December 14, 2001 Mr. Dan Pennington 1000 Friends of Florida PO Box 5948 Tallahassee , FL 32314-5948 REPLY TO: Robert J. Austin P.O. Box 2818 Riverview , FL 33568 813-677-2280 (PH) 813-671-8416 (FAX) bob@searchinc.com RE: Comments, Rural Florida : Opportunities for the Future Dear Mr. Pennington: I am writing to you on behalf of the Florida Archaeological Council, Inc. (FAC), a statewide organization of professional archaeologists, to provide comments on the draft document “Rural Florida: Opportunities for the Future.” Our organization’s goal is to see cultural resources (which include archaeological sites and historic structures) addressed seriously in all growth management initiatives. Florida has thousands of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, and while our state has some of the most progressive cultural resource laws in the nation, many archaeological sites continue to be destroyed every year by development. This destruction occurs as a result of direct and indirect (secondary or cumulative) impact. Current growth management legislation does not include a requirement for a historic preservation element; although it does require that each county and municipality develop a plan to manage its cultural resources. Unfortunately, many growth management plans provide only the minimum necessary to meet legal requirements and often there are no stringent ordinances that would implement plan policies effectively. The recent Growth Management Commission's recommendations to Governor Bush failed to include cultural resources at all in its initial draft and the Commission only reluctantly included minimal recognition of the need to address cultural resources in growth management in its final report. Notably, most of these recommendations were in reference to the reuse and rehabilitation of historic buildings in urban areas. Reference to the effect of unrestrained growth on archaeological resources remains virtually nonexistent in this document, as well as in most discussions of growth management in the state. Continually relegating cultural resources to a peripheral position within growth management perpetuates a perception that our past is not as important as our future. Yet it is our past that defines us. As Abraham Lincoln reportedly said, “A country with no regard for its past will do little worth remembering in the future.” This can be applied to our state as well. It is the FAC’s position that cultural resource protection is compatible with environmental protection in many ways, yet it also has its own set of unique problems that need to be addressed in any serious discussion of growth management. Consequently, one of the reasons for making these comments is to raise the awareness of the general public, as well as state and local policy makers, regarding the destruction of our cultural heritage by rampant growth and to encourage efforts to protect these nonrenewable resources for the benefit of all. From a historical perspective the impact of agriculture on the history of Florida , as well as on the state’s physical landscape, cannot be overlooked. Protection of cultural resources related to our state’s agricultural history should therefore be considered as an integral part of the “Rural Florida” initiative. In addition, such major industries as timbering and naval stores also have made significant contributions to the state’s history and economy. Archaeological and historical resources associated with all of these industries are common in Florida ’s rural areas. Furthermore, the heritage of Florida ’s Native American residents, which extends back nearly 13,000 years, is preserved in archaeological sites throughout the state, many of which are located in areas that also are environmentally sensitive. The fragile nature of most archaeological sites makes them exceptionally vulnerable to destruction by development, erosion, and vandalism. By incorporating concerns for archaeological sites and historic structures prominently in growth management initiatives, we reinforce the notion that these resources are as important as our natural resources to maintaining the quality of life and sense of place that are important to all of us. The “Rural Florida” document does make reference to historic preservation and cultural resources in several locations. However, these are typically relegated to marginal positions within the overall document. The following recommendations are designed to place cultural resources on an equal footing with other resource concerns. In the document’s Introduction, for example, reference is made specifically to the Red Hills/St. Marks River Eco-Region, the Apalachicola Eco-Region, and the Gulf Coastal Plain Eco-Region. All of these regions contain abundant prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, including some of the most significant sites in the state. Concerns for the effect of development on these resources, as well as suggestions for managing them for the future, should be integral to the “Rural Florida” initiative. The following are some specific recommendations. Underlined headings refer to headings in the original document. Introduction, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: add “and cultural” after “sensitive environmental.” Development Patterns, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: the potential impact of development on the “unique qualities” of rural towns also includes loss of historic resources and traditional cultural properties that contribute to a community’s sense of place. Same paragraph, last sentence: add “and cultural” after “natural”; add “and the tangible elements of our shared history” to the end of this sentence. The Challenge: Although apparently not noted in the American Farmland Trust report, the preservation of farmland and open space also is important for preserving many archaeological sites from destruction by development. While agricultural practices can disturb and sometimes destroy certain types of sites (shallowly buried sites, mounds), many archaeological sites in Florida are deeply buried and hence are subject to limited or minor disturbance from many agricultural practices (e.g., cattle pastures, some types of agriculture). In addition, sensitive farmers often avoid obvious archaeological sites such as mounds, thereby preserving them from destruction. Environmental Considerations, 1st paragraph: We recommend adding a section on cultural resources. Rural areas contain many important archaeological sites and historic structures, many of which relate to an area’s agricultural history (both historic and prehistoric). Often some of the most important environmental areas (e.g., wetlands and adjacent uplands, springs, hardwood hammocks, sand hills, etc.) also are prime spots for prehistoric archaeological sites. Thus, the preservation of one works to preserve the other. Same section, last paragraph: One of the most pressing needs for historic preservation is the development of tax and other economic incentives for landowners that would encourage the preservation of archaeological sites. Most existing environmental tax incentives do not specifically address cultural resources, making it difficult for a landowner to apply for tax relief if a property contains a significant archaeological site but is otherwise not environmentally significant. Most of the existing historic preservation tax incentives are related to historic structures and are tied to rehabilitation, offering a one-time tax break based on the cost of rehabilitating a historic building. Long-term preservation of archaeological sites requires incentives that enable a landowner to maintain the site in an undeveloped condition; rehabilitation and restoration are not usually options unless there are historic ruins (e.g., building foundations). Archaeological sites possess the kind of intrinsic value referred to in this section and in many cases offer no value to developers. Other Rural Issues: This section provides an excellent discussion of historic preservation as it relates to buildings and structures in rural communities and how these reflect the rural values and lifestyles that contribute to the unique character of these communities. However, by relegating historic preservation to “other issues” there is a sense that historic preservation is a peripheral issue, not as important as the natural environment. From the standpoint of our state’s agricultural and environmental history, historic resources, archaeological sites, and the environment are inherently entwined. Thus, history and environment should be treated equally in growth management. Land Acquisition Programs, 1st paragraph: Culturally and historically important resources are commonly purchased by the state using P2000, CARL, LATF, and Florida Forever funds. They represent extremely important programs that contribute to the preservation of significant sites, structures, and properties. Florida Rural Family Lands Act, 1st paragraph, 2nd to last sentence: Insert between this and last sentence “The historic preservation community supports this program as a way to preserve archaeological sites and historic resources.” Same section, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: after “fish or wildlife habitat” add “and cultural resources.” Wetland Reserve Program: Numerous prehistoric and some historic sites are located on the uplands adjacent to wetlands of all types. In addition, some wetlands contain prehistoric cemeteries, middens, and other material remains. Thus, this program has an added benefit of preserving significant cultural resources as well. Same section, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: add to the end of the sentence “and protection of archaeological sites.” Other Considerations: Because agriculture is exempt from Ch. 163, F.S. and Ch. 380, F.S., cultural resource surveys to identify significant sites and structures are not conducted for agricultural lands as they often are on lands slated for development. Consequently, many archaeological sites are disturbed, and some are destroyed, by unregulated agricultural practices. On the other hand, many deeply buried sites are only minimally affected by many agricultural practices and so in some cases agriculture and archaeological preservation may not be incompatible. This highlights the need for economic incentives to encourage landowners to preserve archaeological and historical sites on their own. Emergency Conservation and Watershed Protection Programs, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: This program also could be used to help fund stabilization efforts at eroding archaeological sites located along river and stream banks or in coastal areas. Planning Strategies: Many of the policies discussed in this section also have cultural resource requirements. Most refer back to Ch. 267, F.S., the state’s primary law related to the protection of cultural resources. It requires all state agencies of the executive branch to consider the effects of any state-assisted (i.e., state performed, funded, or permitted) undertaking on significant cultural resources and if such effects are adverse, then the agencies must demonstrate that there is no prudent or feasible alternative to impacting these resources. The law also vests ownership of archaeological sites and historic properties on state lands (including sovereign submerged lands) with the Florida Department of State’s Division of Historical Resources. Ch. 267 also gives the Division the authority to provide grants to survey lands for cultural resources, to restore historic buildings, stabilize archaeological sites, develop heritage-based tourism programs and other educational programs. Designation of Historic Markers in Florida under Chapter 267 is open to historic properties, individuals, events and other topics significant in Florida or American history, architecture, archaeology, or culture. Ch. 253.027, F.S. provides for state acquisition of archaeological sites meeting certain criteria of endangerment and significance. One of Florida ’s strongest archaeological protection laws is Chapter 872, F.S., Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves . Under its provisions all human remains are accorded equal protection, and a person who willfully and knowingly disturbs the contents of a tomb or grave commits a felony of the second degree. This law applies not only to historical burial sites, but also to Native American cemeteries and burial mounds. The Division’s Bureau of Archaeological Research has devoted considerable attention to encouraging the protection and management of archaeological sites on private lands. With support from the Florida Coastal Management Program a series of pamphlets and brochures has been produced to introduce archaeological stewardship to private land owners as well as public land managers (see, for example, Best Management Practices: An Owner’s Guide to Protecting Archaeological Sites, available from the Florida Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research, R.A. Gray Building, 500 S. Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 3239-0250). Economic Development Tools: Here 1000 Friends has correctly placed historical and cultural resources on equal footing with the natural environment by emphasizing the role these roles can play in heritage and nature-based tourism. I believe the Visit Florida survey also indicated the great popularity that historic sites and museums have among tourists who visit Florida . We recommend that this be emphasized in the list of conclusions so that history and archaeology are included in heritage- and nature-based tourism programs. Tax Policy: As discussed earlier, tax relief for private landowners that applies specifically to archaeological resources is sorely needed in order to encourage long-term preservation of these resources. This is particularly true at the county and municipality levels. The granting of archaeological easements would be an effective way to accomplish this. While it is true that some archaeological sites can be included within environmental easements, often the significant environmental conditions necessary for such an easement to be granted are not present, leaving the archaeological site unprotected. By developing easements that pertain specifically to archaeological resources, counties and municipalities can offer landowners an economic incentive to preserve these tangible expressions of our state’s past. Conclusions: We recommend adding to the list of questions and issues the following: “How can archaeological sites, historic structures, and traditional cultural properties be better protected in rural areas? Tax incentives that specifically target archaeological resources are needed to encourage private landowners to preserve these sites.” The development of the “Rural Florida” document by 1000 Friends of Florida is timely in that the U.S. House and Senate are currently considering the Farm Security Act, a bill that would amend the Farmland Protection Program (FPP) to allow FPP funds to be available for protecting archaeological and historic resources on eligible lands. Thus, the concern for cultural resources in rural areas has been recognized at the federal, as well as the state, level. We hope you will consider our recommendations and include archaeological resources and historic properties more prominently in the final “Rural Florida” document. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Robert J. Austin, Ph.D. President Xc: Charles Pattison