CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY ANNA MARIA ISLAND BRIDGE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT (PD&E) STUDY S.R. 64 (MANATEE AVENUE) FROM S.R. 789 (EAST BAY DRIVE) TO PERICO BAY BOULEVARD MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA Financial Project ID: 424436-1-21-01 For: Florida Department of Transportation District One Environmental Management Office 801 North Broadway P.O. Box 1249 Bartow, FL 33831 December 2008 CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY ANNA MARIA ISLAND BRIDGE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT (PD&E) STUDY S.R. 64 (MANATEE AVENUE) FROM S.R. 789 (EAST BAY DRIVE) TO PERICO BAY BOULEVARD MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA Financial Project ID: 424436-1-21-01 For: Florida Department of Transportation District One Environmental Management Office 801 North Broadway P.O. Box 1249 Bartow, FL 33831 In association with: PBS&J 5300 West Cypress Street, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33607 and AIM Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 5802 Breckenridge Parkway, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33610 By: Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A Sarasota, Florida 34240 Marion Almy – Project Manager Elizabeth A. Horvath and Lee Hutchinson – Project Archaeologists Marielle Lumang – Architectural Historian Justin Winkler and Nigel Rudolph – Archaeologists Brad William Burger – Special Consultant December 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study for improvement alternatives along State Road (S.R.) 64 (Manatee Avenue), hereinafter referred to as S.R. 64, from west of S.R. 789 (East Bay Drive) to east of Perico Bay Boulevard in Manatee County, Florida, a distance of approximately two miles. S.R. 64 was originally constructed in 1957 to connect Anna Maria Island with the City of Bradenton on the mainland in Manatee County. S.R. 64 is an east-west minor urban arterial that provides one of three vehicular access routes to Anna Maria Island. This cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) was conducted by Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) on behalf of the FDOT, District One, and in association with Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) and AIM Engineering and Survey, Inc. The purpose of the CRAS was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As a result, the assessment survey was conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Chapter 267, Florida Statutes (FS). The investigations were carried out in conformity with Part 2, Chapter 12 (Archaeological and Historical Resources) of the FDOT’s PD&E Manual and the standards contained in the Florida Division of Historical Resources’ (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operations Manual (FDHR 2003; FDOT 1999). In addition, this survey meets the specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code. The field survey described in this report was conducted between October and November 2008. A review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF), NRHP, and the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Report (FDOT 2008a) indicated that sensitive cultural resources are within the area of potential effect (APE). The background research indicated that four components of 8MA6 – A, C, D, and E may lie within the S.R. 64 archaeological APE, and depending on resource integrity, one or more of the component(s) may be significant, that is, of value to Native Americans and/or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Because of the potential for sensitive cultural deposits, a research design was prepared, submitted, and approved prior to conducting the field investigations (ACI 2008; Pipkin 2008). As a result of field survey, 144 shovel test pits and four excavation units were placed within the archaeological APE. These revealed deeply buried and intact portions of 8MA6A and 8MA6E. Deposits included marine food shell; mammal, reptile and amphibian faunal remains; a few shell, bone, and stone tools; as well as several types of aboriginal ceramics. No human skeletal material was encountered but multiple periods of site occupancy are indicated by the recovered artifacts. i According to the Florida State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) database (FMSF), the Perico Island complex (8MA6) is considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP, and the results of fieldwork conducted for this undertaking support the SHPO evaluation. The discovery of intact midden within 8MA6E and in portions of 8MA6A underscores the site’s NRHP eligibility under Criterion D, which states that a “… property must have, or have had, information to contribute to our understanding of human history or prehistory, and the information must be considered important” (National Park Service [NPS] 1998:21). As a result, preservation in situ (in place) of these significant deposits is recommended. However, if impacts due to bridge and/or pond construction cannot be avoided, mitigative measures will be necessary. Historical/Architectural background research, including a review of data in the FMSF and the NRHP, indicated that one resource, the Tenant House (8MA1192), was previously recorded within the project APE. A review of the ETDM Summary Report (FDOT 2008a) revealed that Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge over Sarasota Pass (FDOT# 130054) was constructed in 1957. As a result of field survey, it was determined that the Tenant House, 8MA1192, was no longer extant and the bridge was recorded in the FMSF as 8MA1571. The latter is an example of a commonly occurring bridge type in Florida with no exceptional architectural elements, or significant historic associations. Therefore, 8MA1571 does not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Project Description ................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Area of Potential Effects (APE) ............................................................... 1-4 1.3 Purpose ..................................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW ................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Project Location and Setting .................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Physiography and Geology ...................................................................... 2-1 2.4 Soils and Vegetation ................................................................................ 2-1 2.5 Paleoenvironmental Considerations ......................................................... 2-3 3.0 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY ........................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Paleo-Indian ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Archaic ..................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3 Formative ................................................................................................. 3-6 3.4 Mississippian/Acculturative ..................................................................... 3-7 3.5 Colonialism .............................................................................................. 3-8 3.6 Territorial and Statehood ......................................................................... 3-9 3.7 Civil War and Aftermath ....................................................................... 3-12 3.8 Twentieth Century ................................................................................. 3-15 3.9 Anna Maria Island and Perico Island ..................................................... 3-17 4.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS ................................... 4-1 4.1 Background Research and Literature Review .......................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Archaeological Considerations .................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Historical Considerations ............................................................. 4-8 4.2 Field Methodology ................................................................................... 4-8 4.3 Unexpected Discoveries ......................................................................... 4-11 4.4 Laboratory Methods and Curation ......................................................... 4-11 5.0 SURVEY RESULTS .......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Archaeological Survey Results ................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Excavation Units (EU) ............................................................................. 5-7 5.2 Historical/Architectural Survey Results ................................................ 5-23 5.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 5-27 6.0 REFERENCES CITED ..................................................................................... 6-1 APPENDICES Appendix A: Research Design Appendix B: Shovel Test Pit Results and PBS&J Concept Plans showing test pit and excavation unit locations Appendix C: Excavation Unit Results Appendix D: Florida Master