2005219-99.6
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS REPORT FOR THE APPLICATION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK MASS GRADE PROJECT SITE, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Submitted to:
Mr. David Sauskojus Southwest Florida Water Management District Tampa Service Center 7601 US Highway 301 Tampa, Florida 33637-6759 Phone: (813) 786-6127
On behalf of:
The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. 1100 Main Street The Villages, Florida 32159 Phone: 813-963-6400, Ext. 206 Fax: 813-964-8582
January 31, 2014
Submitted by:
______Jennifer L. Rosinski, Ph.D., PWS W. Jeffrey Pardue, C.E.P., M.S., M.B.A. Senior Scientist Senior Vice President
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ...... iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
2.0 ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ...... 4
2.1 Vegetative Communities ...... 4 2.2 Uplands ...... 7 2.3 Wetlands and Surface Waters ...... 8 2.4 Soils ...... 9 2.5 Protected Wildlife and Plants...... 9
3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 27
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT REVIEW AND ISSUANCE CRITERIA ...... 30
4.1 Environmental Conditions for Issuance ...... 30 4.2 Elimination or Reduction of Impacts ...... 33 4.3 Fish, Wildlife, Protected Species, and Their Habitats ...... 34
4.3.1 Habitat Review Factors ...... 34
4.4 Water Quantity ...... 36 4.5 Public Interest Test ...... 36 4.6 Water Quality ...... 39 4.7 Secondary Impacts ...... 39 4.8 Cumulative Impacts ...... 40
5.0 MITIGATION ...... 42
APPENDIX A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPENDIX B U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONSULTATION DETERMINATION FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPENDIX C GOPHER TORTOISE SURVEY FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPENDIX D TABLE ONE: PROJECT WETLAND AND OTHER SURFACE WATER AND IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE TWO: PROJECT ON-SITE MITIGATION SUMMARY
APPENDIX E CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK F.K.A. PINE RIDGE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX F UNIFORM MITIGATION ASSESSMENT METHOD DATA SHEETS FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPENDIX G MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
ii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1.0-1 Location of the Villages of Fruitland Park Project Site, Lake County, Florida...... 2
Figure 2.0-1 Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System Map for the Villages of Fruitland Park Project Site, Lake County, Florida...... 5
Table 2.1-1 Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System, Representative Acreage and Percent Cover for The Villages of Fruitland Park Project Site, Lake County, Florida...... 6
Figure 2.4-1 Natural Resource Conservation Service Soils Map for The Villages of Fruitland Park Project Site, Lake County, Florida...... 11
Table 2.5-1 Protected Plants and Animals with Potential for Occurrence on the Villages of Fruitland Park Project Site, Lake County, Florida...... 12
Figure 3.0-1 Development Plan and Impacts on The Villages of Fruitland Park Project Site, Lake County, Florida...... 28
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Villages of Fruitland Park Mass Grade project site (Site) is planned for mass grading and stormwater management system (SWMS) construction (Project) to support future development of the Site for residential uses. The proposed Project consists of approximately 779 acres located in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 18, Township 19 South, and Range 24 East, Lake County, Florida (Figure 1.0-1). The Site is located adjacent to County Road (CR) 466-A, west of US. Highway 27. An aerial photograph depicting the project boundary has been included as Appendix A.
An individual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) is being sought through the Southwest Florida
Water Management District (SWFWMD) in order to carry out the proposed Mass Grade Project. A pre- application meeting was held with SWFWMD staff (Mr. David Sauskojus and Mr. Rob McDaniel) on
January 23, 2014 to discuss the Project.
The Site has been reviewed by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates, Inc. (BDA) scientists to evaluate existing conditions. The review consisted of on-site assessment of the vegetative communities, hydrologic conditions of the site, and wildlife utilization of the site, as well as a review of maps, and ancillary documents, to include the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils map, U.S. Geological
Survey topographic map, and aerial photography. A review of existing databases was also conducted to document the occurrence of wildlife or plant species listed as Threatened or Endangered (T&E) by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and wildlife listed as State Threatened (ST) or State Species of
Special Concern (SSC) by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
1
°! BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Consultants BDA
The extent of SWFWMD jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters were delineated and field-flagged in accordance with the Florida Unified Wetland Delineation Methodology as stated in Chapter 62-340,
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). On January 8, 2014, the Site was reviewed with Mr. David
Sauskojus under Application No. 689726 for a Formal Wetland and Surface Water Determination; the final survey of wetland and surface water boundaries is in preparation to complete Application No.
689726. The wetland and surface water boundaries as agreed upon on January 8, 2014 are utilized herein.
A total of 79.08 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 1.43 acres of surface waters (ditches) have been identified within the proposed Site.
The Project consists of the SWMS, and mass grading of the Site. Wetland and surface water impacts were avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable, and the applicant is proposing to directly impact 2.98 acres of isolated wetlands and 0.98 acre ditch as part of the Project. This application provides an overview of the Project with documentation of the current environmental conditions, soils and hydrologic information, and the occurrence or potential for occurrence of T&E and plant species, and the mitigation and monitoring plan. Design and engineering information for the project has been prepared and submitted by Farner, Barley and Associates, Inc. (FBA) under separate cover.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
3
2.0 ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
BDA scientists reviewed the Site in order to gather information relative to wetland jurisdictional limits, the vegetative community structure of the site, and existing conditions of the various wetland areas, with respect to hydrologic functions and habitat characteristics. Data were also collected regarding wetland and upland habitat conditions and the occurrence and/or likelihood of occurrence for fish, wildlife, and
T&E species on the Site.
The on-site land use and vegetative cover types were classified by BDA scientists through selective ground-truthing during field investigations and aerial photo-interpretation to characterize the habitats and provide the basis for an assessment of the occurrence or potential for occurrence of listed wildlife and plant species. The characterization of the vegetative communities and land use types was based on the
Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Florida Department of Transportation
[FDOT], January 1999) (Figure 2.0-1). The following describes the general composition and conditions of the various community types identified within the project. Botanical nomenclature (scientific names), as presented in this report, is per Wunderlin (Wunderlin, Richard P. and Bruce F. Hansen. 2003. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida, second edition. University Press of Florida. 787 pp.).
2.1 Vegetative Communities
Upland communities within the Site comprise approximately 700 acres (89.8%) of the site, wetlands and surface waters (ditches) comprise approximately 80 acres (10.2%) of the site. Land use type, classification, approximate acreage, and percent areal coverage of the project are presented in Table 2.1-1.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
4
°! BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Consultants BDA
Table 2.1-1. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System, Representative Acreage and Percent Cover for The Villages of Fruitland Park Project Site, Lake County, Florida.
Code FLUCFCS1 Text Acreage Percent Cover
214 Row Crops 556.33 71.4%
252 Dairies 14.96 1.9%
261 Fallow Crop Land 46.19 5.9%
310 Herbaceous (Dry Prairies) 9.9 1.3%
329 Other Shrub and Brush 4.87 0.6%
410 Upland Coniferous Forest 3.06 0.4%
420 Upland Hardwood Forests 47.93 6.1%
441 Coniferous Plantations 3.74 0.5%
740 Disturbed Land 8.47 1.1%
814 Roads and Highways 4.45 0.6%
516 Ditches 1.43 0.2%
631 Wetland Shrub 23.84 3.1%
631/641 Wetland Shrub / Freshwater Marsh 1.33 0.2%
641 Freshwater Marsh 52.91 6.8%
Total 779.41 556.33
1 Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Table 2.1-1.doc
2.2 Uplands
The upland vegetation cover and land use types are described below and consisted of Row Crops (214),
Dairies (252), Fallow Crop Land (261), Herbaceous (Dry Prairies) (310), Other Shrub and Brush (329),
Upland Coniferous Forest (410), Upland Hardwood Forests (420), Coniferous Plantations (441),
Disturbed Land (740), and Roads (814).
Row Crops (214) make up the majority of the Site. The crop planted at the time of Site reviews was peanuts. Scattered throughout were beggarticks (Bidens alba), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), dayflower (Commelina sp.), and Virginia pepperweed (Lepidium virginicum).
The Dairies (252), Fallow Crop Land (261), Herbaceous (Dry Prairies) (310), Other Shrub and Brush
(329) contained similar vegetation including bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), common ragweed, beggarticks, guineagrass (Panicum maximum), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), blackberry (Rubus sp.),
Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and amaranth (Amaranthus sp.). Scattered live oak (Quercus virginiana), common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and mulberry (Morus sp.) occurred throughout.
The Dairies (252) cover type also contains remnant buildings, building pads, and roadways.
Upland Coniferous Forest (410) and Coniferous Plantations (441) contained slash pine (Pinus elliottii), with the Coniferous Plantations (441) pines planted in rows. Understory and shrub vegetation included mulberry, common persimmon, Chinaberrytree (Melia azedarach), and lantana (Lantana camara).
Herbaceous species included common ragweed, beggarticks, and purple passionflower (Passiflora incarnata).
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
7
The Upland Hardwood Forests (420) was dominated by live oak, with a subcanopy of Chinaberrytree and slash pine. The shrub stratum contained winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), camphortree (Cinnamomum camphora), common persimmon, and mulberry.
The Disturbed Land (740) areas contained spoil piles overgrown with shrubs and herbaceous vegetation.
Dominant species were American pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), beggertickes, and common ragweed. Also present were winged sumac, camphortree, and common persimmon.
Roads (814) includes a maintained dirt road centrally located, currently known as Pine Ridge Dairy Road.
2.3 Wetlands and Surface Waters
The wetland vegetation cover and land use type are described below and consisted of Wetland
Scrub/Shrub (631), mixed Wetland Shrub (631) / Freshwater Marsh (641), and Freshwater Marsh (641) and the surface waters within the project area included Ditches (516).
The Wetland Scrub/Shrub cover type was dominated by Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), with herbaceous vegetation including dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), and falsefennel (Eupatorium leptophyllum).
Freshwater Marsh (641) vegetation included dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), cattail (Typha sp.), southern amaranth (Amarathus australis), soft rush (Juncus effusus), southern umbrellasedge
(Fuirena scirpoidea), stiff marsh bedstraw (Galium tinctorium), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), fireweed (Erechtites hieraciifolius), vaseygrass (Paspalum urvillei), chufa flatsedge (Cyperus esculentus), mock bishopsweed (Ptilimnium capillaceum), grassleaf rush (Juncus marginatus), maidencane, and
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
8 frog’s-bit (Limnobium spongia). The edges contained Carolina willow, Peruvian primrosewillow
(Ludwigia peruviana), and elderberry (Sambucus nigra subsp. canadensis).
The mixed cover type of Wetland Shrub (631) / Freshwater Marsh (641) included species as noted in each of the cover types. This area contained portions of shrub wetland and portions of marsh wetland intermixed throughout the system. It appears to have been partially excavated historically and a berm remains in the center of the system.
The Ditches (516) cover type consists man-made ditches that flow in response to rainfall events. They were likely constructed to drain the wetlands adjacent to the ditches. Vegetation included tree lined banks with elderberry, Carolina willow, water oak (Quercus nigra), and camphortree. There was little vegetation within the ditches.
2.4 Soils
Soils on the Site are depicted on Figure 2.4-1. The Soil Survey Geographic database created by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, NRCS for Lake County, Florida, identifies the following soil types as occurring within the project: Sparr sand, 0 to 5% slopes, (01), Apopka sand, 0 to 5% slopes (05), Apopka sand, 5 to 12% slopes (06), Candler sand, 0 to 5% slopes (08), Candler sand, 5 to 12% slopes (09),
Immokalee sand (20), Kendrick sand, 0 to 5% slopes (24), Everglades muck, depressional (27), Myakka sand (28), Oklawaha muck (32), Placid sand, depressional (38), Pompana sand (42), Tavares sand, 0 to
5% slopes (45), Orsino sand (46), and Water (99).
2.5 Protected Wildlife and Plants
Species of wildlife and plants protected under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
16 United States Code 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976 – 1982, 1984, and 1988 (ESA)
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
9 and Florida rule (68A-27.0001- 27.007, F.A.C.) and known to occur within Lake County, Florida, are represented in Table 2.5-1. (Note: The FWC adopted new rules for listing imperiled wildlife species effective on November 8, 2010. Species previously classified as Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) were
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
10
°! BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Consultants BDA
Table 2.5-1 Protected Plants and Animals with Potential for Occurrence on the Villages of Fruitland Park Project Site, Lake County, Florida.
Designated Likelihood 1 Species Habitat of Occurrence of Status Occurrence USFWS2 FWC34 PLANTS Bonamia grandiflora Scrub, dry pinelands. Unlikely T — Florida bonamia Chionanthus pygmaeus Scrub, sandhill, xeric hammock. Unlikely E — pygmy fringe-tree Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis Pond apple swamps, mixed hardwood swamp. Unlikely E — Okeechobee gourd Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium Sandhill, scrub. Unlikely T — scrub buckwheat Justicia cooleyi Mesic hardwood hammocks over limestone. Unlikely E — Cooley’s water-willow Nolina brittoniana Scrub, sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, xeric hammock. Unlikely E — Britton’s beargrass Paronychia chartacea Scrub, sandhill. Unlikely T — papery whitlow-wort
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Lake Protected.doc
Updated October 25, 2012 Table 2.5-1 Continued.
Designated Likelihood 1 Species Habitat of Occurrence of Status Occurrence USFWS2 FWC34 Polygala lewtonii Xeric oak scrub, sandhill. Unlikely E — Lewton’s polygala Prunus geniculata Sandhill, xeric oak scrub. Unlikely E — scrub plum Warea amplexifolia Sandhill. Unlikely E — clasping warea Warea carteri Sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, inland and coastal scrub. Unlikely E — Carter’s mustard FISH
Acipenser brevirostrum Rivers, estuaries. Not FE — shortnose sturgeon Applicable Cyprinodon variegates hubbsi Lakes. Not — SSC Lake Eustis pupfish Applicable Pteronotropis welaka Blackwater rivers and streams, spring runs. Not — SSC bluenose shiner Applicable
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Lake Protected.doc
Updated October 25, 2012 Table 2.5-1 Continued.
Designated Likelihood 1 Species Habitat of Occurrence of Status Occurrence USFWS2 FWC34 AMPHIBIANS Lithobates capito Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill, upland hardwoods, pine flatwoods, freshwater marsh. Moderate — SSC gopher frog REPTILES Alligator mississippiensis Freshwater marsh, cypress swamp, mixed hardwood swamp, shrub swamp, bottomland hardwoods, lakes, ponds, rivers, High FT(S/A) — American alligator streams. Drymarchon corais couperi Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill, pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, tropical hardwood hammock, hydric Low FT — eastern indigo snake hammock, wet prairie, mangrove swamp. Gopherus polyphemus Sandhill, sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub, coastal strand, xeric hammock, dry prairie, pine flatwoods, mixed Observed — ST gopher tortoise hardwood–pine forests, ruderal. Neoseps [=Plestiodon] reynoldsi Rosemary scrub, sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub, scrubby flatwoods, xeric hammock. Unlikely FT — sand skink Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill, scrubby pine flatwoods, old fields on former sandhill and scrub sites. Low — SSC Florida pine snake
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Lake Protected.doc
Updated October 25, 2012 Table 2.5-1 Continued.
Designated Likelihood 1 Species Habitat of Occurrence of Status Occurrence USFWS2 FWC34
Pseudemys concinna suwanniensis Rivers, large streams, spring runs, and associated backwaters Not and impoundments. — SSC Suwannee cooter Applicable Stilosoma extenuatum Sandhill, xeric hammock, sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub. Low — ST short-tailed snake BIRDS Aphelocoma coerulescens Xeric oak scrub. Low FT — Florida scrub-jay Aramus guarauna Freshwater marsh, mixed hardwood swamp, rivers, streams, spring runs, lake margins, ruderal. Moderate — SSC Limpkin Athene cunicularia Sandhill, dry prairie, pastures, ruderal. Low — SSC burrowing owl Egretta caerulea Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, lakes, streams, salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats. Observed — SSC little blue heron Egretta thula Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, streams, lakes, salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, High — SSC snowy egret impoundments, ditches.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Lake Protected.doc
Updated October 25, 2012 Table 2.5-1 Continued.
Designated Likelihood 1 Species Habitat of Occurrence of Status Occurrence USFWS2 FWC34 Egretta tricolor Salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, tidal creeks, tidal ditches, freshwater marsh, various types of forested High — SSC tricolored heron wetlands, lakes and ponds. Eudocimus albus Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, ruderal. High — SSC white ibis Falco sparverius paulus Sandhill, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, pasture, old field. Observed — ST southeastern American kestrel Grus canadensis pratensis Dry prairie, freshwater marsh, pasture. Moderate — ST Florida sandhill crane Mycteria americana Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, ponds, salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, lagoons, High FE — wood stork flooded pastures. Picoides borealis Sandhill, pine flatwoods. Unlikely FE — red-cockaded woodpecker Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Freshwater marsh, lakes. Low FE — snail kite Sterna antillarum Beaches, tidal mud flats, estuarine and marine waters, lakes. Unlikely — ST least tern
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Lake Protected.doc
Updated October 25, 2012 Table 2.5-1 Continued.
Designated Likelihood 1 Species Habitat of Occurrence of Status Occurrence USFWS2 FWC34 MAMMALS Podomys floridanus Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill. Low — SSC Florida mouse Sciurus niger shermani Sandhill, pine flatwoods, pastures. Low — SSC Sherman’s fox squirrel Trichechus manatus latirostris Estuarine bays and lagoons, seagrass beds, rivers, spring Not runs. FE — Florida manatee Applicable ______1 FE = Federally-designated Endangered; FT = Federally-designated Threatened; FT(S/A) = Federally-designated Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance; ST = State-designated Threatened; SSC = State Species of Special Concern. 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 4 These state classifications are pending reclassification in accordance with revisions to Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.005, 68A-27.0012 and 68A-27.0021, Florida Administrative Code, for managing imperiled species as adopted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on September 1, 2010, effective November 15, 2010.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Lake Protected.doc
Updated October 25, 2012 approved for reclassification as T in June 2011. Final reclassifications for SSC to T or removal from the list and for E or T that were recommended for removal from the list are pending development and approval for implementation of management plans for each species.) The likelihood of occurrence, listed within this table, is based on a comparison of known general habitat requirements by these species with the habitats found on or near the project site, the quantity, quality, and adjacency of these habitats, as well as any observations of these species during field study. The likelihood of occurrence for protected species was rated as high, moderate, low, unlikely, or not applicable based on knowledge of a species’ habitat preference and site conditions. A likelihood of occurrence given as “unlikely” indicates that no, or very limited, suitable habitat for this species exists on the site, but the site is within the documented range of the species; “not applicable” indicates that the habitat for this species does not exist on or adjacent to the site and/or the site is not within the documented range of the species.
The Lake County Federally Listed Species database, located on the USFWS (Critical Habitat portal) website, and the USFWS’s publication County Lists of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate
Species of the Southeast United States (The Redbook) indicate that critical habitat for the Florida manatee
(Trichechus manatus latirostris) has been designated in Lake County, Florida. No suitable habitat for this species occurs on the Site. No federally listed plant species were observed on the Site during the field investigation.
The Site occurs within the consultation area for sand skink (Neoseps [=Plestiodon] reynoldsi), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), and Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). Detail on these species is included below.
Sand skink (Neoseps [=Plestiodon] reynoldsi) (T, USFWS): The sand skink is listed as T by the
USFWS. The USFWS posted the revised Peninsular Florida Species Conservation and Consultation
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
18
Guide for Sand and Bluetail Mole Skinks (Guidelines) on February 7, 2012. The Guidelines establish a consultation area for the sand skink and bluetail mole skink (Eumeces [=Plestiodon] egregius lividus) that includes the seven counties in which the documented range exists for those species. Lake County is one of those counties; therefore, the project site is within the consultation area. Moreover, the site is within areas that meet USFWS criteria for sand skink surveys based on soil types, counties of occurrence, and elevation. The Guidelines generally describe suitable habitat as specific loose soil types occurring above 82 feet above sea level under natural and degraded cover types. Technical Assistance was requested with USFWS and the USFWS was determined that no suitable habitat for sand skinks occurs on the Site (Appendix B). The Site is an active peanut farm, with a history of other agricultural uses, and areas outside of the row crops are too thickly vegetated to support sand skinks. In addition, the Site is isolated from potentially suitable habitat that could provide a source population for the Site.
Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (T, USFWS): The eastern indigo snake is the longest of the North American snakes, and it is listed as threatened due to over-collection and habitat loss.
Eastern indigo snakes are found in a variety of habitats throughout Florida, from mangrove swamps and wet prairies to sandhill and scrub habitats, and they often winter in the burrows of gopher tortoises. They have relatively large home ranges and apparently require a mosaic of habitats to complete their life cycle, often feeding along wetland edges. Eastern indigo snakes have not been observed on the Site, and the likelihood of occurrence is low based on the rarity of the species and the lack of evidence of presence in the vicinity of the site and the disturbed condition of the Site (row crops). However, they have potential to occur based on the presence of a mix of habitats on and adjacent to the project and the presence of gopher tortoise burrows.
Based on application of the USFWS Programatic Concurrence for the Eastern Indigo Snake the Project is
Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) eastern indigo snakes. The Applicant will apply the Standard
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
19
Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake, however the site does not contain xeric habitat and has few (less than 10) gopher tortoise burrows based on a 100% survey of suitable habitat.
Florida Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) (T, USFWS) and Scrub Habitats: The project site is within the USFWS consultation area for Florida scrub-jays. Available databases contain no records of
Florida scrub-jay territories on the project site. The nearest records are located approximately 10.5 miles south-southeast of the Site. The vast majority (85%) of documented Florida scrub-jay dispersals is within two miles of the natal territory, but Florida scrub-jays may occasionally disperse up to five miles to establish territories of their own. Re-colonization of vacant patches of habitat rarely occurs beyond approximately 7.4 miles. Florida scrub-jay territories that are within 7.4 miles of one another are considered to be members of the same metapopulation. This information suggests that the site is not within dispersal distances of recorded Florida scrub-jay territories.
Available land cover databases and Site reviews indicate that low-growing xeric oak scrub vegetation, the required habitat of Florida scrub-jays, does not occur on the Site and this vegetation type has not occurred historically on the site. Soils data indicate that the site is dominated by soil types that may support scrub under natural conditions. Some areas on the edge of the peanut fields were considered marginally suitable as overgrown scrub habitat. A survey was conducted in accordance with the USFWS Florida
Scrub-Jay General Survey Guidelines and Protocols and no Florida scrub-jays were observed or responded to the audio recordings. It is unlikely that Florida scrub-jays occur on the Project Site based on survey results, the lack of suitable habitat, and dispersal distance from known territories.
The following species either occur or have a high likelihood of occurrence on the Site. Each will be addressed through a species specific plan as detailed below:
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
20
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis ) (FT due to similarity of appearance (S/A), USFWS):
The American alligator is protected as a threatened species due to its resemblance to the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). The American alligator is no longer biologically threatened or endangered, but is protected under the need for continued Federal control on taking and commerce to insure against excessive taking and to continue necessary protections to the American crocodile in the
U.S. and foreign countries, and other endangered crocodilians in foreign countries. An American alligator was observed on the Site. The large wetland systems will remain in the post-development condition, so no adverse effect is expected to American alligators.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): The bald eagle is protected by the USFWS under provisions of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (effective August
9, 2007). Recovery goals have been achieved for this species; therefore, the bald eagle is no longer listed or protected as a “Threatened” species under the ESA of 1973, as amended. The USFWS has implemented National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (National Guidelines) (May 2007) to assist private landowners and others to plan land-use activities in proximity to active bald eagle nests by measures that will minimize the likelihood of causing “disturbance” to nesting bald eagles, as defined under the BGEPA. The FWC also removed the bald eagle from classification and protection as a
“Threatened” species under Florida Rule and implemented the Florida Bald Eagle Management Plan
(Florida Plan) (effective May 9, 2008). The Florida Plan includes Florida Bald Eagle Management
Guidelines (Florida Guidelines) and permit provisions.
The FWC bald eagle nest database was reviewed to determine the locations of all nests that occur on or in close proximity to the Site. There is one active bald eagle nest located on the Site. Nest No. LA157 is located on the Site, near the northern boundary. A non-purposeful take permit application has been submitted to USFWS and a bald eagle disturbance permit application has been submitted the FWC in
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
21 order to permit development between 330-ft and 660-ft from the nest tree. Until that time, all activities will comply with the USFWS and FWC guidelines and no activity will be conducted inside the 660-ft buffer during the nesting season (October 1 – May 15).
The FWC database also contains a record of nest No. LA032, which has been inactive since 2008 and is located over 1.8 miles south of the Site. It is unlikely that development activities of the Project will affect the nesting activities of bald eagles, if any, at this nest location.
Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) (E, USFWS): There are no records of a wood stork rookery on the
Site based on the most recent FWC statewide survey in 1999 and based on data available from the
USFWS through 2009. The nearest wood stork rookery, based on available databases, is over 16 miles northeast of the Site. Wood storks typically return to the same rookery sites each year to nest, and will travel up to 18.6 miles from rookeries to forage in wetlands and return food to incubating adults and nestlings during the nesting season. Wetlands within 15 miles of known rookeries are considered by
USFWS to comprise core foraging areas for nesting wood storks in this area of central Florida. The Site is not within the core foraging area of any wood stork rookeries that have been active within the last 10 years. It appears that the Site would not contribute to the breeding success of known wood stork rookeries because the Site is located outside of core foraging areas. However, wood storks have the potential to forage in wetlands on the Site if hydrologic conditions are suitable. Wetland habitat will remain in the post-development condition both on the Site and in the region; as such no effect on wood storks should result from Project development.
Wading Bird Rookeries (1999): The FWC wading bird rookery database from the 1999 statewide survey contains no records of rookeries used by other species of wading birds on the Site, and there is one recorded wading bird rookery within 9.3 miles of the Site. Listed species of wading birds [including
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
22 limpkin (Aramus guarauna), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), and white ibis (Eudocimus albus)], other than wood storks, will fly up to approximately 9.3 miles from the nesting site to forage in wetlands and return food to incubating adults and nestlings. Wetlands within 9.3 miles of the rookeries of listed species of wading birds are considered important to wading bird nesting success. The wetlands on the Site may be utilized by listed wading birds and provide potential foraging habitat for listed wading birds. On Site wetlands may be of significance for breeding success based on the distance of the wetland from known rookeries. The majority (96.3%) of wetland habitat will remain on Site in the post-development condition and is expected to continue to provide foraging habitat for wading birds. Therefore, no effect on wading birds is expected.
Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) (ST, FWC): Two subspecies of American kestrels occur in Florida, the eastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius sparverius) and the southeastern
American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus). The eastern American kestrel winters in Florida, arriving in
September and leaving in the early spring months of March-April. Southeastern and eastern kestrels co- occur in Florida during the winter, during which time they are virtually indistinguishable in the field.
Surveys intended to determine the presence of resident kestrels should be conducted between April and
August, and surveys for nesting kestrels ideally would be conducted in April or May. Southeastern kestrels are secondary cavity nesters, typically using cavities excavated by other species in trees or snags.
Occasionally southeastern kestrels will nest in human structures such as utility poles. Kestrels feed in open areas, such as croplands, pasture, and open pine woods that are adjacent to nest sites. Home ranges around nest sites range 125-800 acres. Suitable cavity trees were noted on the Site, and American kestrels were observed on the Site. Formal surveys will be conducted prior to development activities on the Site and coordination/permitting with the FWC will be conducted as required based on survey results and the development plan.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
23
Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) (ST, FWC): The Florida sandhill crane is a resident, breeding, non-migratory subspecies of sandhill cranes. The Site is within the range of Florida sandhill cranes. The greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida) also occurs in Florida as a wintering migrant, arriving in Florida during October and November and beginning spring migration in late
February. Florida sandhill cranes nest in shallow, emergent palustrine wetlands, particularly those dominated by pickerelweed and maidencane. They feed in a variety of open, upland habitats, mostly prairies but also human-manipulated habitats such as sod farms, ranchlands, pastures, golf courses, airports, and suburban subdivisions. There are no nest records from the Site, and no nests were observed on the Site. However, the Site provides suitable foraging habitat for sandhill cranes. Some suitable foraging habitat will remain in the post-development condition both on the Site and within the region, and no long-term effects on sandhill cranes should occur as a result of Project development.
Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) (State Threatened [ST], FWC): The gopher tortoise is listed as T by the FWC but is not listed as T or E by the USFWS. However, the USFWS recently determined in their 12-month finding published on July 27, 2011, that listing of the gopher tortoise as a threatened species in the eastern portion of its range is warranted under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (USFWS 2011). Gopher tortoises were added to the candidate species list with the publication of the 12-month finding, but for the time being, the USFWS is precluded from taking further action due to limited resources. Presence of this species on the site is based on the observations of active burrows that were documented during the field investigation. A 100% survey of all areas of suitable gopher tortoise habitat should be conducted to conclusively determine the population size and distribution of gopher tortoises currently on the site and evaluate management options available for this species. The presence of gopher tortoises on the project site generally requires development of a management plan to accommodate the species if impacts are anticipated, and that the plan be submitted to the FWC for permit
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
24 authorization for implementation of the plan, prior to any type of development work, clearing and grubbing, or tree harvesting activities on the project site.
BDA scientists have conducted a 100% survey of the Site in accordance with the FWC survey protocol and have determined that nine active gopher tortoise burrows occur on or adjacent to the Site (Appendix
C). Using the FWC adopted conversion factor (0.5) this would equate to an estimated on Site population of five gopher tortoises. Since the Site cannot be developed without potentially impacting the gopher tortoises a relocation permit application is being submitted to the FWC. The tortoises will be relocated offsite either within existing gopher tortoise preserves elsewhere on The Villages or to a permitted recipient site.
Gopher Frog (Lithobates capito) (State Species of Special Concern [SSC], FWC): The project site is within the range of the gopher frog. The distribution of gopher frogs appears to be contained within that of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Gopher frogs typically occur in native, xeric, and upland habitats, particularly longleaf pine-turkey oak sandhills, which often support the densest populations of gopher tortoises. However, gopher frogs are also known to occur in pine flatwoods, sand pine scrub, xeric hammocks, and the early successional stages of these communities. Preferred breeding habitats include seasonally flooded, grassy ponds and cypress heads that lack fish populations. Gopher frogs will disperse up to one mile from breeding ponds to occupy gopher tortoise burrows, but they may also occupy a variety of other retreats including the burrows of rodents and crayfish (Procambarus sp.), stump holes, and other crevices. There is a moderate likelihood that gopher frogs may be present on the site based on the occurrence of suitable soils and the presence of gopher tortoise burrows and isolated wetlands. The management plan adopted by the FWC along with the relocation permit process for gopher tortoises provides guidance for conservation of commensals associated with gopher tortoise burrows such as the gopher frog.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
25
Sherman’s Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) (SSC, FWC): Sherman’s fox squirrels range throughout the Florida peninsula south to the Caloosahatchee River. Optimal Sherman’s fox squirrel habitat has been characterized as mature, fire-maintained longleaf pine-turkey oak sandhills and flatwoods. Preferred habitat has also been described as mature and open pine and pine-hardwood associations. Sherman’s fox squirrels are diurnal, solitary animals whose home ranges may overlap, but separate core home range areas are maintained. Male and female home ranges average 196 acres and 82 acres, respectively. Suitable nesting habitat for the Sherman’s fox squirrels occurs on the Site. This species is relatively common in this region of central Florida. The FWC has issued an incidental take permit to The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. for the Villages of Lake Sumter property already approved under the Villages of Lake Sumter DRI. BDA will consult with the FWC to modify the existing incidental take permit for Sherman’s Fox Squirrels to include the Villages of Fruitland Park. As outlined in that modification request and as has been the practice on the Villages, the following protocol will be followed with respect to the Sherman’s Fox Squirrel:
Any large oaks or pines that do not need to be removed as part of the mass grading of the site will remain. This, in conjunction with remaining trees preserved on the adjacent Villages of Sumter and the open space provided on the golf courses will insure that suitable habitat remains. One to two weeks prior to mass grading BDA biologists will survey all candidate nesting trees on the Villages of Fruitland Park and identify potential brood nests. With the assistance of a bucket truck, a BDA wildlife biologist will visually inspect candidate nests to the extent practicable. Those nests at heights greater than the reach of the bucket truck will be visually monitored for five days to determine whether the nest is active. Trees with active brood nests will be identified with visual markers and will not be removed until the brood nest can be determined to no longer be active (either visually or through monitoring).
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
26
3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed Project is for mass grading and SWMS construction to support residential use of the Site
(Figure 3.0-1). The Project will result in the elimination of 2.98 acres of isolated wetlands (Wetlands A,
B, C, D, and E) that will be incorporated into the SWMS and 0.98 acre of ditches that will be filled for residential development. The mass grading, construction and operation of the SWMS will more than replace functions provided by the ditch. Only 1.33 acres of the onsite wetland impacts (Wetland B) will require mitigation since Wetlands A, C, D, and E are all less than 0.5-acre and are not utilized by listed wildlife species (per the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant Handbook Volume I, October 1, 2013,
Section 10.2.2.1); the remaining wetlands will not be impacted and will be protected with a minimum 15- foot, 25-foot average upland buffer.
Due to the extent and configuration of wetlands and surface waters present on-site, as well as Site topography, complete avoidance of the wetlands and surface water was not practicable. Complete avoidance would result in a Project that would not be practicable or able to be engineered consistent with local development standards. The proposed impacts were determined based on the overall project plan, surrounding land uses, and the net developable acreage needed to support the basic project purpose. The proposed Project will result in approximately 2.98 acres of impacts to wetlands (3.7%) and 0.98 acre impact to ditch features (surface waters) (1.2%), and 75.55 acres (95.1%) of wetlands and surface waters will remain in the post-development condition (Figure 3.0-1). No mitigation is proposed to off-set the ditch impacts since the construction and operation of the SWMS will more than replace functions provided by the ditch. Mitigation for 1.33 acres of wetland impact is proposed on-site within the remaining wetlands; the wetlands remaining on the Site have been avoided and will be protected with a
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
27
°! BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Consultants BDA
minimum 15 foot average 25 foot upland buffer. Mitigation will consist of enhancement of the on-site wetlands and maintenance to reduce nuisance and exotic (N/E) vegetation. See Section 5.0 for detail on the mitigation plan.
The engineering and stormwater management design has been prepared by FBA as part of this ERP application and provides complete detail on the proposed Project and SWMS. Table 1 from Form 62-
330.060(1) Section C and both the ERP Handbook Volume I, effective October 1, 2013 (Handbook) and the SWFWMD Permit Information Manual implemented October 1, 2013 (Manual) is included as
Appendix D, and provides a summary of the acreage of wetlands and surface waters present on the Site and the proposed impacts.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
29
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT REVIEW AND ISSUANCE CRITERIA
4.1 Environmental Conditions for Issuance
The Handbook (Section 10.1.1) lists seven conditions for the issuance of an ERP. The applicant provides, through this permit application, reasonable assurances that all seven conditions will be met.
1. A regulated activity will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife and listed species, including aquatic and wetland-dependent species, by wetlands and other surface waters.
Development of the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish,
wildlife, and listed species, including aquatic and wetland-dependent species. In order to provide
an economically feasible Project and meet certain design criteria, impacts to 2.98 acres of
wetlands and 0.98 acre surface water (ditch) are unavoidable. The large wetland systems were
avoided in Project planning and no impacts will occur to Wetlands G, H, and F. The functions of
the ditch feature will be more than replaced by the SWMS; therefore, no significant adverse
impacts to fish, wildlife, and listed wildlife are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed
development. The large contiguous wetland systems remaining on the Site and in the vicinity of
the proposed Project will continue to provide habitat for species that can utilize these areas for
feeding, loafing, breeding, and/or nesting.
In addition, the proposed SWMS will provide additional foraging habitat for aquatic and wetland-
dependent species. Therefore, little change and/or a potential increase in habitat value for species
such as the little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, white ibis, and wood stork can be
expected post-development.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
30
2. A regulated activity located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such an activity significantly degrades or is located within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), that the regulated activity will be clearly in the public interest.
The mass grading and SWMS construction will prepare the Site for development for residential
uses. The Site was chosen for its location near existing Villages development as well as near
major roadways. The project has been designed to meet local standards, comply with all local
regulations, and the stormwater management criteria of the SWFWMD. The project is not
located within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) nor will it significantly degrade an OFW.
3. A regulated activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-3, 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522 and 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of Sections 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), 62- 4.242(2) and (3), and 62-302.300 and any special standards for OFWs and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in Sections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated.
Development of the Site will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The appropriate
pollution abatement, storm water attenuation, and any need for flood control will be provided
pursuant to the storm water management criteria of the SWFWMD. The storm water
management submittal prepared by FBA provides the appropriate engineering calculations and
details. The Project is located within the Southern Ocklawaha River Hydrologic Basin and the
standards and design criteria for this basin will be met per the agreement between St. Johns River
Water Management District (SJRWMD) and SWFWMD. The engineering submittal from FBA
will provide the details.
4. A regulated activity located in, adjacent to or in close proximity to Class II waters or located in waters classified by the Department as approved, restricted, or conditionally restricted for shellfish harvesting pursuant to Chapter 16R-7, F.A.C., will comply with the additional criteria in Section 10.2.5 of the Handbook.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
31
The Site is not adjacent to, or in close proximity of, a Class II water, nor is it located within areas
utilized for shellfish harvesting.
5. The construction of vertical seawalls in estuaries and lagoons will comply with the additional criteria in Section 10.2.6 of the Handbook.
The construction plans for the Site do not include any vertical seawalls. Furthermore, the Site is
not located within an estuary or lagoon.
6. A regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources.
Development of the Site will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources. The
Project’s storm water design will meet the SWFWMD’s criteria for pollution abatement and
storm water attenuation as well as the standards and design criteria for the Southern Ocklawaha
River Hydrologic Basin. Therefore, the physical, chemical, and biological treatment processes
for stormwater discharge will occur within the proposed stormwater pond. Consequently, no
adverse impacts to water quality are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed development.
Other Best Management Practices (BMPs) including, but not limited to, the construction of
swales, erosion and sediment control structures, and turbidity barriers will be used to ensure
sedimentation pollution will either be eliminated or maintained within acceptable limits. The
contractor shall be responsible for providing these temporary erosion and sedimentation control
measures during construction or until final controls become effective.
Wetlands remaining on-site will be protected by an upland buffer. The upland buffer will meet
the SWFWMD criteria (minimum 15-foot width, 25-foot width average); therefore, secondary
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
32
impacts to adjacent wetland systems are not anticipated to occur as a result of the construction of
the Project.
7. A regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Development of the Site is not anticipated to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands
or other surface waters. The Project proposes approximately 2.98 acres of direct wetland and
0.98 acre of direct surface water impact (ditch). The impacts will be fully compensated by the
on-site mitigation and the SWMS, within the same drainage basin, thereby avoiding unacceptable
cumulative impacts. No mitigation is proposed to offset the ditch impact. The SWMS will meet
all water quality and quantity criteria of the SWFWMD to prevent any cumulative impacts to the
receiving waters.
4.2 Elimination or Reduction of Impacts
Pursuant to Section 10.2.1 of the Handbook, the following factors are considered in determining whether an application will be approved by the Agency: the degree of impact to wetland and other surface water functions caused by a proposed activity; whether the impact to these functions can be mitigated; and the practicability of design modifications for the site that could eliminate or reduce impacts to these functions, including alignment alternatives for a proposed linear system. The Site is planned for mass grading and construction of the SWMS to support development of residential uses. Complete avoidance of the wetlands and ditches was not practicable due to their configuration and Site topography. Complete avoidance of the wetlands and ditches would result in a project that would not be practicable or able to be engineered consistent with local development standards. The large wetland systems were avoided and will remain on-site and will be protected by an upland buffer.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
33
4.3 Fish, Wildlife, Protected Species, and Their Habitats
Pursuant to the criteria stated in Section 10.2.2 of the Handbook, the project provides reasonable assurance that development of the project site will not cause adverse impacts to:
(a) The abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife, listed species, and the bald eagle (Halieaeetus
leucocephalus), which is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C.
668-668d (April 30, 2004); and
(b) The habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species.
As discussed in Section 2.2 of this report, appropriate measures have been taken to minimize impacts to listed wildlife species. The listed species of wildlife documented on-site were American alligator, gopher tortoise, little blue heron, bald eagle, American kestrel/Southeastern American kestrel. Management plans for these species have been developed in cases where suitable habitat will not remain in the post- development condition to support these species; as such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The wetlands remaining will continue to provide suitable habitat for wetland-dependent and listed species of wildlife post-development. Fisheries resources are linked to the large central wetland system (Wetland H) which will remain in the post-development condition. In addition, the on-site bald eagle nest will be protected by a 660-foot buffer until permitting with USFWS is complete. Therefore, it is unlikely that development activities of the Site will affect the nesting activities of bald eagles.
4.3.1 Habitat Review Factors
Section 10.2.2.3 of the Handbook provides five criteria for the SWFWMD to consider when assessing the value of functions that any wetland or other surface water provides to fish, wildlife, and listed species.
Responses to the five criteria are summarized below and demonstrate the proposed project will not impact
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
34 the values of wetlands or other surface waters so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance, diversity, and habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species.
A. Condition — Development of the Site will occur primarily in upland communities, except where
the wetland and ditch impacts are unavoidable. Both the wetlands and ditch are of poor to
moderate quality due to past cattle impacts, agricultural impacts, and presence of nuisance and
exotic vegetation.
B. Hydrologic Connection — Wetlands A, B, C, D, E and several ditches are isolated; Wetlands G,
H, and F and one ditch are hydrologically connected off-site to the Wiechens Preserve and (via
ditches) to Lake Okahumpka.
C. Uniqueness — The areas proposed for impact are not considered unique vegetative communities
within Lake County or the region. There are no unique flora or faunal components to the on-site
wetlands and ditches based on site investigations. The wetland and ditch have been historically
impacted by on-site agricultural activities and cattle.
D. Location — The areas proposed for impact consists of small, isolated wetlands impacted by
agriculture and ditches flowing only in response to precipitation events. The Site is located in an
area of increasing urban and residential development within Lake County. The adjacent land uses
include the Villages residential developments, CR 466A, and the Wiechens Preserve.
E. Fish and Wildlife Utilization — The small wetland and ditch areas provide less than optimal
habitat for resting, feeding, breeding, nesting or denning by fish and wildlife. The isolated
wetlands and ditches do not provide critical habitat for listed wildlife species. The construction
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
35
of stormwater ponds as part of the SWMS will provide suitable foraging habitat for wetland-
dependent wildlife species post-development.
4.4 Water Quantity
Pursuant to Section 10.2.2.4 of the Handbook, the development of the Site will not result in any adverse impacts to water quantity characteristics of the remaining wetlands. The SWMS will be utilized to maintain and further establish the site’s drainage and provide floodwater storage. The engineering submittal prepared by FBA provides appropriate geotechnical and civil engineering analysis as the basis for reasonable assurance there will not be any adverse impacts to the water quantity characteristics of wetlands/surface waters.
4.5 Public Interest Test
Section 10.2.3 of the Handbook provides seven criteria for the SWFWMD to determine whether a Project is not contrary to the public interest or, if such an activity significantly degrades or is within an OFW, that the regulated activity is clearly in the public interest. Summarized below are responses to the seven criteria, which demonstrate the proposed Project is not contrary to the public interest.
1. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others.
The Project has been designed to meet all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
Therefore, development of the Site will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or
the property of others.
2. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
36
During all on-site investigations, observations were made to determine which wildlife species
utilize the site, and which species have the potential to occur onsite. The results of these
observations are discussed in Sections 2.2 and 4.1 of this report. Based on these observations,
this Site will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitats.
Appropriate management strategies will be determined for any listed species, as necessary, if
affected by development of the proposed Site.
3. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling.
No navigable water bodies exist on the Site. This Project has been designed in accordance with
SWFWMD permitting criteria, which require post-development water volumes and flows to be
equal to pre-development water volumes and flows. No harmful erosion or shoaling should occur
as a result of the development of the Site. Therefore, this Project will not adversely affect
navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling.
4. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity.
Water quality, flows, and volumes for the Site have been designed to meet all applicable state
permitting criteria. This Project has been designed to provide water quality treatment to ensure
no degradation of off-site waters occurs. In addition, there will be no significant adverse changes
in flows and volumes of water for the Site, as required by the SWFWMD permitting criteria.
This Site is in private ownership with no public access, has been in active agricultural use,
therefore there are no fishing or recreational values within the Site. The Site is inland therefore
there are no marine productivity functions provided. Therefore, this Project will not adversely
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
37
affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the subject
property.
5. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature.
Development of the Project will be of a permanent nature.
6. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S.
Archeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a cultural resource assessment study (CRAS) in
June, July and December of 2013 (Appendix E). ACI located two archeological occurrences
(AO) and one archeological site (AS) within the boundaries of the Site. The AS was reviewed to
determine its eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP). ACI
determined that the AS was not eligible for listing in NRHP and that no additional investigation
should be required. ACI concluded that Project development will not impact any resources listed,
determined eligible, or potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Should any objects be revealed during construction having historical or archeological value, the
Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DHR) will be immediately
notified. Therefore, this Project is not expected to adversely affect significant historical and
archaeological resources.
7. The current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity.
The proposed Project is not expected to adversely affect the value of functions provided to fish,
wildlife, and listed species, including aquatic and wetland-dependent species. The proposed
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
38
development will result in 2.98 acres of wetland and 0.98 acre of ditch impact (<5%). Any loss
of functions being performed by the wetlands and ditch proposed to be impacted will be offset by
the mitigation plan and/or replaced by development of the SWMS.
4.6 Water Quality
Pursuant to Section 10.2.4 of the Handbook, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance the regulated activity will not violate water quality standards in areas where water quality standards apply. The SWMS to be constructed for the proposed project will meet the requirements and standards of the SWFWMD, and BMPs will be utilized to ensure water quality criteria will not be violated. These factors are addressed in the stormwater management plan prepared by FBA.
4.7 Secondary Impacts
Section 10.2.7 of the Handbook provides four criteria for the SWFWMD to determine whether a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource. Responses to the four criteria are summarized below and demonstrate the development of the Site will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource.
1. Impacts to Water Quality
The proposed Project will comply with all water quality design criteria and therefore, should
provide reasonable assurance there will not be any secondary impacts to the water quality
functions of the remaining wetlands adjacent to the project area resulting from the construction of
the project. BMPs will be utilized to ensure water quality criteria will not be violated during the
short-term construction and long-term operation of the SWMS on the Site.
2. Impacts to Upland Habitat for Aquatic and Wetland-Dependent Listed Species
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
39
Development of the Site should not cause adverse impacts to the foraging, denning, or nesting
sites of wildlife species. American alligator and little blue heron are species listed in Table
10.2.7-1 of the Handbook and were observed on the Site. Wetlands and upland buffers will
remain following Site development. In addition, suitable upland habitat will remain in the region,
most notably at the adjacent Wiechens Preserve. Therefore, the development of the Site will not
cause adverse secondary impacts to the upland habitat for aquatic and wetland-dependent listed
species.
3. Impacts to Historical and Archaeological Resources
The Site was reviewed for cultural resources and was determined to not contain any resources or
sites eligible for listing in the NRHP. Should any objects be revealed during construction having
historical or archeological value, the DHR will be immediately notified. Therefore, this Project is
not expected to adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources.
4. Impacts to Wetland and Surface Water Functions as a Result of Future Phases or System Expansions
This is not a phased Project. At this time, no additional phases or expansion of the proposed
SWMS beyond what is currently proposed is anticipated; therefore, adverse secondary impacts of
this type are not anticipated.
4.8 Cumulative Impacts
Pursuant to Section 10.2.8 of the Handbook, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and surface waters in the drainage basin. The proposed impacts to 2.98 acres of wetland and 0.98 acre of ditch will not provide unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands or other surface waters within the Site’s drainage basin.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
40
The minimal amount of habitat being provided by the area proposed for impact represents <5% of the Site and will be offset by the mitigation plan and operation of the SWMS for this Site. In addition, both the impacts and mitigation occur within the same drainage basin. Other water quality/water quantity functions will be maintained by the approved SWMS that will meet the design specifications of the SWFWMD.
Stormwater design criteria and calculations provided by FBA will provide reasonable assurance that all water quality and quantity standards will be met and that there will not be any cumulative impacts.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
41
5.0 MITIGATION
The Project proposes to impact 3.90 acres of SWFWMD jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters located within the Project site for development of residential areas known as The Villages of Fruitland Park. The majority of the wetlands and surface waters (2.57 acres) to be impacted are exempt from mitigation requirements under the SWFWMD Applicant Handbook sections 10.2.2.1 and 10.2.2.2. The wetlands and surface waters have been altered and degraded as the result of the agricultural activities, primarily cattle grazing, runoff from row crops, and agricultural ditching and berming within the wetlands.
The wetland functions and values were determined utilizing the Uniform Mitigation Analysis Method
(UMAM) as outlined in Chapter 62-345, F.A.C. Data sheets that have been completed in support of this analysis are included as Appendix F for review and verification. The loss of the functions and values provided by the impacted wetland area that require mitigation was determined to be 0.71 units based on condition of the impact area, its location, and the community structure. Summary of the Functional Loss is as follows:
Functional Loss
Assessment Area/ID Delta Acreage Functional Loss
Wetlands B 0.53 1.33 0.71
Total Functional Loss 0.71
Mitigation to off-set the Functional Loss will be provided in the form of on-site wetland enhancement and preservation. In addition, upland buffers will be established adjacent to wetlands. The mitigation plan (in accordance with Handbook section 10.3.3.2) is detailed in Appendix G, and the Functional Gain is summarized as follows:
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
42
Functional Gain
Time Functional Assessment Area / ID Delta Acreage Risk Lag Gain Wetland Enhancement – F, G, H 0.10 75.10 1.10 1.25 5.46 Total Functional Gain 5.46
The total acreage of mitigation is 83.14 acres with a Functional Gain of 5.46 units that more than off-sets the Functional Loss (0.71 unit) associated with the Project. The Functional Gain reflects the both the planned enhancement of the Wetlands F, G, and H (5.46 units). The mitigation plan provides sufficient
Functional Gain as well as sufficient wetland and upland buffer acreage to off-set the impacts resulting from the Project. The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. would like to retain the balance of excess Functional
Gain (4.75 units) and to be able to apply it to other Villages projects which may have unavoidable wetland impacts. We request a specific permit condition be included in this ERP acknowledging the
Villages ability to apply excess mitigation to future Villages projects. A similar condition was included in the Villages of Lake Deaton permit (ERP Nos. 43023491.214 and 43023491.231).
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
43
APPENDIX A
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
°! BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Consultants BDA
APPENDIX B
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DETERMINATION FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
APPENDIX C
GOPHER TORTOISE SURVEY FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
[ ¶
¶[ ¶[
¶[ ¶[
[ [ ¶ ¶
¶[
¶[ ¶[
¶[ ¶[
°! BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Consultants BDA
APPENDIX D
TABLE ONE: PROJECT WETLAND AND OTHER SURFACE WATER AND IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE TWO: PROJECT ON-SITE MITIGATION SUMMARY
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
TABLE 1 - PROJECT WETLAND (WL) AND OTHER SURFACE WATER (SW) AND IMPACT SUMMARY
TEMPORARY PERMANENT WL & SW UMAM WL & SW WL & SW WL & SW IMPACTS WL & SW IMPACTS WL & SW NOT MITIGATION ID ASSESSMENT TYPE SIZE ID IMPACTED AREA NAME(S) (acres) IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT (acres) SIZE TYPE SIZE TYPE (acres) (acres) No mitigation A A 641 0.26 0.00 0.26 F required On-site B B 631/641 1.33 0.00 1.33 F enhancement No mitigation C C 641 0.48 0.00 0.48 F required No mitigation D D 641 0.42 0.00 0.42 F required No mitigation E E 641 0.46 0.00 0.46 F required
F F 631 16.69 16.69 0.00 ─ N/A
G G 631 6.66 6.66 0.00 ─ N/A
H H 641 51.75 51.75 0.00 ─ N/A
Ditches No mitigation Ditches 516 1.43 0.45 0.98 F required PROJECT TOTALS: 79.48 75.55 ─ 3.93
Comments:
Codes (multiple entries per cell not allowed): Wetland & Surface Water ID: Include ID on submitted wetland and surface water impact maps Wetland Type: from an established wetland classification system Impact Type: D=dredge; F=fill; H=change hydrology; S=shading; C=clearing; O=other
Form #62-330.060(1) - Joint Application for Environmental Resource Individual Permit/ Authorization to Use State-Owned Submerged Lands/ Federal Dredge and Fill Permit Incorporated by reference in subsection 62-330.060(1), F.A.C. (Effective Date) Section C, Page 1 of 4 TABLE 2 - PROJECT ON-SITE MITIGATION SUMMARY
WETLAND UPLAND CREATION RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT OTHER UMAM PRESERVE PRESERVE MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TARGET ID AREA TYPE NAME(S) AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) F 631 (Acres) 16.69 F
G G 631 6.66
H H 641 51.75
PROJECT 75.10 TOTALS
COMMENTS:
Codes (multiple entries per cell not allowed): Target Type or Type=target or existing habitat type from an established wetland classification system or land use classification for non-wetland mitigation
Form #62-330.060(1) - Joint Application for Environmental Resource Individual Permit/ Authorization to Use State-Owned Submerged Lands/ Federal Dredge and Fill Permit Incorporated by reference in subsection 62-330.060(1), F.A.C. (Effective Date) Section C, Page 2 of 4
APPENDIX E
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK F.K.A. PINE RIDGE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY PINE RIDGE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Prepared for:
Grant and Dzuro 1045 Lake Sumter Landing The Villages, Florida 32162
Prepared by:
Florida’s First Choice in Cultural Resource Management
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A Sarasota, Florida 34240 (941) 379-6206 Toll Free: 1-800-735-9906
December 2013
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY PINE RIDGE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Prepared for:
Grant and Dzuro 1045 Lake Sumter Landing The Villages, Florida 32162
Prepared by:
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A Sarasota, Florida 34240
Project Manager - Marion M. Almy Project Archaeologists - Beth Horvath and Christine Newman Archaeologists - Justin Winkler and Katie Baar
December 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) of the Pine Ridge development property in Lake County, Florida for Grant and Dzuro in June, July, and December 2013. The project area is 781 acres in size and is located east of the Sumter/Lake County line and south of CR 466A.
The purpose of this project was to locate and identify any archaeological sites or historic resources within the project area and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This work was conducted in compliance with the provisions in the Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (FS). All work was carried out in conformity with the standards contained in the Florida Division of Historical Resources’ (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual (FDHR 2003). The report meets the specifications established by Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code (FAC).
Archaeological background research and a review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) indicated that no archaeological sites have been located within the project area, but seven archaeological sites have been recorded within one mile of the project area. Based upon the background research, several areas of moderate to high archaeological potential were identified. As a result of the field investigations two archaeological occurrences (AO) and one archaeological site were discovered. An AO is defined as “one or two non-diagnostic artifacts, not known to be distant from the original context, which fit within a hypothetical cylinder of thirty meters diameter, regardless of depth below surface” (FMSF 1999:10). AO#1 consists of one isolated piece of lithic debitage and AO#2 consists of one sand tempered, simple stamped sherd. The Dragonfly Site - 8LA4408 represents a short term, limited artifact scatter. No diagnostic artifacts, pottery or lithics, were recovered from the shovel tests, and the stratigraphy did not reveal a distinctive cultural level, features, or soil stains reflective of specific activity areas. Pottery recovered from the surface place site occupation between 200 to 1500 C.E., although it is possible the site was occupied during earlier time periods as well. The site area has experienced significant soil disturbance due to intensive agricultural activity. 8LA4408 is located in an area of moderate probability as predicted by the model formulated for this and other similar surveys in the general area. It is the opinion of ACI archaeologists that the Dragonfly Site does not meet the criteria necessary for inclusion in the NRHP.
Historical background research, including a review of the FMSF and the NRHP, indicated that no previously recorded historic properties (50 years of age or older) are located within the project area. The background research revealed the property had been used as a dairy farm and peanut field, but no structures remain on the property.
Based on the results of this CRAS, the proposed development of the Pine Ridge property will not impact any resources listed, determined eligible, or potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Thus, no additional work is recommended.
P13055
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose ...... 1-1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 2-1 2.1 Location ...... 2-1 2.2 Environmental Setting ...... 2-3 2.3 Soils and Vegetation ...... 2-4 2.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations ...... 2-5
3.0 CULTURE HISTORY ...... 3-1 3.1 Paleo-Indian ...... 3-1 3.2 Archaic ...... 3-4 3.3 Mount Taylor/Orange ...... 3-5 3.4 St. Johns I ...... 3-7 3.5 St. Johns II ...... 3-8 3.6 Colonialism ...... 3-9 3.7 Territorial and Statehood ...... 3-10 3.8 Civil War and Aftermath ...... 3-11 3.9 Twentieth Century ...... 3-12
4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODOLOGIES ...... 4-1 4.1 Background Research and Literature Review ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Archaeological Considerations ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Historical Considerations ...... 4-3 4.2 Field Methodology ...... 4-3 4.3 Unexpected Discoveries ...... 4-4 4.4 Laboratory Methods and Curation ...... 4-4
5.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 5-1 5.1 Archaeological ...... 5-1 5.2 Historical ...... 5-5 5.3 Conclusions ...... 5-5
6.0 REFERENCES CITED ...... 6-1
APPENDICES Appendix A: FMSF form Appendix B: Survey Log Sheet
P13055
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTOGRAPHS
Page Figure
Figure 1.1. Location of the Pine Ridge property, Lake County...... 1-2
Figure 2.1. Environmental Setting of the Pine Ridge property...... 2-2
Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions...... 3-2
Figure 4.1. Location of the previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the project area...... 4-2
Figure 5.1. Location of the shovel tests, AOs, and 8LA4408 within the Pine Ridge property...... 5-2
Table
Table 2.1. Soil types within the Pine Ridge property (USDA 1975, 2012)...... 2-4
Table 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the project area...... 4-1
Table 5.1. Artifacts recovered from shovel tests and surface at 8LA4408 - Dragonfly Site...... 5-3
Photo
Photo 2.1. Looking to the north at the northeastern property conditions...... 2-1
Photo 2.2. Looking to the south at the southwestern quarter of the property...... 2-3
Photo 2.3. Looking to the south in the area of the former dairy farm...... 2-3
Photo 5.1. Looking to the northwest at 8LA4408 - Dragonfly site...... 5-4
P13055 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
ACI conducted a CRAS of the 781-acre Pine Ridge property in Lake County, Florida for the Grant and Dzuro (Figure 1.1). This work, conducted in June and July 2013, complied with Chapter 380, FS. All work was carried out in conformity with the standards contained in the FDHR’s Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual (FDHR 2003). The report meets the specification established by Chapter 1A-46, FAC.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of the CRAS was to locate and identify any archaeological sites or historic resources within the project area and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Field survey was preceded by background research. Such work serves to provide an informed set of expectations concerning the types and locations of cultural resources within the project area, as well as a basis for evaluating any newly discovered sites.
P13055 1-2 ¹
Kilometers Miles 012 00.51
Figure 1.1. Location of the Pine Ridge property, Lake County (ESRI 2013b - Streets). 2-1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental factors such as geology, topography, relative elevation, soils, vegetation, and water are important in determining where archaeological sites were likely located. These variables influenced what resources were available in a given area, which in turn influenced decisions regarding settlement location and land-use patterns. Because of the influence of these environmental factors upon the inhabitants, a discussion of the effective environment is included.
2.1 Location
The 781-acre Pine Ridge project area is located in Sections 6, 7, 8, and 18 of Township 19 South, Range 24 East in western Lake County (United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1981) (Figure 2.1). The project area is located along the Sumter/Lake County line just south of CR 466A. The property was once a dairy farm, and more recently a peanut farm. The northern portion of the property is rolling uplands, while the southern end is wetlands and swamps (Photos 2.1-2.3).
Photo 2.1. Looking to the north at the northeastern property conditions.
P13055 2-2 ¹
Kilometers Miles 00.51 0 0.25 0.5
Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Pine Ridge property, Sections 6, 7, 8, and 18 of Township 19 South, Range 24 East, USGS Leesburg West (National Geographic Society 2013 - USA Topo Maps). 2-3
Photo 2.2. Looking to the south at the southwestern quarter of the property.
Photo 2.3. Looking to the south in the area of the former dairy farm. No original structures are standing and more recent construction has occurred in the general area.
2.2 Environmental Setting
The project area is located in the Central or midpeninsular physiographic zone, and more specifically on the Sumter Upland (White 1970). The upland is dominated by relict beach ridges that have been differentially reduced by subsidence resulting from the solution of the underlying
P13055 2-4 limestone in the southern portion (Scott 1978; White 1970). However, unlike the Lake Upland to the south, the Sumter Upland has relatively few lakes. The area’s surface lithology consists of clayey sand (Scott 1978). Geologically, the area is underlain by the Cypresshead Formation and undifferentiated Holocene sediments (Scott 2001; Scott et al. 2001).
2.3 Soils and Vegetation
The project area is contained within the Astatula-Apopka and Montverde-Ocoee- Brighton soil associations. The former is characterized by nearly level to strongly sloping, excessively drained and well-drained sandy soils on broad ridges interspersed with large lakes, ponds, and wet depressions. The latter association is characterized by nearly level, very poorly drained organic soils on broad low areas that are subject to flooding (USDA 1975). The specific soil types are listed in Table 2.1 (USDA 2012). The vegetation associated with the excessively drained soils includes slash pine, sand pine, longleaf pine, bluejack oak, Chapman oak, scrub live oak, and turkey oak with an understory of indiangrass, chalky bluestem, hairy panicum, pineland threeawn, and annual forbs. The moderately well drained soils support sand and slash pine; Chapman, scrub live, and sand live oak; and an understory of scattered sawpalmetto, prickly pear cactus, goldleaf goldaster, deermoss, bluestem, and pineland threeawn. The somewhat poorly drained soils support a vegetative regime of live oak, water oak, and slash pine with an understory of chalky bluestem, lopsided indiangrass, panicum, pineland threeawn, and waxmyrtle. The native vegetation associated with the poorly drained soil consists of longleaf and slash pine with an understory of sawpalmetto, running oak, gallberry, waxmyrtle, huckleberry, pineland threeawn, and scattered fetterbush. The depressional and mucky soils support pickerelweed, maidencane, sawgrass, waterlily, sedges, and various other aquatic plants as well as scattered pond pine, bay, cypress, myrtle, and clumps of palmetto.
Table 2.1. Soil types within the Pine Ridge property (USDA 1975, 2012). Soil Type Drainage Setting Apopka sand, 0-5% slopes Well Upland ridges Apopka sand, 5-12% slopes Well Upland ridges Candler sand, 0 to 5 % slopes Excessive Uplands Candler sand, 5 to 12 % slopes Excessive Uplands Everglades muck, depressional Very poor Low areas, marshes, and swamps Broad area in the flatwoods and in low areas Immokalee sand Poor between sand ridges and lakes, ponds, and sloughs Kendrick sand, 0-5% slopes Moderately well Uplands Lochloosa sand Somewhat poor High positions on flatwoods Myakka sand Poor Broad areas on the flatwoods Oklawaha muck Very poor Depressions and freshwater marshes Orsino sand Moderately well Moderately high ridges and knolls Depressional areas and in poorly defined Placid sand, depressional Very poor drainageways Pompano sand Poor Flatwoods and in depressions on the upland ridges Sparr sand, 0-5% slopes Somewhat poor Broad, low ridges and knolls Tavares sand, 0 to 5 % slopes Moderately well Low ridges and knolls on the uplands
P13055 2-5
2.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations
The early environment of the region was different from that seen today. Sea levels were lower, the climate was arid, and fresh water was scarce. An understanding of human ecology during the earliest periods of human occupation in Florida cannot be based on observations of the modern environment because of changes in water availability, botanical communities, and faunal resources. Aboriginal inhabitants would have developed cultural adaptations in response to the environmental changes taking place, which were then reflected in settlement patterns, site types, artifact forms, and subsistence economies.
Due to the arid conditions between 16,500 and 12,500 years ago, the perched water aquifer and potable water supplies were absent. Palynological studies conducted in Florida and Georgia suggest that between 13,000 and 5000 years ago, this area was covered with an upland vegetation community of scrub oak and prairie (Watts 1969, 1971, 1975). However, the environment was not static. Evidence recovered from the inundated Page-Ladson Site in north Florida has clearly demonstrated that there were two periods of low water tables and dry climatic conditions and two episodes of elevated water tables and wet conditions (Dunbar 2006c). The rise of sea level reduced xeric habitats over the next several millennia.
By 5000 years ago, a climatic event marking a brief return to Pleistocene climatic conditions induced a change toward more open vegetation. Southern pine forests replaced the oak savannahs. Extensive marshes and swamps developed along the coasts and subtropical hardwood forests became established along the southern tip of Florida (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Northern Florida saw an increase in oak species, grasses, and sedges (Carbone 1983). At Lake Annie, in south central Florida, pollen cores were dominated by wax myrtle and pine. The assemblage suggests that by this time, a forest dominated by longleaf pine along with cypress swamps and bayheads existed in the area (Watts 1971, 1975). About 5000 years ago, surface water was plentiful in karst terrains and the level of the Floridan aquifer rose to 1.5 meters (m) (5 feet [ft]) above present levels. With the establishment of warmer winters and cooler summers than in the preceding early Holocene, the fire-adapted pine communities prevailed. These depend on the high summer precipitation caused by the thunderstorms and the accompanying lightning strikes to spark the fires (Watts et al. 1996; Watts and Hansen 1994). The increased precipitation also resulted in the formation of the large swamp systems such as the Okefenokee and Everglades (Gleason and Stone 1994). After this time, modern floral, climatic, and environmental conditions began to be established.
P13055 3-1
3.0 CULTURE HISTORY
A discussion of the culture history of the region provides a framework within which to examine the local archaeological and historic record. Archaeological sites and historic resources are not individual entities, but are the remnants of once dynamic cultural systems. Thus, they cannot adequately be interpreted without reference to other sites and resources in the area.
In general, archaeologists summarize the culture history of an area (i.e. an archaeological region) by outlining the sequence of archaeological cultures through time. These cultures are defined largely in geographical terms, but are also reflective of shared environmental and cultural traits. The project area is within the East and Central archeological region as defined by Milanich (1994) (Figure 3.1). The East and Central region is composed of the lower and central portions of the St. Johns River, its tributaries, adjacent portions of the coastal barrier island-salt marsh-lagoon system, and the central Florida lakes district (Milanich 1994:243). Within Florida, the Paleo- Indian, Archaic, Formative, and Mississippian stages have been defined based on unique sets of material culture traits such as characteristic stone tool forms and ceramic types, as well as subsistence, settlement, and burial practices.
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 the transportation systems were dramatically increased and development throughout the state expanded. The Twentieth Century 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 historic site distribution.
3.1 Paleo-Indian
The Paleo-Indian stage is the earliest known cultural manifestation in Florida, dating from roughly 12,000 to 7500 BCE (Before Common Era) (Milanich 1994). Archaeological evidence for Paleo-Indians consists primarily of scattered finds of diagnostic lanceolate-shaped projectile points. The Florida peninsula at this time was quite different than today. In general, the climate was cooler and drier with vegetation typified by xerophytic species with scrub oak, pine, open grassy prairies, and savannas being the most common (Milanich 1994:40). When human populations were arriving in Florida, the sea levels were still as much as 40 to 60 m (130-200 ft) below present levels and coastal regions of Florida extended miles beyond present-day shorelines (Faught 2004). Thus, many of these sites have been inundated (cf., Faught and Donoghue 1997).
The Paleo-Indian period has been sub-divided into horizons based upon characteristic tool forms (Austin 2001). Traditionally, it is believed that the Clovis Horizon (10,500-9000 BCE) represents the initial occupation of Florida. It is defined based upon the presence of the fluted Clovis points, which are somewhat more common in north Florida. However, recent work, may indicate that Suwannee and Simpson points are contemporary with or predate Clovis (Dunbar 2006a; Stanford 1991).
P13055 3-2 ¹
1 2
3 5 1 Northwest 4 2 North 3 North-Central 4 East and Central 5 North Peninsular Gulf Coast 6 Central Peninsular Gulf Coast 6 7 Caloosahatchee 8 Okeechobee Basin 9 Glades 8
7
9
Post-500 BCE regions of precolumbian Florida Kilometers Miles 0 50 100 (adapted from Milanich 1994:xix) 02550
Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions. The project area ( ) is within the East and Central Region. 3-3
The Suwannee Horizon (9000-8500 BCE) is the best known of the three Paleo-Indian horizons. The lanceolate-shaped, unfluted Simpson and Suwannee projectile points are diagnostic of this time (Bullen 1975; Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987; Purdy 1981). The Suwannee tool kit includes a variety of scrapers, adzes, spokeshaves, unifacially retouched flakes, and blade-like flakes as well as bone and ivory foreshafts, pins, awls, daggers, anvils, and abraders (Austin 2001:23). Following the Suwannee Horizon is the Late Paleo-Indian Horizon (8500-8000 BCE). The smaller Tallahassee, Santa Fe, and Beaver Lake projectile points have traditionally been attributed to this horizon (Milanich 1994). However, many of these points have been recovered stratigraphically from late Archaic and early Woodland period components and thus, may not date to this time period at all (Austin 2001; Farr 2006). Florida notched or pseudo-notched points, including the Union, Greenbriar, and Hardaway-like points may represent late Paleo-Indian types, but these types have not been recovered from datable contexts and their temporal placement remains uncertain (Dunbar 2006a:410).
Archaeologists hypothesize that Paleo-Indians lived in migratory bands and subsisted by gathering and hunting, including the now-extinct Pleistocene megafauna. Since it was cooler and much drier, it is likely that these nomadic hunters traveled between permanent and semi- permanent sources of water, such as artesian springs, exploiting the available resources. These watering holes would have attracted the animals that the Indians hunted, thus providing both food and drink. In addition to being “tethered” to water sources, most of the Paleo-Indian sites are close to sources of good quality lithic resources. The settlement pattern consists of the establishment of semi-permanent habitation areas and the movement of the resources from their sources of procurement to the residential locale by specialized task groups (Austin 2001:25).
Although the Paleo-Indian period is generally considered to have been cooler and drier, there were major variations in the inland water tables resulting from large-scale environmental fluctuations. There have been two major theories as to why most Paleo-Indian materials have been recovered from inundated sites. The “Oasis” theory, put forth by Wilfred T. Neill, was that due to low water tables and scarcity of potable water, the Paleo-Indians and their associated games resources clustered around the few available water holes that were associated with sinkholes (Neill 1964). Whereas, Ben Waller postulated that the Paleo-Indians gathered around “river-crossings” to ambush the large Pleistocene animals as they crossed the rivers (Waller 1970). This implies periods of elevated water levels. Based on the research along the Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, it appears that both theories are correct, depending upon what the local environmental conditions were at that time (Dunbar 2006b). As such, during the wetter periods, populations became more dispersed because the water resources were abundant and the animals they relied on could roam over a wider range.
Some of the information about this period has been derived from the underwater excavations at two inland spring sites in Sarasota County: Little Salt Spring and Warm Mineral Springs (Clausen et al. 1979). Excavation at the Harney Flats Site in Hillsborough County has provided a rich body of data concerning Paleo-Indian life ways. Analysis indicates that this site was used as a quarry-related base camp with special use activity areas (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). It has been suggested that Paleo-Indian settlement may not have been related as much to seasonal changes as generally postulated for the succeeding Archaic period, but instead movement was perhaps related to the scheduling of tool-kit replacement, social needs, and the availability of water (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:175). Investigations along the Aucilla and Wacissa Rivers, as well as other sites within the north Florida rivers have provided important information on the Paleo-Indian period and how the aboriginals adapted to their environmental setting (Webb 2006). Studies of the Pleistocene faunal remains from these sites clearly
P13055 3-4 demonstrate the importance of these animals not for food alone, but as the raw material for their bone tool industry (Dunbar and Webb 1996).
3.2 Archaic
The beginning of the Archaic is denoted by interrelated environmental and cultural changes. The gradual environmental changes led in part to the extinction of the Pleistocene fauna as well as resulted in the change in composition and distribution of various vegetative communities (Miller 1998). The disappearance of the mammoths and mastodons resulted in a reduction of open grazing lands, and thus, the subsequent disappearance of grazers such as horse, bison, and camels. With the reduction of open habitat, the herd animals were replaced by the more solitary, woodland browser: the white-tailed deer (Dunbar 2006a:426). The intertwined data of megafauna extinction and cultural change suggests a rapid and significant disruption in both faunal and floral assemblages and the Bolen people represent the first culture adapted to the Holocene environment (Carter and Dunbar 2006). This included a more specialized toolkit and the introduction of chipped-stone woodworking implements. Early Archaic sites are recognized by the presence of Greenbriar and Bolen points as well as Kirk, Hardee Beveled, Hamilton, Arredondo, Sumter, and Thonotosassa varieties (Bullen 1975).
The adaptive changes of the aboriginal populations resulted in an increase in the number and types of archeological sites, such as marine and freshwater shell middens. The effects of the changing environment also can be seen in the variation in site locations. Although Early Archaic materials are often found in association with Paleo-Indian deposits, especially around water sources, other Early Archaic sites are located in areas devoid of Paleo-Indian components. Milanich (1994:64) notes that there are no well-documented Early Archaic coastal or riverine shell midden sites. This may be due to sea level rise as opposed to avoidance of these areas.
Discoveries at Little Salt Spring (Clausen et al. 1979) and Windover (Doran and Dickel 1988) indicate that bone and wood tools, as well as fabric and cordage, were an important part of the material culture. The archaeological record suggests a pattern of exploiting both coastal and interior resources. Although Miller (1998:64) has suggested that marine and estuarine resources had virtually no role in Early and Middle Archaic adaptation, the Windover Site has artifacts manufactured from sharks as teeth well as marine shell in addition to six whole marine shell that were likely used as grave goods (Purdy 1988). Most Early Archaic sites are small, seasonal campsites. This type of site may suggest that small bands moved seasonally in search of food.
During the Middle Archaic, wetter conditions prevailed, sea levels began to rise, and pine forests and swamps began to emerge (Watts et al. 1996). The climate was changed to one of more pronounced seasonality with warmer summers and colder winters though by 4000 BCE the climate became essentially the same as that of today (Watts et al. 1996:29). Settlement became focused within coastal and riverine locales (Milanich 1994:64).
Milanich (1994:81) suggests that Early and Middle Archaic peoples used aquatic environments for burial. The Early Archaic Windover Site, located near Titusville, contained primary and flexed burials within a peat pond. These were held in place with wooden stakes and the interments included grave goods such as textiles and worked bone, shell, and wood (Doran 2002). Underwater interments have also been recovered from the Middle Archaic Bay West Site near Naples, Republic Groves Site in Hardee County, and Nona’s Site in southeast Sarasota County (Beriault et al. 1981; Luer 2002; Wharton et al. 1981). Each site, like Windover, had an adjacent land component evidenced by a midden. The Gauthier cemetery, dating from the Middle
P13055 3-5 to Late Archaic, was situated on a palm island within a slough between a pond and Lake Poinsett, and contained primary and flexed burials (Carr and Jones 1981; Sigler-Eisenberg 1984b). The burial mound at Tomoka is one of the earliest in Florida (Piatek 1994). Russo (1996a:284) suggests though that the Archaic burials mounds of Florida (Tomoka and Horr’s Island) were not the precursors to the extensive burial mound use seen in the more recent past, rather, they were short-lived, dead-end traditions.
3.3 Mount Taylor/Orange
The Mount Taylor period has been identified for the time of roughly 5000-2000 BCE (Milanich 1994). Subsistence was based on hunting, fishing, shellfish collecting, and plant gathering. Sites are generally located along the Atlantic coast or along the upper reaches of the St. Johns, Ocklawaha, and Wekiva Rivers (Ste. Claire 1990; Weisman 1993; Wheeler et al. 2000). The previously proposed theory that Archaic populations practiced a seasonal migration pattern between the interior and the coast has been called into question (Russo and Ste. Claire 1992; Ste. Claire 1990). Evidence from Horr’s Island, located along the southwest Florida coast, indicates that this Middle Archaic site was occupied during all seasons of the year (Russo 1991) and investigations in northeast Florida also confirm year-round occupation at some sites (Russo 1992, 1996b; Russo et al. 1993; Russo and Ste. Claire 1992). Miller (1998:68) suggests that when sea levels reached their current positions, the St. Johns River changed its riverine characteristics to become similar to a lake in the upper reaches and more estuarine in the lower reaches. This allowed for the development of the wide resource base, especially beds of freshwater snails that required quiet waters (Clench and Turner 1956).
About 4000 BCE, present-day vegetation patterns became established; hammocks of broad-leafed mesic trees, pine forests on uplands, and bayhead and cypress swamps became significant plant communities (Watts 1971). The archaeobotanical research at the Groves’ Orange Midden (4260-2130 BCE) and the Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (4040-3090 BCE) confirms an environment similar to that which is present today (ACI/Janus Research 2001; Newsom 1994; Purdy 1994b). It is believed that populations combined hunting and gathering into a productive subsistence strategy, and as a result, occupation became more sedentary and village life began (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:147-152). Middens of mystery snail, apple snail, and mussel provide evidence of occupation and resource exploitation along the rivers (Cumbaa 1976; Ellis et al. 1994; Fryman et al. 1978).
The type site for this period is the Mount Taylor Site in Volusia County, investigated by C. B. Moore (Moore 1893). The artifact inventory of the Mt. Taylor people includes stone projectile points, tools, and microliths, as well as tools and decorative items of shell, bone, and wood (ACI/Janus Research 2001; Purdy 1994a; Wheeler and McGee 1994a, 1994b). Shell and bone items indicate contact with coast. In addition, the recovery of Strombus gigas implements indicates contact with the south Florida coast, as this shellfish is only recovered south of Palm Beach. It is not certain whether these items were deposited on site through trade or actual travel to the coast. Other evidence of trade can be seen in the use of soapstone; this material is imported from north central Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia (Yates 2000). Yates (2000:88) considers that the transportation of the soapstone occurred via watercraft, most likely the canoe. Evidence for canoes from this time is well documented, and in fact, many of the canoes recovered from Florida waters have dated to the Archaic (Newsom and Purdy 1990; Purdy 1988; Wheeler et al. 2003). Evidence suggests that the occupations in these two major environmental locales (St. Johns River valley and the Atlantic coast) were, in fact, separate cultural entities, not one group
P13055 3-6 migrating back and forth (Russo and Ste. Claire 1992). Although there is a similarity in tool and artifact assemblages, the settlement and subsistence patterns are quite different (Russo 1988).
The Middle to Late Archaic/Mount Taylor site types includes large base camps, smaller special-use campsites, quarries, and burial areas. According to Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:151), one of the most interesting aspects of the Mount Taylor culture is evidence for mass burial interments in specially prepared areas within shell middens. Such burials were found at Tick Island along the St. Johns River (Aten 1999; Bullen 1962; Jahn and Bullen 1978).The large stemmed projectile points, especially the Newnan type, are diagnostic of Middle and Late preceramic Archaic period sites. Other common point types include Hillsborough, Levy, Putnam, Alachua, and Marion (Bullen 1975). In addition, silicified coral was more prevalent as a lithic tool raw material (Milanich 1994) and thermal alteration of the stone became more common (Ste. Claire 1987). Interior sites include the smaller lithic scatter campsites that were most likely used for hunting or served as special use extractive sites for such activities as gathering nuts or other botanical materials (Ste. Claire 1989, 1990).
By about 2000 BCE, there is evidence of fired clay pottery in Florida. The first ceramics types were tempered with fibers (Spanish moss or palmetto), and are referred to as the Orange series. The ceramics reportedly lacked decoration until about 1650 BCE when they were decorated with geometric designs and punctations. The introduction of the St. Johns series of ceramics, a chalky feeling ceramic, occurred late in this period. Recent research, however, has called the entire Orange chronology into question (Sassaman 2003). Based on a series of AMS dates on soot from Orange Incised sherds from the middle St. Johns Valley and from radiocarbon dates on oyster and charcoal in association with Orange ceramics near the mouth of the river, all the various Orange ceramic types occur within the time span of roughly 4100-3600 years ago. In addition, research by Cordell (2004) has documented the presence of sponge spicules in the Orange ceramic paste (the diagnostic trait of St. Johns wares) which suggest that the St. Johns ceramic tradition extends back to the beginning of ceramic technology in the region (Sassaman 2003:11). The projectile points used by the Late Archaic populations were virtually the same as those utilized during the Middle Archaic period with the addition of the Clay, Culbreath, and Lafayette stemmed and corner-notched varieties (Bullen 1975).
Milanich (1994) and Miller (1998) indicate that there is little difference between Middle/Late Archaic and Orange populations except that there are more Orange sites and the density of sites is higher. Orange settlements were primarily located near wetland locales. The abundance of resources located in and near the wetlands permitted larger settlements. This change in settlement patterns may be related to environmental changes resulting from the establishment of current sea levels.
Bridging the close of the Archaic stage and the beginning of the St. Johns period is the Florida Transitional period, circa 1200 to 500 BCE, as defined by Ripley Bullen (1959). Milanich (1994), Miller (1998), Russo et al. (1993), Shannon (1986), and others suggest that assemblages from this “period” cannot be discerned with any accuracy from the preceding or following periods. In general, this time was characterized by increased regionalism, population growth, and socio-cultural complexity (Bullen 1959, 1970). Exploitation of shellfish, fish and wild plants, as well as a reliance on hunting, was continued (Bullen 1959, 1970; Bullen et al. 1978), and limited horticulture may have been engaged in at this time (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Russo (1992:114) however, notes that there is no known evidence in this area for horticulture during this time. The Florida Transitional period is identified by the presence of St. Johns Incised ceramics (Bullen 1955b, 1972; Milanich 1994; Miller 1998). Bullen hypothesized that during the Florida Transitional period, the diffusion of culture traits, resulting from the movements of small groups
P13055 3-7 of people, led to the spread of several ceramic and tool traditions (Bullen 1959). The major changes in post-Transitional cultures cannot be attributed to environmental changes but appear to be the result of social, political, religious, and technological innovations introduced from elsewhere in the eastern United States (Miller 1998:76).
3.4 St. Johns I
The period from about 500 BCE until 750 CE in the East and Central Lake region is referred to as St. Johns I, which has been divided into three sub-periods: St. Johns I (500 BCE- 100 CE), St. Johns Ia (100-500 CE), and St. Johns Ib (500-750 CE) based primarily on characteristic ceramic types (Milanich 1994:247). There are regional variants of this basic cultural tradition: the St. Marys to the north and the Indian River to the south. The St. Marys Region is located at the mouth of the St. Johns and extends northward into Georgia (Russo 1992). Sites in this area contain a mixture of Georgia ceramics as well as St. Johns ceramics. St. Mary’s I is defined, in part, on the presence of a combination of St. Johns I, Deptford, Swift Creek, and Colorinda ceramics while St. Marys II contains Savannah Cordmarked and St. Johns Check Stamped ceramics, among others (Russo 1992). Ashley and Rolland (2002:25), however, suggests a somewhat different chronology: St. Marys I (500 BCE-900 CE), St. Johns II (900- 1250 CE) and St. Marys II (1250-1500+ CE). The St. Marys II period is identified by the presence of St. Marys Cordmarked ceramics (formerly known as Savannah Fine Cordmarked) (Ashley 2008). Although this region was based its subsistence economy on the exploitation of the salt marsh, barrier island, and estuary resources, the cultivation of maize became a part of their subsistence economy around 1200 CE (Lee et al. 1984). At the southern end of the East and Central Region is the Indian River area which was first defined by Rouse (1951). There is a much higher prevalence of sand-tempered wares in this region. Malabar I is coeval with St. Johns I. Malabar II occurs at the same time as St. Johns II and both are defined based on the presence of St. Johns Check Stamped pottery. Cordell’s ceramic analysis has helped to better define the cultural sequences in this more southern area (Sigler-Eisenberg et al. 1985).
Settlement patterns during this time were virtually the same as that seen for the earlier Mount Taylor and Orange periods, i.e. along the coastal estuaries and larger rivers. The faunal analysis conducted at the Twin Mounds Site suggests that there was a slight decrease in the dependence on freshwater shellfish during the St. Johns periods and an increased use of reptilian resources (Weisman 1993). There was also a tremendous increase in the number of archaeological sites during this time. An apparent trend from St. Johns I through Ib times was a population shift into the northern part of the St. Johns River valley, possibly due to the need for more arable land (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:158).
Village wares were almost all St. Johns Plain throughout this period. St. Johns Incised is associated with the Early St. Johns I period. Deptford and Swift Creek pottery or copies are occasionally present in St. Johns I and Ia subperiods. St. Johns Cordmarked ceramics are associated with the St. Johns Ia period while Dunns Creek Red is associated with the St. Johns Ia and Ib periods. Cordell notes that through time, the St. Johns Plain ceramics become sandier due to increased use of quartz sand as an aplastic agent (Russo et al. 1989:68).
Evidence of continuous-use burial mounds begins at this time. Many of the burials were found in large central pits, probably the result of secondary interments. Some changes in the burial practices include the possible use of log tombs during the St. Johns Ia period as well as inclusion of Hopewellian-Yent complex exotic trade items (Milanich 1994:261). Much of the information on St. Johns I period burial practices have been obtained from the Ross Hammock
P13055 3-8
Site in Volusia County (Bullen et al. 1967). This site complex consists of two large burial mounds and an extensive village midden located on the west shore of Mosquito Lagoon.
Year-round occupation of the coast and along the rivers occurred with special use-activity sites located in other locales and short-term campsites on the coast as well. Excavations at the Sligh and the Lake Jessup South sites suggest that these sites served as villages or long-term encampments (Dickinson and Wayne 1996; Wayne and Dickinson 1993). There was a wide variety of tools and an abundance of ceramics suggesting a relatively sedentary group. Hunting, food preparation, and tool making were common site activities. The site pattern “consists of small, probably individual household midden deposits with structural evidence limited to arcs of shallow post holes, often shell-filled, and firepits (Dickinson and Wayne 1996:108). The Hontoon Island Site, located within the St. Johns River, has provided a wealth of data due to the preservation of many classes of artifacts within the inundated midden deposits. Evidence of an extensive wood-working tradition is noted by the numerous carved items recovered from the river around the site as well as the debitage remaining from the carving activities (Bullen 1955a; Purdy 1987). The analysis of the faunal and botanical remains suggested that the site was occupied on a year round basis and that most of the resources were collected within 5-10 kilometer (km) (3-6 miles [mi]) of the site (Newsom 1987; Wing and McKean 1987).
The survey of the Edgewater Landing tract recorded several shell midden deposits that date to this period (Johnson and Ste. Claire 1988). Excavations conducted at two of the sites indicated occupation during the St. Johns and St. Johns Ib periods. Both sites were characterized as temporary camps established to harvest oysters and hardshell clams, with no evidence being recovered to suggest any agricultural activities. The sites were occupied irregularly throughout the year, but contained evidence indicating that the sites were utilized during all seasons of the year (Russo et al. 1989). Seminole Rest is a large quahog clam-processing center located along the west shore of Mosquito Lagoon (Horvath 1995). Faunal analysis indicated that the site was used throughout the year, but was not occupied on a year-round basis (Quitmyer 1995). Although located along the lagoon’s shore, fish made up only a small portion of the diet, less than 15%, and mammals even less (Kozuch 1995). Interestingly, the Oak Hill Midden, located just a half mile south, was composed mostly of oyster as compared to Seminole Rest’s predominance of quahog. Kozuch (1995:90) suggests that this may indicate that different clans or families had rights to different shellbeds and this tradition is still seen today (Provancha et al. 1991).
3.5 St. Johns II
The St. Johns II period has been sub-divided into three sub-periods: St. Johns IIa (750 – 1050 CE), St. Johns IIb (1050 – 1513 CE), and St. Johns IIc (1513 – 1565 CE). The St. Johns IIa- c periods are marked by the presence of St. Johns Check Stamped pottery. St. Johns II carries on the tradition and is marked only by the introduction of check-stamped pottery (Goggin 1952:70). Occupation of riverine and coastal shell middens continued, although Miller (1998:80) notes that there is a relative increase in the number of non-riverine and non-coastal sites, perhaps as the result of locating sites in more agriculturally suited locales. Such sites are quite numerous, suggesting the possibility of an increase in population.
Milanich and Fairbanks (1980) suggest that hunting and gathering remained important but the dependence upon cultivated crops such as maize, squash, and gourds increased. The use of gourds as domesticates is still being studied as there is no evidence for cultivation even though gourds and squashes have been around for thousands of years prior to this period (Newsom et al. 1993). Sigler-Eisenberg and her colleagues (1985) suggest that in the upper St. Johns basin, the
P13055 3-9 practice of horticulture was not adopted. Russo (1984) and Sigler-Eisenberg (1984a) further indicate that the wetland ecology and subsistence strategies were different. At the Gauthier Site, fish and aquatic turtles were the primary subsistence items, with relatively little reliance upon terrestrial game or freshwater shellfish (Sigler-Eisenberg 1984b). Seasonal utilization of the various coastal resources continued. The species exploited were dependent upon micro- environmental factors such as salinity and hardness of the lagoon bottom.
There was an increase in the number and size of villages during the St. Johns IIa period suggesting population expansion. A ranked society evolved as evidenced by the differential burial customs. No longer were all people interred in burial mounds. Deagan (1978:109) notes that around 1000 CE a population shift from the more southern and southwestern areas into the northern areas is evidenced by changes in relative frequencies of burial mounds in the areas over time. Excavations at the Burns, Ormond Beach, and Fuller Mounds A and D, revealed a new burial pattern in that the burials were placed on their backs with their heads or feet pointing toward the center of the mound (Jennings et al. 1957; Willey 1954).
The St. Johns IIb period is characterized by the adoption of some Mississippian traits into the ceremonial system as well as the presence of St. Johns Simple Stamped ceramics. The Mississippian lifestyle, however, never became dominant, possibly because the soils were not suitable for full agricultural pursuits. A more complex socio-political organization is suggested by the presence of platform mounds at the ceremonial centers. These include the Shields Mound, Mount Royal, and the Thursby Mound (Moore 1894a, 1894b). Copper beads and ornaments, as well as greenstone celts, have been recovered from several sites and suggest contact with cultures to the north and northwest of Florida.
3.6 Colonialism
The St. Johns IIc period is marked by the introduction of European artifacts in some of the mounds. The historic aboriginal occupants of the region were the Timucua, Mayaca, Jororo, and possibly the Ais. The Timucuans shared a common language but cannot be considered as a specific cultural group because the range of the Timucuan speakers “... was crosscut by dialect, techno-environmental, ceremonial, political and geographical differences” (Deagan 1978:89).
Official credit for the discovery of Florida belongs to Juan Ponce de León, whose voyage of 1513 took him along the eastern coast of the peninsula (Tebeau 1980:21). Other Spanish explorers followed Juan Ponce de León, and over the next 50 years, the Spanish government and private individuals financed expeditions hoping to establish a colony in “La Florida.” In 1565, King Philip II of Spain licensed Pedro Menéndez de Avilés to establish a settlement in St. Augustine, Florida. Between 1565 and 1566, Menéndez sailed along the Florida coast placing crosses at various locations and leaving Spaniards “of marked religious zeal” to introduce Christianity to the Native American people (Gannon 1983:29). Settlements with associated missions were established at St. Augustine, San Mateo (Ft. Caroline) and Santa Elena, and smaller outposts and missions were located in Ais, Tequesta, Calusa, and Tocobaga territory (Gannon 1983:29).
By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Native American population of Florida had declined considerably as a result of disease, slave raids, intertribal warfare, and attacks from English-aided Creek, and other Indians (Steele 1992:11; Tebeau 1966:37; Wright 1986:218). In 1740, Gen. James Oglethorpe, with the aid of Creek warriors from several different towns, led an attack on St. Augustine (Steele 1992:11; Tebeau 1980:68). Shortly after this attack, Cowkeeper
P13055 3-10
led 130 families from the Hitchiti-speaking, Lower Creek towns of Apalachicola, Chiaha, Oconee, and Sawokli to Payne’s Prairie (Steele 1992:11; Swanton 1946). The Alachua band, led by Cowkeeper and his descendants, eventually came to be known as Seminoles. Unless directly affected, the Seminoles were usually indifferent to British and early United States politics, preferring to deal with these nations either not at all, or on their own terms instead of as part of the Creek confederacy (Steele 1992:11-16).
Throughout the second half of the eighteenth century, Lower Creek settlement of northern Florida increased. Eventually, at least one band of Muscogee-speaking Upper Creeks also immigrated to Florida. Their main settlement was north of Tampa at Chuckachatti, also known as New Eufala. This town was established sometime in the 1760s. Upper Creeks made additional migrations to Florida during and after the American Revolution. These migrations were due to several factors, including the expansion of white settlement, farming, and hunting in Georgia, as well as the allure provided by the prosperity of the Alachua Seminoles (Steele 1992:16-21; Weisman 1989:69-74).
By the 1790s, the town of Mickasuky and the adjacent villages had become a center of pro-British, anti-U.S. activities. Hitchiti-speaking Lower Creeks, Muscogee-speaking Upper Creeks, and escaped black slaves all found haven at this settlement. The growing threat posed to the U.S. by this town led to its destruction by U.S. forces in 1818 (Pepe et al. 1998:65). By the end of the eighteenth century, the Seminoles had become the dominant Native American group in the state. Groups of fugitive African-American slaves also had settled among the Seminoles by the early nineteenth century (Brown 1991). Armed conflict with pioneers, homesteaders, and eventually the United States Army resulted in the removal of most of the Seminoles from Florida. This action forced the withdrawal of the remaining Seminole population to the harsh environment of the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp by the late nineteenth century.
3.7 Territorial and Statehood
In 1821, after several years of negotiations with Spain, the U.S. acquired Florida as a territory. The population of the territory at that time was still centered in the northern areas around Pensacola, St. Augustine, and Tallahassee; although by the mid-1820s, a few scattered plantations were recorded on the southwest Gulf Coast, as far south as Marco Island. These plantations generally were owned by European-American settlers and employed Native Americans and escaped slaves (Tebeau 1966:33-34).
As more European-American settlers moved into Florida, conflicts arose with the Native Americans over available land. Pressure began to bear upon the government to remove the Native Americans from northern Florida and relocate them farther south. The Treaty of Moultrie Creek (1823) restricted the Native Americans people to approximately four million acres of land in the middle of the state, running south from Micanopy to just north of the Peace River (Mahon 1985). The Indians did not approve of this treaty as they were reluctant to move from their established homes to an area that they felt could not be cultivated. Other treaties soon followed such as Payne’s Landing (1832) and Fort Gibson (1833), which called for Indian immigration to the western territories (Mahon 1985). These treaties fostered Seminole resentment of settlers that would culminate in the Second Seminole War in 1835.
The Second Seminole War was initially centered in the Withlacoochee region. Fort Mellon, located near present-day Sanford, was the major military installation in the east central Florida area. Other smaller installations included Fort Maitland near Lake Apopka; Fort Gatlin
P13055 3-11
located between Lakes Mary, Jennie Jewel, and Gatlin; and Forts Lane, Christmas and Taylor along the western side of the St. Johns River (Mahon 1985). In 1838, U.S. troops moved south to pursue the retreating Seminoles into the Lake Okeechobee and Everglades regions.
The Second Seminole War had a deleterious effect on new settlement in Florida. To encourage settlement in the middle portion of the territory after the war, the Armed Occupation Act of 1842 offered settlers 160 acres of land at no cost, provided they built a house, cleared five acres, planted crops, and resided on the land for five years. Any head of a family or single man over 18 years of age and able to bear arms, was eligible to receive a homestead (Covington 1961). This act, plus the end of the Second Seminole War, created a small wave of immigration by Anglo-American pioneers to central Florida. Most of these immigrants were Anglo-American farmers and cattle ranchers, or “crackers,” from the southeastern United States (Gaby 1993).
The rapid growth of population in central Florida created the need for smaller political jurisdictions. In 1845, the same year that Florida was admitted into the Union, the poorly conceived name of Mosquito County was changed to Orange County. New boundaries were established to encompass present-day Seminole and Volusia Counties and parts of Brevard, Flagler, and Lake Counties (Fernald and Purdum 1996).
The 1849 Plat of Township 19 South, Range 24 East did not depict any historic features within the project area (State of Florida 1849). The field notes describe the area as third rate hilly pine in the northern portion of the property and hammock and marsh in the southern portion (State of Florida 1849:78-90). During the 1850s, settlers in central and southern Florida were plagued with periodic attacks by the remaining Seminoles. These outbreaks of hostility forced many of the new residents to leave their farms and dissuaded others from establishing homesteads. By 1858, the Seminoles no longer resided in central Florida and settlers began to immigrate to the area in appreciable numbers. Steamboats flourished along the St. Johns River and a viable trade network was established. The site of old Fort Mellon became a trading post named Mellonville (Federal Writers’ Project [FWP] 1984:360).
3.8 Civil War and Aftermath
With the beginning of the Civil War, cattle were needed to help feed the Confederate Army. Herds from as far south as central Florida were driven to railheads near the Georgia border. However, cattle ranchers discovered they could sell their herds in Cuba for a greater profit and began dealing with blockade-runners. The Union attempted to stop all shipping from Florida ports, but blockade-runners were too abundant. Cattle ranchers from all over Florida drove their cattle to Punta Rassa to be shipped to Cuba for payment in Spanish gold. Jacob Summerlin, a successful cattle rancher from the Fort Meade area, gave up his contract with the Confederate government to supply cattle and in 1863 teamed up with James McKay from the Tampa area. McKay, a successful and daring blockade-runner, supplied the schooners and Summerlin the cattle. It is not known how many cattle were shipped from the port during the Civil War. However, after the war as cattle continued to be shipped, it is reported that in the decade between 1870 and 1879, more than 165,000 head were shipped (Grismer 1949).
Following the Civil War, the Homestead Acts of 1866 and 1876 provided additional incentive for settlers to come to the area. The Act of 1866 gave Union-loyal African-Americans and southerners the opportunity to receive 80-acre tracts in Florida and the other four public land states. Former Confederates, however, were ineligible to receive homesteads until the Act of 1876 (Tebeau 1980:266, 294).
P13055 3-12
In the 1880s, interest in the resources of Florida increased due in large part to people like Hamilton Disston and Henry B. Plant. By 1881, the State of Florida faced a financial crisis involving a title to public lands. On the eve of the Civil War, land had been pledged by the Internal Improvement Fund to underwrite railroad bonds. After the War, when the railroads failed, the land reverted to the State. Almost $1 million was needed by the state to pay off the principal and accumulated interest on the debt, thereby giving clear title.
Hamilton Disston, son of a wealthy Philadelphia industrialist, contracted with the State of Florida in two large land deals: the Disston Drainage Contract and the Disston Land Purchase. The Drainage Contract was an agreement between Disston and the State in which Disston and his associates agreed to drain and reclaim all overflow lands south of present-day Orlando and east of the Peace River in exchange for one-half the acreage that could be reclaimed and made fit for cultivation. They agreed to purchase Internal Improvement Fund Lands at $0.25 an acre to satisfy the indebtedness of the fund. A contract was signed on June 1, 1881 for the sale of four million acres for the sum of $1 million, the estimated debt owed by the Internal Improvement Fund.
Disston changed Florida from a wilderness of swamps, heat, and mosquitoes into an area ripe for investment. This enabled Henry B. Plant to move forward with his plans to open the west coast of Florida with a railroad-steamship operation called the Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway. Through the Plant Investment Company, he bought up defunct rail lines such as the Silver Springs, Ocala & Gulf Railroad, Florida Transit and Peninsular Railroad, South Florida Railroad, and Florida Southern Railroad to establish his operation (Harner 1973:18-23; Mann 1983:68). In 1902, Henry Plant sold all of his Florida holdings to the Atlantic Coast Line (ACL), which would become the backbone of the southeast (Mann 1983:68).
However, many Florida residents were not very happy with the Disston Drainage Contract. They resented the $0.25 per acre price Disston paid under the land contract, as they were required to pay $1.25 per acre under the terms of the Homestead Act of 1876. Claims also were made that Disston was receiving title to lands that were not swamplands or wetlands (Tebeau 1980:278). Many residents bought up the higher, better-drained parcels of land for speculation, knowing that the surrounding wetlands and flatwoods would be deeded to Disston under the Land Purchase contract. Many hoped that their more desirable land purchases would increase in value. The original property owners within the project area included Hubbard L. Hart (1868), J.C. Lee (1870), Alfred Brown (1883), G.C. Staplyton (1883), David A. Acker (1884), A.R. Williams (1884), Florida Southern Railway (1884), and the Florida Central and Peninsular Railway (1893) (State of Florida n.d.:262, 264).
3.9 Twentieth Century
At the turn-of-the-century, Florida’s history was marked by the outbreak of the Spanish- American War in 1898. As Florida is the closest state to Cuba, American troops were stationed and deployed from the state’s coastal cities. Harbors in Tampa, Pensacola, and Key West were improved as more ships were launched with troops and supplies. “The Splendid Little War” was short in duration, but evidence of the conflict remained in the form of improved harbors, expanded railroads, and military installations (George 1990).
In 1904, Governor Napoleon Bonaparte Broward initiated significant reforms in Florida’s politics. Several of Broward’s major issues included the Everglades drainage project, railroad regulation, and the construction of roads. During this time, railroads were constructed throughout the state and automobile use became more prevalent. Improved transportation in the state opened
P13055 3-13
the lines to export Florida’s agricultural and industrial products (George 1990). As various products such as fruits and vegetables were leaving the state, people were arriving in Florida. Rapid and widespread growth was the theme of this period in Florida history. While agriculture, especially the citrus industry, had become the backbone of Florida’s economy, manufacturing and industry began growing during the beginning of the century. Fertilizer production, boat building, and lumber and timber products were strong secondary industries (Weaver et al. 1996:3).
The United States’ entry into World War I in 1917 resulted in the development of several training facilities in the state, and protecting the coastlines was a priority at this time. Although the conflict only lasted until November 1918, the economy was boosted greatly by the war. For example, the war brought industrialization to port cities such as Tampa and Jacksonville, where shipbuilding accelerated. These cities also functioned as supply depots and embarkation points. An indirect economic benefit of the war was an increase in agricultural production for central Florida since beef, vegetables, and cotton were in great demand (George 1990).
While Florida industrialization and agriculture flourished, immigration and housing development slowed during the war. Tourism increased as a result of the war in Europe, which forced Americans to vacation domestically. Tycoons such as Henry Flagler and Henry Plant were building the hotels and railroads for people desiring winter vacations in sunny Florida. These magnates took an interest in the improvements and promotion of Florida in an effort to bring in more tourist dollars; however the small rural communities felt little effect from increased tourism.
After World War I, Florida experienced unprecedented growth. Many people relocated to Florida during the war. Many came to work in wartime industries while other were stationed in the state as soldiers. Bank deposits increased, real estate companies opened in many cities, and state and county road systems expanded. Earlier land reclamation projects created thousands of new acres of land to be developed. Real estate activity increased steadily after the war’s end and drove up property values. Prices on lots were inflated to appear more enticing to out-of-state buyers. Every city and town in Florida had new subdivisions platted and lots were selling and reselling for quick profits. Southeast Florida experienced the most activity, although the boom affected most communities in central and southern Florida (Weaver et al. 1996:3).
Road building became a statewide concern as it shifted from a local to a state function. A state highway association, established in Orlando in 1917, sponsored the development of an improved highway system. These roads made even remote areas of the state accessible and allowed the boom to spread. On a daily basis, up to 20,000 people were arriving in the state. Besides the inexpensive property, Florida’s legislative prohibition on income and inheritance taxes also encouraged more people to move into the state.
The Boom Period had begun to decline in the mid 1920s, when the Florida East Coast Railway placed an embargo on freight shipments to South Florida. Ports and rail terminals were overflowing with unused building materials. In addition, northern newspapers published reports of fraudulent land deals in Florida. In 1926 and 1928, two hurricanes hit southeastern Florida, killing hundreds of people and destroying thousands of buildings. The collapse of the real estate market and the subsequent hurricane damage effectively ended the boom. The 1929 Mediterranean fruit fly infestation that devastated citrus groves throughout the state only worsened the recession (Weaver et al. 1996:4).
By the time the stock market collapsed in 1929, Floridians were already accustomed to economic depression. Construction activity had halted and industry dramatically declined. Subdivisions platted several years earlier remained empty and buildings stood on lots partially-
P13055 3-14
finished and vacant (Weaver et al. 1996). However, the relatively small amount of real estate activity in rural citrus and vegetable-growing towns in the central part of the state somewhat mitigated the effects of the real estate market collapse (Shofner 1982; Tebeau 1980).
During the Great Depression, Florida suffered significantly. Between 1929 and 1933, 148 state and national banks collapsed, more than half of the state’s teachers were owed back pay, and a quarter of the residents were receiving public relief (George 1990). Beef and citrus production declined, manufacturing slowed, and development projects were stopped. Even the railroad industry felt the pressures of the 1930s, and had to reduce service and let go some personnel. In addition, the increasing use of the automobile lessened the demand for travel by rail. Despite the Depression, tourism remained an integral part of the Florida economy during this period. New highways made automobile travel to Florida easy and affordable and more middle-class families were able to vacation in the “Sunshine State” (George 1990).
President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated several national relief programs due to the hard economic times. New Deal programs in Florida included the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The WPA provided jobs for professional workers and laborers, who constructed or improved many roads, public buildings, parks, and airports. The CCC improved and preserved forests, parks, and agricultural lands (Shofner 1987).
World War II resulted in Florida becoming one of the nation’s major military training grounds. Prior to this time, tourism had been the state’s major industry; it was brought to a halt as tourist and civilian facilities, such as hotels and private homes, were placed into wartime service. The influx of thousands of service personnel and their families increased industrial and agricultural production in Florida, and introduced these new residents to the warm weather and tropical beauty of Florida. Railroads once again profited, since service personnel, military goods, and materials needed to be transported. However, airplanes were now becoming the new form of transportation, and Florida became a major airline destination. The highway system was also being expanded, with the State Road Department constructing 1,560 miles of roadway (George 1990).
At the conclusion of World War II, Florida’s economy was almost fully recovered. Tourism rebounded and became a major source of the state’s economy. Additionally, former military personnel found the local climate amenable and remained in Florida permanently. These new residents greatly increased the population in the 1940s (George 1990).
The 1956 Highway Act initiated a plan for 41,500 miles of interstate highway throughout the country. Interstate 4 (I-4), which was constructed in the late-1950s and early-1960s, was part of the plan. Completed in 1965, it passed through downtown Orlando, connecting Tampa to Daytona and quickly became the beltway across central Florida. After Walt Disney World opened in 1971, growth and development along I-4 exploded.
P13055 4-1
4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODOLOGIES
4.1 Background Research and Literature Review
A review of archaeological and historical literature, records, and other documents and data pertaining to the project area was conducted. The focus of this research was to ascertain the types of cultural resources known in the project area and vicinity, their temporal/cultural affiliations, site location information, and other relevant data. This included a review of sites listed in the NRHP, the FMSF, cultural resource survey reports, published articles, historic aerials, and unpublished manuscripts and maps. The FMSF records (April 2013) may not reflect all known resources, as there is some delay in input of newly received site file forms and survey reports. Marty Dzuro of The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. provided background information on the history of the property.
4.1.1 Archaeological Considerations
The April 2013 FMSF digital database revealed that seven previously recorded archaeological site are located within one mile of the project area (Table 4.1; Figure 4.1). None of the sites are eligible for listing in the NRHP (FMSF).
Table 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the project area. SITE # SITE NAME SITE TYPE CULTURE 8LA02730 Pennebrook Campsite; lithic scatter Middle Archaic 8SM00224 Leaf Wetland North Campsite; artifact scatter Post-Archaic 8SM00226 SE Slough SE Campsite; artifact scatter Middle Archaic; Post-Archaic 8SM00227 SE Slough East Campsite; lithic scatter Middle Archaic Middle Archaic; Orange; Deptford; St. 8SM00230 Bulldozer Knoll Campsite; artifact scatter Johns Ia and Ib; St. Johns II 8SM00237 Leaf Wetland Sprig Campsite; artifact scatter Middle Archaic; Post Archaic Middle Archaic; Manasota; Weeden Ring Around The 8SM00238 Campsite; artifact scatter Island; St. Johns II; Safety Harbor; Wetlands Seminole; 20th century
The Pennebrook Site (8LA2730) is a lithic scatter that has been dated to the Middle Archaic based upon the use of thermal alteration. It was recorded during the survey for the Pennbrooke Fairways DRI (ACI 2003b). The other six sites were recorded during the survey for the Villages of Sumter DRI Substantial Deviation (ACI 2001). 8SM224, -226, -227, and -237 were relative low-density artifact scatters, although 8SM227 produced no aboriginal ceramics. These sites were dated to the Archaic based on the use of thermal alteration and/or the recovery of Florida Archaic Stemmed points. The Post-Archaic components were identified by the presence of aboriginal ceramics; the only identifiable type was St. Johns Plain. The Bulldozer Knoll Site (8SM230) was substantially larger and had several other identifiable cultural components than the previously mentioned sites, but had been severely disturbed. The Ring Around the Wetlands Site (8SM238) is also a large multi-component site. Phase II testing was conducted on the site, which recorded a few additional cultural components. The site represents a series of overlapping, limited activity campsites associated with the procurement of the locally available resources (ACI 2002).
P13055 4-2 ¹
8SM00224
8SM00237
8SM00230
8LA02730 8SM00227
8SM00238
8SM00228
8SM00226
Kilometers Miles 00.51 00.250.5
Figure 4.1. Location of the previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the proejct area; USGS Leesburg West (National Geographic Society 2013 - USA Topo Maps). 4-3
Several other surveys have been conducted in the area for other Villages of Sumter properties (ACI 2003a, 2004, 2006a, 2006b), CR 466A (Stokes 2004), and several cell towers (Almy 2000; Ambrosino 2005; Dynamic Environmental Associates 2008; Hughey 2003; Parker 2002). The predictive models generated for these studies were taken into account for this project.
Based on the results of the previous archaeological surveys in the vicinity, an analysis of the soil characteristics of the project area, the known patterns of aboriginal settlement in the region, and a review of the relevant quadrangle maps, a predictive model for the location of new sites was formulated. This model identified the environmental features correlated with aboriginal site location. Based on these data, differential Zones of Archaeological Potential (ZAPs) were delineated. In general, elevated areas of well drained soil proximate to (within 100 m [328 ft]) a freshwater source were considered to have the highest probability for site occurrence. Elevated areas of well drained soils greater than 100 m (328 ft), but within approximately 300 m (984 ft) from water, and areas of elevated, poorly drained soils proximate to water, were considered to have a moderate probability. Most of the property was considered to have low archaeological potential due to the excessively drained soils and absence of water sources.
Historical research suggests that historic period archaeological sites, including nineteenth century homesteads, forts, or Indian encampments, are unlikely to be found within the project area. The Plat of Township 19 South, Range 24 East did not depict any historic features.
4.1.2 Historical Considerations
There are no historic structures located on the property, which had been the Pine Ridge Dairy, run by Perrie and Bernice Jeffcoat for the last 50 years. Perrie died in 1983 and Bernice died in 2006, after which lawsuits were brought between Cade Easley (dairy manager) and the First Baptist Church of Leesburg (primary beneficiary of Jeffcoat’s estate) (Orlando Sentinel 2006). Prior to Jeffcoat’s death, she had installed new equipment to make the dairy more environmentally friendly and was looking to turn the dairy organic (Spear 1994). A review of several historic Publication of Archival Library & Museum Materials (PALMM) aerials and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map shows several farm structures in place by 1958, and possibly still standing in 1981 (PALMM 1958b, 1969, 1974; USGS 1981). However, none of the original structures are present today. More recently (post 1981); several large concrete buildings were built and have subsequently been partially demolished in the general area of the original dairy farm. Today, the land is used for peanut production.
A review of the aerial photos available from the PALMM indicated that most of the area has been in either pasture or crop production since 1947. The large wetland to the south and southeast is prominent on the early aerials and, with the exception of the dairy farm area, no structures were evident within the project area on the early aerial photographs (PALMM 1947, 1958a, 1958b, 1969, 1974).
4.2 Field Methodology
The archaeological field methodology consisted of surface reconnaissance combined with systematic and judgmental subsurface shovel testing. The testing was carried out to locate sites not exposed on the ground, as well as to test for the presence of buried cultural deposits in areas yielding surface artifacts. Systematic subsurface shovel testing at 25 m (82 ft) and 50 m (164 ft) intervals was conducted in the moderate to high ZAPs. The low ZAPs were subjected to a visual reconnaissance and judgmentally tested (or tested at 100 m [328 ft] intervals) as deemed
P13055 4-4 appropriate. Additionally, testing at was conducted at 10, 20, or 25 m (33, 66, or 82 ft) intervals to determine site boundaries and/or site presence around recovered isolated artifacts.
Shovel tests were circular, and measured approximately 50 centimeter (cm) (20 inches [in]) in diameter by at least 1 m (3.3 ft) in depth, unless precluded by natural impediments such as water intrusion. The soil removed from the shovel tests was screened through 0.64 cm (0.25 in) mesh hardware cloth to assure the recovery of any artifacts. The locations of all shovel tests were recorded with a Trimble GeoXT, and, following the recording of relevant data such as environmental setting, stratigraphic profile, and artifact finds, all shovel tests were backfilled. Any cultural materials recovered were placed in resealable plastic bags with the appropriate provenience information recorded on them. A Field Specimen (FS) log was maintained, detailing the materials recovered and their proveniences shovel tests location and depth.
Historic resources field survey consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the project area and adjacent lands.
4.3 Unexpected Discoveries
If human burial sites such as Indian mounds, lost historic and prehistoric cemeteries, or other unmarked burials or associated artifacts were found, then the provisions and guidelines set forth in Chapter 872.05, FS (Florida’s Unmarked Burial Law) were to be followed. However, it was not anticipated that such sites would be found during this survey.
4.4 Laboratory Methods and Curation
All recovered cultural materials were initially cleaned and sorted by artifact class. Lithics were divided into tools and debitage based on gross morphology. Tools, if present, would have been measured and the edges examined for traces of edge damage. 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, and tested cobbles) would have been measured, and examined for raw material types and absence or presence of thermal alteration. Flakes were classified into five types (primary decortication, secondary decortication, non- decortication, shatter, and cortex) based on the amount of cortex on the dorsal surface and the shape. The aboriginal ceramics were classified into commonly recognized types based on observable characteristics such as aplastic inclusions and surface treatment (Goggin 1948; Luer and Almy 1980; Willey 1949).
The artifacts, field notes, and other project documentation will be housed at ACI in Sarasota unless the client requests otherwise.
P13055 5-1
5.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Archaeological
Archaeological field survey entailed surface reconnaissance combined with systematic and judgmental subsurface testing. This resulted in the excavation of 295 shovel tests of which 180 were excavated within the high/moderate probability areas and 99 were excavated in the low probability areas and judgmentally, and 16 were placed to delimit site boundaries. This resulted in the recording of one archaeological site consisting of a low density artifact scatter and two AOs. The site has been recorded as 8LA4408. The completed FMSF form is in Appendix A and Appendix B contains the Survey Log.
The Dragonfly Site, 8LA4408, is located in Sections 7 and 8 of Township 19 South, Range 24 East (USGS 1981). The site occurs on the moderately well drained Orsino sand and extends slightly onto the poorly drained Myakka fine sand. The soil stratigraphy consists of 0-30 cmbs (centimeters below surface) (0-12 in) dark gray sand and 30-100 cmbs (12-39 in) yellowish brown sand. Along the southern portion of the site, close to the wetland, a dark brown sandy hardpan was occasionally encountered at approximately 80 cmbs. The site is situated north and east of a large drained wetland, and is bounded on the east by the property line (Figure 5.1). Elevation is between 20 and 23 m (60-75 ft) amsl. The area is currently planted in peanuts.
Forty-two shovel tests were excavated at 25 and 50 m (82 and 164 ft) intervals across the open, planted area (Figure 5.1, Photo 5.1). Of the total 42 tests, only 11 were positive for artifacts. However, several sherds and lithics were also noted on the surface throughout the general area. Because of present and past agricultural activity, the area has been significantly disturbed and the true site dimension may not be reflected in the shovel test results. For this reason, the site dimensions have been enlarged to include the surface scatter. The site dimension are approximately 225 m north/south by 225 m east/west.
The artifacts recovered from the shovels tests included two sand tempered plain sherds, 43 chert flakes, 2 coral flakes, and one chert shatter fragment (see Table 5.1). All but two of the lithic artifacts were non-decortication pieces of debitage. Cortex was noted on the surface the two were classified as secondary debitage. The majority of the lithics, n=37, were medium sized (1-2 cm), 3 were extra large (> 4 cm), 2 were large (3-4 cm), and 4 were small sized (< 1 cm). A total of 4 lithic artifacts showed evidence of thermal alteration. The artifacts were recovered from depths of 0 to 90 cmbs (0 to 35 in).
A representative collection of artifacts also was collected from the surface (Table 5.1). This collection included 39 lithics and 12 pottery sherds. The lithics included two coral and 37 chert flakes (debitage) and ranged in size from medium to extra large. The collected sherds included sand tempered plain (N=3), Pasco Plain (N=1), Pasco Cord-Marked (N=2), Carrabelle Punctate (N=4), and Pinellas Plain (N=2). The sand tempered plain and the Pasco Plain are not particularly diagnostic, as they have been manufactured for some 2000 years (Goggin 1948; Milanich 1994; Wiley 1949). The same is true for Pasco Cord-Marked, although it is less frequently found at sites (Goggin 1948). Carrabelle Punctate is a utilitarian pottery roughly dating to 200 to 1000 CE and is associated with the Weeden Island I and II periods. Pinellas Plain, also a utilitarian ware, dates to approximately 900 to 1500 CE It is associated with the Safety Harbor period (Milanich 1994). Both types previously have been found in the general area and since were recovered from the surface, no stratigraphic information was associated with the artifacts.
P13055 5-2 ¹
AO 1
AO 2
8LA04408
Legend ST positive ST negative Site boundary
Meters Feet 0 200 400 0 500 1,000
Figure 5.1. Location of the shovel tests, AOs, and 8LA4408 within the Pine Ridge property, Lake County (ESRI 2013a - Basemap: Transportation and Imagery). 5-3
Table 5.1. Artifacts recovered from shovel tests and surface at 8LA4408 - Dragonfly Site. Shovel Approx. FS Test Depth Item Size Count Artifacts Recovered from Shovel Tests 1 126 0-90 chert Non decortication, extra large, flake 2 1 126 0-90 chert Non-decortication, medium, flake 5 2 130 0 chert Non-decortication, extra large flake 1 2 130 0 chert Non-decortication, medium , flake 2 3 144 0 chert Non-decortication, medium, TA, flake 1 3 144 0 chert Non-decortication, medium, flake 5 5 123 60-70 chert Non-decortication, medium, flake 3 5 123 60-70 chert Secondary, medium, flake 1 7 274 90 pottery Sand tempered plain 2 8 302 80-90 chert Non-decortication, small, flake 1 8 302 80-90 chert Non-decortication, medium, flake 1 8 302 80-90 chert Non-decortication, large, flake 1 9 306 30-50 chert Non-decortication, small flake 2 9 306 30-50 chert Non-decortication, medium, flake 3 9 306 30-50 chert Non-decortication, medium, TA, flake 2 9 306 30-50 chert Non-decortication, medium, TA, shatter 1 9 306 30-50 chert Secondary, medium, flake 1 10 245 50-90 chert Non-decortication, medium, flake 2 11 247 60-65 chert Non-decortication, medium, flake 2 12 249 40-90 chert Non-decortication, small 1 12 249 40-90 chert Non-decortication, medium, flake 6 12 249 40-90 chert Non-decortication, large, flake 1 13 251 40 chert Non-decortication, medium, flake 2
TOTAL 48
Artifacts Collected from Surface 14 surface surface chert Non-decortication, medium, flake 22 14 surface surface chert Non-decortication, medium, TA, flake 11 14 surface surface chert Secondary, medium, TA, flake 1 14 surface surface coral Non-decortication, medium, flake 1 14 surface surface coral Secondary, medium flake 1 14 surface surface chert Non-decortication, large, flake 2 14 surface surface chert Non-decortication, extra large, flake 1 15 surface surface pottery Pinellas Plain 2 15 surface surface pottery Pasco Cord-Marked 2 15 surface surface pottery Sand tempered plain 3 15 surface surface pottery Pasco Plain 1 15 surface surface pottery Carrabelle Punctate 4
TOTAL 51
P13055 5-4
Photo 5.1. Looking to the northwest at 8LA4408 - Dragonfly site.
The Dragonfly Site - 8LA4408 appears to represent a short term, limited artifact scatter established to utilize the locally available resources of the adjacent wetland. No diagnostic artifacts, pottery or lithics, were recovered from the shovel tests conducted at the site; however, sherds collected from the surface suggest the site may have been occupied anytime from 500 to 1500 CE, although occupation may have been earlier as well. The limited number of artifacts and lack of tools suggests the occupation was short-termed, and perhaps the site was visited periodically through time given the variety of pottery types recovered. The stratigraphy encountered in the shovel tests did not reveal a distinctive cultural level and no features or stains reflective of specific activity areas were noted. No faunal materials were recovered. Thus, there was little information relative to aboriginal subsistence. Tool manufacture and/or maintenance is suggested by the lithic debitage assembly and the presence of pottery suggests that cooking or storage activities were occurring at the site on a limited basis. The site has been significantly disturbed by past and present agricultural activity. It is unlikely that 8LA4408 will yield information not found at other similar sites in the area and is the professional opinion of ACI’s archaeologists that it does not meet the criteria necessary for inclusion in the NRHP.
AO#1 is located in Section 7 of Township 19 South, Range 24 East (USGS 1981). The AO occurs on the moderately well drained Tavares sand, 0-5% slope. The soil stratigraphy consists of 0 to 35 cmbs (0 to 14 in) of dark gray brown sand followed by 35 to 100 cmbs (14 to 39 in) of orange brown sand. One large sized, non decortication chert flake was recovered from between 30 to 40 cmbs (12 to 16 in). The test was located along a 23 m (75 ft) elevation rise, adjacent to a small wetland. A total of eight additional shovel tests were conducted at 10 and 20 meter (33 and 66 ft) intervals around the positive test. No additional artifacts were recovered.
AO#2 is located in Section 7 of Township 19 South, Range 24 East (USGS 1981). The AO occurs on the excessively drained Candler sand, 0-5% slope. The soil stratigraphy consists of 0 to 30 cmbs (0 to 12 in) of dark gray brown sand followed by 30 to 100 cmbs (12 to 39 in) of
P13055 5-5 orange brown sand. One sand tempered, simple stamped sherd was recovered at 40 cmbs (16 in) in a shovel test. The test was located along a 23 m (75 ft) elevation rise, adjacent to a small wetland. A total of eight additional shovel tests were conducted at 10 and 20 meter intervals (33 ft and 66 ft) from the positive test. No additional artifacts were recovered.
5.2 Historical
No historic structures (50 years of age or older) are located within the project area.
5.3 Conclusions
The CRAS of the Pine Ridge property resulted in the recording of two AOs and one archaeological site, 8LA4408. The Dragonfly Site is located in an area of moderate to high probability, as predicted in the model formulated for this survey and other similar ACI surveys in the general area (ACI 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2006a, 2006b, 2004). The site appears to represent a short term, limited artifact scatter. Of the 42 shovel tests conducted in the immediate area, only eleven were positive for artifacts; producing 48 artifacts. No diagnostic artifacts, pottery or lithics, were recovered from the shovel tests and the stratigraphy did not reveal a distinctive cultural level, features, or stains reflective of specific activity areas. Surface collected sherds suggest occupation between 500 to 1500 CE The site area has experienced significant soil disturbance due to intensive agricultural activity. It is the unlikely that 8LA4408 will yield information not found at similar sites in the general area, and is the professional opinion of ACI’s archaeologists that the site does not meet the criteria necessary for inclusion in the NRHP.
Given the results of background research and field survey, the development of the Pine Ridge project will have no effect on any archaeological sites or historic resources that are listed, determined eligible, or considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. No further investigations are recommended.
P13055 6-1
6.0 REFERENCES CITED .
Almy, Marion M. 2000 Proposed Cellular Tower Site: Bamboo. ACI, Sarasota.
Ambrosino, Meghan L. 2005 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the FL2904 Cherry Lake Tower in Lake County Florida, FCC Form 620. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tampa.
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) 2001 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Substantial Deviation the Villages of Sumter DRI Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2002 Phase II Test Excavations at the Ring Around the Wetlands (8SM238) and John Lyles (8SM222) Sites Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2003a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 1171 Acre Addition, VOS Substantial Deviation, The Villages of Sumter DRI, Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2003b Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Pennbrooke Fairways Development of Regional Impact Proposed 9.85 Acre Addition Lake County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2004 Addendum to the Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of 1171 Acre Addition, VOS Substantial Deviation, The Villages of Sumter DRI. Seven Additional Parcels, Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2006a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of Nine Parcels for the Villages of Sumter DRI Second N.O.P.C. to the Second Substantial Deviation Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2006b Technical Memorandum: Cultural Resources Assessment Five-Acre Additional Parcel for the Villages of Sumter DRI. Third N.O.P.C. to the Second Substantial Deviation Prepared as an Addendum to CRAS of the Villages of Sumter DRI Second N.O.P.C., Sumter County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota.
Archaeological Consultants, Inc./Janus Research (ACI/Janus Research) 2001 Phase III Mitigative Excavation at the Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (8VO53), Volusia County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota and Janus Research, TampaAshley, Keith H. 2008 Refining the Ceramic Chronology of Northeastern Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 61(3-4): 123-131.
Ashley, Keith and Vicki Rolland 2002 St. Marys Cordmarked Pottery (Formerly Savannah Fine Cord Marked of Northeastern Florida and Southeastern Georgia): A Type Description. The Florida Anthropologist 55(1): 25-36.
Aten, Lawrence E. 1999 Middle Archaic Ceremonialism at Tick Island, Florida: Ripley P. Bullen's 1961 Excavation at the Harris Creek Site. The Florida Anthropologist 52(3): 131-200.
Austin, Robert J. 2001 Paleoindian and Archaic Archaeology in the Middle Hillsborough River Basin: A Synthetic Overview. SEARCH, Jonesville.
P13055 6-2
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.
Brown, Canter, Jr. 1991 Florida's Peace River Frontier. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.
Bullen, Ripley P. 1955a Carved Owl Totem, Deland, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 8(3): 61-73. 1955b Stratigraphic Tests at Bluffton, Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 8(1): 1-16. 1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 6(1): 43-53. 1962 Indian Burials at Tick Island. Year Book of the American Philosophical Society 1961: 477-480. 1970 The Transitional Period of Southern Southeastern United States as Viewed from Florida, or the Roots of the Gulf Tradition. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 13: 63-70. 1972 The Orange Period of Peninsular Florida. In Fiber-Tempered Pottery in Southeastern United States and Northern Columbia: Its Origins, Context, and Significance. Edited by Ripley P. Bullen and James.B. Stoltman, pp. 9-33. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 6. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville.
Bullen, Ripley P., Walter Askew, Lee M. Feder, and Richard L. McDonnell 1978 The Canton Street Site, St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 9.
Bullen, Ripley P., Adelaide K. Bullen, and William J. Bryant 1967 Archaeological Investigations at Ross Hammock Site, Florida. American Studies Report 7. The William L. Bryant Foundation, Orlando.
Carbone, Victor 1983 Late Quaternary Environment in Florida and the Southeast. The Florida Anthropologist 36(1-2): 3-17.
Carr, Robert S. and B. Calvin Jones 1981 Florida Anthropologist Interview with Calvin Jones, Part II -- Excavations of An Archaic Cemetery. The Florida Anthropologist 34(2): 81-89.
Carter, Brinnen C. and James S. Dunbar 2006 Early Archaic Archaeology. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page- Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Edited by S. David Webb, pp. 493-517. Springer, The Netherlands.
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.
P13055 6-3
Clench, W. J. and R. D. Turner 1956 Freshwater Mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from the Escambia to the Suwannee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences 1(3): 97- 239.
Cordell, Ann S. 2004 Paste Variability and Possible Manufacturing Origins of Late Archaic Fiber- Tempered Pottery from Selected Sites in Peninsular Florida. In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast. Edited by Rebecca Saunders and Christopher 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.
Cumbaa, Stephen L. 1976 A Reconsideration of Freshwater Shellfish Exploitation in the Florida Archaic. The Florida Anthropologist 29(2, Part 1): 49-59.
Daniel, I. Randolph and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Publishing Co., Inc., Farmingdale.
Deagan, Kathleen A. 1978 Cultures in Transition: Assimilation and Fusion Among the Eastern Timucua. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia During the Historic Period. Edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor, pp. 89-119. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Delcourt, Paul A. and Hazel R. Delcourt 1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 yr B.P. to the Present. In Geobotony II. Edited by R. C. Romans, pp. 123-165. Plenum Publishing Corp., New York.
Dickinson, Martin F. and Lucy B. Wayne 1996 The Sligh Site (8Se1332): Data Recovery Excavations on Lake Jessup, Winter Springs, Seminole County, Florida. SouthArc, Inc., Gainesville.
Doran, Glen H., Ed. 2002 Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Doran, Glen H. and David N. Dickel 1988 Multidisciplinary Investigations at the Windover Site. In Wet Site Archaeology. Edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 263-289. Telford Press, Caldwell, NJ.
Dunbar, James S. 2006a Paleoindian Archaeology. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Edited by S. David Webb, pp. 403-435. Springer, The Netherlands.
P13055 6-4
Dunbar, James S. 2006b Paleoindian Land Use. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Edited by S. David Webb, pp. 525-544. Springer, The Netherlands. 2006c Pleistocene-Early Holocene Climate Change: Chronostratigraphy and Geoclimate of the Southeast US. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Edited by S. David Webb, pp. 103-155. Springer, The Netherlands.
Dunbar, James S. and S. David Webb 1996 Bone and Ivory Tools from Submerged Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. Edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 331-353. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Dynamic Environmental Associates, Inc. 2008 Section 106 Review, FCC Form 620 Villages South-Rice Tower Site, Lake County, Florida. Dynamic Environmental Associates, Inc., Lake Worth.
Ellis, Gary D., Russell A. Dorsey, and Robin Denson 1994 Cultural Resources Study of Seminole County, Florida: Archaeology. Gulf Archaeological Research Institute, Lecanto.
ESRI 2013a Basemap: Boundaries & Places, Transportation, and Imagery. 2013b Streets.
Farr, Grayal Earle 2006 A Reevaluation of Bullen's Typology for Preceramic Projectile Points. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Faught, Michael K. 2004 The Underwater Archaeology of Paleolandscapes, Apalachee Bay, Florida. American Antiquity 69(2): 275-289.
Faught, Michael K. and Joseph F. Donoghue 1997 Marine Inundated Archaeological Sites and Paleofluvial Systems: Examples from a Karst-controlled Continental Shelf Setting in Apalachee Bay, Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Geoarchaeology 12: 417-458.
Federal Writers’ Project (FWP) 1984 Florida: A Guide to the Southernmost State. Pantheon Books, New York.
Fernald, Edward A. and Elizabeth D. Purdum, Eds. 1996 Atlas of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Florida Division of Historica Resources (FDHR) 2003 Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual. Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Florida Master Site File (FMSF) Various site file forms. On file, FDHR, Tallahassee. 1999 Guide to the Archaeological Site Form, Version 2.2. FDHR, Tallahassee.
P13055 6-5
Fryman, Mildred, John W. Griffin, and James Miller 1978 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Seminole Electric Property, Putnam County, Florida. On file, FDHR, Tallahassee.
Gaby, Donald C. 1993 The Miami River and Its Tributaries. Historical Association of Southern Florida, Miami.
Gannon, Michael V. 1983 The Cross in the Sand. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
George, Paul 1990 Historical/Architectural Contexts. Draft: State of Florida Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan. FDHR, Tallahassee.
Gleason, Patrick J. and P. Stone 1994 Age, Origin and Landscape Evolution of the Everglades Peatland. In Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. Edited by S. M. Davis and J. C Ogden, pp. 149-197. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach.
Goggin, John M. 1948 Some Pottery Types from Central Florida. Gainesville Anthropological Association, Bulletin 1. 1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archaeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 47. 1998 Reprint, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Grismer, Karl H. 1949 The Story of Fort Myers. Southwest Florida Historical Society. Island Press Publishing, Ft. Myers.
Harner, Charles E. 1973 Florida's Promoters. Trend House, Tampa.
Horvath, Elizabeth A. 1995 Conclusions. In Final Report on the Archaeological Investigations at the Seminole Rest Site (CANA-063 / 8VO124), Canaveral National Seashore, Volusia County, Florida. Edited by Elizabeth A. Horvath, pp. 133-144. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.
Hughey, Andrew 2003 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Proposed Lake Justin FL-0905-B Tower in Sumter County, Florida. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tampa.
Jahn, Otto L. and Ripley P. Bullen 1978 The Tick Island Site, St. Johns River, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 10.
Jennings, Jesse D., Gordon R. Willey, and Marshall T. Newman 1957 The Ormond Beach Mound, East Central Florida. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 164: 1-28.
P13055 6-6
Johnson, Robert E. and Dana Ste. Claire 1988 Edgewater Landing - Archaeological Investigations Along the Indian River North, Volusia County, Florida. Florida Archaeological Services, Inc., Jacksonville.
Kozuch, Laura 1995 Shellfish Gatherers of Florida's East Coast. In Final Report on the Archaeological Investigations at the Seminole Rest Site (CANA-063 / 8VO124), Canaveral National Seashore, Volusia County, Florida. Edited by Elizabeth A. Horvath, pp. 59-91. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.
Lee, Chung Ho, Irvy R. Quitmyer, Christopher T. Espenshade, and Robert E. Johnson 1984 Estuarine Adaptations during the Late Prehistoric Period: Archaeology of Two Shell Midden Sites on the St. Johns River. Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Pensacola.
Luer, George M. 2002 Three Middle Archaic Sites in North Port. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 15: 3-34.
Luer, George M. and Marion M. Almy 1980 The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast of Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 33(4): 207-225.
Mahon, John K. 1985 History of the Second Seminole War 1835-1842. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Mann, Robert W. 1983 Rails 'Neath the Palms. Darwin Publications, Burbank.
Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
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.
Moore, Clarence B. 1893 Certain Shell Heaps of the St. Johns River, Florida, Hitherto Unexplored (Second Paper). The East Florida Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore. (1999) Edited by Jeffrey M. Mitchem. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. The American Naturalist 27:8-13, 113-117. 1894a Certain Sand Mounds of the St. Johns River, Florida, Part I. The East Florida Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore. (1999) Edited by Jeffrey M. Mitchem. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:5-128.
P13055 6-7
Moore, Clarence B. 1894b Certain Sand Mounds of the St. Johns River, Florida, Part II. The East Florida Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore. (1999) Edited by Jeffrey M. Mitchem. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:129-246.
National Geographic Society 2013 USA Topo Maps.
Neill, Wilfred T. 1964 The Association of Suwannee Points and Extinct Animals in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 17(3-4): 17-32.
Newsom, Lee A. 1987 Analysis of Botanical Remains from Hontoon Island (8VO202), Florida: 1980-1985 Excavations. The Florida Anthropologist 40(1): 47-84. 1994 Archaeobotanical Data from Groves' Orange Midden (8VO2601), Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4): 404-417.
Newsom, Lee A. and Barbara A. Purdy 1990 Florida Canoes: A Maritime Heritage from the Past. The Florida Anthropologist 43(3): 164-180.
Newsom, Lee A., S. David Webb, and James S. Dunbar 1993 History and Geographical Distribution of Curcubita pepo Gourds in Florida. Journal of Ethnobiology 13(1): 75-98.
Orlando Sentinel 2006 City Looks to Annex, Rezone Former Farm. Orlando Sentinel, November 11.
Parker, Brian T. 2002 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties Within the One-Mile Area of Potential Effects of the Proposed 480-foot Monopole-Leesburg Wireless Telecommunications Tower, Lake County, Florida. Florida Archaeological Consulting, Inc., Orlando.
Pepe, James, W. S. Steele, and Robert S. Carr 1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Upper Loxahatchee River, Martin and Palm Beach Counties, Florida. AHC Technical Report 218. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami.
Piatek, Bruce J. 1994 The Tomoka Mound Complex in Northeast Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 13(2): 109-118.
Provancha, J. A., C. R. Hall, and D. M. Oddy 1991 Mosquito Lagoon Environmental Resources Inventory. Draft Report: Phase I for Canaveral National Seashore. Bionetics Corp. / NASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida.
P13055 6-8
Publication of Archival Library and Museum Materials (PALMM) 1947 Aerial Photograph, FEB 21 1947, CTS-4D-65 1958a Aerial Photograph, 1-9-58, CTS-1V-81. 1958b Aerial Photograph, 1-9-58-10:39, CSS-1:200,000-CTS-1V-9. 1969 Aerial Photograph, 12-4-69, DEV-CTV-1LL-6. 1974 Aerial Photograph, 2-11-74, A2G, 12069, 274-57.
Purdy, Barbara A. 1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Tool Technology. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1987 Investigations at Hontoon Island (8-VO-202), An Archaeological Wetsite in Volusia County, Florida: An Overview and Chronology. The Florida Anthropologist 40(1): 4- 12. 1988 Wet Site Archaeology. Telford Press, Caldwell, NJ. 1994a The Chipped Stone Tool Industry at Grove's Orange Midden (8VO2601), Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4): 390-392. 1994b Excavations in Water-Saturated Deposits at Lake Monroe, Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4): 326-332.
Quitmyer, Irvy R. 1995 Mercenaria Season of Harvest and Age Structure. In Final Report on the Archaeological Investigations at the Seminole Rest Site (CANA-063 / 8VO124), Canaveral National Seashore, Volusia County, Florida. Edited by Elizabeth A. Horvath, pp. 92-132. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.
Rouse, Irving 1951 A Survey of Indian River Archaeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 44. 1981 Reprint, AMS Press, Inc., New York.
Russo, Michael 1984 The Evolution of Subsistence Strategies of Faunal Resources at the Gauthier Site. Paper presented at the 41st Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Pensacola. 1988 Coastal Adaptations in Eastern Florida: Models and Methods. Archaeology of Eastern North America 16: 159-176. 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. 1996a Southeastern Archaic Mounds. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. Edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 259-287. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1996b Southeastern Mid-Holocene Coastal Settlements. In Archaeology of the Mid- Holocene Southeast. Edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 177-199. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Russo, Michael, Ann S. Cordell, Lee A. Newsom, and Robert J. Austin 1989 Phase III Archaeological Excavations at Edgewater Landing, Volusia County, Florida. Janus Research, Tampa.
P13055 6-9
Russo, Michael, Ann S. Cordell, and Donna L. Ruhl 1993 The Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Phase III Final Report. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.
Russo, Michael and Dana Ste. Claire 1992 Tomoka Stone: Archaeological Evidence for Early Coastal Adaptations. The Florida Anthropologist 45(4): 336-346.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2003 New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery from the Middle St. Johns Valley and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(1): 5-13.
Scott, Thomas M. 1978 Environmental Geology Series: Orlando Sheet. Map Series 85. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee. 2001 Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida. Open File Report 80. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.
Scott, Thomas M., Kenneth M. Campbell, Frank R. Rupert, Jonathan D. Arthur, Thomas M. Missimer, Jacqueline M. Lloyd, J. William Yon, and Joel G. Duncan 2001 Geologic Map of the State of Florida. Map Series 146. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.
Shannon, George, Jr. 1986 The Southeastern Fiber-tempered Ceramic Tradition Reconsidered. In Ceramic Notes 3. Edited by Prudence Rice, pp. 47-80. Florida Museum of Natural History, Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Gainesville.
Shofner, Jerrell H. 1982 History of Apopka and Northwest Orange County, Florida. Rose Printing Company, Tallahassee. 1987 Roosevelt's "Tree Army" The Civilian Conservation Corps in Florida. Florida Historical Quarterly 65(4): 433-456.
Sigler-Eisenberg, Brenda 1984a Foraging Strategies in a Malabar I Period Household. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Pensacola. 1984b The Gauthier Site: A Microcosm of Biocultural Adaptation in the Upper St. Johns River Basin. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Pensacola.
Sigler-Eisenberg, Brenda, Ann S. Cordell, Richard W. Estabrook, Elizabeth A. Horvath, Lee A. Newsom, and Michael Russo 1985 Archaeological Site Types, Distribution, and Preservation within the Upper St. Johns River Basin. Miscellaneous Project and Report Series 27. Department of Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.
Spear, Kevin 1994 Process Renders Cow Manure Odorless. Orlando Sentinel, March 18.
P13055 6-10
Stanford, Dennis 1991 Clovis Origins and Adaptations: An Introductory Perspective. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations. Edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 1-14. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, OR.
State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection 1849 Field Notes. B.F. Whitmer. Volume 137. 1849 Plat. Township 19 South, Range 24 East. B.F. Whitney Jr. n.d. Tract Book. Volume 20.
Ste. Claire, Dana 1987 The Development of Thermal Alteration Technologies in Florida: Implications for the Study of Prehistoric Adaptation. The Florida Anthropologist 40(3): 203-208. 1989 Archaeological Investigations at the McDonald Farm Site, Volusia County, Florida. On file, FDHR, Tallahassee. 1990 The Archaic in East Florida: Archaeological Evidence for Early Coastal Adaptations. The Florida Anthropologist 43(3): 188-197.
Steele, Willard S. 1992 Historical Perspectives on the Origins of the Seminoles: 1500-1803. Unpublished manuscript on file, Janus Research, Inc., Tampa.
Stokes, Anne V. 2004 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the CR 466A PD&E Study from the Lake/Sumter County Line to US 27/441 Lake County, Florida. SEARCH, Jonesville.
Swanton, John R. 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.
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.
U.S. Department of Agricultura (USDA) 1975 Soil Survey of the Lake County Area, Florida. USDA, Soil Conservation Servicehttp://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/florida/lakeareaFL1975/Lake.pdf. 2012 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Florida - June 2012. USDA, NRCS, Fort Worth, TX.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1981 Leesburg West. LABINS mrg3926.tif.
Waller, Ben I. 1970 Some Occurrences of Paleo-Indian Projectile Points in Florida Waters. The Florida Anthropologist 23(4): 129-134.
P13055 6-11
Watts, William A. 1969 A Pollen Diagram from Mud Lake, Marion County, North-Central Florida. Geological Society of America Bulletin 80(4): 631-642. 1971 Post Glacial and Interglacial Vegetational History of Southern Georgia and Central Florida. Ecology 51: 676-690. 1975 A Late Quaternary Record of Vegetation from Lake Annie, South-Central Florida. Geology 3(6): 344-346.
Watts, William A., Eric C. Grimm, and T. C. Hussey 1996 Mid-Holocene Forest History of Florida and the Coastal Plain of Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. Edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 28-38. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Watts, William A. and Barbara C. S. Hansen 1994 Pre-Holocene and Holocene Pollen Records of Vegetation History for the Florida Peninsula and their Climatic Implications. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 109: 163-176.
Wayne, Lucy B. and Martin F. Dickinson 1993 Archaeological Excavations, Lake Jessup South Site (8SE580), Seminole County, Florida. SouthArc, Inc., Gainesville.
Weaver, Paul L., III, Historic Property Associates, and Pappas Associates Inc. 1996 Model Guidelines for Design Review: A Guide for Developing Standards for Historic Rehabilitation on Florida Communities. FDHR, Tallahassee.
Webb, S. David, Ed. 2006 First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Springer, The Netherlands.
Weisman, Brent R. 1989 Like Beads on a String. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1993 An Overview of the Prehistory of the Wekiva River Basin. The Florida Anthropologist 46(1): 20-36.
Wharton, Barry R., George R. Ballo, and Mitchell E. Hope 1981 The Republic Groves Site, Hardee County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34(2): 59-80.
Wheeler, Ryan J. and Ray M. McGee 1994a Technology of Mount Taylor Period Occupation, Groves' Orange Midden (8VO2601), Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4): 350-379. 1994b Wooden Artifacts from Groves' Orange Midden. The Florida Anthropologist 47(4): 380-389.
Wheeler, Ryan J., James J. Miller, Ray M. McGee, Donna L. Ruhl, Brenda Swann, and Melissa Memory 2003 Archaic Period Canoes from Newnan's Lake, Florida. American Antiquity 68(3): 533- 551.
P13055 6-12
Wheeler, Ryan J., Christine Newman, and Ray M. McGee 2000 A New Look at the Mount Taylor and Bluffton Sites, Volusia County, with an Outline of the Mount Taylor Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 52(2-3): 132-157.
White, William A. 1970 Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Geological Bulletin 51. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee.
Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113. 1982 Reprint. Florida Book Store, Gainesville. 1954 Burial Patterns in the Burns and Fuller Mounds, Cape Canaveral Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 7(3): 79-90.
Wing, Elizabeth S. and Laurie McKean 1987 Preliminary Study of the Animal Remains Excavated from the Hontoon Island Site. The Florida Anthropologist 40(1): 40-46.
Wright, James Leitch 1986 Creeks and Seminoles: The Destruction and Regeneration of the Muscogulge People. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Yates, William Brian 2000 Implications to Late Archaic Exchange Networks in the Southeast as Indicated by the Archaeological Evidence of Prehistoric Soapstone Vessels Throughout Florida. MS thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
P13055
APPENDIX A: FMSF Form
P13055 LA04408 Page 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM Site #8 ______Field Date ______7-1-2013 Original FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Form Date ______7-10-2013 Update Version 4.0 1/07 Recorder # ______Consult Guide to Archaeological Site Form for detailed instructions Site Name(s) ______Dragonfly Multiple Listing (DHR only) ______Project Name ______CRAS, Pine Ridge, Lake County, Florida Survey # (DHR only) ______Ownership: private-profit private-nonprofit private-individual private-nonspecific city county state federal Native American foreign unknown LOCATION & MAPPING
USGS 7.5 Map Name ______LEESBURG WEST USGS Date ______1981 Plat or Other Map ______City/Town (within 3 miles) ______Fruitland Park In City Limits? yes no unknown County ______Lake Township ______19S Range______24E Section ______7, 8 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: ______Approximately .8 miles south of CR466A and 1 mile east of Sumter/Lee County line. ______Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) ______
TYPE OF SITE (select all that apply) SETTING STRUCTURES OR FEATURES FUNCTION Land (terrestrial) Wetland (palustrine) log boat fort road segment campsite Lake/Pond (lacustrine) usually flooded agric/farm building midden shell midden extractive site River/Stream/Creek (riverine) usually dry burial mound mill shell mound habitation (prehistoric) Tidal (estuarine) Cave/Sink (subterranean) building remains mission shipwreck homestead (historic) Saltwater (marine) terrestrial cemetery/grave mound, nonspecific subsurface features farmstead aquatic dump/refuse plantation surface scatter village (prehistoric) earthworks (historic) platform mound well town (historic) Other Features or Functions (Choose from the list or type a response.) quarry 1. ______Artifact scatter-low density 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) ______Of 42 shovel tests placed in area of surface scatter ______only 11 were positive; no diagnostics from tests (recovered from surface only); limited artifacts recovered ______from tests; area has been significantly disturbed by agricultural activity; Recommendations for Owner or SHPO Action ______No additional work is recommended for assessment of NRHP eligibility ______
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]
LA04408 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) ______42 50x50x100 cm shovel tests conducted ______in area ______of surface scatter, 11 were positive. 1/4 inch screen used. ______SITE DESCRIPTION Extent Size (m2) ______50,625 Depth/stratigraphy of cultural deposit ______Artifacts recovered from 0 to 90 cmbs. No distinctive ______cultural level noted in shovel tests, artifacts on surface. ______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: s______ite is very disturbed due to past and present agricultural use, variety of surface artifacts suggest multiple occupation______of site. Integrity - Overall disturbance: none seen minor substantial major redeposited destroyed-document! unknown Disturbances / threats / protective measures ______Area is presently a peanut farm. ______Surface collection: area collected ______50,625 m2 # collection units ______1 Excavation: # noncontiguous blocks ______ARTIFACTS Total Artifacts #______99 count estimate Surface #______51 Subsurface #______48 COLLECTION SELECTIVITY ARTIFACT CATEGORIES and DISPOSITIONS select a disposition from the list below for S Aboriginal ceramics unknown unselective (all artifacts) ____ - ______each artifact category selected at left selective (some artifacts) ____S - ______Lithics mixed selectivity ____ - ______A - category always collected SPATIAL CONTROL ____ - ______S - some items in category collected uncollected general (not by subarea) ____ - ______O - observed first hand, but not collected unknown controlled (by subarea) ____ - ______R - collected and subsequently left at site variable spatial control ____ - ______I - informant reported category present other (describe in comments below) ____ - ______U - unknown Artifact Comments ______DIAGNOSTICS (type or mode, and frequency: e.g., Suwanee ppk, heat-treated chert, Deptford Check-stamped, ironstone/whiteware) 1. Pinellas______Plain N=_____2 4. Pasco______Cord Marked N=_____2 7. ______N=_____ 2. Carrabelle______Punctate N=_____4 5. ______N=_____ 8. ______N=_____ 3. Pasco______Plain N=_____1 6. ______N=_____ 9. ______N=_____ ENVIRONMENT Nearest fresh water: Type______Wetland Name______Distance from site (m) ______0 Natural community ______MESIC UPLANDS BLUFF Topography ______Hill slope Elevation: Min _____m20 Max _____m 23 Local vegetation ______cleared; however, likely oak scrub Present land use ______peanut farm SCS soil series ______Orsino fine sand, Myakka fine sand Soil association ______Astatula-Apopka and Montverde-Ocoee 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 ______Christine Newman Address / Phone / E-mail ______504 17th Street, St. Augustine, Florida, 32084/904-829-9100 ______Recorder Information: Name ______Christine Newman Affiliation ______Archaeological Consultants Inc Address / Phone / E-mail ______504 17th Street, St. Augustine, Florida 32084/904-829-9100 ______
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 # 8LA04408 USGS MAP Leesburg West Township 19 South, Range 24 East, Sections 7 & 8 National Geographic Society (2011) USA Topo Maps ¹
8LA04408
Meters Feet 0 200 400 0 500 1,000 Page 4 Archaeological Form Site # 8LA04408 PHOTOGRAPH
SHOVEL TEST MAP Legend ¹ ST positive ST negative Site boundary
wetland
Meters wetland Feet 0 50 100 0 100 200
APPENDIX B: Survey Log
P13055 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, Pine Ridge, Lake County, Florida, Phase I B BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW 7LWOH H[DFWO\ DV RQ WLWOH SDJH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCultural Resource Assessment Survey, Pine Ridge, Lake County, Florida.BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW $XWKRUV DV RQ WLWOH SDJH ODVW QDPHV ILUVW . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBAlmy, Marion . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBNewman, Christine . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBHorvath, Beth . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBWinkler, Justin 3XEOLFDWLRQ 'DWH \HDU BBBBBBBBBB2013 7RWDO 1XPEHU RI 3DJHV LQ 5HSRUW FRXQW WH[W ILJXUHV WDEOHV QRW VLWH IRUPV BBBBBBBBBBB46 3XEOLFDWLRQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ *LYH VHULHV QXPEHU LQ VHULHV SXEOLVKHU DQG FLW\. )RU DUWLFOH RU FKDSWHU FLWH SDJH QXPEHUV. 8VH WKH VW\OH RI $PHULFDQ $QWLTXLW\. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBArchaeological Consultants, Inc., 2013, Cultural Resource Assessment Survey,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB Pine Ridge, Lake BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCounty, Florida. Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6XSHUYLVRUV RI )LHOGZRUN HYHQ LI VDPH DV DXWKRU 1DPHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBAlmy, Marion; Newman, Christine; Winkler $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 . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBDairy Farm .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBPeanut farm .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
6XUYH\ 6SRQVRUV FRUSRUDWLRQ JRYHUQPHQW XQLW RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU SHUVRQ GLUHFWO\ IXQGLQJ ILHOGZRUN 1DPH. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBGrant and Dzuro 2UJDQL]DWLRQ. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $GGUHVV3KRQH(PDLO. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB1045 Lake Sumter Landing, The Villages, Florida 32162 BBBBBBBBBBB 5HFRUGHU RI /RJ 6KHHW BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBNewman, Christine 'DWH /RJ 6KHHW &RPSOHWHG BBBBBBBBBBB12-20-2013
,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\ . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBLake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x50x100 cm shovel tests across project area; 180 in moderate toBBBBBBBB high BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBprobability area, 99 in low probability and judgmental, 16 bounding. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB1/4 in screen. 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 w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research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¹ Kilometers Miles 00.51 0 0.25 0.5 Pine Ridge Sections 6, 7, 8, and 18 of Township 19 South, Range 24 East USGS Leesburg West Lake County National Geographic Society 2013 - USA Topo Maps APPENDIX F UNIFORM MITIGATION ASSESSMENT METHOD DATA SHEETS FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc PART I —Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Villages of Fruitland Park Wetland B FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 641 Impact 1.33 acres Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e. OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Southern Ocklawaha River Class III None Hydrologic Basin Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands The assessment area is hydrologically isolated and surrounded by on-going agricultural activities. Assessment area description Historically, freshwater marshes contained arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.), knotweed (Polygonum spp.), beaksedge (Rhynchospora spp.), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), waterlily (Nymphaea spp.), spatterdock (Nuphar advena), and similar taxa. Currently, the assessment area contain dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), cattail (Typha sp.), southern amaranth (Amarathus australis), soft rush (Juncus effusus), southern umbrellasedge (Fuirena scirpoidea), stiff marsh bedstraw (Galium tinctorium), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), fireweed (Erechtites hieraciifolius), vaseygrass (Paspalum urvillei), chufa flatsedge (Cyperus esculentus), mock bishopsweed (Ptilimnium capillaceum), grassleaf rush (Juncus marginatus), maidencane, and frog’s-bit (Limnobium spongia). The edges contained Carolina willow, Peruvian primrosewillow (Ludwigia peruviana), and elderberry (Sambucus nigra subsp. canadensis). In addition, portions of the wetland have been excavated and bermed. Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional landscape) To the west is The Villages of Lake-Sumter development, to the north is CR The assessment area is not unique to the Site or the region. 466A, to the south is the mitigation area known as the Wiechens Preserve, and to the east is wetland, agriculture, and rural areas. Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use In general, wetlands provide water storage, groundwater recharge, water None. quality improvement (reduce nutrients), and habitat and refuge for various wildlife, fish, and invertebrates. Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (list of species that Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (list species, their legal classification are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found) (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the assessment area) The assessment area may provide habitat for song birds, waterfowl, wading Little blue heron (SSC), snowy egret (SSC), tricolored heron (SSC), whit ibis (SSC), birds, and small mammals, such as red-winged blackbirds, wood ducks, great wood stork (E), Florida sandhill crane (ST). blue herons, otters, and muskrats. In addition, amphibians and reptiles are likely to utilize areas similar to the assessment area. Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (list species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.) Little blue heron Additional relevant factors Assessment conducted by Assessment date(s): Jennifer L. Rosinski, BDA July 2013, January 2014 P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Mitigation\UMAM\UMAM Impact-B.docx Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004] PART II —Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Villages of Fruitland Park Wetland B Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment conducted by Assessment date Impact Jennifer L. Rosinski, BDA July 2013, January 2014 Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate (7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0) The scoring of each indicator is Condition is optimal and Condition is less than optimal, Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to based on what would be suitable fully supports but sufficient to maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface water for the type of wetland or surface wetland/surface water wetland/surface water functions functions functions water assessed functions .500(6)(a) Location and Current: Assessment area are surrounded by agricultural land (row crops, and historically dairy cattle), which provide low to Landscape Support moderate wildlife support. w/o pres or With Project: The assessment area will be filled for Project development. current with 6 0 .500(6)(b) Water Environment Current: Assessment areas hydrology is sufficient to support a freshwater marsh community, but has been altered from the (n/a for uplands) historic condition by substantial water quality alterations (cattle excrement, fertilizer). The excavation and berming of the wetland has alerted the historic hydropattern. w/o pres or current with With Project: The assessment area will be filled for Project development. 5 0 .500(6)(c) Community Structure Current: Assessment areas community structure is representative of a freshwater marsh community with the addition of numerous nuisance and exotic species. Relative to the historic or optimal condition, this community structure has low 1. Vegetation and/or functionality. 2. Benthic Community With Project: The assessment area will be filled for Project development. w/o pres or current with 5 0 Score = sum of above scores/30 If preservation as mitigation For impact assessment areas (If uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = Functional Loss = delta x acres w/o pres or Adjusted mitigation delta = = 0.53*1.33 = 0.71 current with 0.53 0 Delta = (with-current) If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas 0.53 Time lag (t-factor) = Relative Functional Gain = delta/(t-factor x risk) Risk factor = P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Mitigation\UMAM\UMAM Impact-B.docx Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004] PART I —Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Villages of Fruitland Park Wetlands F, G, H FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 641/631 Mitigation Site - Enhancement 75.10 acres Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e. OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Southern Ocklawaha River Class III None. Hydrologic Basin Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands Proposed wetland enhancement area is located adjacent to the Wiechens Preserve. The assessment areas are hydrologically connected via ditches to the Wiechens Preserve and, ultimately, off-site to Lake Okahumpka. Assessment area description Historically, freshwater marshes contained arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.), knotweed (Polygonum spp.), beaksedge (Rhynchospora spp.), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), waterlily (Nymphaea spp.), spatterdock (Nuphar advena), and similar taxa. Wetland shrub communities contained similar taxa but with the addition and predominance of willow (Salix sp.), primrosewillow (Ludwigia sp.), and St. John’s-wort (Hypericum sp.). Currently, the assessment areas contain dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), cattail (Typha sp.), southern amaranth (Amarathus australis), soft rush (Juncus effusus), southern umbrellasedge (Fuirena scirpoidea), stiff marsh bedstraw (Galium tinctorium), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), fireweed (Erechtites hieraciifolius), vaseygrass (Paspalum urvillei), chufa flatsedge (Cyperus esculentus), mock bishopsweed (Ptilimnium capillaceum), grassleaf rush (Juncus marginatus), maidencane, and frog’s-bit (Limnobium spongia). The edges contained Carolina willow, Peruvian primrosewillow (Ludwigia peruviana), and elderberry (Sambucus nigra subsp. canadensis). Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional landscape) To the west is The Villages of Lake-Sumter development, to the north is CR The assessment area is not unique to the Site or the region. 466A, to the south is the mitigation area known as the Wiechens Preserve, and to the east is wetland, agriculture, and rural areas. Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use In general, wetlands provide water storage, groundwater recharge, water None. quality improvement (reduce nutrients), and habitat and refuge for various wildlife, fish, and invertebrates. Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (list of species that Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (list species, their legal classification are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found) (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the assessment area) The assessment area may provide habitat for song birds, waterfowl, wading Little blue heron (SSC), snowy egret (SSC), tricolored heron (SSC), whit ibis (SSC), birds, and small mammals, such as red-winged blackbirds, wood ducks, great wood stork (E), Florida sandhill crane (ST), American alligator (T/SA) blue herons, otters, and muskrats. In addition, amphibians and reptiles are likely to utilize areas similar to the assessment area. Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (list species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.) Little blue heron, American alligator. Additional relevant factors Assessment conducted by Assessment date(s): Jennifer L. Rosinski, BDA July 2013, January 2014 P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Mitigation\UMAM\UMAM_Mitigation-F-G-H.doc Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004] PART II —Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Villages of Fruitland Park Wetlands F, G, H Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment conducted by Assessment date Mitigation - Enhancement Jennifer L. Rosinski, BDA July 2013, January 2014 Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate (7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0) The scoring of each indicator is Condition is optimal and Condition is less than optimal, Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to based on what would be suitable fully supports but sufficient to maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface water for the type of wetland or surface wetland/surface water wetland/surface water functions functions functions water assessed functions .500(6)(a) Location and Current: The proposed wetland enhancement areas currently consist of freshwater marsh and wetland shrub cover types. The Landscape Support surrounding land use is row crops with little cover or support for wetland dependent wildlife. The relatively open crop area is not particularly conducive for movement of wildlife into or out of the wetland. This and the surrounding land use limit utilization by w/o pres or wildlife since there is little refuge or foraging opportunity within the assessment area. However, to the south is the Wiechens current with Preserve which provides suitable habitat and cover. With mitigation (enhancement): The upland crop area adjacent to the assessment area will be allowed to re-vegetate with native 6 7 upland vegetation. Nearby areas will largely be mass graded and ultimately developed into residential housing with stormwater management facilities. The wildlife in the assessment area will benefit from the elimination of physical disturbance and nutrient loading from removing crops and cattle, and enhanced water quality with a wide, naturally vegetated buffer. The e natural recruitment of vegetation will provide improved cover and foraging opportunity for wildlife. .500(6)(b) Water Environment Current: The assessment area has sufficient hydrology to support the freshwater marsh and wetland shrub communities, (n/a for uplands) however the natural circulation has been altered from the historical condition by ditching. The water quality has been degraded over time due to dairy cattle and crop fertilizers. w/o pres or current with With mitigation (enhancement): The area will have improved water quality for the wetland cover type. Vegetation will be 6 7 allowed to recruit naturally and agricultural utilization of the surrounding land will be eliminated so that vegetation will reflect species that are appropriate for this type of system. .500(6)(c) Community Structure Current: The assessment area has vegetation representative of freshwater marsh and wetland shrub communities, but with the presence of nuisance/exotic species. Adjacent agricultural plants have encroached into the wetlands. 1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community With mitigation (enhancement): The assessment area will be enhanced by eliminating physical disturbance and reducing nutrient loading from agricultural operations, and native, desirable wetland plants will recruit to restore the natural condition. w/o pres or Maintenance will be implemented to ensure that the percent areal cover of nuisance/exotic (N/E) plant species within this area is current with maintained below 5% total areal cover. 6 7 Score = sum of above scores/30 If preservation as mitigation For impact assessment areas (If uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = Functional Loss = delta x acres w/o pres or Adjusted mitigation delta = current with 0.60 0.70 Delta = (with-current) If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas 0.10 Time lag (t-factor) = 1.10 Relative Functional Gain = delta/(t-factor x risk) Risk factor = 1.25 ( 75.01)*[0.10/(1.10*1.25)]= 5.46 P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Mitigation\UMAM\UMAM_Mitigation-F-G-H.doc Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004] APPENDIX G MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE THE VILLAGES OF LAKE SUMTER, INC LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 1.0 MITIGATION PLAN DESCRIPTION Mitigation for the Villages of Fruitland Park Project (Project) consists of enhancement of wetlands. Wetlands on the site have been heavily impacted by agricultural activities, including ditching, intense dairy cattle utilization, and runoff from adjacent row crops. All mitigation areas will be monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan herein with details provided in accordance with Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook Volume I (October 1, 2013) (Handbook), Sections 10.3.3.2 and 10.3.4. Wetlands F, G, and H receive runoff from the adjacent agricultural operation, which is currently in row crops but has historically been a dairy farm. Cessation of the agricultural operation and implementation of a comprehensive program to remove nuisance/exotic (N/E) vegetation from the wetland and adjacent upland buffer will allow natural recruitment of native vegetation. The N/E maintenance plan will be implemented to maintain the N/E vegetation <5% areal coverage, with N/E maintenance performed as necessary until the success criteria are met. The combination of changes in adjacent land use and N/E removal will result in enhancement of the wetlands by improving water quality and community structure, as well as landscape support for wildlife. 2.0 MONITORING PLAN DESCRIPTION 2.1 Transect Selection and Set-up Monitoring transects will be established as a straight line from the upland buffer to the wetland interior, and will be chosen such that it provides the best opportunity to fully assess all aspects of the wetland and to include the enhancement areas as much as possible. A total of six monitoring transects will be established, with two on each system (two on wetland F, two on wetland H, and two on wetland G). See maps of current conditions and proposed mitigation (Attachment 1)1. Transect locations and exact length will be determined in the field during the Baseline monitoring event and will be included in the Baseline report. Each monitoring transect will be up to 50-m in length with monitoring stations established at the point of beginning, at 25-m and 50-m (or end of transect). Transects and monitoring stations will be established and monumented during the Baseline monitoring event, which will occur concurrent with or prior to the onset of construction of the Project. Monitoring will be conducted semi-annually and results reported annually. 1 Figures 2.0-1 and 5.0-1 from Section 5.0 of the Breedlove, Dennis & Associates, Inc. (BDA) ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS REPORT FOR THE APPLICATION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK MASS GRADE PROJECT SITE, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA. P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Mitigation\monitoring plan.doc 2.2 Data Collection Transects will be up to 50-m long (approximately 200-feet). Transect length will be reduced if open water is encountered prior to 50-m. Exact length of the transects will be reported in the Baseline report. Percent aerial coverage of emergent vegetation will be recorded within a meter-square at the point of beginning, at 25-m and 50-m (or end of transect) along the transect; vegetation will include percent cover of N/E vegetation. 3.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA, SCHEDULE, AND REPORTING 3.1 Success Criteria a. Desirable, native wetland vegetation with a coverage of 80% in the emergent zones of the enhancement areas; b. Nuisance/exotic vegetation with a coverage of 5% or less within the mitigation areas. 3.2 Semi-Annual Monitoring and Annual Reporting The following information will be collected semi-annually: 3.2.1 Standard Data Wetland Type, Personnel, Date, Time, general weather conditions and antecedent weather. 3.2.2 Vegetation Coverage The vegetation assessment will be conducted at the monitoring stations along the transect, to assess the composition and percent areal coverage of the most common groundcover, shrub, and tree species in the monitored wetland. Suitability will be based on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection listed Obligate Wetland (OBL), Facultative Wetland (FACW), Facultative (FAC), or Upland designations. 3.2.3 Photography Photographs will be taken of the wetland interior in each cardinal direction at the point-of- beginning and the point-of-end as established during the Baseline Monitoring event. 3.2.4 General Site Condition All wildlife utilization will be recorded. This will include sign (auditory call, tracks, etc.) or direct observations. Water level or soil moisture condition as noted in the field will be recorded. Any other data deemed notable will be recorded. P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Mitigation\monitoring plan.doc 3.3 Anticipated Schedule The following schedule is based on a permit issue date of April 2014. Date Event April 2014 Baseline Monitoring event October 2014 Baseline Report April and August 2015 First and Second Semi-annual Monitoring events October 2015 First Annual Report April and August 2016 Third and Fourth Semi-annual Monitoring event October 2016 Second Annual Report April and August 2017 Fifth and Sixth Semi-annual Monitoring event October 2017 Third/Final Report 3.4 Reporting Vegetation coverage and site data will be used to assess success of the mitigation plan. The prevalence of OBL, FACW, and FAC vegetation will be assessed in the wetland mitigation areas; it is assumed that normal composition of species are a result of normal wetland hydrology. The coverage of N/E vegetation will be included in the assessment of success. Results of the semi-annual monitoring events will be compared to baseline information, and will be included in annual reports prepared for the project. Semi-annual monitoring will be conducted for three years following the Baseline event. The data included in these reports will be utilized to determine compliance with success criteria. 3.5 Cost and Financial Assurances The cost for this mitigation plan is estimated at $123,000 for the baseline plus three years of monitoring and N/E maintenance on a quarterly basis (Attachment 2). In accordance with Handbook Sections 10.3.3.2(p) and 10.3.7.2, Financial Assurances in the amount of 110% of the estimated cost are included in Attachment 3 in the form of a Security Agreement. P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Mitigation\monitoring plan.doc °! BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Consultants BDA Mitigation Cost Estimate for The Villages of Fruitland Park Project Site, Lake County, Florida. Responsible Party Activity Estimated Cost Mitigation over-site, semi-annual monitoring Breedlove, Dennis & and annual reporting (baseline plus three $60,000 Associates, Inc. years), agency coordination Exotic plant removal and maintenance (Initial Aquatic Weed Control $63,000 plus three years of quarterly treatments) Total $123,000 110% Cost $135,300 P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Mitigation\cost_estimate.doc SECURITY AGREEMENT PLEDGE OF CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING THIS SECURITY AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made this day of , 2014, by and between the SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, whose address is 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604 (the “District”), and THE VILLAGES OF LAKE-SUMTER, INC., a Florida corporation, whose address is 990 Old Mill Run, The Villages, Florida 32162 (“The Villages”), collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”. RECITALS A. The District has issued Environmental Resource Permit # ______(the “Permit”) in favor of The Villages. B. Pursuant to its obligations set forth in the Permit, The Villages will be undertaking certain mitigation monitoring and reporting activities in the area described in the Permit. C. As a condition to the District’s issuance of the Permit, the District requires The Villages to provide financial assurance that such mitigation monitoring and reporting activities are performed in accordance with Permit conditions. D. The Villages wishes to pledge a certificate of deposit in favor of the District to provide such financial assurance, and the District is willing to hold a security interest in the certificate of deposit in exchange for issuing the Permit. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained, the Parties agree: 1. Creation of Security Interest. In consideration of the District issuing the Permit, The Villages hereby pledges, assigns, delivers and grants a security interest to the District in the certificate of deposit attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and made a part hereof (hereinafter referred to as the “Certificate of Deposit”). 2. Obligation Secured. District shall hold the Certificate of Deposit to secure The Villages’ mitigation monitoring and reporting obligations under the Permit. 3. Transfer of Certificate of Deposit to the District. The Villages hereby appoints the District as its attorney in fact to arrange for the transfer of the Certificate of Deposit on the books of Citizens First Bank (the “Bank”). Page 1 of 4 4. Substitution or Exchange of Certificate of Deposit. With the consent of the District, The Villages may substitute or exchange other certificates of deposit in place of those herein mentioned, and all of the rights and privileges of the District and all of the obligations of The Villages with respect to such Certificate of Deposit originally pledged or held as collateral hereunder shall be forthwith applied to such substituted or exchanged certificates of deposit. 5. Assignment. This Agreement is for the benefit of the District, its successors or assigns. The Bank shall execute this Agreement where indicated below acknowledging the assignment, pledge and security agreement in favor of the District. The Bank, by acknowledging such pledge, agrees to hold the Certificate of Deposit for the benefit of the District and to comply with all instructions of the District regarding the redemption and distribution of the funds represented by such Certificate of Deposit until such time as the District has executed the release of pledge below. The Villages agrees to hold the Bank harmless from any and all obligations it has in complying with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 6. Demand for Payment. In the event The Villages fails to complete its mitigation monitoring and reporting activities in accordance with the terms set forth in the Permit, then the District shall have the right to demand payment of the Certificate of Deposit so pledged and complete the work on behalf of The Villages. Such demand shall be evidenced by a statement from a District Director that The Villages has not completed its monitoring and reporting in accordance with the terms set forth in the Permit. Such notarized statement shall be delivered to the Bank, or such other institution holding the pledged Certificate of Deposit, and said Bank shall immediately release, deliver and pay over to the District the funds represented by said Certificate of Deposit. Alternatively, in the event The Villages completes its mitigation monitoring and reporting obligations as set forth in the Permit, then, at the time the District issues a letter, or equivalent, indicating the same, the District shall execute and deliver to The Villages, The Release of Pledge indicated below. 7. Representations and Warranties with Respect to the Certificate of Deposit. The Villages represents and warrants to the District that: A. Ownership. The Villages is the lawful owner of the Certificate of Deposit. B. Right to Pledge. The Villages has the full right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to pledge the Certificate of Deposit. C. Authority; Binding Effect. The Villages has full right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to grant a security interest in the Certificate of Deposit. This Agreement is binding upon The Villages, its successors and assigns, and is legally enforceable in accordance with its terms. The foregoing representations and warranties, and all other representations warranties contained in this Agreement are and shall be continuing in nature and shall remain in full force and effect until such time as this Agreement has been Page 2 of 4 released by the District. D. No Assignment. The Villages has not, and shall not, sell, assign, transfer, encumber or otherwise dispose of any of The Villages’ rights in the Certificate of Deposit. E. No Defaults. There are no defaults existing under this Certificate of Deposit, and there are no offsets or counterclaims to the same. The Villages will strictly and promptly perform each of the terms, conditions, covenants and agreements, if any, contained in the Certificate of Deposit, which are to be performed by The Villages. F. No Violation. The execution and delivery of this Agreement will not violate any law or agreement governing The Villages or to which The Villages is a party. 8. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute a continuing agreement applying to any and all future, as well as existing, transactions between the Parties, and all powers, rights, privileges, obligations, and duties herein set forth shall apply to, inure to the benefit of, and be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties. 9. Acknowledgment of Receipt. The District hereby acknowledges receipt of a receipt executed by Bank evidencing receipt by Bank of the Certificate of Deposit attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Agreement on the date and year first written above. WITNESSES: THE VILLAGES OF LAKE-SUMTER, INC., a Florida corporation ______By:______Print Name: ______Print Name: Title: ______Print Name:______ WITNESSES: SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ______By: ______Print Name:______Print Name: Title: ______Print Name:______ Page 3 of 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PLEDGE Certificate of Deposit # Principal Balance $ 135,300 Citizens First Bank hereby acknowledges that the above referenced Certificate of Deposit, which has been pledged in favor of the District and until such time as the District executes and delivers the Release set forth below, the Bank agrees to comply with all instructions of the District regarding the redemption and distribution of the funds represented by such Certificate of Deposit. CITIZENS FIRST BANK By:______Print Name:______Title: ______ RELEASE OF PLEDGE District hereby acknowledges satisfaction of all mitigation monitoring and reporting obligations of The Villages pursuant to the Permit and hereby instructs the Bank to remove from its records the Security Agreement-Pledge of Certificate of Deposit and henceforth to comply with all instructions of The Villages regarding the redemption and distribution of proceeds represented by such Certificate of Deposit. WITNESSES: SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ______By: ______Print Name:______Print Name: ______Title:______Print Name:______ Page 4 of 4