HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe correction 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not test WESTERN half of property (5)Rick : My last email went out while I was in the middle of typing it on
my I pad before I was done.
Your conclusion that they did not label the front of the
property "disturbed" defines the used of language. What would you call
a piece of land that was not only developed on once but twice and maybe
3 times? This report was done and submitted to the City of Cape
Canaveral along with site plan for the entire 10.6 acres. Please explain
your comments how you interpreted that this report did not cover the
entire site, since it was submitted to the city as part of a package
for the entire 10.6 acres to be developed. If you questioning the
methodology of the report, I.e., the number of test holes dug and the
locations, please outline and list your certifications and
qualifications that allow you or your organization to call into question
a certified state archaeology engineer report. Since the State of
Florida accepted this report our position is not only rational but
legally sound.
Some other facts that you seem to be missing, the Cumberland
Farm tract under contract DOSE NOT extend to the "dunal ridge" you
mention below. This piece of land (Cumberland Farm) extends 8' less to
the west then the Dollar General that was just developed. I also have
aerials of the 40's and 50's that show the development in the area under
contract.
Remember it was your organization that did not make contact
with the property owners and just wrote a letter that was clearly
associated with a group that has been trying to stop any redevelopment
of this land. When we first purchase this land we ask the city to buy
it for a park. No takers, since that time we have sold off two pieces
and have a third under contract. If your organization wants to have a
rational discussion with us the property owners please call my office,
321-784-2318, and I will gladly discuss your concerns. But please be
aware I expect you to make the same demands on all the surrounding
property owners. Also if you do take me up on my offer of a meeting do
not include Ray Osbourne. That would not help your cause. I will be in
town all of next week.
extend to
Sent from Bob's iPad
On Oct 16, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Bob Baugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com
<mailto:bbaugher@cfl.rr.com> > wrote:
Rick: First nobody in your organization reach out to the owners
of the property or invited them to your meeting. Second the report
covers all the 10.6 acres within the boundary of the report which
included the developed land previously mention, that now you accused me
of including to "confuse the issue". I did not write the report! When a
report shows the boundary of the land included in the report and states
the acres The report clearly says it follow all the state and federal
concerning archeological site survey.
Sent from Bob's iPad
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:10 PM, Rick Piper <ricksbigart@gmail.com
<mailto:ricksbigart@gmail.com> > wrote:
Bob,
The 2006 report by ESI labels the dunal ridge in the
middle of the property (shown as a dashed line on the survey map from
the 2006 ESI report *See highlighted attached map) as "disturbed", a
conclusion they reached from 3 test holes near it. They did Not label
the entire front side (A1A side, east side) of the property as
"disturbed", which by the way does not disqualify anything from having
archeological potential or "not meet the state standard for
archeological sites" as you state, what ever that means in your mind.
The map does show that there were No Test Holes done on the A1A side
(east side) of the parcel in question and that there are three small
structures there since 1948+/- and the majority of the east side of the
parcel is in state as it was since the 1943 aerials, undeveloped other
than the "yards" of these small homes under the trees. The existence of
these small structures does not make any archeology in the ground around
them evaporate.
There is archeological occupation evidence throughout
the area that includes this parcel, including the known and recorded
midden site on the river edge side (west side) of this parcel (BR1936).
We have learned recently that there are at least 4 new significant
ancient archeological sites in context and contiguous to that this
parcel indicating a here to unknown or recorded probable large village
site. We have recently discovered, standing in this area of Cape
Canaveral, portions of it's ridge mound still intact in plain sight with
midden and artifacts all over it, until now unrecorded (we are in
process of site filing these new discoveries). These new parts of this
ancient puzzle explaining and unifying the archeology of this parcel's
site (BR1936) and most if not all the sites in the adjacent area,
including the Fuller Mounds, middens and Burials to the north end where
part of the ridge mound still stands, with the other end of the Ridge
mound standing in the Cape Shores Condo, right next door to this parcel.
In fact the dunal ridge that runs through this parcel appears to be
aligned as the natural structure that the ridge mound starting in Cape
Shores was built upon, adding significance to the disturbed dunal ridge
on the parcel. I have informed DHR of all this new information along
with the attached diagrams and asked for their consideration.
The attempt to confuse the Mini Golf Course site and the
new Dollar Store site for purposes of obfuscation of the recipients is
sad. This parcel is mostly open never before developed land all the way
from the river to the highway (A1A), We all know this reality. And the
A1A side (east side) has not been phase one tested with test holes, the
ESI survey map shows this. The ESI 2006 report quite rightly included -
"Unexpected findings can occur during project development and might
include discovery of human remains, which would require additional
coordination with the state archeologist in compliance with Chapter
872.05, Florida Statutes...". Considering that other bodies of
pre-contact individuals have been found in the adjacent area (within 50
meters+/-) in the recent past, taking 2 days to allow some properly
supervised phase one test holes (small holes) and gather the data that
is present before your development destroys and paves over anything that
may be there, is only rational. It's not a big deal. If by any chance
human bones are found during the middle of your excavating, you Will
have to Stop or be Breaking the Law, and at that point it could be way
more of an expense than getting in and getting out right now.
There is archeological data available on this site to
help complete the understanding of this overall ancient site that is
revealing itself in this area of Cape Canaveral (even if we find very
little it establishes the limits of the known site). There is no real
downside for you or the developer that is engendering your knee jerk
reaction of lashing out and trying to impugn the Chairman and the
Unanimous Advice from the BCHC, that a look should be taken at the east
side of the parcel in question because it has never been tested, before
the opportunity is gone. You could decide to be a good corporate
neighbor and citizen and allow this little thing to happen to help
preserve the history of Florida that belongs to all of us, but
apparently there is a desire, rational or not, to believe that this
cooperation somehow injures you or is a plot to take something from you,
when it is just about preserving historical data and science. The chance
of finding anything so unimaginable that it would initiate some major
expense or difficulty for you and the developer is extremely remote,
even fanciful and in Florida there is nothing the state will do to stop
development anyway. Even bodies are just examined and removed for
protection and development proceeds. This is not Windover, a site that
turned out to be one of the most important anthropological sites in the
world... and still the development continued all around it. We are not
going to find the Dead Sea Scrolls but perhaps some pieces of evidence
that will help with filling out our understanding of what went on in the
daily lives of our amazingly ancient local culture of the Ais (Ah-eez)
people, who lived their lives around a thriving village for perhaps a
thousand years (dated material from your site) right there on your
property. The Ais are one of the oldest resident cultures in North
America, possibly 4000 years on this barrier island, and their history
was almost wiped out, save for precious pieces like this last stretch of
beautiful original shoreline hammock, and coincidentally a probable
archeological site of a here to unknown and unrecorded significant
village occupation. I have informed DHR of all this new information and
asked for their consideration.
What is the big deal? Is your only thought "Who Cares!"
Why so dark and angry about this simple reasonable idea of preserving
historical DATA before it's lost? You could be the good guy that helps
add to our communities knowledge of our own local history with no down
side. You won't be compelled to do anything to stop your development...
unless you dredge up bodies in your excavation and then it will screech
to a halt for however long that takes. Is this really the way Cumberland
Farms wants to be known in the community before it even opens it's
doors, destroy and insult the community's concerns about history as well
as all the other unfavorable feelings they seem to be engendering in
their local neighbors and potential customers? There's a lot of places
to choose to get gas.
Rick Piper
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
<mailto: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
<mailto:aebrech@aol.com> >
To: Timothy.Parsons
<Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com
<mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com> >; D.Dickey
<D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >
Cc: R.Randels <R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; B.Petsos
<B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; B.Walsh
<B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; J.Bond
<J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
>; B.Hoog <B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; agarganese
<agarganese@orlandolaw.net <mailto:agarganese@orlandolaw.net> >; kkopp
<kkopp@orlandolaw.net <mailto:kkopp@orlandolaw.net> >; D.Greene
<D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; A.Apperson
<A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; T.Morley
<T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; Jeffrey.Lucas
<Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com <mailto:Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com>
>; gtoenjes <gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com <mailto:gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com> >;
bbaugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com <mailto:bbaugher@cfl.rr.com> >; rko153
<rko153@gmail.com <mailto:rko153@gmail.com> >; Ari
<Ari@cumberlandfarms.com <mailto:Ari@cumberlandfarms.com> >; ricksbigart
tional <ricksbigart@gmail.com <mailto: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
<mailto:info@a1aresearch.com> >
To: Rick Piper <ricksbigart@gmail.com
<mailto:ricksbigart@gmail.com> >; Alan Brech <AEBrech@aol.com
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<8BR1936 diagram.jpg>
<Cape Canvaeral Contiguos Village Site Shoreline Map
copy-8x10-5.jpg>
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