CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY BLUEFIELD WATER FARM ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA

Prepared for:

DRAFTHazen and Sawyer 4000 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 750N Hollywood, Florida 33201

Prepared by:

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

Marion Almy - Project Manager Christine Newman - Project Archaeologist Justin Winkler - Chief Field Archaeologist Thomas J. Wilson - Architectural Historian

With assistance from Greg Smith, Ph.D.

November 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) of the 6000 acre Bluefield Water Farm property in St. Lucie County, Florida, for Hazen and Sawyer. The purpose of this investigation was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the project area and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

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

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

ACI further refined the predictive model using historic aerial photographs as recommended in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) (Smith 2008) using these data. ACI’s survey delimited 35 zones of archaeological potential (ZAPs) which were shovel tested, and supplemental testing was conducted in low probability areas throughout the study area.

The archaeological background research indicated that no archaeological sites are recorded within the project tract; however, two sites are recorded immediately adjacent to the east and seven sites are recorded within one mile. The two sites adjacent to the property, 8SL03052 and 8SL03069, are prehistoric midden sites that were recorded as a result of a CRAS of the adjacent property. Human remains were found at site 8SL03059. It should be noted that the predictive model used on the adjacent property was based on the CERP model which was also used for the current project. As a result of ACI’s survey, one prehistoric site 8SL03288, Bluefield, and one Archaeological Occurrence (AO) were identified. Site 8SL03288 represents a small camp/extractive site from an unspecified prehistoric period. The site is situated in a grove where ditching, redeposition, and mixing of soil has occurred. Limited artifacts were recovered and no evidence of subsurface features was observed. Based on this information, the site is not considered eligible for the NRHP and has a low potential to yield significant information.

A review of the FMSF and the NRHP indicated that no previously recorded historic resources are located within the property. As a result of field survey, one newly identified historic resource was recorded and evaluated. The circa 1927 dwelling represents a typical example of an altered Frame Vernacular style residential building found throughout St. Lucie County and the state of Florida, and

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm research revealed no significant historic associations. Thus, this resources, 8SL03285, is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP, either individually or as part of a historic district. Based on the results of background research and field survey, it is the opinion of ACI, that development of the Bluefield Water Farm parcel will have no effect on any cultural resources that are listed or considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.

DRAFT

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose ...... 1-1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 2-1 2.1 Project Location and Environment ...... 2-1 2.2 Geology and Physiography ...... 2-1 2.3 Soils ...... 2-1 2.4 Paleoenvironmental Considerations ...... 2-6 3.0 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY ...... 3-1 3.1 Paleoindian ...... 3-1 3.2 Archaic Period ...... 3-3 3.3 Glades ...... 3-5 3.3.1 Glades I ...... 3-6 3.3.2 Glades II (sub periods a, b, and c) ...... 3-6 3.3.3DRAFT Glades III (sub periods a, b and c) ...... 3-6 3.4 East Okeechobee ...... 3-6 3.5 Colonialism ...... 3-7 3.6 Territorial and Statehood ...... 3-9 3.7 Civil War and Aftermath ...... 3-10 3.8 Twentieth Century ...... 3-13 3.9 Project Specific Background ...... 3-14 4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS ...... 4-1 4.1 Archaeological Considerations ...... 4-1 4.2 Identification of ZAPs for Bluefield ...... 4-5 4.3 Historic Site Considerations ...... 4-6 4.4 Field Methodology ...... 4-7 4.5 Informant Interviews ...... 4-8 4.6 Unexpected Discoveries ...... 4-8 4.7 Laboratory Methods and Curation ...... 4-8 5.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 5-1 5.1 Archaeological Survey Results ...... 5-1 5.2 Historic/Architectural Results ...... 5-8 5.3 Conclusions ...... 5-9 6.0 REFERENCES CITED ...... 6-1

APPENDICES Appendix A: FMSF Forms Appendix B: Survey Log

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTOGRAPHS

Page Figure

Figure 1.1. Project location, St. Lucie County...... 1-2 Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Bluefield Water Farm project area, St. Lucie County...... 2-2 Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions...... 3-2 Figure 3.2. 1853 plat showing the project area...... 3-11 Figure 3.3. 1944 aerial photographs of the project area...... 3-15 Figure 4.1. Location of cultural resources proximate to the project area...... 4-2 Figure 4.2. Location of zones of archaeological potential within the project area...... 4-4 Figure 5.1. Location of the shovel tests and zones of archaeological potential within the project area...... 5-2 Figure 5.2. Location of shovel tests, newly recorded site (8SL03288), archaeological occurrence and zones of archaeological potential within the project area...... 5-3 Figure 5.3. Location of the shovel tests, newly recorded site (8SL03288), archaeological occurrence and zones of archaeological potential within the project area...... 5-4 Figure 5.4. LocationDRAFT of the shovel tests and zones of archaeological potential within the project area...... 5-5 Figure 5.5. Shovel test locations at 8SL03288...... 5-7

Table

Table 2.1. Soil types, drainage, setting, and vegetation of the project area...... 2-5 Table 3.1. Glades Chronology (Griffin 2002; Janus Research 2008)...... 3-5 Table 3.2. East Okeechobee Chronology (Janus Research 2008)...... 3-7 Table 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the project area...... 4-1 Table 5.1. Summary of results...... 5-1

Photo

Photo 2.1. Looking to the east at typical conditions found on property...... 2-3 Photo 2.2. Looking to the south at conditions in northwest portion of property ...... 2-3 Photo 2.3. Looking to the south at typical condition of groves and ditching on property...... 2-4 Photo 2.4. Looking to the south at the pipeline construction along the western boundary of the property...... 2-4 Photo 5.1. Site 8SL03288, looking west...... 5-6 Photo 5.2. Bluefield Water Farm Residence (8SL03285), facing west...... 5-8

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) of the 6000 acre Bluefield Water Farm property for Hazen and Sawyer. The project area (Figure 1.1) is located immediately to the east of Bluefield Road and Okeechobee Road (SR 70) is located to the north. The St. Lucie/Martin County boundary is immediately south and the St. Lucie/Okeechobee boundary is to the west of the project area in western St. Lucie County, Florida. Bluefield Ranch Preserve is located to the west.

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

1.2 Purpose

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

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 1-1 POLK

STLUCIE ¹

HIGHLANDS !

MARTIN ¨¦§95 GLADES

PALMBEACH DRAFT

00.51 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, 012 Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Kilometers 2015 Figure 1.1. Project location, St. Lucie County.

1-2

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

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

2.1 Project Location and Environment

The 6000 acre Bluefield Water Farm project area falls within Sections 2-4, 10-15, and 23-26, Township 37 South, Range 37 East on the Okeechobee 1SW (Jones Hammock), Okeechobee ISE (North of Bluefield), and Okeechobee 4NE U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Figure 2.1). Bluefield Road is located immediately to the west and Okeechobee Road (SR 70) is located approximately two and one half miles to the north. The St. Lucie/Martin County boundary is immediately south and the St. Lucie/Okeechobee boundary is approximately three miles to the west. The north-south sectionDRAFT of C23 Canal is located adjacent and east of the property. To the south of the project area, the Canal turns to the east. The C23 is one of three major canals discharging into the St. Lucie estuary (Florida Department of Environmental Protection [FDEP] 2000.)

The topography of the project area is nearly level. The land has been altered by an extensive network of ditching, canal construction, grove roads, and berm creation, and has been used for citrus grove production since the 1960s. A water reservoir is located in the northwestern corner of the property and pipeline construction is present along the western boundary. Photos 2.1-2.4 provide a representation of current environmental conditions across the project area.

2.2 Geology and Physiography

Physiographically, the project area is located within the Eastern Valley region, although the Osceola Plain is located along the western boundary (White 1970). The Eastern Valley is a flat, relict beach plain with elevations ranging from 5 to 9 meters (m) (15 to 30 feet [ft]) above mean sea level (amsl) and is characteristically pocketed with shallow lakes and marshes with poor natural drainage. The native vegetation is typically pine, sawpalmetto, and pineland threeawn and most soils have a sandy surface layer with a weakly cemented subsoil. Much of the land in this physiographic region is used for range or has been planted in citrus or improved pasture grasses (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1980:2-3). The eastern portion of the property falls within the Allapattah flats district and the western portion is within the Holopaw-Indian Town ridges and swales (Brooks 1981). The project area’s historic vegetation is classified as prairie grasslands and freshwater marsh in the eastern side of the property and pine flatwoods in the western side (Davis 1967). The elevation, as shown on the 1953 USGG quadrangle map, is 8 to 9 m (25 to 30 ft) amsl (USGS 1953a).

2.3 Soils

The majority of the project area is composed of soil of the Pineda-Wabasso-Riviera association, a type found in swamps, marshes, and very wet areas that are subject to ponding or flooding. Soils of this association are nearly level and poorly drained. A small portion of the property along the northern

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 2-1 ¹

DRAFT

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Figure 2.1. Environmental setting of the Bluefield Water Farm project area; Sections 2-4, 10-15, 23-26 and 36 of Township 37 South, Range 37 East (USGS Okeechobee 1SW, 1SE and 4NE).

2-2

DRAFT

Photo 2.1. Looking to the east at typical conditions found on property.

Photo 2.2. Looking to the south at conditions in northwest portion of property. Testing was not possible in this portion of the property

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 2-3

DRAFT

Photo 2.3. Looking to the south at typical condition of groves and ditching on property. Note the approximately 2 m depth of row ditching.

Photo 2.4. Looking to the south at the pipeline construction along the western boundary of the property.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 2-4

boundary is of the Nettles-Ankona-Pepper association, a type found on low ridges, knolls, and flatwoods. Soil of this association are also nearly level and poorly drained (USDA 1980, 2016).

Soil types specific to the project area, as well as the drainage and environmental setting, are listed in Table 2.1 (USDA 1980, 2016). The soils that potentially would support hardwood trees, according to the USDA, and potentially more of a hammock type environment are highlighted in green. These would have a higher archaeological potential based on native vegetation, as well as a slightly higher elevation relative to the surrounding terrain. It should be noted that sites might also be expected to occur in small, elevated areas adjacent to water that contain hammocks that are not characterized as such in the following table.

Table 2.1. Soil types, drainage, setting, and vegetation of the project area. NAME DRAINAGE SETTING Ankona-Urban land complex Poorly drained Flatwoods Rises Arents, 0-5% slopes Somewhat poorly drained

Arents, 45-65% slopes Well drained Ridges Arents, organic substratum Somewhat poorly drained Rises Basinger sand, 0-2% slopes Poorly drained Drainageways, flats Chobee loam sand,DRAFT depressional 01% slopes Very poorly drained Depressions Floridana sand, depressional Very poorly drained Depressions Hallandale sand Poorly drained Flats Hilolo loamy sand Poorly drained Flats Kaliga muck, frequently ponded, 0-1% slopes Very poorly drained Depressions Lawnwood and Myakka sands Poorly drained Flatwoods Pepper and EauGallie sands Poorly drained Flatwoods Pineda sand Poorly drained Drainageways, flats Pople sand Poorly drained Drainageways, flats Riveria sand, depressional, 0-1% slopes Very poorly drained Depressions Rivera fine sand, 0-2% slopes Very poorly drained Depressions Samsula muck, frequently ponded, 0-1% Very poorly drained Depressions slopes Wabasso sand, 0-2% slopes Poorly drained Wabasso fine sand, gravelly substratum Poorly drained Flatwoods Waveland and Immokalee fine sands Poorly drained Flatwoods Waveland-Lawnwood complex, depressional Very poorly drained Depressions Winder sand, depressional Very poorly drained Depressions Winder loamy sand Poorly drained Flats Winder sand, shell substratum Poorly drained Flats

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 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 arid conditions between 16,500 and 12,500 years ago, the perched water aquifer and potable water supplies were absent (Dunbar 1981:95). Palynological studies conducted in Florida and Georgia suggest that between 13,000 and 5000 years ago, this area was covered with an upland vegetation community of scrub oak and prairie (Watts 1969, 1971, 1975). However, the environment was not static. Evidence recovered from the inundated Page-Ladson Site in north Florida has clearly demonstrated that there were two periods of low water tables and dry climatic conditions and two episodes of elevated water tables and wet conditions (Dunbar 2006).

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

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 2-6

3.0 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY

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

The post-Archaic cultures of Florida are defined largely in geographical (regional) terms but also reflect shared environmental and cultural factors. The project area is situated at the interface of the Okeechobee Basin and Glades archaeological regions; however, since most of the sites in the general area are associated with the Glades archaeological cultural area, the project area has been placed within this context as well. It should be recognized that many researchers identify “districts” within the larger Glades Region, and the East Okeechobee district has been identified as being present in the general area (see Carr andDRAFT Beriault 1984; Griffin 1988, 2002; Janus 2008; Smith, et al. 2009 for further discussion) (Figure 3.1).

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

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

3.1 Paleoindian

Current archaeological evidence indicates that the earliest human occupation of the Florida peninsula dates back some 13,500 years ago or ca. 11,500 BCE (Widmer 1988). The earliest occupation is referred to as the Paleoindian period. It lasted until approximately 7000 BCE. During this time, the climate of South Florida was much drier than today. Sea level was 80 to 130 m (260-425 ft) lower than present and the coast extended approximately 160 km (100 mi) seaward on the Gulf coast. With lower sea levels, today’s well-watered inland environments were arid uplands (Milanich 1994). Major water

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 3-1 Post-500 BCE regions of precolumbian Florida ¹ (adapted from Milanich 1994: xix)

1 2

3 5 DRAFT 4

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

0 50 100 Miles Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 0100200 CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, Kilometers IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Figure 3.1. Florida Archaeological Regions. The project area is within the Okeechobee Basin Region.

3-2

much lower than at present (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Potable water was obtainable at sinkholes where the lower water table could be reached. Plant and animal life were also more diverse around the oases that were frequented by both people and game animals (Milanich 1994; Widmer 1988).

Thus, the prevailing environmental conditions were largely uninviting to human habitation during the Paleoindian period (Griffin 1988:191). Given the inhospitable climate, it is not surprising that the population was sparse and Paleoindian sites are uncommon in south Florida. Exceptions include two sites to the north in Sarasota County, Little Salt Springs (Clausen et al. 1979) and Warm Mineral Springs (Clausen et al. 1975a, 1975b; Cockrell and Murphy 1978) and one site to the southeast, Cutler Fossil Site, in Dade County (Carr 1986). A number of archaeological sites in southern Florida have also been found that lack diagnostic artifacts yet are associated with extinct Pleistocene megafauna; these types of sites remain wanting of better temporal interpretation (Smith 2008).

Although Paleoindian chronology remains a matter for discussion, some archaeologists have hypothesized that this period was characterized by small groups utilizing a hunting and gathering mode of subsistence. Dunbar (2006:540, 2007) suggests that Paleoindians identified and migrated to “unexploited resource-rich areas” of food. Permanent sources of water, scarce during this time, were very important in settlement selection as well (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). This settlement model, referred to as the Oasis Hypothesis (Milanich 1994:41), has a high correlation with geologic features in southern FloridaDRAFT such as deep sink holes like those noted in Sarasota and Dade Counties. Sites of this period are most readily identified based on distinctive lanceolate shaped stone projectile points including the Simpson and Suwannee types (Bullen 1975). The tool assemblage also included items manufactured of bone, wood, and very likely leather, as well as plant fibers (Clausen et al. 1979).

3.2 Archaic Period

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

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

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

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 3-3

In the general project area, populations may have begun to develop year-round adaptations near estuaries and the developing Everglades ecosystem as well as the dispersed wetlands north of Lake Okeechobee. These environments supported a broader range of animal and plant resources. Subsistence most likely focused on freshwater resources, with occasional upland resources such as deer (Austin 1997:135). Along the west coast, excavations on both Horr’s Island in Collier County and Useppa Island in Lee County (Milanich et al. 1984; Russo 1991) have uncovered pre-ceramic shell middens that date to the Middle Archaic period. The Horr’s Island shell ring is accompanied by at least three ceremonial mounds. Large architectural features such as these were designed to divide, separate, and elevate above other physical positions within the settlement as a reflection and reinforcement of the social segmentation of the society (Russo 2008:21). Preceramic cultural horizons beneath tree island sites also have been reported in the eastern Everglades (Carr and Beriault 1984; Mowers and Williams 1972; Schwadron 2005, 2010). Population growth, as evidenced by the increased number of Middle Archaic sites and accompanied by increased socio-cultural complexity, is also assumed for this time (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Russo 1994b, 2008; Widmer 1988).

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

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

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

However, recent research notes that many of the ubiquitous faunal bone middens in the interior wetlands of southern Florida date to the Late Archaic, despite many of them lacking pottery of any type (Janus Research 2008:17). Further, such sites are very difficult to date because they often lack diagnostic artifacts and the faunal bone may be difficult to radiocarbon date due to a lack of bone collagen caused by changing wet/dry soil conditions. Nevertheless, many sites clearly have aceramic components that underlie pottery-bearing strata, logically indicating that these aceramic components most likely date at least as far back as the Late Archaic times (Janus Research 2008:17).

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 3-4

3.3 Glades

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

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

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

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

Table 3.1. Glades Chronology (Griffin 2002; Janus Research 2008). Period Dates Distinguishing Characteristics 1513–ca. 1700 Glades IIIc Same as previous period with the addition of historic artifacts Current Era (CE) Glades Tooled, Glades Plain and St. Johns Check Stamped are present, Glades IIIb 1400–1513 CE Surfside Incised and grooved lips are not present Plantation Pinched is no longer present; Glades Plain and grooved lips Glades IIIa 1200–1400 CE persist; appearance of Surfside Incised and St. Johns Check Stamped Almost no decorated pottery; some grooved lips but no more lip arcs or Glades IIc 1100–1200 CE crimped rims; Plantation Pinched appears Glades Plain and Key Largo Incised persist; Matecumbe Incised Glades IIb 900–1100 CE appears; none of the earlier decorated types are present; incised lip arcs, lip crimping, grooving appear for the first time Appearance of Key Largo Incised and Miami Incised; Glades Plain and Glades IIa 750–900 CE Opa Locka Incised persist; none of the earlier decorated types are present

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 3-5

Period Dates Distinguishing Characteristics First appearance of decorated pottery: Fort Drum Incised, Fort Drum Glades I late 500–750 CE Punctate, Cane Patch Incised, Gordon’s Pass Incised, Opa Locka Incised, Sanibel Incised; Glades Plain persists Glades I early 500 BCE–500 CE First appearance of sand tempered pottery; no decoration

3.3.1 Glades I

Beginning around 500 BCE, the earlier fiber-tempered/semi-fiber-tempered pottery was replaced by sand tempered pottery (Glades Plain). The sand tempering marks the beginning of the Glades cultural tradition. For 700 years, sand tempered plain (STP) pottery dominated the assemblage. In late Glades I (ca. 200 CE to 800 CE), decorated pottery, including Fort Drum Incised, Fort Drum Punctate, Cane Patch Incised, Gordons Pass Incised, as well as Opa Locka Incised and Sanibel Incised ceramics are found in addition to Glades Plain pottery (Carr and Beriault 1984; Griffin 2002). The tremendous increase in Glades I archaeological sites within the Big Cypress indicates an increase in the use of that area, and the geographic extent of Glades I diagnostics indicates a considerable degree of interchange and interaction throughout the larger region (Griffin 2002; Widmer 1988).

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

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

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

The Glades III era begins with the reintroduction of decorated pottery, however, the motifs and techniques are noticeably different from previous styles. There is also an accompanying increase in bone ornaments. Around 1400 CE, the use of incising as a decorative technique ceases and the appearance of Glades Tooled pottery, which has a thickened lip that has been tooled with a small round tool (Griffin 2002:77, 159). It has been hypothesize that this stylistic trend might have been associated with increasing Calusa influence in the area or contact with the central Gulf Coast (Griffin 2002; McGregor 1974). Glades IIIc is the same as Glades IIIb, with the addition of European artifacts obtained through trade or salvage.

3.4 East Okeechobee

The East Okeechobee area or district includes interior portions of Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie counties and while researchers differ on its designation, most seem to agree that the area is distinct as a cultural region, and seems to exhibit traits from neighboring areas; specifically pottery types. Carr and Beriault (1984) consider East Okeechobee to be an area or district; Griffin (2002) considers the area to be undefined archaeologically, although perhaps a district within the Glades area; and Milanich considers it a district within the Glades area.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 3-6

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

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

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

Shipwrecks were occurring as early as 1530 on the eastern shores of Florida around settlements of the Ais tribe, near the Indian River Inlet. Marooned by a shipwreck in 1545, Hernando d’Escanlante Fontenada lived amongst the Calusa tribes, until he was given over to Menéndez twenty years later. He documented his experiences and noted several ships grounded on the coast near the Ais, who would recover the gold and silver, and trade with the Calusa on the west coast of Florida (Milanich 1995:39- 42).

Menéndez proceeded southward, passing a number of villages from which the Native American inhabitants had fled. He left mirrors, knives, scissors, and bells as a sign of good will and received hospitality and food in return from the Ais who lived near the Indian River Inlet (Barcia 1723:91 in Rouse 1951). Menéndez remained four days arranging for 200 of his men, under Juan Velez de Medrano, to settle nearby. Menéndez continued on to Havana for supplies and to turn over the French prisoners from Fort Caroline. However, upon his departure, the Ais attacked the soldiers, and Velez moved the survivors to the southern end of the Indian River where the more friendly Guacata Native Americans, and a better supply of food, could be found. Velez relocated south of the Ais settlement, establishing the new settlement Santa Lucia, or St. Lucie, near the St. Lucie River (Barrientos 1902:96- 97 in Rouse 1951; Lyon 1983:140; Menéndez 1893:111 in Rouse 1951).

During Spain's first period of occupancy (1565-1763), no permanent settlements were located near the project area. From the 1570s into the 1700s, there are references to Spanish contact with the Ais and Hobe tribes (Rouse 1951:50-56; Milanich 1995:56). Other groups are also noted such as the Viscaynos, from whom Biscayne Bay probably received its name, and the Sanaluces, who probably resided near the Spanish fortified settlement of Santa Lucia (Milanich 1995:56). Contact with the Ais

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 3-7

tribes however, reveals the most information. The most significant description of the Ais in the 17th century was recorded by Jonathan Dickinson who, with his family and other members of his party, was shipwrecked in September 1696 while en route from Port Royal, Jamaica to Philadelphia. The group walked from the coast of the Jaega and Hobe territories, thought to be located to the south of the Ais, northward to St. Augustine. Although the party spent only a brief time among the natives, Dickinson provided a vivid account of Ais appearance, dress, subsistence, ceremonies, and other customs (Andrews and Andrews 1985).

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

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

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

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

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

When the Seminoles began cross-border raids from Spanish Florida into the United States, General Andrew Jackson was commissioned to defend the nation. His orders permitted him to cross the international border to pursue Seminoles, but he was to respect Spanish authority. General Jackson’s subsequent actions belie either tacit instructions or a personal agenda, as he killed hundreds of Indians and runaway slaves, took control of several Spanish garrisons and towns, confiscated the Spanish royal

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 3-8

archives, named an American as governor of the area, and announced that the Spanish economic laws would be replaced by the revenue laws of the United States (Tebeau 1980). This aggression understandably strained relations between the United States and Spain. Spain had pressing concerns with its Central and South American colonies, and thus ceded Florida to the United States in the Adams- Onis Treaty of 1819 in exchange for the territory west of the Sabine River.

3.6 Territorial and Statehood

Andrew Jackson, named provisional governor of Florida, divided the territory into St. Johns and Escambia Counties. At that time, St. Johns County encompassed all of Florida lying east of the Suwannee River, and Escambia County included the land lying to the west. In the first territorial census in 1825, some 317 persons reportedly lived in South Florida; by 1830 that number had risen to 517 (Tebeau 1980:134).

Although what became known as the First Seminole War (the cross border hostilities between the United States and the Seminoles) was fought in north Florida, the Treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823, at the end of the war, was to affect the settlement of South Florida. In exchange for occupancy of an approximately four million-acre reservation south of Ocala and north of Charlotte Harbor, the Seminoles relinquishedDRAFT their claim to the remainder of the peninsula (Covington 1958; Mahon 1985). The treaty satisfied neither the Indians nor the settlers. The inadequacy of the reservation, the desperate situation of the Seminoles, and the mounting demand of would-be settlers for their removal, soon produced another conflict.

By 1835, the Second Seminole War was underway. The region was sparsely occupied with mostly sugar plantations along the rivers near the coast. By January 1836, Seminoles had ransacked or torched sixteen of these plantations on the northern Mosquito Lagoon (Eriksen 1994:36). Commanding General Thomas Jesup launched a plan to surround the Seminoles within the Everglades. From northern Mosquito County he ordered four main columns to form a staggered front to begin marching south (Eriksen 1994:36). The largest and bloodiest battle of the war occurred near the present town of Okeechobee. The Battle of Lake Okeechobee, as it was known, took place on December 26, 1837. Following this event, the U.S. military established a strong presence in the region. During this campaign, a bluff over the Indian River was selected as an excellent fort location. Named after First Artillery commander Benjamin Kendrick Pierce, Fort Pierce remained active until the end of the Second Seminole War (Rights 1994:33). Also constructed during this period were Fort Capron and Fort Van Swearingen. Fort Van Swearingen was established in late 1837 or early 1838 shortly after the Battle of Okeechobee and named for Captain Joseph Van Searingen killed at the battle. The Fort was located approximately three miles west of the project area (Carr and Pepe 2000; St. Lucie County n.d.).

The Second Seminole War lasted until 1842 when the federal government decided to end the conflict by withdrawing troops from Florida. Some of the battle-weary Seminoles were persuaded to migrate west where the federal government had set aside land for Native American inhabitation. However, those who wished to remain were allowed to do so, but were pushed further south into the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp. This area became the last stronghold for the Seminoles (Mahon 1967:321).

In 1842, Mosquito County, which included present-day St. Lucie County, was formed from portions of St. Johns County. Encouraged by the passage of the Armed Occupation Act in this same year, designed to promote settlement and protect the Florida frontier, Anglo-American pioneers and their families moved south through Florida. The Act made available 200,000 acres outside the already developed regions south of Gainesville to the Peace River, barring coastal lands and those within a two

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 3-9

mile radius of a fort. The Armed Occupation Act stipulated that any family or single man over 18 years of age able to bear arms could earn title to 160 acres by erecting a habitable dwelling, cultivating at least five acres of land, and living on it for five years. During the nine month period the law was in effect, 1184 permits were issued totaling some 189,440 acres (Covington 1961:48; Dunn 1989:24-25). In this part of the state, four settlement areas were occupied - Indian River colony (extending from the St. Lucie River north to the Sebastian River), Jupiter, Lake Worth, and Biscayne Bay areas. The Indian River colony was the largest (Hutchinson 1987:34-38). The settlers began searching for a cash crop that would grow well in the semitropical climate. Homestead settler, Captain Thomas E. Richards experimented with pineapple. Within the decade, two million plants were growing in the region. The pineapple industry supported the local economy until after World War I when parasite infestation and several cold winters made citrus a more appealing venture (St. Lucie Historical Society 2004).

In 1845, the Union admitted the State of Florida with Tallahassee as the state capitol. Santa Lucia County, which included present-day St. Lucie County, was formed from portions of Mosquito County. It was during this time that the U. S. Government began land surveys in the project area. The exterior lines of Township 37 South, Range 37 East, as well as the interior (Section) lines were surveyed in 1853 by M.A. Williams (State of Florida 1853a, 1853b). Sections 1-2 and 11-14 were not surveyed and described an “impracticable” on the plat map drawn by Williams (State of Florida 1853c). Those sections within the project area that were surveyed were described as 3rd rate pine, sawgrass, swamp, and palmetto withDRAFT note of ponds and hammocks (State of Florida 1853b: 256-258, 262-265, 270-272) and two areas of pine within the sawgrass are shown on the plat map (State of Florida 1953c) (Figure 3.2). Williams does not describe or depict any manmade features including roads, trail, forts, or villages on the plat maps or in the notes within the project area or adjacent (State of Florida 1853a-c). The plat map does show Fort Van Swearingen and associated military trails to the west of the project area (State of Florida 1853c).

In December of 1855, the Third Seminole War, or Billy Bowlegs War, began as the result of pressure placed on Native Americans remaining in Florida to move west (Covington 1982). The War started in present-day Collier County when Seminole Chief Holatter-Micco, Billy Bowlegs, and 30 warriors attacked an army camp killing four soldiers and wounding four others. The attack was in retaliation for damage done by several artillerymen to property belonging to Billy Bowlegs. This hostile action renewed state and federal interest in the final elimination of the Seminoles from Florida. As a result, several regional military posts were established (Tebeau 1966).

Military action was not decisive during the war; therefore, in 1858, the U.S. Government resorted to monetary persuasion to induce the remaining Seminoles to migrate west. Chief Billy Bowlegs and others accepted and on May 4, 1858, the ship Grey Cloud set sail from Fort Myers with 38 Seminole warriors and 85 Seminole women and children. Others were added to the group at Egmont Key. This made a total of 165 Seminoles migrating west. On May 8, 1858, the Third Seminole War was declared officially over (Covington 1982:78-80).

3.7 Civil War and Aftermath

In 1861, Florida followed South Carolina’s lead and seceded from the Union in a prelude to the American Civil War. Florida had much at stake in this war as evidenced in a report released from Tallahassee in June of 1861. It listed the value of land in Florida’s 35 counties as $35,127,721 and the value of the slaves in the state at $29,024,513 (Dunn 1989:59). Blockade running became the primary industry on the east coast of Florida, especially in the inlets along the Indian River, which were outside the main transportation routes. Even though the coast of Florida experienced a naval blockade during the war, the interior of the state saw very little military action. One of the major contributions of the

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 3-10 ¹

DRAFT

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers

Figure 3.2. 1853 plat showing the project area.

3-11

state to the war effort was in the supplying of beef to the Confederate Government. The war lasted until 1865, when General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General U.S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia.

Immediately following the war, the South underwent a period of “Reconstruction” to prepare the Confederate States for readmission to the Union. The program was administered by the U.S. Congress, and on July 25, 1868, Florida officially returned to the Union (Tebeau 1971:251). Expeditions to the region began occurring at this time, and the area soon became known for its fishing, hunting, and camping. During this Reconstruction period, Florida’s financial crisis, born of pre-war railroad bonded indebtedness, led Governor William Bloxham to search for a buyer for an immense amount of state lands. Bloxham’s task was to raise adequate capital in one sale to free from litigation the remainder of state lands for desperately needed revenue. In 1881, Hamilton Disston, a Philadelphia investor and friend of Governor Bloxham, purchased four million acres from the State of Florida in order to clear the state’s debt. This transaction, which became known as the Disston Purchase, enabled the distribution of large land subsidies to railroad companies, inducing them to begin extensive construction programs for new lines throughout the state. Hamilton Disston and the railroad companies in turn sold smaller parcels of land to developers and private investors. In 1895, the Disston Land Company was deeded portions of Section 3 and all of Sections 11, 13, and 15 within the project area. That portion of Section 3 not deeded to the Disston Land Company, was deeded to Caledonia Addison in 1898. CaledoniaDRAFT and her husband, John Hugh Addison, first resided near Fort Pierce and later moved to the Allapatah Flats area (Van Landingham 2001). The remainder of the project area was deeded to The Florida Southern Railway in 1885 (State of Florida n.d.:113). The Florida Southern was the largest of the big three narrow gauge systems in the state and in1890, it went into receivership. In 1892, it was reorganized as the Florida Southern Railway with Henry Plant, founder of the Plant System of railroads, as one of its directors (Hensley 2010).

Henry M. Flagler, a partner with John D. Rockefeller in Standard Oil, visited Florida in 1878, and decided to build a hotel in St. Augustine and a railroad to reach it from Jacksonville. Eventually, this developed into a string of hotels and a railroad which stretched the length of the east coast of Florida. One of the flag stops along the way was “Alicia,” the future site of Salerno. Flagler named this stop after his second wife (Hutchinson 1987:187). At that time, the village consisted mostly of fishermen. By the turn of the century, there were stations at Stuart (at that time known as Potsdam), Jensen, Rio (where the water tower was located [St. Lucie]), Salerno, Fruita, Gomez, and Hobe Sound (Hutchinson 1987:198).

Although the State of Florida initially was very generous with the sale of public lands to Flagler, when the federal government learned of the “sweetheart deals,” the transactions were terminated. Undaunted, Flagler simply acquired the land necessary for his railroad from third party corporations (Brown and Hudson 1993).

At its creation in 1905, St. Lucie County stretched from Sebastian River on the north to St. Lucie River on the south, with Osceola County on the west (Van Landingham 1988:42). Ft. Pierce, incorporated in 1901, served as county seat. By 1910, the county population had grown to 4,075, but most of the county’s development was confined to the Atlantic Coast and Indian River area (Rights 1994:77). Despite the split with Okeechobee County in 1917, the population increased to 7,886 in 1920 (Rights 1994:79). Steamboats traveled along the river bringing supplies, ferrying residents, and transporting pineapples. The Cobb Dock in Ft. Pierce was a regular stop for the steamboats. Mr. Peter Cobb also owned the Ft. Pierce general store, where you could find “everything to eat, wear, and use.” (St. Lucie Historical Society 2004).

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 3-12

Fishing for sport developed along the Indian River Inlet. From Fort Capron south to St. Lucie, Fort Pierce and Eden, the area gained a reputation as a prime fishing location throughout the United States and parts of Europe. American and foreign travelers wrote about the great fishing, oystering, and duck hunting along the Indian River Inlet (Rights 1994:111). As the railroad advanced along the east coast the need for steamboats, which had been so prominent, ceased. Trains provided easy transportation to northern markets for farmers’ crops, barrels of fish, carloads of cattle, and other kinds of freight, and mail. In addition, they brought investors, tourists, workers, land speculators, and home buyers into Florida. In January 1894, the Jacksonville, St. Augustine and Indian River Railway Company’s track, reached Ft. Pierce. “On January 29, 1894 regular train service began on the newly constructed line from New Smyrna to Ft. Pierce,” and on September 13, 1895, the name was changed to the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway (Rights 1994:91).

3.8 Twentieth Century

The turn of the century prompted optimism and excitement over growth and development. With increased financial resources and machinery, extensive reaches of the county’s lands were now available for development. In most cases, the land required intensive drainage for agricultural development and settlement. Drainage led to an improved road system and an increasing population as additional significantDRAFT features of the era. Fort Pierce Farms, one of these drainage projects, was responsible for draining much of the wetlands in northern St. Lucie County. Approximately 50 miles of canals were built in the Ft. Pierce Farms Drainage District. With the canals, the water then drained into the Indian River instead of the St. Lucie River and surrounding lowlands. This virtually eliminated flooding and created rich farming acreage (Rights 1994:164-67). The Florida Land Boom of the 1920s originated at the turn of the century with developers draining and selling land to those looking to move to Florida.

Several incidents prompted the Land Boom of the 1920s, including the mild winters, growing number of tourists, the larger use of the automobile, completion of roads, prosperity of the 1920s, and the promise by the state legislature never to pass state income or inheritance taxes. The Dixie Highway (now U.S. 1) network of roads, completed at this time, connected south Florida to the rest of the nation. In addition, pineapple plantations and citrus groves were transformed into subdivisions with Spanish- influenced architecture (Hutchinson 1987:215).

By 1926-27, the bottom fell out of the Florida real estate market. Massive freight car congestion from hundreds of loaded cars sitting in railroad yards caused the Florida East Coast Railway to embargo all but perishable goods in August of 1925. The embargo spread to other railroads throughout the state and, as a result, most construction halted. By October, rumors were rampant in northern newspapers. To counteract the reports, T. Coleman du Pont, chairman of the Mizner Development Corporation, held a public meeting to try to convince the public that the increase in property values represented real worth. However, the next week du Pont and several other board members resigned in a public letter to the New York Times. Du Pont brought stability to the Corporation, which was undertaking the development of Boca Raton. After the public letter, confidence in the Florida real estate market quickly diminished, investors could not sell lots, and the Great Depression hit Florida earlier than the rest of the nation (Curl 1986:84-84).

To make the situation even worse, two hurricanes hit the area in 1926 and 1928. Soon after the collapse of the Florida Land Boom, the October 1929 stock market crash and the onset of the Great Depression left residents with damaged houses and little money or business to rebuild. Residents survived on the fish and fruits, which were plentiful in the area. By the mid-1930s, federal programs, implemented by the Roosevelt administration, started employing large numbers of construction

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 3-13

workers, helping to revive the economy of the state. The programs were instrumental in the construction of parks, bridges, and public buildings. A bridge over the St. Lucie River was constructed in 1933, resulting in hundreds of worker applications for only a few jobs (Hutchinson 1987:216).

At this time, commercial fishing became economically important. The arrival of the railroad and the availability of ice made the shipment of fish possible. The shark industry became important in the 1940s. All parts of the shark were used for some purpose, ranging from vitamin capsules to hog feed. Also during this time, flower production became important economically. According to Hutchinson (1987:286), chrysanthemums and pompons were forced to bloom all year through the use of artificial light and shade.

The growth of tourism in the late 1930s and early 1940s prompted the recovery of the state from the Depression. Although the Depression virtually destroyed the hotel business, motels continued to thrive because vacationers continued to travel by automobile. After the war, car ownership increased, making the American public more mobile. Many who had served at Florida’s military bases during the war also returned with their families to live. Florida’s population increased from 873,891 to 2,771,305 from 1940 to 1950 (Dunn 1989).

Largely, the post-World War II development of St. Lucie County is similar to that of the rest of America: increasingDRAFT numbers of automobiles and asphalt, an interstate highway system, suburban sprawl, and strip development along major state highways. According to Enterprise Florida (2016), St. Lucie County experienced a 73 percent increase in population between the years 1980 and 1990 and an 11 percent increase between the years 2000 and 2010. The estimated population for 2015 was 287,747 with 22 percent of the population employed in the trades, transportation, and utilities sectors and 18 percent employed in government (Enterprise Florida 2016).

3.9 Project Specific Background

Based on aerial photographs from Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM) (USDA 1944a-i, 1958a-f; 1971a-b), historic USGS quadrangle maps (1953a-c), other aerial imagery (Google Earth 2016), and interviews (Greene 2016; McDowell 2016; Lane 2016), most of the project area appears to have remained undeveloped until the 1960s when the land was purchased by Evans Grove Lands (Evans Properties 2016; McDowell 2016). The aerial photographs from 1944 (Figure 3.3) show the absence of development with the exception of a grove and structure along the central western portion of the project area. By 1958, additional land disturbance in the form of access roads, ditching, and clearing had occurred along the eastern, and specifically the northeastern portion , of the project area and by 1971, all of the project area, with the exception of the northwest corner, has been converted to grove.

Prior to the purchase of the survey area by Evans Properties in the 1960s, cattle were present, and it is likely that other small scale timber operations occurred on the land. Once the construction of the C-23 canal (between 1959 and 1960) was complete, the drainage patterns of the survey property changed making the property available for agricultural pursuits (FDEP 2000). Evans Properties, founded in 1951 in Dade City, constructed additional canals and drainage ditches, and citrus grove production became the norm for the property (Evans Properties Inc. 2016; McDowell 2016). In the 1990’s, portions of the project area, as well as adjacent property (to east and north) now owned by the South Florida Water Management District, were reworked prior to citrus planting (McDowell 2016). This reworking of the grove property east of the project area and the lack of additional grove activity after the sale to the Water Management District, may explain the presence of several sites on the adjacent property and the lack of sites within the project area.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 3-14 ¹

DRAFT

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 10-29-44 / CZB-4C-27, 28, 30 11-24-44 / CZB-5C-25, 26, 28 00.51 Kilometers

Figure 3.3. 1944 aerial photographs of the project area (USDA 1944).

3-15

4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS

ACI conducted extensive background research and prepared a cultural resources predictive model for the property. The background research included a review of data at the FMSF, the NRHP, CRAS reports, regional research and predictive models (ACI 1992, 1999; Beriault 1987; Carr 1988; Carr and Pepe 2000; Carr et al. 1995, 1998; Caulk 2005, 2007; Dunbar and Newman 2004; Newman et al. 2006; Smith 2008, Smith et al. 2009), 19th century federal surveyor’s field notes and Plat maps, Seminole and U.S. military histories, as well as 20th century data from the St. Lucie County soil survey (USDA 1980), to address the area’s historic settlement. The methodology used for the predictive model was developed for the CERP and has been used on similar projects in the area (ACI 2014, 2016a, 2016b; Smith 2008; Smith et al. 2009).

4.1 Archaeological Considerations

The archaeological background research indicates that no archaeological sites are recorded within the project tract; however, two sites are recorded immediately adjacent to the east and seven sites are recorded within one mile (Table 4.1; Figure 4.1). The two sites adjacent to the property (shown in yellow),DRAFT 8SL03052 and 8SL03059, are prehistoric midden sites that were recorded as a result of a CRAS of the C23/24 Reservoirs for the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) (Smith et al. 2009). Site 8SL03052, Eluding Site West, dates to the Glades or East Okeechobee periods and is a small, shallow ceramic/ecofact scatter or probable campsite. The site measured 50 m (146 ft) north-south by 25 m (82 ft) east-west and was considered disturbed. Only one of the three positive tests had possible intact soil. Artifacts were found on the surface and from the upper 29 centimeters below surface (cmbs) (3.5 inches [in]) in a dark black sand. The site appears to have been redeposited and was not considered eligible for listing on the NRHP by the recorder (Smith et al 2009). Site 8SL03052 has not been evaluated by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

Table 4.1. Previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the project area. SITE SHPO FMSF # SITE TYPE CULTURE REFERENCE NAME EVAL Eluding Site 8SL03052 Midden Glades Smith et al. 2009 Not evaluated West Eluding Site Smith et al. 2009 8SL03053 Midden Glades Not evaluated East 8SL03054 Alpha Down Midden Late Archaic Smith et al. 2009 Not evaluated Late Archaic, Smith et al. 2009 Not evaluated 8SL03055 Filgri Midden Glades Late Archaic, Smith et al. 2009 Not evaluated 8SL03056 Last Site Midden Glades Ancient Smith et al. 2009 Not evaluated 8SL03057 Midden Glades Sinkhole 8SL03058 Leydon Midden Glades Smith et al. 2009 Not evaluated First Orange Late Archaic, Smith et al. 2009 8SL03059 Midden Not evaluated Mound Glades 8SL03263 FSC#15 Artifact scatter Prehistoric Janus Research 2014a Ineligible

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 4-1 Legend archaeological site 8SL03052 ¹ linear resource 8SL03053

8SL03054

8SL03055

8SL03263 8SL03056

8SL03058

8SL03057 DRAFT 8SL03059

8SL03193

8SL03014

8MT01591

8MT01450

0 0.250.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Figure 4.1. Location of cultural resources proximate to the project area (USGS Okeechobee 1SW, 1SE and 4NE).

4-2

Site 8SL03059, First Orange Mound, also recorded during the C23/24 survey, dates to the Late Archaic period. It is slightly elevated from the surrounding surface and measures approximately 75 m east-west by 75 m north-south (246 by 246 ft). Eleven tests were positive and the artifacts were recovered from a very dark brown/black loamy sand from a depth of 25 to 130 cmbs (10 to 51 in). An intact Late Archaic deposit of pottery, bone, shell, and one lithic flake were found. Faunal material was within and below a calcrete layer and a single flexed burial and associated grave goods were noted at 70 cmbs (28 in). The site was considered to have the potential to provide significant information and was considered potentially eligible for NRHP listing by the recorder (Smith et al. 2009). Site 8SL03059 has not been evaluated by the SHPO.

All but one of the remaining seven sites are middens dating from either the Late Archaic and/or Glades periods and were recorded as a result of the C23/24 survey (Smith et al. 2009). The recorder of the six sites believed all were eligible for NRHP listing; however, none have been evaluated by the SHPO. Site 8SL03263 is a small artifact scatter that was discovered during a gas pipeline survey (Janus Research 2014a). It was deemed ineligible for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO.

In addition to the two surveys discussed above, ten additional cultural resource surveys have been conducted proximate to the project area. These include two archaeological surveys of Martin County (Carr et al 1995, Carr et al. 1998), an architectural survey of Martin County (Historic Property Associates 1997),DRAFT an archaeological survey of St. Lucie County (Carr and Pepe 2000), an historic resource survey of St. Lucie County (Janus Research 2003), four surveys for pipelines (Janus Research 2000, 2001, 2014b, 2015), and a survey for the C23/24 reservoirs (Azzarello and Loubser 2005).

Based on these data and the successful predictive model developed for the adjacent C23/24 Canal project, Dr. Greg Smith was retained to refine the ACI predictive model and delineate discrete zones or areas of archaeological potential (ZAPs) for the project (Figure 4.2). Smith had served as the Principal Investigator and author of the survey strategy for the CERP prepared for the ACOE by New South Associates (Smith 2008), and had experience using historic black and white aerial photographs which, in combination with modern aerials, have proven to be the most effective method for identifying site probability areas in southern Florida (ACI 2016a; Carr 1974, 1988; Ehrehhard et al. 1978; Smith 2008; Smith et al. 2009). As in the CERP and much of southern Florida, the land within the project area has undergone multiple changes as the result of ditching, berm construction, clearing, agriculture, and the timber, citrus, and cattle industries. Even so, using the historic aerials, ACI was able to locate targets visible on the aerials from the 1940s (ponds, tree islands, ridge formations, and the like) as well as on more recent aerials, that represent high ZAPs.

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

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

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 4-3 ¹

DRAFT

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

Figure 4.2. Location of zones of archaeological potential (ZAPs) within the project area (USGS Okeechobee 1SW, 1SE and 4NE).

4-4

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

4.2 Identification of ZAPs for Bluefield

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

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

Prior to the late nineteenth century, the wetland environment of southern Florida extended from north of Lake Okeechobee to the southern tip of the peninsula. Up until large scale ditching and compartmentalization in the early twentieth century, it was possible to travel that distance by canoe or skiff (Simmons and Ogden 1998). Since that time, two-thirds of Florida’s original freshwater wetlands have been filled or drained (Whitney et al. 2004:127). It is widely accepted that the upland areas, tree islands, and hammocks of southern Florida frequently contain prehistoric midden deposits (Carr 1974, 1981, 2002; Ehrenhard et al. 1978; and others). Hammock is the name given in Florida to non- pine upland areas that are usually made up of hardwood trees with inclusions such as cabbage palm and red cedar (Whitney et al. 2004). Hammocks and tree islands comprise natural, living communities composed of ancient or enduring plant types. They are the products of relatively long periods of ecologically stable conditions and are the evolutionary product of the adaptation of existing plants and animals (Whitney et al. 2004:87).

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

Over the last 30-40 years, the most productive method used by archaeologists for isolating site probability areas in southern Florida has involved the interpretation of historic black and white aerial photographs that predate many of the region’s drainage and compartmentalization (ditching)

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 4-5

activities. Following Willey’s (1953) early 1940s work in Peru, the first recorded use of aerial imagery in southern Florida was by William Sears and William Kennedy (Sears et al. 1966) during an archaeological site inventory of Everglades National Park. By the early 1970s, the use of color aerial photographs was found to be the most effective means for isolating site probability areas in the interpretation of the Lake Okeechobee area (Carr 1974).

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

The current project area is primarily flat and was dominated by poorly to very poorly drained soil and standing water in the northwestern corner. Today, however, the land has been ditched, drained, and consists of abandoned and cleared grove. Archaeological survey in such areas is most successful when itDRAFT uses a research design that identifies the location of hammocks and tree islands that exist near ponds or other water sources. The tools used in the development of such a survey strategy include historic aerial photographs from 1944 and 1958 (see Figure 3.3) and these were supplemented by various maps (soil, vegetation, historic, etc.), as available for a specific project area, as previously noted.

For the Bluefield survey, multiple cartographic sources were considered in combination with historic and modern aerial photographs. Initially, probability areas for prehistoric sites in the project area were identified using 1943 aerial photographs as palm/oak hammocks adjacent to a pond, marsh, slough, or drainageways, or other water bodies. These presumed upland locations were shovel tested at 25 m (82 ft) or less unless found to be underwater or nonexistent upon inspection. Forty-six ZAPs were identified for the project.

4.3 Historic Site Considerations

A review of the FMSF, the NRHP, previous surveys in St. Lucie and Martin counties, as well as the U.S. federal surveyor’s Plats and field notes (State of Florida 1853 a-c), the St. Lucie County Soil Survey (USDA 1980, 2016 ), historic USGS quadrangle maps (1953a-c) pertinent U.S. military and government maps and documents (Ives 1856; Nash 1930), and other sources (Carr and Steele 1993; MacCauley 2000; Weisman 1989, 1999) were consulted for information regarding potential historic archaeological sites, including other historic resources.

Two linear resource groups, 8SL03014 (8MT01450) and 8SL03193 (8MT01591), are located adjacent to the property; however, they are not within the project area (Figure 4.1). 8SL03014, the FEC Railroad, and 8SL03193, the C23 canal, both continue to be used today.

An examination of the 1930 map Approximate Location of Permanent Seminole Camps shows the Willy Johns camp in the general location of the project area. According to Nash, the Seminoles in western St. Lucie County had camps both north and south of the Fort Piece-Okeechobee Road and trade in both St. Lucie and Indian River counties (Nash 1930:21). The 1930 report describes the permanent camps as “habitations which can not be packed up and moved; many of them are occupied only a part

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 4-6

of the year (Nash 1930:21).” Nash describes the camp houses as open platforms three feet from the ground with sections for sleeping and dining with narrow alleys between the platforms. Some camps have several structures, depending on the size. Gardens, unroofed structures for cooking, stockades, pens, and various other structures are also found in the camps (Nash 1931:5). The date of site abandonment is unknown, and there is no indication of the camp on the 1943 aerials or the 1953 USGS quadrangle map.

No resource groups, structures, cemeteries, buildings, or bridges have been previously recorded within the boundaries of the property parcel. A review of the St. Lucie County property appraiser’s web site and historic aerial imagery indicates the potential for one historic structure on the property (Pruitt 2016).

4.4 Field Methodology

The site probability areas or ZAPs were identified by the tree islands and hammocks within the Bluefield project area as per the CERP (Smith 2008) (Figure 4.2). Each ZAP was assigned a sequential number to facilitate field management and recording of results, and testing was conducted at appropriate intervals. DRAFT Due to the relative absence of land alteration and undisturbed vegetation 75 years ago, historic aerials from 1943 were found to be most useful in identifying probability areas. Areas not labeled were considered low probability, and these were tested judgmentally throughout the project area following completion of the ZAP survey. In all, 46 ZAPs were identified; of that total, 35 tested in the field.

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

The shovel tests were round, measured approximately 50 centimeters (cm) (20 in) in diameter, and dug to a depth of one m (40 in) below surface or until encountering clay, limerock, or inundation. Soil from all tests was screened through 0.64 cm (0.25 in) mesh hardware cloth for standardized artifact recovery. The stratigraphy of each test was recorded using a GPS template following completion, with additional notes taken describing vegetation and landscape features. All tests were backfilled. Shovel tests were numbered sequentially with reference to probability area and their GPS locations downloaded each day. Supplemental notes/maps were made in the field to record land features and other visible landmarks. GPS utilizing Trimble Geo 7X units points (average meter accuracy of .50 to .75) were taken at each excavated shovel test, which helped to define site boundaries. The data were recorded using the Projected Coordinate System of North American Datum 1983, State Plane East.

Two definitions are important in discussing the intensive survey methods. An Archaeological Occurrence (AO) is defined as any locus where a single artifact up to and including a cluster of three (3) prehistoric or historic artifacts within an area 30 m (98 ft) in diameter are present. These include occurrences of both surface and subsurface material (FMSF 1999). Areas around AOs are tested at reduced intervals and examined to determine whether additional artifacts are present. Only cultural materials of 50 years or more in age are considered artifacts. Four or more artifacts within a 30 m (98 ft) diameter area are considered a site.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 4-7

4.5 Informant Interviews

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

4.6 Unexpected Discoveries

If human burial sites such as Indian mounds, lost historic and pre-colonial cemeteries, or other unmarked burials or associated artifacts were found, then the provisions and guidelines set forth in Chapter 872.05, FS (Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves) were to be followed, as was the ACOE, Jacksonville District agreement with the Seminole Tribe of Florida (ACOE 2015). DRAFT 4.7 Laboratory Methods and Curation

The cultural materials collected were cleaned and sorted by artifact class. Lithic material, if found, would have been was divided into tools or debitage based on gross morphology. Tools would have been measured, had the edges examined with a 7-45x stereo-zoom microscope for traces of edge damage, and classified using standard references (Bullen 1975; Purdy 1981). Lithic debitage would have been subjected to a limited technological analysis focused on ascertaining the stages of stone tool production. Flakes and non-flake production debris (i.e., cores, blanks, tested cobbles) would have been measured, and examined for raw material types and absence or presence of thermal alteration. Flakes would have been classified into four types (primary decortication, secondary decortication, non- decortication, and shatter) based on the amount of cortex on the dorsal surface and the shape (cf., White 1963).

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

The project-related records will be maintained at the ACI office in Sarasota (P16078) unless the client requests otherwise.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 4-8

5.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Archaeological Survey Results

The archaeological investigations consisted of systematic and judgmental subsurface testing. Forty-six ZAPs were originally identified using the CERP predictive model and refined with use of the 1944, 1958, and 1971 aerial photos; however, eleven were not tested. Eight of the 11 were eliminated at the beginning of the project as they are located in an area used for water storage in the northwestern portion of the property; they are also not included in Table 5.1. Three ZAPS, 34, 35, and 37, were not tested because a pipeline is present in the area and the property previously had been surveyed in 2015 (Janus Research 2015). The remaining thirty-five ZAPs were tested at 25 m (82 ft) intervals, and the rest of the property was tested judgmentally without regard to environmental setting (Figures 5.1-5.4).

Table 5.1 provides a summary of the investigations conducted within each ZAP. A total of 900 shovel tests were conducted. Of these, 751 were within the ZAPs and were tested at 25 m intervals and 149 were judgmentally placed across the property. As a result, one archaeological site, 8SL03288, and one AO were recorded. These are discussed individually below. DRAFT Table 5.1. Summary of results. # ZAP # ST* Sites Comments ZAP Sites Comments ST* 1 18 relic citrus grove 21 40 relic citrus grove 2 12 relic citrus grove 22 8 relic citrus grove 3 5 relic citrus grove 23 13 relic citrus grove 4 14 relic citrus grove 24 23 relic citrus grove relic citrus grove relic and abandoned 5 6 25 18 citrus grove 6 13 relic citrus grove 26 10 relic citrus grove 7 13 relic citrus grove 27 20 relic citrus grove 8 8 relic citrus grove 28 39 relic citrus grove relic citrus grove relic citrus grove, 9 22 29 17 pipeline 10 7 relic citrus grove 30 9 relic citrus grove 11 4 relic citrus grove 31 13 relic citrus grove relic citrus grove, 12 13 AO relic citrus grove 32 14 planted pine 13 5 relic citrus grove 33 25 planted pine 14 15 relic citrus grove 34 0 Pipeline disturbance 15 10 relic citrus grove 35 0 Pipeline disturbance 16 9 relic citrus grove 36 12 relic citrus grove relic and 8SL03285 abandoned citrus 17 240 37 0 Pipeline disturbance 8SL03288 grove, planted pine 18 6 relic citrus grove 38 5 relic citrus grove relic and abandoned 19 18 relic citrus grove Jud 149 citrus grove, planted pine 20 47 relic citrus grove Total 900 * Number of shovel tests

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 5-1 Legend 1 A! match point ¹ zap GF positive shovel test negative shovel test DRAFT 2

3 5-2

4

8 A! 38 5 6

0 500 1,000 7 Feet Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri, 0 150 300 DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, Meters AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Figure 5.1. Location of shovel tests (not to scale) and zones of archaeological potential within the project area. Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Legend Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community A! match point ¹ zap GF positive shovel test 4 negative shovel test

8 A! 38 DRAFT5 6

7 5-3 9

10 11 8SL03288 12 GF 14 15 13

0 500 1,000 16 GFGF Feet 17 A! 0 150 300 Meters AO #1

Figure 5.2. Location of shovel tests (not to scale), newly recorded site (8SL03288), archaeological occur- rence and zones of archaeological potential within the project area. Legend A! match point ¹ zap GF positive shovel test negative shovel test

12 AO #1 8SL03288 GF 14 13 15

GFGF 16 17 A!

18 DRAFT19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

29 27 28 0 500 1,000 Feet A!

0 150 300 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Meters Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Figure 5.3. Location of the shovel tests (not to scale), newly recorded site (8SL03288), archaeological occurrence and zones of archaeological potential within the project area.

5-4 26 29 27 ¹ 28 A!

30

31

32 33

Legend A! match DRAFTpoint zap 34 GF positive shovel test negative shovel test

35

36

37

0 500 1,000 Feet

0 150 300 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Meters Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Figure 5.4. Location of the shovel tests (not to scale) and zones of archaeological potential within the project area.

5-5

8SL03288 Bluefield

 Location: T37S R37E NW 1/2 of Section 14  USGS Quad: Okeechobee 1SE (North of Bluefield)  Project ZAP: 17  Setting: Former tree island within marsh  Soil: Hilolo loamy sand  Artifacts: Bone, shell, pottery, lithic  Time Period: Prehistoric nonspecific  NRHP eligibility: Not eligible

The location of the Bluefield site (8SL03288) was initially identified as a large hammock and grove area adjacent to the marsh on the 1944 and 1958 aerials during the delineation of probability areas. Today, the area is a relict citrus grove, with ditching and soil redistribution evident in the form of grove rows and soil disturbance (Photo 5.1). GPS technology used for location, and shovel testing was conducted at 25 m (82 ft) intervals within the identified ZAP. Two shovel tests were positive (Figure 5.5) and 236 were negative (Figure 5.2). The size of the site is 288 square m (3100 square ft). DRAFT

Photo 5.1. Site 8SL03288, looking west.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 5-6

DRAFT

Figure 5.5. Shovel test locations at 8SL03288. See corresponding FMSF form in Appendix A for larger map.

A total of 32 artifacts were recovered from 0 to 50 cmbs (0 to 20 in) in the two tests. The stratigraphy in one test was 0 to 50 cmbs (0 to 20 in) of gray brown sand followed by 50 to 100 cmbs (20 to 39 in) of light grayish brown sand. In the other positive test, the stratigraphy was 0 to 30 cmbs (0 to 12 in) of gravelly sand, 30 to 60 cmbs (12 to 23 in) of dark gray sandy clay, and 60 to 100 cmbs (23 to 39 in) of light gray sandy clay. Very few of the shovel tests within the ZAP had similar stratigraphy, most had 0 to 100 cmbs (0 to 39 in) of what was termed grayish brown gravelly sand/clay and represented a mixture of limestone, white marl, and shell hash; it was determined to be a disturbed soil.

Bone and pottery were found in the two tests. In one test, 2 STP sherds and 19 faunal fragments (5 turtle, 15 UID [many probably turtle]) (8.4 grams [g]) were recovered and in the second test, 2 STP sherds and 8 faunal fragments (1 turtle, 1 reptile, 6 UID [many probably turtle]) (5.0 g) were found. Based on the limited assemblage, site 8SL03288 appears to have functioned as a small camp/extractive site. The site was possibly larger, but has been disturbed by grove activity.

Assessment: The site appears to represent a small camp/extractive site from an unspecified prehistoric period. The site is situated in a grove where ditching, redeposition, and mixing of soil has occurred. Since limited artifacts were found within a grayish brown sand and between 0 and 50 cmbs (0 to 20 in), it is possible that they are within their original context; however, only two tests out of numerous in the area produced artifacts. No evidence of subsurface features was observed. Based on this information, the site is not considered to have potential to yield significant information and, therefore, 8SL03288 is not considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. A copy of the FMSF form is included in Appendix A.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 5-7

AO - Three faunal bones were recovered from one shovel test in ZAP 12. The bones, identified as cow (57 grams), were recovered from the upper 30 cmbs (12 in) of the test, and likely date to the period when the property was used as cattle range. The stratigraphy was 0 to 20 cmbs (0 to 8 in) of brown sand, followed by 20 to 100 cmbs (8 to 39 in) of dark grayish brown sand. No other artifacts were recovered from any additional tests in the area. The positive tests was located in ZAP 18 (Figure 5.2). The AO is located in Section 12 of Township 37 South, Range 37 East on Pineda sand. It is not considered an archaeological site (FMSF 1999) and does not meet the criterial for NHRP eligibility.

5.2 Historic/Architectural Results

As a result of the historic/architectural field survey, one historic structure (50 years of age or older) was recorded as 8SL03285. A description and photograph of the resource follows, and a copy of the FMSF form is included in Appendix A.

DRAFT

Photo 5.2. Bluefield Water Farm Residence (8SL03285), facing west.

8SL03285: The Frame Vernacular style residence located within the Bluefield Water Farm was constructed circa 1927 (Photo 5.2). The one-story, irregular plan dwelling rests on concrete piers and has a balloon wood frame structural system clad in wood siding. The Masonry Vernacular addition on the south elevation is also set on concrete piers and has concrete block walls covered in vinyl siding. The hip and shed roofs over the principle mass and gable roof over the addition are clad in composition shingles. The main entryway is on the east elevation via a 9-light wood door within an inset entry porch accessible via swinging wood door. There is a full-width screened porch on the south elevation. Windows include paired 1/1 double-hung sash wood units, independent 2/2 single-hung sash wood units, independent 1/1 metal single-hung sash units, and independent metal slider units. Distinguishing features include wood window frames and sills and a brick chimney. The southern gable roof addition was added circa 1980, and the building was reroofed and outfitted with some replacement windows around the same time. The building is in good condition and retains some historic exterior fabric. Overall, however, it is a typical example of an altered Frame Vernacular style residential building found

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 5-8

throughout St. Lucie County and the state of Florida, and research revealed no significant historic associations. Thus, 8SL03285 does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP, either individually or as part of a historic district.

5.3 Conclusions

Based on the results of background research and field survey, it is the opinion of ACI that development of the Bluefield Water Farm parcel will have no effect on any cultural resources that are listed or considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.

DRAFT

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 5-9

6.0 REFERENCES CITED

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

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) 1992 Mapping of Areas of Historical/Archaeological Probability in Collier County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 1999 1999 Update Historic/Archaeological Probability Maps and Data Sheets for Collier County Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2014 Cultural Resources Predictive Model Tellus 3D Seismic Survey Collier and Hendry Counties, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2016a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Tocala-Sunniland 3D Seismic Survey Project, Collier and Hendry Counties, Florida. ACI, Sarasota. 2016b Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, Caulkins Water Farm Parcel, Martin County, Florida. ACI, Sarasota

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

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

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

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

Beriault, John G. 1987 Suggestions for a Collier Site Model: A Report Submitted to the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy. On file, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Davie.

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

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

Brown, William E. and Karen Hudson 1996 Henry Flagler and the Model Land Company Tequesta 56: 46-78.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 6-1

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

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

Carr, Robert S. 1974 The Use of Panchromatic Photographs for the Interpretation of Archaeological Sites in South Florida. On file, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee. 1981 Dade County Historic Survey Final Report The Archaeological Survey. Metropolitan Dade County, Office of Community and Economic Development, Historic Preservation Division, Miami. 1986 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Cutler Ridge Fossil Site (8DA2001) in Southern Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 39(3, Part 2):231-232. 1988 An Archaeological Survey of Collier County, Florida. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami. 2002 The Archaeology of Everglades Tree Islands. In Tree Islands of the Everglades. Edited by F. H. Sklar and A. Van der Valk. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. DRAFT Carr, Robert S. and John G. Beriault 1984 Prehistoric Man in Southern Florida. In Environments of South Florida, Past and Present. Edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 1-14. Miami Geological Society Memoir 2, Miami.

Carr, Robert S., Chris Eck, and James Pepe 1988 A Phase II Archaeological Survey of Martin County, Florida. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

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

Carr, Robert S., Linda Jester, and Jim Pepe 1995 An Archaeological Survey of Martin County, Florida. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

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

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

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

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 6-2

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

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

Clement, Gail n.d. Barron Gift Collier. Everglades Digital Library, Florida International University. http://everglades.fiu.edu/reclaim/bios/collier.htm.

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

Cordell, Ann S. 1985 Pottery Variability and Site Chronology in the Upper St. Johns River Basin. In Archaeological Site Types, Distribution, and Preservation within the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida. Edited byDRAFT B. Sigler-Eisenberg, pp. 114-134. Miscellaneous Project and Report Series 27. Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 1987 Ceramic Technology at a Weeden Island Period Archaeological Site in North Florida. Ceramic Notes 2. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 2004 Paste Variability and Possible Manufacturing Origins of Late Archaic Fiber-Tempered Pottery from Selected Sites in Peninsular Florida. In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast. Edited by R. Saunders and C. T. Hays, pp. 63-104. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Covington, James W. 1958 Exploring the Ten Thousand Islands: 1838. Tequesta 18:7-13. 1961 The Armed Occupation Act of 1842. Florida Historical Quarterly 40(1): 41-53. 1982 The Billy Bowlegs War 1855-1858: The Final Stand of the Seminoles Against the Whites. The Mickler House Publishers, Chuluota.

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

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

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

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

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

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 6-3

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

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

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

Dunbar, James S. and Christine Newman 2004 AssessmentDRAFT and Documentation of Cultural Resources of the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest in Hendry and Collier Counties, Florida. CARL Archaeological Survey, BAR, FDHR, Tallahassee.

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

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

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

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

Evans Properties, Inc 2016 Our History. Evans Properties Website. http://www.evansprop.com/our-history.php.

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

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2000 Ecosummary, C-23 Canal, St. Lucie County. Southeast District Surface Water. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/southeast/ecosum/ecosums/c23.pdf.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 6-4

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

Florida Master Site File (FMSF) 1999 Guide to the Archaeological Site Form, Version 2.2. FDHR, Tallahassee.

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

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

Goggin, John M. 1948 Some PotteryDRAFT 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. n.d. The Archaeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida. On file, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee.

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

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

Griffin, John W. 1988 The Archeology of Everglades National Park: A Synthesis. National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee. 2002 Archaeology of the Everglades. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Hensley, Donald R. 2010 Tap Lines. The Orange Belt Route, Florida Southern’s Narrow Gage Years 1879-1896. http://www.taplines.net/fs/fs.html.

Historic Property Associates (HPS) 1997 Historic Architectural Survey of Martin County, Florida. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Hutchinson, Janet (compiler) 1987 A History of Martin County. Edited by Emeline K. Paige. Florida Classics Library, Port Salerno.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 6-5

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

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

Janus Research 1998 Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of the Indian Riverside Park in Martin County, Florida. Janus Research, Tampa. 2000 Gulfstream Natural Gas System Cultural Resources Supplemental Report 1. Janus Research, Tampa. 2001 Gulfstream Cultural Resources Supplemental Report 3. Janus Research, Tampa. 2003 St. Lucie County Historic Resources Survey. Janus Research, Tampa. 2008 South Florida Archaeological Context. South Florida Water Management District. Janus Research, Inc., Tampa. 2014a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Florida Southeast Connection Natural Gas Pipeline Supplemental Report 1, Follow-Up and Re-Route Surveys, Polk, Okeechobee, St. Lucie andDRAFT Martin Counties. Janus Research, Tampa. 2014b Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Florida Southeast Connection Natural Gas Pipeline Supplemental Report 2, Osceola, Polk, Okeechobee, St. Lucie and Martin Counties. Janus Research, Tampa. 2015 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Florida Southeast Connection Natural Gas Pipeline Supplemental Report 2, Osceola, St. Lucie and Polk Counties, Janus Research, Tampa.

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

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

Loubser, J.H.N, A. Cordell, L. Raymer, H Matternes, P. Vojnovski, D. Frink, and B. Young 2005 Phase III Data Recovery of 8SL1181 at Ten Mile Creek St. Lucie County, Florida. New South Associates Technical Report. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, GA.

Lyon, Eugene A. 1983 The Enterprise of Florida: Pedro Menéndez de Avilés and the Spanish Conquest of 1565-1568. Originally published in 1974 under the title, The Adelantamiento of Florida: 1565-1568. The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

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

Mahon, John K. 1967 History of the Second Seminole War 1835-1842. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1985 History of the Second Seminole War 1835-1842. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 6-6 McDowell, Curt 2016 Personal communication with Christine Newman on October 28, 2016. Mr. McDowell is employed by Evans Properties and is familiar with the agricultural techniques used on the property.

McGregor, A. James 1974 A Ceramic Chronology for the Biscayne Region of Southeast Florida. MA Thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville 1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. . Milanich, Jerald T., Jeffery Chapman, Ann S. Cordell, Stephen H. Hale, and Rochelle A. Marrinan 1984 Prehistoric Development of Calusa Society in Southwest Florida: Excavations on Useppa Island. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory. Edited by D. D. Davis, pp. 258-314. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

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

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

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

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

Newman, Christine 1986 A Preliminary Report of Investigations at the Cheetum Site, Dade County, Florida. On file, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami.

Newman, Christine, Mary Glowacki, and James Dunbar 2006 The Swamps and Sloughs of Southwest Florida: Their Early Occupants. Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology, Puerto Rico.

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

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

Pruitt, Ken 2016 St. Lucie County property appraiser website. https://www.paslc.org/main/index.html#/.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 6-7

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

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

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

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

Russo, Michael 1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case Study from Horr's Island. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1994a A Brief Introduction to the Study of Archaic Mounds in the Southeast. Southeastern Archaeology 13(2):89-92. 1994b Why We DRAFTDon't Believe in Archaic Ceremonial Mounds and Why We Should: The Case from Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 13(2):93-108. 2008 Late Archaic Shell Rings and Society in the Southeast U.S. The SAA Archaeological Record 8(5):18-22.

Russo, Michael, and Gregory Heide 2002 The Joseph Reed Shell Ring. The Florida Anthropologist 55(2):55-87.

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

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

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

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

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

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 6-8

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

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

St. Lucie County n.d. Bluefield Ranch Preserve. Brochure. Environmental Resources Department, St. Lucie County, Ft Pierce.

St. Lucie Historical Society 2004 St. Lucie County Historical Museum Guide. http://www.rootsweb.com/~flslchs/. October 18

State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection 1853a Field Notes. Volume 108. M.A. Williams. 1853b Field Notes. Volume 187. M.A. Williams. 1853c Plat. Township 37 South, Range 37 East. M.A. Williams .n.d. Tract BookDRAFT. Township 37 South, Range 37 East

Tebeau, Charlton W. 1966 Florida's Last Frontier: The History of Collier County. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables. 1971 A History of Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables. 1980 A History of Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.

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

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1944a Aerial photograph – 10-29-44, CZB-4C-26. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1944b Aerial photograph – 10-29-44, CZB-4C-27. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1944c Aerial photograph – 10-29-44, CZB-4C-28. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1944d Aerial photograph – 10-29-44, CZB-4C-29. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1944e Aerial photograph – 10-29-44, CZB-4C-30. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1944f Aerial photograph – 10-29-44, CZB-5C-25. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1944g Aerial photograph – 10-29-44, CZB-5C-27. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1944h Aerial photograph – 10-29-44, CZB-5C-28. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1944i Aerial photograph – 10-29-44, CZB-5C-28. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1958a Aerial photograph – 3-15-58, CZB-2B-119. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1958b Aerial photograph – 3-15-58, CZB-2B-114. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1958c Aerial photograph – 3-15-58, CZB-2B-115. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1958d Aerial photograph – 3-15-58, CZB-2B-116. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1958e Aerial photograph – 3-15-58, CZB-2B-117. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1958f Aerial photograph – 3-15-58, CZB-2B-119. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1971a Aerial photograph – 1-17-11, CZB-3MM-20. On file, PALMM, Gainesville.

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 6-9

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1971b Aerial photograph – 1-17-71, CZB-1MM-21. On file, PALMM, Gainesville. 1980 Soil Survey of St. Lucie County Area, Florida. Washington, D.C. 2016 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Florida – September 2016. USDA, NRCS, Fort Worth, TX.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1953a Okeechobee 1SE, Fla. 1953b Okeechobee 1SW, Fla. 1953c Okeechobee 4NE, Fla.

Van Landingham, Kyle S. 1988 Pictorial History of Saint Lucie County: 1565-1910. Published by Kyle S. Van Landingham, St. Pierce. 2001 Pioneer Families of the Kissimmee River Valley. http://www.lamartin.com/history/pioneer_families_kissimmee_river_valley.htm

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

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

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

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

Wheeler, Ryan J. 1994 Early Florida Decorated Bone Artifacts: Style and Aesthetics from Paleo-Indian Through

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

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

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 6-10

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

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

Worth, John E. 1992 Appendix D: Revised Aboriginal Ceramic Typology for the Timucua Mission Province. In Excavations on the Franciscan Frontier: Archaeology at the Fig Springs Mission. Edited by B. R. Weisman, pp. 188-205. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. DRAFT

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 6-11

DRAFT

APPENDIX A

FMSF Forms

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm SL03285 Page 1 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM SSite #8 ______FField Date ______9-19-2016 FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE † Original FForm Date ______11-14-2016 Version 4.0 1/07 † Update RRecorder # ______13 SShaded Fields represent the minimum acceptable level of documentation. Consult the Guide to Historical Structure Forms for detailed instructions.

SSite Name(s) (address if none) ______Bluefield Water Farm Residence MMultiple Listing (DHR only) ______SSurvey Project Name ______CRAS, Bluefield Water Farm SSurvey # (DHR only) ______NNational Register Category (please check one) † building † structure † district † site † object OOwnership: †private-profit †private-nonprofit †private-individual †private-nonspecific †city †county †state †federal †Native American †foreign †unknown LOCATION & MAPPING Street Number Direction Street Name Street Type Suffix Direction AAddress: CCross Streets (nearest / between) ______E of Bluefield Rd/S of Okeechobee Rd (SR 70) UUSGS 7.5 Map Name ______OKEECHOBEE SE UUSGS Date ______1953 PPlat or Other Map ______CCity / Town (within 3 miles) ______Okeechobee IIn City Limits? †yes †no †unknown CCounty ______St. Lucie TTownship ______37S RRange ______37E SSection ______14 ¼ section: †NW †SW †SE †NE Irregular-name: ______TTax Parcel # ______4101-111-0002-010-0 LLandgrant ______SSubdivision Name ______BBlock ______LLot ______UUTM Coordinates: ZZone †16 †17 EEasting 538759 NNorthing 3015453 OOther Coordinates: X: ______Y: ______CCoordinate System & Datum ______NName of Public Tract (e.g., park) ______DRAFT HISTORY CConstruction Year: ______1927 †approximately †year listed or earlier †year listed or later OOriginal Use ______Private Residence (House/Cottage/Cabin) From (year):______1927 To (year):______curr CCurrent Use ______Private Residence (House/Cottage/Cabin) From (year):______1927 To (year):______curr OOther Use ______From (year):______To (year):______MMoves: †yes †no †unknown Date: ______Original address ______AAlterations: †yes †no †unknown Date: ______1-1-1980 Nature ______Reroofed, some replacement windows AAdditions: †yes †no †unknown Date: ______1-1-1980 Nature ______S gable roof MV addition AArchitect (last name first): ______BBuilder (last name first): ______OOwnership History (especially original owner, dates, profession, etc.) ______Parcel owned by Evans Properties Inc, land purchased from ______Levitt Homes Inc. at an unknown date (property appraiser says 1900; likely incorrect) IIs the Resource Affected by a Local Preservation Ordinance? †yes †no †unknown Describe ______DESCRIPTION SStyle ______Frame Vernacular EExterior Plan ______Irregular NNumber of Stories ______1 EExterior Fabric(s) 1. ______Wood siding 2. ______Vinyl 3. ______RRoof Type(s) 1. ______Hip 2. ______Shed 3. ______Gable RRoof Material(s) 1. ______Composition shingles 2. ______3. ______RRoof secondary strucs. (dormers etc.) 1. ______2. ______WWindows (types, materials, etc.) ______Paired 1/1 DHS, ind. 2/2 SHS, ind. 1/1 metal SHS, ind. metal slider ______DDistinguishing Architectural Features (exterior or interior ornaments) ______Wood window and door frames, brick chimney ______AAncillary Features / Outbuildings (record outbuildings, major landscape features; use continuation sheet if needed.) ______

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)

HR6E046R0107 Florida Master Site File / Division of Historical Resources / R. A. Gray Building / 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (850) 245-6440 / Fax (850)245-6439 / E-mail [email protected] Page 2 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM SSite #8 ______SL03285

DESCRIPTION (continued)

CChimney: No.____1 CChimney Material(s): 1. ______Brick 2. ______SStructural System(s): 1. ______Balloon wood frame 2. ______Concrete block 3. ______FFoundation Type(s): 1. ______Piers 2. ______Piers FFoundation Material(s): 1. ______Concrete, Generic 2. ______Concrete, Generic MMain Entrance (stylistic details) ______E elevation, 9-light wooden door within inset entry area accessible via swinging ______wooden door PPorch Descriptions (types, locations, roof types, etc.) ______S elevation, full-width screened porch ______CCondition (overall resource condition): †excellent †good †fair †deteriorated †ruinous NNarrative Description of Resource ______C.1927 Frame Vernacular residence with later MV addition is in good condition ______and retains some original exterior fabric. Overall a common example of a Frame Vernacular building found ______throughout St. Lucie County and the state of Florida. AArchaeological Remains ______† CCheck if Archaeological Form Completed

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

AAppears to meet the criteria for National Register listing individually? †yes †no †insufficient information AAppears to meet the criteria for National Register listing as part of a district? †yes †no †insufficient information EExplanation of Evaluation (requiredd, whether significant or not; use separate sheet if needed) ______This is a common Frame Vernacular style dwelling______with alterations, and limited research did not reveal any significant historic associations. Therefore,______8SL03285 does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP. AArea(s) of Historical Significance (see National Register Bulletin 15, p. 8 for categories: e.g. “architecture”, “ethnic heritage”, “community planning & development”, etc.) 1. ______Architecture 3. ______5. ______2. ______Community planning & development 4. ______6. ______DOCUMENTATION

AAccessible Documentation Not Filed with the Site File - including field notes, analysis notes, photos, plans and other important documents DDocument type ______All materials at one location MMaintaining organization ______Archaeological Consultants Inc 1) DDocument description ______Files, photos, research, documentation FFile or accession #’s ______P16078 DDocument type ______MMaintaining organization ______2) DDocument description ______FFile or accession #’s ______RECORDER INFORMATION

RRecorder Name ______Thomas J. Wilson AAffiliation ______Archaeological Consultants Inc RRecorder Contact Information ______8110 Blaikie Court, Ste. A / Sarasota, FL / 34240 / [email protected] (address / phone / fax / e-mail)

n USGS 7.5’ MAP WITH STRUCTURE LOCATION PINPOINTED IN RED Required o LARGE SCALE STREET, PLAT OR PARCEL MAP (available from most property appraiser web sites) Attachments p PHOTO OF MAIN FACADE, ARCHIVAL B&W PRINT OR DIGITAL IMAGE FILE If submitting an image file, it must be included on disk or CD AND in hard copy format (plain paper is acceptable). Digital image must be at least 1600 x 1200 pixels, 24-bit color, jpeg or tiff. Page 3 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM Site # 8SL03285

PHOTOGRAPH

DRAFT

AERIAL MAP ¹

8SL03285

0 50 100 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap Feet contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 02040 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, Meters and the GIS User Community Page 4 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM Site # 8SL03285 USGS

Okeechobee 1 SE Township 37 South, Range 37 East, Section 14 ¹

DRAFT

8SL03285

0 500 1,000 Feet

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

DRAFT

APPENDIX B

Survey Log

P16078 – Bluefield Water Farm 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, Bluefield Water Farm, St. Lucie County B BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW 7LWOH H[DFWO\ DV RQ WLWOH SDJH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCultural Resource Assessment Survey, Bluefield Water Farm, St. Lucie BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCounty, Florida BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HSRUW $XWKRUV DV RQ WLWOH SDJH ODVW QDPHV ILUVW . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBACI . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3XEOLFDWLRQ 'DWH \HDU BBBBBBBBBB2016 7RWDO 1XPEHU RI 3DJHV LQ 5HSRUW FRXQW WH[W ILJXUHV WDEOHV QRW VLWH IRUPV BBBBBBBBBBB57 3XEOLFDWLRQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ *LYH VHULHV QXPEHU LQ VHULHV SXEOLVKHU DQG FLW\. )RU DUWLFOH RU FKDSWHU FLWH SDJH QXPEHUV. 8VH WKH VW\OH RI $PHULFDQ $QWLTXLW\. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBP16078, ACI, Sarasota BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBDRAFT BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6XSHUYLVRUV RI )LHOGZRUN HYHQ LI VDPH DV DXWKRU 1DPHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBMarion Almy; 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 . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBaerial photography .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBorange grove .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

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

,V WKLV VXUYH\ RU SURMHFW D FRQWLQXDWLRQ RI D SUHYLRXV SURMHFW" T 1R T

0DSSLQJ

&RXQWLHV /LVW HDFK RQH LQ ZKLFK ILHOG VXUYH\ ZDV GRQH DWWDFK DGGLWLRQDO VKHHW LI QHFHVVDU\ . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBSt. Lucie . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

86*6  0DS 1DPHV

'HVFULSWLRQ RI 6XUYH\ $UHD

'DWHV IRU )LHOGZRUN 6WDUW BBBBBBBBB9-19-2016 (QG BBBBBBBBB 11-10-2016 7RWDO $UHD 6XUYH\HG ILOO LQ RQH BBBBBBKHFWDUHV BBBBBB6,000 DFUHV 1XPEHU RI 'LVWLQFW 7UDFWV RU $UHDV 6XUYH\HG BBBBBBBBB1 ,I &RUULGRU ILOO LQ RQH IRU HDFK :LGWK BBBBBBPHWHUV BBBBBBIHHW /HQJWK BBBBBBNLORPHWHUV BBBBBBPLOHV

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

5HVHDUFK DQG )LHOG 0HWKRGV 7\SHV RI 6XUYH\ FKHFN DOO WKDW DSSO\  DUFKDHRORJLFDO DUFKLWHFWXUDO KLVWRULFDODUFKLYDO XQGHUZDWHU GDPDJH DVVHVVPHQW PRQLWRULQJ UHSRUW RWKHU GHVFULEH . BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6FRSH,QWHQVLW\3URFHGXUHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBackground research; predictive model, field survey (900 total; 751 @BBBBBBBB 25 m BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBintervals in potential areas, 149 judgmental; report prepared. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'RFXPHQW 'HVWLQDWLRQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3ORWDELOLW\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

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

DRAFT

0 0.25 0.5 Miles 00.51 Kilometers Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Bluefield Water Farm Sections 2-4, 10-15, 23-26 and 36 of Township 37 South, Range 37 East USGS Okeechobee 1SW, 1SE and 4NE St. Lucie County