was no potential for historic resources to be located on the property.

4.4 Field Methodology

Site probability areas or ZAPs were identified by the tree islands and hammocks within the Grove Land Reservoir project area (Figure 4.1). Each ZAP was assigned a sequential letter to facilitate field management and recording of results, and testing was conducted at appropriate intervals.

Due to the relative absence of land alteration and undisturbed vegetation 50 years ago, historic aerials from 1951, 1958, and 1962 aerials were found to be most useful in identifying probability areas. Areas not labeled were considered low probability, and many of these were tested both systematically and judgmentally throughout the project area following completion of the ZAP survey. In all, seven high ZAPs (one was not tested due to water and is not shown on Figure 4.1) and nine linear ZAPs were tested systematically, and the remainder of the property was tested judgmentally.

The archaeological survey was designed to test ZAPs for evidence of short or long-term occupation dating to 50 years or more in age; to determine the horizontal and vertical extent of cultural deposits; and to evaluate the integrity and potential significance of sites according to NRHP criteria. The ZAPs were tested at 25 m (82 ft) intervals to define and record sites, in combination with environmental observations (distinct elevation, soil, and vegetation change). All survey methods were designed to meet the guidelines of the Historic Preservation Compliance Review Program of the Florida Department of State, FDHR.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 4-5

The shovel tests were round, measured approximately 50 centimeter (cm) (20 inches [in]) in diameter, and dug to a depth of one m (39 in) below surface or until becoming inundated with water. Soil from all tests was screened through 0.64 cm (0.25 in) mesh hardware cloth for standardized artifact recovery. The stratigraphy of each test was recorded using a GPS template following completion, with additional notes taken describing vegetation and landscape features. All tests were backfilled. Shovel tests were numbered sequentially with reference to probability area and their GPS locations downloaded each day. Supplemental notes/maps were made in the field to record land features and other visible landmarks. GPS utilizing Trimble Geo 7X units points (average meter accuracy of .50 to .75) were taken at each excavated shovel test, which helped to define site boundaries. The data were recorded using the Projected Coordinate System of North American Datum 1983, State Plane East.

4.5 Informant Interviews

Gaining familiarity with the history of a project area and locating archaeological sites are often aided through interviews with local citizens who live or spend time in the area. Mr. Rick Greene and Mr. Melvin Lane, Grove Properties employees, were very helpful in facilitating access to the property and in assisting with the survey. They, and Mr. Curt McDowell, also employed by Grover Properties, provided information on the history of the property and, specifically, the agricultural methods used through the years.DRAFT

4.6 Unexpected Discoveries

If human burial sites such as Indian mounds, lost historic and pre-colonial cemeteries, or other unmarked burials or associated artifacts were found, then the provisions and guidelines set forth in Chapter 872.05, FS (Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves) were to be followed, as was the ACOE, Jacksonville District agreement with the Seminole Tribe of Florida (ACOE 2015).

4.7 Laboratory Methods and Curation

The cultural materials collected were cleaned and sorted by artifact class. Lithic material was divided into tools or debitage based on gross morphology. Tools would have been measured, 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) would have been 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 (cf., White 1963).

Aboriginal pottery was classified into commonly recognized types based on observable characteristics such as aplastic inclusions and surface treatment (cf., Cordell 1985; 1987, 2004; Goggin 1948, 1952; Rouse 1951; Willey 1949; Worth 1992). The historic materials (glass, ceramic, metal), if found, would have been identified using a variety of resources, the focus of which was to determine site function and temporal placement. Faunal material was initially sorted into class (mammal, reptile, bony fish, etc.); within these broad categories, identifiable elements would have been classified as to genus and species, where possible.

The project-related records will be maintained at the ACI office in Sarasota (P16079) unless the client requests otherwise.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 4-6

5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Archaeological Survey Results

The archaeological investigations consisted of systematic and judgmental subsurface testing. Sixteen ZAPs were identified using the predictive model (CERP model) which was refined with use of the 1951, 1958, and 1962 aerial photos. High probability ZAPs were tested at 25 m (82 ft) intervals and low probability zaps were tested at 100 m (328 ft) intervals. The remainder of the property was tested judgmentally without regard to environmental setting (Figure 5.1-5.2). One of the identified ZAPs could not be tested due to water and is not included in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 provides a summary of the investigations conducted within each ZAP and in the judgmental areas. A total of 304 shovel tests were conducted within the property. Of these, 124 were conducted in the linear ZAPs associated with the poorly drained soils adjacent to the very poorly drained soils. These tests were placed at 100 m (328 ft) intervals. One hundred and nineteen tests were placed in the high probability ZAP at 25 m (82 ft) intervals and 61 tests were placed judgmentally across the property (Figure 5.1). As a result, one archaeological site, 8IR01725, was recorded. The site is discussed below. DRAFT Table 5.1. Summary of results. ZAP # ST* Sites Comments A 10 Existing grove, weeds, grove road, partial pond and berm Cleared grove, ditches and rows remain, weeds; existing grove in B 20 southern tip C 27 Existing grove, weeds D 15 Existing grove, weeds E 23 Existing grove, with grove road and ditch in western half F 24 8IR01725 Cleared grove, weeds; large ditch; Existing grove in northern tip G 13 Existing grove, ditches H 29 Existing and cleared grove with mowed weeds, ditches, grove road I 8 Existing grove, weeds J 9 Existing and cleared grove with mowed weeds K 30 Existing and cleared grove, mowed weeds, large ditches, grove roads L 7 Existing grove, large ditches M 6 Cleared grove, weeds in north end; existing grove, weeds large ditch N-O 22 Existing and cleared grove, weeds, large ditches Judgmental 61 Existing and cleared grove, weeds, ditches, grove roads Total 304 *Number of shovel test.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 5-1 O ¹

N A B DRAFT C

D 5-2

L

H A! match point

zaps GF Positive G Negative K A! Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, 0150300 0 500 1,000 Meters Feet Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Figure 5.1. Location of shovel tests (not to scale) and zones of archaeological potential within the project area. K A! ¹ G DRAFTE

F

GF GF

H GF 5-3

8IR01725

I J A! match point

zaps GF Positive Negative

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

Figure 5.2. Location of shovel tests (not to scale), newly recorded site (8IR01725) and zones of archaeolog- ical potential within the project area.

8IR01725 Grove Land

 Location: T33S R37E E 1/2 of Section 31  USGS Quad: Fellsmere 4SW  Project ZAP: F  Setting: Former tree island within marsh  Soil: Gator muck  Artifacts: Bone, shell, pottery, lithic  Time Period: Prehistoric nonspecific  NRHP eligibility: Not eligible

The location of the Grove Land site (8IR01725) was initially identified as a small rise within the marsh on the USGS quadrangle map during the delineation of probability areas. On the 1951 aerial, it appears as a small hammock. Today, the area is a citrus grove, with ditching and soil redistribution evident in the form of rows and varied stratigraphy in the shovel tests. The site is situated on a very slight rise within the relic grove, with a gradual decline to the south (Photo 5.1). GPS technology was used for location, and shovel testing was conducted at 25 m (82 ft) intervals within the ZAP. Three shovel test were DRAFTpositive, and these were surrounded by 21 negative tests (Figure 5.3). The site measures 1631 square m (17,556 square ft).

Photo 5.1. Looking south at location of site 8IR01725.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 5-4

DRAFT

Figure 5.3. Shovel test locations at 8IR01725. See corresponding FMSF form in Appendix A for larger map

Artifacts were recovered from the surface to a depth of 105 cmbs (41 in), although artifacts were most dense in the upper 30 cmbs (12 in). The stratigraphy in the test with the most artifacts was 0 to 30 cmbs (0 to 12 in) of dark gray brown sand, 30 to 70 cmbs (12 to 28 in) of gray brown sand, 70 to 100 cmbs (28 to 39 in) of gray brown sand with orange clay, and 100 to 105 cmbs (39 to 41 in) of light gray mottled clay. However, each of the positive tests had variations in soil types and soil depths. In the negative tests surrounding the three positive tests, a 50 to 55 cm (20 to 22 in) level of gray sandy clay with rock followed by light gray brown rocky clay was found. Once the rocky clay was removed, a layer of clay was found underneath.

Bone and pottery were noted on the surface at the side of one of the grove rows in an area of high potential. Testing here resulted in the recovery of 7 STP sherds; 1 shark tooth, and 641 bone fragments (227.3 grams [g]). The bone fragments included 269 UID reptile fragments (35.4 g) of which 148 were turtle (64.9 g), 69 UID fish (20.6 g), 31 UID bird (7.9 g), 5 mammal [1 rodent, 1 deer] (4.0 g), 266 UID fragments (89.3 g) and 14 UID burned fragments (5.2 g), 1 non-decortication complete chert flake (3cm2); and shell fragments.

In a second test, 1 STP sherd, 9 bone fragments (one snake, eight UID) (3.2 g), and 4 shell fragments (2.6 g) were recovered. A third tests produced a single bone fragment (1.2 g). A sample of 4 STP sherds and 5 bone fragments (1 reptile and 4 UID) (4.6 g) were also collected from the surface.

Assessment: This slightly elevated, former tree island site appears to represent a small camp/extractive site/midden from an unspecified prehistoric period. The site is situated in a grove where ditching, redeposition, and mixing of soil has occurred. The varied stratigraphy in the positive and negative tests, the surface scatter of artifacts, and the lack of a true cultural zone imply that the site has been significantly disturbed. No evidence of subsurface features was observed. Based on this

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 5-5

information, the site does not appear to have the potential to yield significant information and, therefore, site 8IR01275 is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.

5.2 Historical /Architectural Survey Results

The historical/architectural resource survey indicated an absence of historic resources (50 years of age or older) within the project area. Thus, no historic resources which are listed, determined eligible, or considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP are located within the project area.

5.3 Conclusions

One archaeological site, 8IR01725, was found on the Grove Land Reservoir property as a result of the CRAS. 8IR01725, Grove Land, appears to represent a camp/extractive site from an unspecified prehistoric period. The site is situated on a slightly elevated, former tree island within a grove where ditching, redeposition, and mixing of soil has occurred. The varied stratigraphy in the positive and negative tests, the surface scatter of artifacts, and the lack of a true cultural zone imply that the site has been significantlyDRAFT disturbed. No evidence of subsurface features was observed. Based on this information, it is ACI archaeologists’ opinions that the sites does not have the potential to yield significant information and, therefore, site 8IR1735 is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 5-6

6.0 REFERENCES CITED

Andrews, Evangeline Walker and Charles McLean Andrews (editors) 1985 Jonathan Dickinson’s Journal: or God’s Protecting Providence. Florida Classics Library, Port Salerno.

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, The Grove DRI, Okeechobee County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2014 Cultural Resources Predictive Model Tellus 3D Seismic Survey Collier and Hendry Counties, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2016a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Tocala-Sunniland 3D Seismic Survey Project, Collier and Hendry Counties, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2016b Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Caulkins Water Farm Parcel, Martin County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota

Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) 2015 Agreement Between the Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Seminole Tribe of FloridaDRAFT Regarding Proposed Actions That May Adversely Affect American Indian Burial.

Athens, William P. 1983 The Spatial Distribution of Glades Period Archaeological Sites within the Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida. MA Thesis, Anthropology Department, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Austin, Robert J. 1997 The Economics of Lithic-Resource Use in South-Central Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Azzarello, Jennifer and Johannes Loubser 2005 Cultural Resources Survey of the C23/24 Reservoirs, St. Lucie County, Florida. New South Associates, Stone Mountain.

Bense, Judith A. and Barbara A Mattick 1994 Archaeological Resources in the Upper St. Johns River Valley, Florida. NRHP Multiple Property Nomination Form. Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Beriault, John G., Robert Carr, Jerry Stipp, Richard Johnson, and Jack Meeder 1981 The Archaeological Salvage of the Bay West Site, Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34(2):39-58.

Brooks, H.D. 1981 Guide to the Physiographic Divisions of Florida. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Bullen, Ripley P. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 6-1

Campbell, L. Janice, Jeffrey A. Homburg, Carol S. Weed, and Prentice M. Thomas 1984 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey of Fifty Probability Areas within the Upper St. Johns River Flood Control Project, Osceola, Brevard, and Indian River Counties, Florida. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

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

Carr, Robert S. 1974 The Use of Panchromatic Photographs for the Interpretation of Archaeological Sites in South Florida. On file, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee. 1981 Dade County Historic Survey Final Report The Archaeological Survey. Metropolitan Dade County, Office of Community and Economic Development, Historic Preservation Division, Miami. 1986 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Cutler Ridge Fossil Site (8DA2001) in Southern Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 39(3, Part 2):231-232. 1988 An Archaeological Survey of Collier County, Florida. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami. 2002 The ArchaeologyDRAFT of Everglades Tree Islands. In Tree Islands of the Everglades. Edited by F. H. Sklar and A. Van der Valk. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

Carr, Robert S. and John G. Beriault 1984 Prehistoric Man in Southern Florida. In Environments of South Florida, Past and Present. Edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 1-14. Miami Geological Society Memoir 2, Miami.

Carr, Robert S., Amy Felmley, Richard Ferrer, Willard S. Steele, and Jorge Zamanillo 1991 An Archaeological Survey of Broward County, Florida: Phase I. AHC Technical Report 34. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Davie.

Carr, Robert S. and Jim Pepe 2000 An Archaeological Survey of St. Lucie County, Florida. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Carr, Robert S. and Willard Steele 1993 Seminole Heritage Survey, Seminole Sites of Florida. AHC Technical Report #74. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Davie.

Caulk, Grady 2005 Phase I Survey of the Indian River Lagoon, South C-44 Reservoir and STA’s. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville 2007 Indian River Lagoon, South C23/24 Stormwater Treatment Area. Cultural Resource Assessment, St. Lucie County, Florida. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville.

Chance, Marsha A. 1980 The Sandhill Chase Project: An Archaeological Survey and Evaluation. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 6-2

Clausen, Carl J., H. K. Brooks, and A. B. Wesolowsky 1975a The Early Man Site at Warm Mineral Springs, Florida. Journal of Field Archaeology 2(3):191- 213. 1975b Florida Spring Confirmed as 10,000 Year Old Early Man Site. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 7

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

Cockrell, W. A. and Larry E. Murphy 1978 Pleistocene Man in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North America 6:1-13.

Cordell, Ann S. 1985 Pottery Variability and Site Chronology in the Upper St. Johns River Basin. In Archaeological Site Types, Distribution, and Preservation within the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida. Edited by B. Sigler-Eisenberg, pp. 114-134. Miscellaneous Project and Report Series 27. Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 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,DRAFT 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 R. Saunders and C. T. Hays, pp. 63-104. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Covington, James W. 1961 The Armed Occupation Act of 1842. Florida Historical Quarterly 40(1): 41-53. 1982 The Billy Bowlegs War 1855-1858: The Final Stand of the Seminoles Against the Whites. The Mickler House Publishers, Chuluota.

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

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

Davis, John H. 1967 General Map of Natural Vegetation of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville.

De la Fuente, Francisco and Charles B. Poe 1982 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Proposed Florida Power and Light Company. Poinsett/Martin/Midway 500 KV Transmission Line Survey in Orange, Osceola, Indian River and St. Lucie Counties, Florida. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahasse.

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

Dobyns, Henry F. 1983 Their Numbers Become Thinned. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 6-3

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

Doran, Glen and David Dickel 1988 Radiometric Chronology of the Archaic Windover Archaeological Site (8BR246). The Florida Anthropologist 41(3):365-380.

Dunbar, James S. 1981 The Effect of Geohydrology and Natural Resource Availability on Site Utilization at the Fowler Avenue Bridge Mastodon Site (8HI393c/uw) in Hillsborough County, Florida. In Report on Phase II Underwater Archaeological Testing at the Fowler Bridge Mastodon Site (8HI393c/uw) Hillsborough County, Florida by Jill Palmer, James Dunbar, and Danny H. Clayton. Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeological Report Number 5. Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 2006 Paleoindian Land Use. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Edited by S. D. Webb, pp. 525-544. Springer, The Netherlands.

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

Edwards, W. E. 1954 The Helen Blazes Site of Central Eastern Florida: a Study in Methods Utilizing the Disciplines of Archaeology, Geology, and Pedology. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, Columbia University,

Ehrenhard, John E., Robert S. Carr, and Robert C. Taylor 1978 The Archeological Survey of Big Cypress National Preserve Phase I. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Enterprise Florida 2016 Florida’s Counties, Florida County Profiles. https://www.enterpriseflorida.com/data- center/florida-communities/floridas-counties/.

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

Fairbridge, Rhodes W. 1984 The Holocene Sea Level Record in South Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past II. Edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 427-436. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables.

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

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

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 6-4

Gleason, Patrick J., Arthur D. Cohen, William Smith, H. Kelly Brooks, Peter A. Stone, Robert Goodrick, and William Spackman, Jr. 1984 The Environmental Significance of Holocene Sediments from the Everglades and Saline Tidal Plain. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past II. Edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 297- 351. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables.

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

Goggin, John M. 1948 Some Pottery Types from Central Florida. Gainesville Anthropological Association, Bulletin 1. 1949 Cultural Traditions in Florida Prehistory. In The Florida Indian and His Neighbors. Edited by J. W. Griffin, pp. 13-44. Inter-American Center, Winter Park. 1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archaeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 47. 1998 Reprint, University Press of Florida, Gainesville. n.d. The Archaeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida. On file, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee.DRAFT

Google Earth 2016 Historical Imagery, 1994-2016. Google Earth.

Greene, Rick 2016 Personal communication with Christine Newman on October 28, 2016. Mr. Greene is employed by Evans Properties and is familiar with the agricultural techniques used on the property.

Griffin, John W. 1988 The Archeology of Everglades National Park: A Synthesis. National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee. 1989 Time and Space in South Florida: A Synthesis. The Florida Anthropologist 42(3):179-201. 2002 Archaeology of the Everglades. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Ives, Lieut. J. C. 1856 Map of the Peninsula of Florida South of Tampa Bay. Top Engineers, Sarasota. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~crackerbarrel/Ives.html.

Jackson, General Andrew, John C. Calhoun, and others 1817-1818 Seminole Indians: Message from the President of the United States, Transmitting Copies of Documents in Relation to the Seminole War. E. DeKraft, Washington, D.C.

Janus Research 1998 Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of the Indian Riverside Park in Martin County, Florida. Janus Research, Tampa. 2003 St. Lucie County Historic Resources Survey. Janus Research, Tampa. 2008 South Florida Archaeological Context. South Florida Water Management District. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 6-5

Kettle, Fred, Ed. 1912 The Fellsmere Farms of Florida. Fellsmere.

Key, V. O. 1949 Southern Politics in State and Nation. A. A. Knopf, New York.

Knetsch, Joe 2003 Florida's Seminole Wars 1817-1858. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC.

Lane, Melvin 2016 Personal communication with Christine Newman on October 3, 2016. Mr. Lane is employed by Evans Properties and is familiar with the agricultural techniques used on the property.

Lockwood, Charlotte 1976 Florida's Historic Indian River County. Media Tronics, Vero Beach.

Loubser, J.H.N, A. Cordell, L. Raymer, H Matternes, P. Vojnovski, D. Frink, and B. Young 2005 Phase III Data Recovery of 8SL1181 at Ten Mile Creek St. Lucie County, Florida. New South Associates Technical Report. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, GA. DRAFT Lyon, Eugene A. 1983 The Enterprise of Florida: Pedro Menéndez de Avilés and the Spanish Conquest of 1565-1568. Originally published in 1974 under the title, The Adelantamiento of Florida: 1565-1568. The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

MacCauley, Clay 2000 The Seminole Indians of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Mahon, John K. 1967 History of the Second Seminole War 1835-1842. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

McDowell, Curt 2016 Personal communication with Christine Newman on October 28, 2016. Mr. McDowell is employed by Evans Properties and is familiar with the agricultural techniques used on the property.

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

Milanich, Jerald T., Jeffery Chapman, Ann S. Cordell, Stephen H. Hale, and Rochelle A. Marrinan 1984 Prehistoric Development of Calusa Society in Southwest Florida: Excavations on Useppa Island. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory. Edited by D. D. Davis, pp. 258-314. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

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

Miller, James J. 1998 An Environmental History of Northeast Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 6-6

Mowers, Bert and Wilma Williams 1972 The Peace Camp Site, Broward County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 25(1):1-20.

Mulroy, Kevin 1993 Freedom on the Border: The Seminole Maroons in Florida, the Indian Territory, Coahuila, and Texas. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock.

Nash, Roy 1930 Report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Concerning Conditions among the Seminole Indians of Florida. In Seminole Indians, Survey of the Seminole Indians of Florida, Presented by Mr. Fletcher, 1931. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. 71st Congress, 3d Session, Document No. 314. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Newman, Anna (compiler) 1953 Stories of Life Along Beautiful Indian River. Privately Printed, Vero Beach.

Newman, Christine 1986 A Preliminary Report of Investigations at the Cheetum Site, Dade County, Florida. On file, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami. DRAFT Nolte, David C. 2016 Indian River County property appraiser website. http://www.ircpa.org/.

Pepe, James, and Linda Jester 1995 An Archeological Survey and Assessment of the Mt. Elizabeth Site, 8MT30, Martin County Florida AHC Technical Report #211. Archeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami.

Poe, Charles B. 1981 Lake Poinsett-Midway 500 KV Transmission Line Project, Archaeological and Historical Survey Assessment. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Porter, Kenneth W. 1996 The Black Seminoles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

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

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

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

Rights, Lucille Rieley 1994 A Portrait of St. Lucie County, Florida. The Donning Company, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

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

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 6-7

Russo, Michael 1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case Study from Horr's Island. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1992 Chronologies and Cultures of the St. Marys Region of Northeast Florida and Southeast Georgia. The Florida Anthropologist 45(2):107-138. 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. 1996 Southeastern Mid-Holocene Coastal Settlements. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. Edited by K. E. Sassaman and D. G. Anderson, pp. 177-199. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2008 Late Archaic Shell Rings and Society in the Southeast U.S. The SAA Archaeological Record 8(5):18-22.

Russo, Michael, Ann S. Cordell, and Donna L. Ruhl 1993 The Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Phase III Final Report. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee. DRAFT Russo, Michael, and Gregory Heide 2002 The Joseph Reed Shell Ring. The Florida Anthropologist 55(2):55-87.

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

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

Schwadron, Margo 2005 Archeological Investigation of Eastern Everglades Tree Island Sites, Everglades National Park. Paper presented at the Florida Anthropological Society Meeting, Gainesville. 2010 Prehistoric Landscapes of Complexity: Archaic and Woodland Period Shell Works, Shell Rings, and Tree Islands of the Everglades, South Florida. In Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to the Southeastern Archaic? Edited by D. H. Thomas and M. C. Sanger, pp. 113-148. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 93, New York, NY.

Sears, William H., Charles A. Hoffman, Jr., William J. Kennedy, and George A. Long 1966 Everglades National Park Archaeological Base Mapping - Part I. Florida Atlantic University.

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

Simmons, Glen and Laura Ogden 1998 Gladesmen. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 6-8

Smith, Greg C. 2008 Cultural Resources Overview and Survey Strategy: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. New South Associates, Stone Mountain.

Smith, Greg C., Bostwik, Brad and Jennifer Langdale 2009 Phase I Archeological Survey and Phase II Site Testing within the Proposed C23/24 Reservoirs. New South Associates, Stone Mountain.

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

Steele, Willard 1987 Battle of Okeechobee. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami.

St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) 2009 Fort Drum Marsh Conservation Area. Land Management Plan Summary. SJRWMD, Palatka. http://www.sjrwmd.com/landmanagementplans/pdfs/2009_Fort_Drum_CA.pdf.

State of Florida, DepartmentDRAFT of Environmental Protection 1853a Field Notes. Township 33 South, Range 36. Volume 103. M.A. Williams. 1853b Field Notes. Township 33 South, Range 37 East. Volume 103. M.A. Williams 1853c Plat. Township 33 South, Range 37 East. Volume 13. M.A. Williams. 1858 Field Notes. Volume 205. W.S. Harris. 1959 Plat. Township 33 South, Range 36 East. Volume 59. W.S. Harris. n.d.a Tract Book. Township 33 South, Range 36 East. n.d.b Tract Book. Township 33 South, Range 37 East.

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

U.S. Congress 1837 Report from the Secretary of War in Compliance with Resolution of the Senate of the 14th and 18th Instant, Transmitting Copies of Correspondence Relative to the Campaign in Florida. 24th Congress, 2nd Session, May 21, Washington, D.C. 1850 Hostilities Committed by the Seminole Indians in Florida during the Past Year. 31st Congress, 1st Session, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1951a Aerial photograph – 4-4-51, CYX-1H-202. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1951b Aerial photograph – 4-4-51, CYX-1H-204. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1951c Aerial photograph – 4-4-51, CYX-1H-206. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1958 Aerial photograph – 1-18-58, CZB-3V-40. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1962 Aerial photograph – 1-31-62, DSL-1CC--34. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1971 Aerial photograph – 1-17-71, CYX-3MM-51. On file, PALMM, Gainesville.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 6-9

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1989 Soil Survey of Indian River County, Florida. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 2016 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Florida – September 2016. USDA, NRCS, Fort Worth, TX.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1953a Fellsmere 4SW, Fla. 1953b Fellsmere 4SW, Fla. PR 1970

Van Landingham, Kyle S. 1988 Pictorial History of Saint Lucie County: 1565-1910. Published by Kyle S. Van Landingham, St. Pierce.

Waters, Jamie Anderson and Lucy B. Wayne 2005 Reconnaissance Survey, Evans Grove, Okeechobee, Florida. SouthArc, Gainesville.

Watts, William A. 1969 A Pollen DRAFTDiagram from Mud Lake, Marion County, North-central Florida. Geological Society of America Bulletin 80:631-642. 1971 Post-Glacial and Interglacial Vegetation History of Southern Georgia and Central Florida. Ecology 52:676-689. 1975 A Late Quaternary Record of Vegetation From Lake Annie, South-central Florida. Geology 3:344-346.

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

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

Weisman, Brent Richards 1989 Like Beads on a String, A Cultural History of the Seminole Indians in North Peninsular Florida. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1999 Unconquered People, Florida’s Seminole and Miccosukee Indians. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Wheeler, Ryan J. 1994 Early Florida Decorated Bone Artifacts: Style and Aesthetics from Paleo-Indian Through Archaic. The Florida Anthropologist 47(1):47-60.

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.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 6-10

White, W.A. 1970 The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin No. 51.

Whitney, Ellie, D. Bruce Means, and Anne Rudloe 2004 Priceless Florida: Natural Ecosystems and Native Species. Pineapple Press, Inc., Sarasota.

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

Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113. 1982 Reprint. Florida Book Store, Gainesville. 1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley. Bulletin 155. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington D. C.

Williams, John Lee 1837 The Territory of Florida: or, Sketches of the Topography, Civil and Natural History, of the Country, the Climate, and the Indian Tribes, from the First Discovery to the Present Time. 1962 Facsimile Reproduction. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. DRAFT Worth, John E. 1992 Appendix D: Revised Aboriginal Ceramic Typology for the Timucua Mission Province. In Excavations on the Franciscan Frontier: Archaeology at the Fig Springs Mission. Edited by B. R. Weisman, pp. 188-205. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 6-11

DRAFT

APPENDIX A

FMSF Forms

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir IR01725 Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______Field Date ______11-7-2016 † Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Form Date ______11-29-2016 † Update Version 4.0 1/07 Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Grove Land Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______CRAS, Grove Land Reservoir 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 ______GUM SLOUGH USGS Date ______Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______In City Limits? †yes †no †unknown County ______Indian River Township ______33S Range______37E Section ______31 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: ______Within grove, north of Turnpike, west of 154th Ave SW, and south of 9th Street SW. ______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) †DRAFT 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) ______Site is limited in size. Ditching, redeposition, and ______mixing of soils has occurred in the general area and within site. No evidence of subsurface features. Site ______does not appear to have the potential to yield significant information. Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action ______No additional action. ______

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]

IR01725 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) ______Three positive tests, 21 negative tests______in ______area. Artifact recovered from surface to 105 cmbs. ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______1,631 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______0-105 cmbs, most dense in upper 30 cmbs. ______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, grove activity ______Surface collection: area collected ______1 m2 # collection units ______Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______649 †countDRAFT †estimate Surface #______9 Subsurface #______640 COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for A Aboriginal ceramics † unknown † unselective (all artifacts) ____ - ______each artifact category selected at left † selective (some artifacts) ____A - ______Bone-animal or unidentif † mixed selectivity ____A - ______Unworked Shell 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 ______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______Other Name______Fort Drum Marsh Distance from site (m) ______1 Natural community ______OTHER Topography ______Hammock-wetland Elevation: Min _____m88 Max _____m Local vegetation ______Orange grove Present land use ______Orange grove SCS soil series ______gator muck Soil association ______Winder-Riviera-Manatee 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 ______File or accession #’s ______Document type ______Maintaining organization ______2) Document description ______File or accession #’s ______RECORDER & INFORMANT INFORMATION Informant Information: Name ______Address / Phone / E-mail ______Recorder Information: Name ______Christine Newman Affiliation ______Archaeological Consultants Inc Address / Phone / E-mail ______504 17th Street, St. Augustine, Fl 32084, 904-825-2320, [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 # 8IR01725 PHOTOGRAPH

DRAFT

AERIAL MAP

GF Positive test Negative test ¹

8IR01725

GF GF

GF

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 # 8IR01725 USGS Fellsmere 4 SW Township 33 South, Range 37 East, Section 31 ¹

DRAFT

8IR01725

0 500 1,000 Feet

0150300 Meters Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

DRAFT

APPENDIX B

Survey Log

P16079-Grove Land Reservoir 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, Grove Land Reservoir, Indian River County B BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW 7LWOH H[DFWO\ DV RQ WLWOH SDJH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCultural Resource Assessment Survey, Grove Land Reservoir, Indian RiverBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCounty, 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 BBBBBBBBBBB55 3XEOLFDWLRQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ *LYH VHULHV QXPEHU LQ VHULHV SXEOLVKHU DQG FLW\. )RU DUWLFOH RU FKDSWHU FLWH SDJH QXPEHUV. 8VH WKH VW\OH RI $PHULFDQ $QWLTXLW\. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBP16079, ACI, Sarasota BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBDRAFT BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6XSHUYLVRUV RI )LHOGZRUN HYHQ LI VDPH DV DXWKRU 1DPHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBMarion Almy; Newman, Christine; Baar, K $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 . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBaerial photography .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBorange grove .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

6XUYH\ 6SRQVRUV FRUSRUDWLRQ JRYHUQPHQW XQLW RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU SHUVRQ GLUHFWO\ IXQGLQJ ILHOGZRUN 1DPH. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBHazen and Sawyer 2UJDQL]DWLRQ. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $GGUHVV3KRQH(PDLO. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB400 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 750N, Hollywood, Florida 33201 BBBBBBBBBBB 5HFRUGHU RI /RJ 6KHHW BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBChristine Newman 'DWH /RJ 6KHHW &RPSOHWHG BBBBBBBBBBB11-28-2016

,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\ . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBIndian River . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

86*6  0DS 1DPHV

'HVFULSWLRQ RI 6XUYH\ $UHD

'DWHV IRU )LHOGZRUN 6WDUW BBBBBBBBB10-3-2016 (QG BBBBBBBBB 11-10-2016 7RWDO $UHD 6XUYH\HG ILOO LQ RQH BBBBBBKHFWDUHV BBBBBB2,000 DFUHV 1XPEHU RI 'LVWLQFW 7UDFWV RU $UHDV 6XUYH\HG BBBBBBBBB1 ,I &RUULGRU ILOO LQ RQH IRU HDFK :LGWK BBBBBBPHWHUV BBBBBBIHHW /HQJWK BBBBBBNLORPHWHUV BBBBBBPLOHV

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

5HVHDUFK DQG )LHOG 0HWKRGV 7\SHV RI 6XUYH\ FKHFN DOO WKDW DSSO\  DUFKDHRORJLFDO DUFKLWHFWXUDO KLVWRULFDODUFKLYDO XQGHUZDWHU GDPDJH DVVHVVPHQW PRQLWRULQJ UHSRUW RWKHU GHVFULEH . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6FRSH,QWHQVLW\3URFHGXUHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBackground research; predictive model, field survey (304 total; 119 @BBBBBBBB 25 m BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBintervals, 124 @ 100 m intervals, and 61 judgmental; report prepared. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'RFXPHQW 'HVWLQDWLRQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3ORWDELOLW\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

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

DRAFT

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Grove Land Reservoir Sections24, 25 and 36 of Township 33 South, Range 36 East, and Sections 19, 30 and 31 of Township 33 South, Range 37 East USGS Fellsmere 4SW Indian River County