Exhibit_D.pdf

Foth

Exhibit D

Submerged Cultural Resource Survey (2016)

Final Report:

Juno Beach Borrow Site, Submerged Cultural Resources Survey, Palm Beach County, Florida

(Aerial image of Juno Beach ca. 1953 [courtesy Historical Society of Palm Beach County])

Submitted to:

Olsen Associates, Inc.

4438 Herschel Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32210

1 March 2016

Final Report:

Juno Beach Borrow Site Submerged Cultural Resources Survey, Palm Beach County, Florida

Florida Division of Archaeological Research Permit No. 1415.061

Submitted to:

Olsen Associates, Inc.

4438 Herschel Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32210

Submitted by:

Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc.

P. O. Box 2494

Washington, North Carolina 27889

Gordon P. Watts, Jr., PhD, RPA Principal Investigator

1 March 2016 i

Abstract

Olsen Associates, Inc. (OA) of Jacksonville, Florida is the consulting engineer for the re-nourishment of the current Juno Beach Shore Protection Project 3 segment of the Palm Beach County Shore Protection Project. The potential source material for this nourishment will be a borrow area in Florida State waters northeast of Jupiter Inlet off Jupiter Island. In order to determine the project’s effects on potentially significant submerged cultural resources, OA contracted with Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. of Washington, North Carolina to supervise the conduct of a submerged cultural resource remote-sensing survey of the borrow site. The survey methodology was designed to provide accurate and reliable identification, assessment and remote-sensing documentation of submerged cultural resources located within the study area. Based on the magnetic and acoustic data generated by remote sensing, a total of 138 magnetic anomalies and 28 sonar targets were recorded within the investigation area. One hundred and thirty-two magnetic anomalies along with eighteen sonar targets are associated with cables, cable fragments, modern debris and isolated small objects such as fish and crab traps, pipes, small diameter ferrous rods, cable, wire rope, chain, or small boat anchors.

Six magnetic anomalies and ten associated sonar targets produced signature characteristics and spatial associations typically associated with shipwreck scatters and small vessel remains. Those anomalies are recommended for avoidance and have been isolated by buffers conforming to the spatial signatures of the anomalies and targets. In the event that avoidance is not possible, additional investigation is recommended to identify and assess material generating the buffered signatures. No evidence of relict landforms considered to be indicative of prehistoric habitation was found in the sub-bottom data. However, one signature could be associated with vessel remains in Avoidance Buffer 3. Based on the survey results, proposed dredging will not impact any National Register of Historic Places eligible submerged cultural resources if the buffered magnetic anomalies and sonar targets are avoided. Unless additional research identifies the charted and uncharted cables as abandoned and removable, they should likewise be avoided.

ii

Table of Contents Page

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. i List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. iv List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. vii Introduction Project Location Survey Weather Conditions

Monday, 15 June 2015 Tuesday, 16 June 2015 Wednesday, 17 June 2015 Thursday, 18 June 2015 Friday, 19 June 2015

Literature and Historical Research National Register of Historic Places National Historical Landmarks Environmental Setting Regional Prehistoric Overview

Paleoindian Period The Early Archaic Period The Middle Archaic Period The Late Archaic Period The Post Archaic Period

East Okeechobee I East Okeechobee II East Okeechobee III East Okeechobee IV

Submerged Prehistoric Resource Potential Historical Background

Discovery and Exploration Period Early Colonization Period British Control and the American Revolution Period American Expansion and The Seminole Wars

Early Settlement of the Lake Worth Region The Antebellum Period The Civil War Period The Reconstruction and Recovery Period The Emergence of Transportation Infrastructure and Tourism Late-Nineteenth-Century Coastal Scene

The Development of Key Local Governments Late Progressive Era to the Post-World War I Period The Great Depression to Onset of War World II World War II Era to Postwar Period (1939-1949) The Modern Period (1950-1989)

The Contemporary Period Offshore Historical Resource Nature and Potential

Previous Investigations Remote-Sensing Survey Methodology iii

Remote-Sensing Survey Equipment Magnetometer Side Scan Sonars Sub-bottom Profilers

Limitations of Magnetic and Acoustic Remote-Sensing Magnetic Remote-Sensing

Magnetic Anomaly Assessment Small Single Ferrous Objects Moderate Single Ferrous Objects Pipe and Pipelines Cables and Wire Rope

Vessel Remains Small Vessel Remains

Folly River Wreck Site 44HE956 (Civil War schooner) Site 8MO1448 (“Boca Chica Channel Wreck”) Site 8SJ3309 (Centerboard Schooner) Site 8SJ3478 (The Industry) Site 0001TNR (Centerboard Schooner) Site 38CN255 (Barge, Ferry, or Rice Flat)

Medium Vessel Remains Site 31CR314 (Queen Anne’s Revenge) Site 0004BUI (Lucinda A. Bailey) The Trawler Parkins Site 0001BUI (Quinnebaug)

Large Vessels Site 8PB10360 (Lofthus) Site 44YO673 (Kennebec) Site 0001RII (Wild Dayrell) USS/CSS Water Witch Site 8MA1235 (Regina)

Analysis of the Juno Beach Borrow Site Data Juno Beach Borrow Site Data

Magnetometer Data Sidescan Sonar Data Sub-bottom Profiler Data

Conclusions and Recommendations Unexpected Discovery Protocol Rationale For Buffer Parameters

Virginia North Carolina Georgia Florida Louisiana

References Cited Appendix A: Juno Beach Magnetic Anomaly Table Appendix B: Juno Beach Sonar Target Table Appendix C: Juno Beach Sonar Target Reports Appendix D: Palm Beach County Shipwreck List Appendix E: Enhancement Reefs List iv

List of Figures Page

Figure 1. Survey area located on extract of NOAA Chart 11460

Figure 2. Juno Beach borrow site survey border points Figure 3. Map of cultural areas defined by Carr and Beriault Figure 4. Sea level rise according to Balsillie and Donoghue Figure 5. Bahama Channel shown on 1564 Le Moyne de Morgue map Figure 6. 1823 Tanner map showing coastal features & “The Everglades” Figure 7. Civil War Era image of USS Connecticut

Figure 8. Contemporary sketch of wrecked 'Spanish brig' at Lake Worth Figure 9. "Cocoanut Grove House" ca. 1891 Figure 10. Circa 1890 advertisement in The Tropical Sun Figure 11. Map of Dade County, 1894 Figure 12. Coquimbo shipwreck scene ca. January 1909 Figure 13. Bessemer Properties plat of section of Juno Beach Figure 14. Aerial view of Juno Beach circa 1953 Figure 15. USS Northampton (r.) and USS Alstede ca. 1964 Figure 16. SEA Diversified project survey vessel

Figure 17. Calibrating the DGPS navigation system Figure 18. Planned survey lines for the Juno Beach borrow site survey Figure 19. “As run” survey lines for the Juno Beach borrow site survey Figure 20. Geometrics G-882 magnetometer sensor Figure 21. EdgeTech 4125 sidescan sonar Figure 22. EdgeTech 512i sub-bottom profiler transducer Figure 23. Sonar image of the Jordan Bridge shipwrecks Figure 24. Magnetic contour map illustrating masking of vessel signatures Figure 25. High-resolution sonar image of Mepkin Abby wreck in Cooper River

Figure 26. A small, positive monopolar anomaly Figure 27. A small, negative monopolar anomaly Figure 28. A small dipolar anomaly Figure 29. A moderate positive monopolar signature Figure 30. A moderate negative monopolar anomaly Figure 31. A moderate dipolar anomaly Figure 32. A multicomponent signature produced by an oil or gas pipeline Figure 33. A negative monopolar cable signature v

Figure 34. Sonar mosaic with magnetic contour overlay of Folly River wreck Figure 35. Sonar image of Site 44HE956 Figure 36. Plan of Site 44HE956 Figure 37. Plan of Site 8MO1488 Figure 38. Magnetic contours over Site 8MO1488 Figure 39. Plan for Site 8SJ3309 Figure 40. Sonar image of Site No. 8SJ3309

Figure 41. Magnetic anomaly #52 from Site 8SJ3478 Figure 42. Magnetic anomaly #48 from Site 8SJ3478 Figure 43. Sonar image from Site 8SJ3478 Figure 44. Plan of Site 8SJ3478 Figure 45. Sonar image of Site 0001TNR Figure 46. Five-gamma magnetic contours of Site 0001TNR over sonar mosaic Figure 47. Magnetic contour map for vicinity of Site 38CN255 Figure 48. Sidescan sonar image of Site 38CN255 Figure 49. Perspective plan of Site 38CN255

Figure 50. Site plan of shipwreck tentatively identified as Queen Anne’s Revenge Figure 51. Magnetic contours from Site 31CR314 Figure 52. Sonar image of the limited exposed remains of Site 34CR314 Figure 53. Sonar image of Site 0004BUI Figure 54. Magnetic contours for the trawler Parkins Figure 55. Sonar image of the wreck of the Parkins Figure 56. Site plan of the Quinnebaug Figure 57. Sonar image of the remains of the Quinnebaug Figure 58. Magnetic contours created by remains of the Quinnebaug

Figure 59. Site plan of the Lofthus) Figure 60. Sonar signature from the Lofthus site Figure 61. Magnetic contours from the Lofthus Figure 62. Magnetic contour map for the vicinity of Site 44YO673 Figure 63. Sonar image (1995) of Site 44YO673 Figure 64. Sonar image (2009) of Site 44YO673 Figure 65. Magnetic contours from the Wild Dayrell site Figure 66. One magnetic signature produced by the Wild Dayrell Figure 67. Sonar image of Wild Dayrell

Figure 68. Perspective drawing of the remains of Wild Dayrell Figure 69. Magnetic contours over the Waterwitch site Figure 70. Sonar image showing only prop scour at the Waterwitch site vi

Figure 71. Sonar image of the Regina Figure 72. Partial magnetic contours over Regina site Figure 73. School of fish generating “image” of ballast pile Figure 74. Sub-bottom profiler image of CSS Waterwitch in Vernon River, Georgia Figure 75. Example of side echoes created by an adjacent bulkhead Figure 76. Sub-bottom profile of sinkhole off Cape Romano, Collier County, Florida Figure 77. Sub-bottom profile of relict channel of Cape Romano, Florida

Figure 78. View of HYPACK Single Beam Editor with magnetometer data Figure 79. SonarWiz.MAP project with sonar mosaic and target report file Figure 80. SonarWiz.MAP sub-bottom project with digitizer window open Figure 81. Juno Beach Borrow Site (JBBS) magnetic anomalies, contours, and buffers Figure 82. JBBS magnetic anomalies and sonar targets in Avoidance Buffer #1 Figure 83. JBBS sonar coverage mosaic with referenced sonar targets Figure 84. JBBS sonar targets and magnetic anomalies in Avoidance Buffer #1 Figure 85. Sonar image JB SSS 015 Figure 86. Sonar image JB SSS 016

Figure 87. Sonar image JB SSS 017 Figure 88. Sonar image JB SSS 017A Figure 89. Sonar image SSS 018 Figure 90. Sonar image SSS 018A Figure 91. Sonar image JB SSS 018B Figure 92. Avoidance Buffer # 2 with sonar target locations Figure 93. Sonar image JB SSS 009 Figure 94. Sonar image JB SSS 009A Figure 95. Sonar image JB SSS 009B

Figure 96. Sub-bottom profiler image of target in Avoidance Buffer #1 Figure 97. Extract of NOAA Chart 11460 showing wrecks in the JBBS vicinity vii

List of Tables Page

Table 1. Coordinates for the perimeter of the Juno Beach Borrow Site Table 2. Civil War era vessels navigating in the vicinity of the project area Table 3. Magnetic characteristics of shipwreck remains Table 4. Magnetic characteristics of steamboat wrecks Table 5. Magnetic characteristics of single objects Table 6. Magnetic characteristics of multiple objects

Table 7. Magnetic contour areas

Introduction

Olsen Associates, Inc. (OA) is the consulting engineer for the current re-nourishment of the Juno Beach Shore Protection Project 3 segment of the Palm Beach County Shore Protection Project. The potential source material for this nourishment will be a borrow area in Florida State waters northeast of Jupiter Inlet, off Jupiter Island in Palm Beach County, Florida. In order to determine the project’s effects on potentially significant submerged cultural resources, OA contracted with Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. (TAR) of Washington, North Carolina to supervise the conduct of a remote-sensing survey of the borrow area authorized under Florida Division of Historical Resources Archaeological Research Permit No. 1415.061.

The remote-sensing survey of the Juno Beach borrow site was designed to identify magnetic and/or acoustic anomalies that might be generated by shipwreck resources and relict landforms that could be associated with prehistoric habitation. Analysis of the data was designed to identify and assess the potential significance of anomalies and determine the necessity for additional investigation designed to generate data to support a determination of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. The investigation complies with Federal mandates established in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (PL 89-665); the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1979, as amended;

the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation revised 36 CFR, Part 800. The survey was carried out in compliance with Chapter 267, Florida Statues, Chapter 1A-32 and 46 of the Florida Administrative Code, and was permitted by the Division of Historical Resources under Chapter 1A-32. The results of the investigation will furnish OA and Palm Beach County (PBC) with the archaeological data essential to comply with submerged cultural resource legislation and regulations.

Analysis of the remote-sensing data identified a total of 138 magnetic anomalies and 28 sonar targets within the investigation area. One hundred and thirty-two magnetic anomalies along with eighteen sonar targets are associated with cables, cable fragments, modern debris and isolated small objects such as fish and crab traps, pipes, small diameter ferrous rods, cable, wire rope, chain, or small boat anchors. Six magnetic anomalies and ten associated sonar targets produced signature characteristics and spatial distributions typically associated with shipwreck scatters and small vessel remains. Those anomalies are recommended for avoidance and have been isolated by buffers conforming to the spatial signatures of the anomalies and targets. In the event that avoidance is not possible, additional investigation is recommended to identify and assess material generating the buffered signatures. No evidence of relict landforms considered to be indicative of prehistoric habitation was found in the sub-bottom data. However, one signature could be associated with vessel remains in Avoidance Buffer 3.

Based on the survey results, proposed dredging will not impact any NRHP eligible submerged cultural resources if the buffered magnetic anomalies and sonar targets are avoided. Unless research identifies the charted and uncharted cables as abandoned and removable, they should likewise be avoided.

The work performed by TAR consisted of a background literature review and archaeological supervision of the borrow area remote-sensing survey, data analysis and preparation of this document. The remote-sensing survey employed a cesium-vapor marine magnetometer, high-resolution sidescan sonar, and a chirp sub-bottom profiler. Survey planning was carried out by Gary A. Zarillo from SEA, Inc. (SEA) of Melbourne, Florida; Rick Horgan from Sonographics, Inc. (SG) of Wilton Manors, Florida; and principal archaeological investigator Gordon Watts. Fieldwork activities were carried out from 15 June to 19 June 2015. Project field personnel consisted of Dr. John Broadwater (field archaeological supervisor), Dr. Zarillo (marine geologist), and Mr. Horgan (remote-sensing specialist). Archaeological data analysis was conducted by Dr. Watts. Historical and cartographical research was carried out by Dr. Watts and Senior Historian Robin Arnold. Dr. Watts and Ms. Arnold prepared this report.

Project Location

The sand source for the beach nourishment project consists of a borrow area in State waters two miles northeast of Jupiter Inlet. The project investigation area is a polygon measuring up to 13,400 feet in length, and up to 4,800 feet in width and covers an area of 1,173 acres (Figure 1). The coordinates for the Juno Beach Borrow Site investigation area are identified in Florida East, State Plane Coordinate System, U.S. Survey Foot, NAD 83 coordinates (Table 1; Figure 2).

BORDER POINT X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE

1 966439.8 963359.1 2 966943.9 963331.7 3 967142.6 962996.8 4 968750.4 961171.5 5 968123.4 960948.1 6 968918.1 960960.4 7 969451.9 958862.2 8 969613.3 958700.9 9 969960.3 956544.2 10 969798.7 954380.4 11 969927.9 952669.1 12 970153.9 951247.5 13 968636.1 950149.3 14 966988.8 950181.7 15 964017.5 960710.6 16 964114.4 961776.5 17 966052.2 962487.1

Table 1. Coordinates for the perimeter of the Juno Beach Borrow Site.

Figure 1. Survey area located on extract of NOAA Chart 11460.

Figure 2. Juno Beach borrow site survey border points.

Survey Weather Conditions

During the Juno Beach borrow site remote-sensing survey weather conditions were typically hot for south Florida. Temperatures ranged from the low nineties and high eighties during each day to the low eighties and high seventies each night. Sea states generally ranged from one to three feet during the survey. A long-shore current consistently ran north at approximately 1.2 knots during the project. Visibility exceeded nine miles during each day of survey operations. Wind direction, wind speed, and daily conditions were variable as noted.

Monday, 15 June 2015

During the course of the workday, prevailing winds were easterly and east-southeasterly with wind speeds recorded between 9.2 mph to 10.4 mph. Maximum gust speeds reached 21.9 mph during the mid-afternoon. No precipitation was recorded and conditions varied from partly cloudy to mostly cloudy during the course of the workday.

Tuesday, 16 June 2015

During the course of the workday, prevailing winds were calm, east-southeasterly, and easterly with wind speeds recorded between 5.8 mph to 13.8 mph. Maximum gust speeds reached 19.6 mph during the early afternoon. No precipitation was recorded and conditions varied from partly cloudy to scattered cloudy during the course of the workday.

Wednesday, 17 June 2015

During the course of the workday, prevailing winds were easterly and east-southeasterly with wind speeds recorded between 6.9 mph to 13.8 mph. Maximum gust speeds reached 18.4 mph during the late morning and late afternoon. No precipitation was recorded and conditions varied from scattered cloudy to partly cloudy during the course of the workday.

Thursday, 18 June 2015

During the course of the workday, prevailing winds were easterly, east-southeasterly, and southeasterly with wind speeds recorded between 5.8 mph to 15.0 mph. No precipitation was recorded and conditions varied from partly cloudy, mostly cloudy, and scattered clouds during the course of the workday.

Friday, 19 June 2015

During the course of the workday, prevailing winds were calm, variable, east-southeasterly, and southeasterly with wind speeds recorded between 3.5 mph to 13.8 mph. Maximum gust speeds reached 17.3 mph during the late afternoon. No precipitation was recorded and conditions varied from partly cloudy to mostly scattered clouds during the course of the workday.

Literature and Historical Research

A comprehensive literature search focused on primary and secondary sources to reveal significant cultural resources in the proposed project area. That archival research refined numerous historical assessments of the southeast Florida coast previously developed by TAR.

Preliminary wreck-specific information was collected from secondary sources that include: A Guide To Sunken Ships In American Waters (Lonsdale and Kaplan 1964), The Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks (Berman 1972), Shipwrecks of the Civil War: The Encyclopedia of Union and Confederate Naval Losses (Shomette 1973), Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States 1790 - 1868 (Lytle and Holdcamper 1975), Shipwrecks in the Vicinity of Jupiter Inlet (DuBois 1975), Shipwrecks in the Americas (Marx 1983), Shipwrecks in Florida Waters (Marx 1985), Shipwrecks of Florida (Singer 1998), Shipwrecks of the Sunshine State: Florida’s Submerged History (Barnette 2003), and S.S. Inchulva: A Florida Shipwreck Rediscovered (Reeves 2003).

A survey of maritime records associated with PBC, including a review of selected on-line Florida newspapers and NOAA's Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System, generated additional information. Historical maps and charts preserved in the collections of the Florida Archives and the University of Florida Library were previously reviewed for submerged cultural resource data applicable to the current project area. On-line records from both repositories were re-examined for updates, in addition to the Exploring Florida Maps website (Florida Center for Instructional Technology 2009).

Personnel in the office of the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (FBAR) in Tallahassee were contacted to seek approval for the research design, to determine if any previously reported sites were located in the project area, to confirm the existence of active salvage permits, and to determine if any sites have recently been nominated and/or listed on the NRHP (Julia Byrd, elec. comm., 9 June 2015; Julia Byrd, elec. comm., 10 June 2015; Julia Byrd, elec. comm., 11 June 2015; Julia Byrd, elec. comm., 10 August 2015; Julia Byrd, elec.

comm., 14 August 2015).

The Florida Master Site File (FMSF) database was accessed on several occasions during the course of the project fieldwork, and during the research and report preparation phases. The FMSF was last accessed on 8 September 2015 to ascertain if updates had been entered and to check the status of newly uploaded Cultural Resource Management (CRM) reports, survey logs, etc., for the subject project area. On the last query event, 46 documents were listed when PBC was refined for the subject quadrangle. Of those, five CRM reports focused on shipwrecks or submerged cultural resources. In addition, the Historical Society of Palm Beach County was contacted to ascertain if relevant shipwreck information has been added to its archival collections since the last on-site visit during 2009 (Debi Murray, elec. comm., 22 June 2015). Online catalogue searches of collections housed by the Palm Beach County Library (main) were also queried to check for newly accessioned materials that shed light on potential cultural resources in the project area.

National Register of Historic Places

During the course of the archival research, the NRHP database maintained by the National Park Service (NPS) was consulted to ascertain if cultural resources were listed for the jurisdiction of PBC. The subject database was last queried on 15 September 2015 to determine if very recent nominations and/or listings were added. On this date, 71 sites were included in the NPS database. Only one shipwreck, the Lofthus, was identified among the listings.

National Historical Landmarks

According to the NPS, only two properties are currently listed as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) for PBC. These are identified as the Gilded Age marble mansion, “Whitehall” (Henry Morrison Flagler Museum); and the Hispano-Moresque villa, “Mar-A-Lago” (National Park Service [NPS] 1981:2; NPS 2004:1).

Environmental Setting

Palm Beach County lies along the southeast edge of the Floridan Plateau. The plateau, which includes the Florida peninsula and the adjacent continental shelf, is a large carbonate platform composed of approximately 22,000 feet of marine sediments (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 1995:10). Underneath that structure lies the south Florida Basin, a crystalline and sedimentary basement of rock. The basin is a block-faulted feature that is associated with the breakup of the North American and African plates during the Mesozoic era.

Additional faulting of the block created the Straits of Florida, which flooded during subsequent sea level transgressions. Higher sea levels approximately 100,000 to 125,000 years ago initiated an episode of periodic reef building and marine deposition, creating a lagoonal/bay complex in south Florida and a reef complex along the eastern margins (NOAA 1995:10).

Sea level fluctuation from the last period of glaciation is largely responsible for the region’s current morphology. During the Wisconsin Glaciation, sea level dropped significantly, exposing the entire Floridan Plateau to marine and subaerial erosion (NOAA 1995:10).

Approximately 6,000 years ago sea level rose again, flooding the plateau to present levels. The barrier islands along the southeast coast are the lithified remnants of the Pleistocene/Holocene reef complex (NOAA 1995:10).

These reefs are oriented in a north-south direction and, in some places, rise to within 3 to 6 feet below mean low water. The intervening troughs are deeper, ranging between 30 to 60 feet below mean low water. Sand deposition is the result of sediment drift from the north, filling the troughs between the offshore reefs.

Regional Prehistoric Overview

The fluctuation of sea level during and following the Wisconsin Glaciation is an important factor for reconstructing the paleoenvironment and determining the potential for Native American sites on drowned continental shelf surfaces. Goggin postulated sea level fluctuation and its archaeological interpretation in 1948 and in 1960 proposed that for “some periods of man’s cultural history there may well be far more data under the sea than on the land” (Goggin 1960:352). In 1966, Emery and Edwards established a relative sea level curve and noted its implications to archaeological sites (Emery and Edwards 1966:733-736). Paleoindian and Archaic sites were most likely submerged offshore and sites of particular periods could be located at specific depths (Murphy 1990:17; Milanich 1994:38-39).

Because the investigation area lies in this offshore environment, any prehistoric material in the area should be related to either the Paleoindian or Early Archaic Period. It is possible that sites dating from the Middle Archaic and more recent cultural phases may be located closer inshore (Ruppé 1978:119). For that reason the focus of this prehistoric background is on the Paleoindian, Early Archaic, and Middle Archaic Periods and the local sites and cultural evidence that characterize each.

Paleoindian Period

Prehistoric development of Florida, and specifically the East Okeechobee Area (Figure 3) (Carr and Beriault 1984; Pepe et al. 1998; Wheeler et al. 2002), is divided into three general periods: Paleoindian (10,000-7500 B.C.), Archaic (7500-750 B.C.), and East Okeechobee (750 B.C.-A.D. 1750). The Paleo-Indian period is characterized by small groups of nomads who hunted animals, some of which are now extinct, and collected plant and other food resources.

Paleoindian peoples were known for making lanceolate-shaped stone projectile points; one of the few surviving diagnostic artifacts of the period (Milanich 1994:47-50). In Florida, these types of projectile points have come primarily from inundated sites, sinkholes and rivers in the northern and west-central coastal areas of the state (Dunbar and Waller 1983:19-30; Dunbar 1991:192-193).

During the Paleoindian period, the Floridian peninsula was much larger than it is today due to lower sea level stands (Milanich 1994:18, 1998:4). Because of the arid conditions and the fact that “inland rivers, lakes, springs, and other extensive surface water such as marshes and wet prairies were virtually nonexistent” (Milanich 1994:18), the greatest Paleoindian populations probably existed in areas of the Atlantic coast that are now inundated (Goggin 1960: 352).

Based on archaeological evidence, Paleoindian groups initially appeared in Florida around 12,000 B.P. (Milanich 1994:38). During this period sea level on the east coast of Florida was as much as 45 meters (148 feet) lower than the present (Balsillie and Donoghue 2004; Figure 4). Pollen and paleontological studies indicate that the environment of the central peninsula at that time was considerably drier than today. The region was characterized by xeric scrub vegetation. Areas where rivers or springs provided additional moisture supported forests of oak and pine (Borremans 1990:2).

These wetter environments also sustained a host of animal life and would likely have attracted Paleoindian groups arriving from the north. A wide range of ungulates and sloths were present in southern Florida at this time, which suggests that extensive grasslands were also present (Pepe and Steele 1998:38).

Paleoindians have traditionally been identified as nomads moving seasonally as sources of game and wild plant foods changed with the seasons. However, research by Daniel and Wisenbaker (1987) and others indicates that Paleoindians were not as nomadic as previously believed. More refined concepts of Florida Paleoindian lifeways include consideration of physiography, climate, vegetation, and animal populations in assessing the potentials for food and raw material resources.

While late Pleistocene Florida savannahs supported transient grazing herds analogous to those found on the North American plains, many other types of game animals lived in the hammocks surrounding the rivers, lakes, and sinkholes that were important locations of Paleoindian activities (Martin and Webb 1974).

Initial reconstructions of Paleoindian subsistence emphasized the role of Pleistocene megafauna but archaeologists now suggest that Paleoindian diets included smaller game including fish, shellfish, turtles and plant foods. Evidence from spring and sinkhole sites by Carl Clausen (Clausen et al., 1979), Wilburn Cockrell (Cockrell 1988) and others lends support for revising the earlier perception. Although aquatic resources are not generally included in reconstructions of Paleoindian lifeways, the fact that sites of the period are most frequently found in association with sources of water suggests that fish, turtles, alligators, and shellfish may have been as important for Paleoindian subsistence as those resources were for later inhabitants of Florida (Borremans 1990).

The archaeological evidence suggests that most utilitarian artifacts recovered in areas where chert was readily accessible were made from local materials. That could also support the hypothesis that the lifestyle of early Floridians may not have been quite as nomadic (Goodyear et al. 1983). Yet archaeological evidence of interaction with other Paleoindian groups can be found in the uniformity of artifact types. Paleoindian projectile points indicate only minor regional variations in form across the continent. Occasional artifacts fashioned from exotic raw materials found at Florida Paleoindian sites suggests some degree of both interregional travel and trade (Borremans 1990).

Figure 3. Map of cultural areas defined by Carr and Beriault (1984).

Figure 4. Sea level rise according to Balsillie and Donoghue (2004:17).

The discovery of the Late Paleo/Early Archaic Cutler Fossil Site (8DA2001) in southern Dade County proves that Paleoindians were present in southern Florida (Pepe and Steele 1998). This site, located in the Everglades Area, contained an extensive amount of charred limestone intermixed with burned or charred faunal bones (Carr 1986:231). Numerous artifacts manufactured from bone, oolitic limestone, and chert, including a Dalton-like point and a Bolen Beveled Corner Notched point, were also discovered on this site. Charcoal from a hearth was collected and subsequently C14 dated to 9760 ± 120 B.P. A deeper level was also excavated, uncovering faunal bones from animals including bison, sloth, jaguar, extinct horse, camel, peccary, Florida lion and dire wolves.

Although no artifacts were found in this layer, the presence of charred bones and four human teeth suggest some earlier cultural association. Carr concluded that “all the cultural features and associations date from ca. 9500-11,000 B.P.” (1986:232). However, no evidence of Paleoindian habitation has yet been discovered [2015] in the East Okeechobee Area, possibly due to a lack of research or reported sites in this area (Pepe and Steele 1998:38; Anderson 2005; Endonino 2009:17). These sites could exist offshore in areas that are now inundated due to sea level rise.

The Early Archaic Period

The Archaic Period is marked by a gradual warming trend, sea level rise, and extinction of megafauna. However, sea level was still low during this period, approximately 23 meters to 7 meters (75 to 23 feet) below modern sea level (Balsillie and Donoghue 2004); the present coastlines were not established until around 3500 B.C. (Dunbar 1997:1). As a consequence, many Early Archaic sites likely lie inundated in association with their Paleo predecessors (Ruppé 1980:33-80; Milanich 1994:39-40, 62-63). In response to these environmental changes, early groups adopted new subsistence strategies, as indicated by different and more diverse tool types and more reliance on shellfish and other coastal resources (Milanich 1994:63; Pepe and Steele 1998:38; Russo and Quitmyer 2008:235-237).

Data from Early Archaic Period (7500 B.C.-5000 B.C.) sites are similar to those from Paleoindian sites and suggests little change in subsistence patterns. Around 7500 B.C., the environment became less arid, which opened up new regions suitable for habitation.

Exploitation of these new environments led to a corresponding expansion of the toolkit.

Perhaps the most distinctive change seen archaeologically is the abandonment of the lanceolate-shaped projectile points like Clovis, Suwannee and Simpson. In the Early Archaic, notched, stemmed points appear almost exclusively. This change in point styles is the primary criteria for the division of the Paleoindian and Early Archaic time periods (White 1985:169;

Milanich 1994:62-70,75-87). According to the Florida Master Site File (FMSF), one Early Archaic Period site exists in PBC at the Jupiter Inlet #2 (8PB35) site. The report simply states:

Site 8PB35 (Jupiter Midden #2) is a multi-component archaeological site that was first reported in 1946 to John Goggin by local informant C. W. Effinger.

Since that time it has been reinvestigated a number of times, through both formal and informal surveys. These investigations revealed a long period of occupation at the site, with a prehistoric midden dating from the Archaic (8500 BC – 1000 BC) to the Glades period (1000 BC to AD 1700) (Driscoll and Jones 2009:2).

The Middle Archaic Period

The Middle Archaic period spans the period from 5000-3000 B.C. During the Middle Archaic, sea levels began to stabilize and a modern coastal ecosystem developed. Sea levels were only six to three meters (20 to 10 feet) lower than modern times (Basillie and Donoghue 2004). By around 4500 B.C., mesic conditions began to prevail. With the warmer and less arid environment, cypress swamps and hardwood sub-tropical forests became established. As sea levels began to rise, interior areas shifted to an estuary system, offering potential inhabitants a more diverse subsistence base. By the late Middle or early Late Archaic a number of shell mounds and middens began appearing along the coast. The introduction of these mounds suggest that a stable estuary system had been established by the Middle Archaic and that shellfish resources were utilized in the support of denser and more semi-sedentary populations (Beriault et al. 2003:15).

Middle Archaic sites in Florida are almost always identified on the basis of point typologies (Milanich 1998:12-13). Perhaps the most prolific of these point types is Newnan. These points have been recovered from intact contexts yielding carbon dates that consistently cluster around 4000 B.C. (Milanich 1994:76). The Middle Archaic environment in southeast Florida was a continuation of the less arid conditions of the Early Archaic, however, as the period progressed, conditions became drier with more available surface water than in previous times with modern conditions stabilizing around 3500 B.C. (Dunbar 1997:1). The environmental setting for Middle Archaic sites continued to diversify with freshwater shellfish middens appearing for the first time (Russo and Quitmyer 2008:239).

Two possible Middle Archaic sites are recorded in Palm Beach County. The first is the Jupiter Midden #2 site, the second is Reese #16, a possible Middle or Late Archaic site. During a shovel test, a fragment of a bone pin and faunal bone were collected. The authors hypothesized that these finds represent “an earlier, perhaps Archaic, component of the site” (Pepe and Steele 1998:209).

The Late Archaic Period

The Late Archaic period spans the period from 3000-750 B.C. During the Late Archaic, sea levels had stabilized at the approximate level of the modern shoreline and the current coastal ecosystem was well established. Late Archaic cultures are defined by the evolution of patterns of both settlement and subsistence. While material culture of the period varies geographically, tools of stone, bone and shell are represented at most sites (Bullen 1975 and Milanich 1994).

According to Bense (1994) the shift in settlement and subsistence patterns that define the Late Archaic were associated with increased dependence on coastal wetland and marine resources for subsistence. Regional cultural identities evolved as populations adapted localized environments and utilized area resources (Milanich 1994). During the late Archaic the use of shellfish increased significantly and large middens are found throughout Florida (James, Faught and Ambrosino 2010:8).

One of the most diagnostic elements of Late Archaic culture is the development of ceramics (Milanich 1994). That development is used to divide the Late Archaic into pre-ceramic and ceramic diagnostic periods. The earlier pre-ceramic period sites are relatively few in the Palm Beach project vicinity. Only three have been documented [2015] in Palm Beach County.

Those in the FMSF include the Pahokey Archaic Midden (8PB6293), the Scheurich Midden (8PB9261) and the Sunburst Site (8PB8212).

The ceramic period Late Archaic sites in Florida are characterized by steatite cooking vessels and the fiber-tempered Orange pottery that began to be produced around 2,000 BC (Milanich 1994 and Powell 1990). Like the Late Archaic pre-ceramic sites in the Palm Beach project vicinity, sites associated with fiber-tempered ceramics in area are also relatively rare. Only a few have been identified in Palm Beach County and included in the FMSF. Those are the Palm Beach Inlet Midden (8PB28), the Pahoke Ridge sites (8PB6293 and 8PB6297) and the Scheurich Midden (8PB9261).

Eastern Palm Beach County falls with in the Glades or Everglades cultural area first defined by Goggin (1947) and identified by Milanich (1994). The Glades Archaic appears to be one of several contemporary Archaic traditions identified in southeastern Florida. The Glades Archaic culture developed around settlements on tree islands in the inland marshes that formed approximately 3,000 BC (Kremer and Spackman 1981). The Glades Archaic cultures apparently made little use of ceramic vessels (Pepe and Jester 1995) or stone and shell tools as was the case in coastal communities of the period (Wheeler, Kennedy and Pepe 2002).

Research of Late Archaic sites in the area east of Lake Okeechobee suggests that the coastal environment may have significantly differed as well. Investigations illustrate that adaptations to the coastal environment may well have resulted in cultural traditions that differ from the Glades cultures and other areas of Late Archaic Florida (Carr et al. 1995; Pepe and Jester 1995;

Wheeler 1997; Janus Research 1998, Pepe and Carr 1999; Pepe and Carr 2000; Russo and Heide 2000; Russo and Heide 2002). In that area the early period of the ceramic Late Archaic is characterized by fiber and semi-fiber tempered plain ceramics. The later period of the ceramic Late Archaic is characterized by thick, chalky wares and sand-tempered plain pottery.

The Post Archaic Period

The Martin and Palm Beach County area east of Lake Okeechobee has been identified as the East Okeechobee cultural region in the post Archaic Period (Carr and Beriault 1984). East Okeechobee has also been divided into four temporal units based on evolving cultural attributes. The East Okeechobee Period chronology was proposed in 1995 (Pepe and Jester 1995; Pepe and Carr 1999).

East Okeechobee I

The earliest period of post Archaic culture in the East Okeechobee dates from 750 BC to AD

800. It is distinguished from the earlier Late Archaic and Glades Archaic periods based on increased production and use of ceramics, increased populations and the construction of sand mounds and earthworks (Endonino 2009). The diagnostic artifact assemblage associated with East Okeechobee I Period includes sand tempered plain pottery but not St. Johns ceramics (Carr et al. 1995). Undecorated Glades Plain samples make up the majority of ceramics on East Okeechobee I sites through out the region (Wheeler 2002). Bell Glade Plain is present in sites in southeastern Palm Beach County (Furey 1972). Settlement patterns appear to be associated with interior wetlands along the upper reaches of rivers and streams but seasonal occupation along the coast is likely (Pepe and Carr 1999).

East Okeechobee II

The brief East Okeechobee II Period dates from AD 800 to AD 1000. The period is marked by the appearance of St. Johns Plain ceramic material at the Jupiter Inlet I site (8PB34) (Kennedy et al. 1993; Wheeler 2002). Permanent settlements were established along the coast and occupied on a permanent basis. In the southern part of East Okeechobee the period is characterized by an increase in Glades Plain pottery and a decrease in Belle Glade Plain (Carr et al. 1995).

East Okeechobee III

The 500-year East Okeechobee III Period dates from AD 1000 to AD 1500. In the beginning it is defined by the appearance of St. Johns Check Stamped pottery at Jupiter Inlet I (8PB34) (Kennedy et al. 1993). The end of the period corresponds with the appearance of European trade goods and the end.

East Okeechobee IV

The 200-year East Okeechobee IV Period dates from AD 1500 to AD 1700. It is the period during which Native Americans were in contact with European explorers and settlers. Native American ceramic types are virtually identical to those encountered on East Okeechobee III sites and the St. Johns Check Stamped pottery appears to be the most common (Pepe 1999).

Habitation appears to have remained focused on the coast and an account of the shipwrecked Jonathan Dickinson provides the most detailed early account of the native lifeways (Andrews and Andrews 1985).

Submerged Prehistoric Resource Potential

Wisconsin Period glacial advances produced world wide lower sea levels. From 60,000 to 50,000 and 24,000 to 20,000 years ago, the bottomlands of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico were exposed almost to the edge of the Continental Shelf. During this period, sea level was some 90 to 300 feet lower than present. The development of vegetation and adaptation of natural resources would have made the exposed continental shelf attractive to human populations (Fisk and McFarlan 1955).

The fluctuation of sea level during and following the Wisconsin Glaciation is an important factor for reconstructing the paleo-environment and determining the potential for Native American sites on drowned continental shelf surfaces. Sea level fluctuation and its role in archaeological interpretation was postulated by Goggin in 1960 (Goggin 1960:352). The bands of Paleo-Indian groups that moved onto the exposed Continental Shelf as early as 12,000 B.P. occupied areas adjacent to streams and rivers (Fisk and McFarlan 1955). Confluences of streams and rivers, river levees and river and coastal terraces have proven to be high probability areas for terrestrial Paleoindian sites (Coastal Environments 1986).

On the Continental Shelf, those inundated geomorphological features are considered prime indicators for submerged prehistoric archaeological sites. In 1966, Emery and Edwards established a relative sea level curve and noted its implications for archaeological sites.

Paleoindian and Archaic sites were most likely submerged offshore and sites of particular periods could be located at specific depths (Emery and Edwards 1966:735). Those authors also speculated “that little might remain offshore beyond some tools, because of the advancing seas and the scattering of materials produced by the passage of the surf zone over the sites” (Murphy 1990:17-18). Others postulate that estuarine sediment deposition associated with rising sea level possibly protected sites from erosion associated with the Holocene transgression (Belknap 1983).

The project area is considered a low probability area for submerged prehistoric sites for a number of reasons. Few, if any, Paleoindian or Early Archaic sites are documented in southeast Florida; the investigation area would have only been exposed during these two periods. On the east coast of Florida, shoreface retreat is the prevailing transgressive process.

The continental shelf adjacent to the project area is exposed to swift currents from the Gulf Stream; inshore counter currents and eddies. Wave and tidal action, which, in addition to aiding erosion and shoreface retreat, would likely have destroyed the integrity of any exposed Paleoindian or Early Archaic Period sites. In addition to being in a high energy environment on one of the narrowest ledges of the U.S. continental shelf, there is no evidence of relict stream or river channels, lagoon complexes, tidal estuaries, embayments, barrier islands, beach ridge sequences, spits, and alluvial terraces considered to be high probability areas for Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites.

Although prehistoric habitation sites in the survey area appear to be unlikely, there is a marginal potential for finding the remains of both pre-contact and post-contact native vessels.

On his first voyage, Columbus observed and utilized the native canoes developed by the Taino on Santo Domingo (Dugard 2005:60). During the last voyage in 1502, an extremely large canoe was observed. That vessel was fashioned from a single tree and had a beam of eight feet. It was paddled by twenty-five men and carried an additional fifteen women and children (Dugard 2005:60).

Even smaller vessels were utilized by the Caribs, while they made intra-island voyages. While there is no confirmation, inadvertent or intentional native voyages could have included visits by the Arawak from Cuba to south Florida (Neill 1956:79). By the time of Columbus' discovery, it was apparent that Florida Indians visited the Bahamas and in 1792 Bartram observed that the Seminoles at Apalachicola were making voyages to Cuba and the Bahamas in dugouts (Neill 1956:80). At least in the post-contact period, Native Americans fitted their canoes with sails making ocean voyaging more efficient.

Historical Background

Discovery and Exploration Period

European explorers visited the east coast of Florida in the late fifteenth century to early sixteenth century. Some sources relate that “Sebastian Cabot coasted the whole of its eastern shore” during 1498 (Ellicott 1814; Williams 1837:7). However, most historians credit Juan Ponce de Leon with Florida’s discovery by 1512. In July 1511, Juan Ponce de Leon was permitted by the Treasurer General of the Indies to search for the island of Bimini, reputed to be located north of Puerto Rico (Peterson 1975:14).

Juan Ponce’s principal goal was to search for lands not discovered by Christopher Columbus.

From his Puerto Rico base, Juan Ponce launched two expeditions, the first of which occurred in 1512/1513. While he did not find Bimini, Ponce discovered Florida and a new ocean current, which would later become the preferred route of Plate Fleets on their return journey to Spain. On the run south to the Keys, called Los Martires by the Spaniards, pilots observed for the first time the Florida current, which flows northward at about two to three knots (Peterson 1975:14).

Ponce de Leon and his party realized they had discovered a major ocean current. Although he probably did not recognize the significance of this discovery, his pilot Anton de Alaminos remembered it on a later voyage as indicating a new and better route from the Indies to Spain.

In the mouth of the Bahama Channel, the expedition encountered the full force of the Gulf Stream. Attempting to get underway the next day, the vessels “met with a current so strong that it drove them back, though they had a favorable wind” (Weddle 1985:42). Following this, Ponce de Leon returned to Puerto Rico to organize an expedition to colonize this new land.

Scholars suggest that the Conte Ottomanno Freducci map, drafted by 1515, “seemingly accurately renders portions of the Atlantic and lower Gulf coasts of Florida” (Milanich and Milanich 1996:319). In regard to the “portion of Florida shown and the place names affixed there”, the Freducci map appears to “correlate with the 1513 voyage of Juan Ponce de Leon” (Milanich and Milanich 1996:319-320). While Juan Ponce’s initial landfall at “I. [Insula] flor[i]da” may have occurred between Matanzas and Mosquito inlets, the expedition apparently sailed closely by contemporary North Palm Beach and perhaps anchored near Lake Worth Inlet (Milanich and Milanich 1996:323-324).

In 1521, Juan Ponce wrote to Emperor Charles V, declaring his intention of returning to “that island” and taking a number of people to settle. At the age of 47, Ponce de Leon set out with a second, well-supplied expedition to Florida. Little is known of the expedition itself.