HomeMy WebLinkAboutRE correction 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not test WESTERN half of property (3)Good afternoon, everyone. After reviewing the comments and the active
St. Johns Water Management District Permits in the area, I will share my
thoughts and provide you with the extent of my knowledge regarding the
2006 report, and permits that would trigger DHR review subsequent to the
production of the report. Most of what I list below is probably already
known to some or all of you, but in order to deliver an unfiltered
message I decided to, after some deliberate consideration, hit the
“reply all” button. Please keep in mind that any and all correspondence
that includes me is subject to Florida’s very broad public records law,
and that I do not hesitate to provide transcripts of my emails when they
are requested.
· My office reviewed the survey conducted by ESI in 2006
pursuant to Chs. 267 and 373, Florida Statutes. At that time, the
report was determined to be complete and sufficient (consistent with
Rule 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code. This rule lays out
archaeological reporting requirements for projects submitted to DHR for
review).
· Since 2006, we have reviewed one WMD permit application in the
area covered by the survey – application number 135466, in 2013. The
permit area was limited to the building and parking lot fronting A1A
just to the north of what appears to be a mini golf park. The less
developed area to the north, between the building and Cape Shores
Circle, was not covered by this permit application.
· We have received no St. Johns Water Management District permit
applications for ANY OTHER location within the survey boundaries since
that time, and no active permits in the area are listed on the St. Johns
website.
· If a new permit is applied for within the survey area, it is
within our purview pursuant to Ch. 267, F.S., to request additional
survey in an area if deemed a prudent course of action (meaning, if we
determine that significant historic properties could be damaged as a
result of short or long-term effects of the issuance of the permit).
The completion of a previous survey does not prevent us from requesting
additional work if, based on new information, the previous survey is
determined to be inadequate.
At this time, DHR has no statutory authority to request additional
archaeological survey at the proposed project location. If a Water
Management District, Department of Environmental Protection, or U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Permit is applied for, it is within our
authority to issue additional comments to the permitting agency or
agencies and, if needed, to request additional work. If the
landowner/developer requests a permit from one of these agencies, DHR
will follow our normal process at that time and provide comments based
on available information.
That said, DHR encourages cooperation among municipalities, landowners,
developers, historians, and archaeologists when sufficient interest in a
site exists. Typically, if such an agreement is desired by one or more
parties I suggest that:
· clear timelines be established that ensure the archaeological
work will not affect/delay the scheduled development
· a professional archaeologist (either paid or on a volunteer
basis) be involved in the fieldwork and reporting
· all local and state laws pursuant to archaeological resources
and inadvertent discoveries be followed
· all reporting meet professional reporting standards (including
the completion of Florida Master Site File forms).
Finding qualified volunteers to assist in archaeological testing is
rarely a problem, and such projects can be completed quite quickly (not
to mention the fact that locally sponsored archaeology is usually a
marvelous public relations tool).
Best,
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of Historical
Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South Bronough Street
| Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 | 1.800.847.7278
<tel:1.800.847.7278> | Fax: 850.245.6439 <tel:850.245.6439> |
www.flheritage.com <http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: Bob Baugher [mailto:bbaugher@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:09 AM
To: Alan Brech
Cc: Parsons, Timothy A.; D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org;
R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org; B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org;
B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org; J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org;
B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org; agarganese@orlandolaw.net;
kkopp@orlandolaw.net; D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org;
A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org; T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org;
Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com; gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com; rko153@gmail.com;
Ari@cumberlandfarms.com; ricksbigart@gmail.com
Subject: Re: correction : 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871)
did not test WESTERN half of property
Alan: What you seem to be missing and I'm not sure it is intentional or
not that the eastern half of the property has already been developed.
It has a 36 miniature golf course on it, with several ponds dug to 10',
now a Dollar General (time of the report a defunct restaurant), and the
section that the proposed Cumberland Farm sites on has 3 buildings (two
story house, duplex, and a foundation for a house that was torn down)
all on the eastern section. This section of the land is clearly label
disturbed land on the report and has no archaeology value because the
land has been previously developed and does not meet the state standard
for archaeology sites. If you are proposing all developed land in that
area has to meet a higher standard then state and federal law I suggest
you have no standing to make such a request and that you are either
misinformed or politically motivated in the "stop the redevelopment" of
the site. Either way I do not think you are doing the mission of the
Brevard County Historical Commission by your actions. When you sit on a
public board I would think one of the minimum requirements is following
the laws of the land, including laws on archaeology sites. I believe
(do not have the report in front of me while I'm responding to this
email) that page 28 of the 43 page report clearly shows this.
Sent from Bob's iPad
On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Alan Brech <aebrech@aol.com> wrote:
Sorry, I keep getting my east-west confused. Replace "eastern"
in previous email with "western" etc.
thanks,
Alan Brech
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Brech <aebrech@aol.com>
To: Timothy.Parsons <Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com>;
D.Dickey <D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
Cc: R.Randels <R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Petsos
<B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Walsh
<B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; J.Bond
<J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Hoog
<B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; agarganese
<agarganese@orlandolaw.net>; kkopp <kkopp@orlandolaw.net>; D.Greene
<D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; A.Apperson
<A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; T.Morley
<T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; Jeffrey.Lucas
<Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com>; gtoenjes <gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com>;
bbaugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com>; rko153 <rko153@gmail.com>; Ari
<Ari@cumberlandfarms.com>; ricksbigart tional <ricksbigart@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 7:10 am
Subject: 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not
test eastern half of property
Dear Doctor Parsons and Mr. Dickey (and distinguished
co-recipients):
ESI's map from their 2006 report (Figure 5, page 21, FMSF
#13871) clearly shows that ESI did not conduct any subsurface testing on
the eastern half of the property in question (6455 N. Atlantic Ave. Cape
Canaveral, FL, called "Cabo Verde" in ESI documents).
If you consult that map you will see that ESI did not excavate
any tests along the eastern half of the property, and, perhaps just as
important, did not place a sufficient number of tests along the relict
dune line that roughly bisects the property, an landform that has been
known from nearby sites to often contain prehistoric sites.
How could this happen? Perhaps the 2006 "area of impact" was
different than the present-day "area of impact?" From my experience in
both contract archaeology in general and as a technician who has worked
for ESI and for Mr. Brent Handley, it is too often the case that
archaeology companies limit their sub-surface testing to the areas
specified by the client as the "area of impact." Once given the "all
clear" by the archaeology company and the Division of Historic
Resources, the client then shifts the area of impact.
Regardless how it came to be that half the property was not
tested, the ESI survey was plainly deficient for the current proposed
impacts--the eastern portion of the site was never tested and the
central portio of the site was not tested sufficiently.
yours,
Alan Brech
Chairman, Brevard County Historical Commission
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Osborne <info@a1aresearch.com>
To: Rick Piper <ricksbigart@gmail.com>; Alan Brech
<AEBrech@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 12:56 pm
Subject: Fwd: FW: Cabo Verde Tract
I followed up with Mr. Parson to see if David Dickey left
anything out. Here you go. Nice long exchange
of email with important points that David leaves out.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Parsons, Timothy A. <Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM
Subject: FW: Cabo Verde Tract
To: Ray Osborne <rko153@gmail.com>
Hello Ray,
Here is the email exchange that I had with David last week.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of
Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South
Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 3:53 PM
To: 'David Dickey'
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Good afternoon,
No further investigation is required or requested by the state
in the area covered by the survey report, because the area was
previously surveyed to Florida standards as part of a permit application
process (pursuant to Ch. 267 and 373, Florida Statutes). I can’t speak
to local (county, city, etc.) requirements. Based on the information
that we have, it seems that the entire tract was surveyed. That said, I
have not seen the boundary/project area for the proposed project, so it
is possible that part of the project area remains surveyed if it is not
contiguous with the surveyed area in the report.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of
Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South
Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:43 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons – I have another question related to the Cabo Verde
tract (BR 1936) in Cape Canaveral. First, let me spell out the issue
and share several observations.
On August 8, 2014, the City received the attached letter from
the Brevard County Historical Commission regarding its recommendation
for further archaeological analysis of the entire property on which the
BR 1936 site is located. The impetus for the Commission’s letter is the
proposed development of the northeast portion of the Cabo Verde Tract,
adjacent to A1A.
The Commission indicates in its letter that the “2006 survey did
not test the entire property going to the east, towards Highway A1A.”
This is their justification for further analysis. However, in Section
I. Introduction, of the Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Cabo
Verde Tract (Study), which is attached, it states that the survey
includes a 10.61 acre property, between U.S. 1 and the Banana River.
Further, page 2 (Project Location Map) and page 5 (Soils Map) of the
Survey shows the project boundary, which includes the area from the
river to A1A (U.S. 1). In fact, page 21 of the Survey shows that
several sites (BR 1939 & BR 1940) on the extreme east end of the study
area, adjacent to A1A were evaluated.
My understanding is that no further investigation is required of
the 10.61 acre Cabo Verde Tract prior to its development. Should any
research be conducted of the Cabo Verde Tract, it will be voluntary on
the part of the property owner. This understanding is largely based on
the position you articulate in your email below.
Now for my question…would you agree that no further
investigation within the 10.61 acre project area is required prior to
its development?
Should you have any questions or would like to discuss this
further, please call me at (321)868-1221, ext. 11. Thank you for your
assistance with this. Dave
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
[mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 3:03 PM
To: David Dickey
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Yes, that is correct (though we recommend avoidance of the site
whenever possible). The exception would be if human remains or
significant amounts of archaeological material were to be uncovered
during development. At that point, Ch. 872.05 requires consultation
with the Division regarding human remains, and most state/federal
permits contain conditions requiring notification if archaeological
material is discovered.
Any research that takes place at this point is voluntary, would
be a collaboration between the property owner and the researcher(s), and
does not involve DHR. Though, if any archaeological work does take
place, we would be pleased to receive an updated Site File form and a
copy of the report for our records.
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of
Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South
Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:40 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons - Thank you for your quick response. My
understanding of your email is that if a site has been determined to be
ineligible for listing, the State will not require protective measures
be taken during its development. And, any further investigation or
protection once a finding of ineligible has been made, will be voluntary
on the part of the property owner. Is that correct? Thanks! Dave
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
[mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:06 PM
To: David Dickey
Cc: Todd Morley; David Greene
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Good afternoon,
BR1936 is the only archaeological site recorded as part of the
2006 survey of the Cabo Verde Tract. The site was evaluated as
ineligible for listing on the National Register at that time, as I noted
in my letter to Mr. Osborne in 2013.
Unless a state or federal permit (Water Management District,
Corps of Engineers, DEP) will be necessary for the development, no
further review by the Division of Historical Resources is required under
law. If a permit is required, we will review it for impacts to eligible
sites pursuant to Ch. 267, Florida Statutes, and/or Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Since the site was
determined to be ineligible in 2006, it is unlikely that my office would
request any specific course of action as regards the preservation or
investigation of the site. That said, we obviously have no objection to
further investigation of the site before it is destroyed, as long as
such a project involves a professional archaeologist and proceeds with
the permission of the landowner.
It is not unusual for human remains to be present at
archaeological sites in Volusia County (and along this stretch of coast
generally). If human remains were to be encountered during development
regardless of eligibility status, all work must stop and notification
procedures to law enforcement and the State Archaeologists office must
be followed pursuant to Ch. 872.05, Florida Statutes.
I hope that this has been helpful. Please let me know if I can
answer any other questions.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of
Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South
Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:18 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Cc: Todd Morley; David Greene
Subject: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons – by way of this email I would request your
assistance in determining the status of the Cabo Verde Tract (BR 1936)
that is within the city limits of Cape Canaveral.
The City has received a development application for a site that
may include a portion(s) of the Cabo Verde Tract. As part of the City’s
due diligence, we are reaching out to your office to: 1- determine what
resources are on the site; 2- if these resources are of a quality to
warrant preservation; and, if so, 3 - what measures are required by the
State to protect these resources.
In the attached letter you indicate that site BR 1936 is
ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places. I have also
included a letter (below) from Mr. Frederick Gaske, with the State
Historic Preservation Office, dated June 1, 2006, where he states his
office concurs with the finding by Environmental Services, Inc. that
development of the Cabo Verde site “will have no effect on cultural
resources listed or eligible to be listed in the NRHP, or otherwise of
historical, architectural, or archeological value.”
Thank you for your assistance with this matter and I look
forward to hearing from you. If it would be helpful, I can be available
for a phone conference at any time.
Dave
<image001.png>
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any
written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
@ItsWorkingFL
<image002.jpg> <https://twitter.com/ItsWorkingFL>
The Department of State is committed to excellence.
Please take our Customer Satisfaction Survey
<http://survey.dos.state.fl.us/index.aspx?email=Timothy.Parsons@dos.myfl
orida.com> .
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any
written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
ꎾᤐ溝�༁ɔ