Whelan, Emily Glowacki, Mary Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:55 PM ‘Smith, Roger; Duggins, Ryan M. Subject: draft letter for comment Attachments: Kennedy 8-27-14.docx Mary Glowacki, Ph.D. State Archaeologist and Chief | Bureau of Archaeological Research | Division of Historical Resources | Florida Department of State |B. Calvin Jones Center for Archaeology | 1001 DeSoto Park Drive | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | ofc. 850.245.6319 | cell 850.528.1349 | Fax: 850.215.0832 | [The Department of State is committed to excellence Please take our Customer Satisfaction SurveyDear Mr. Kennedy, Roger, Ryan, and | have reviewed Seafarer’s Quest permit applications for areas previously held by HTQ. Here are our lingering issues: 1. Seafarer sent us applications for areas 1, 2, and 3. For verification, Area 2 was already permitted as 2014.04, At present, we only have field logs for September 2014. If further work was conducted in the area, please send us the outstanding logs. f no work was conducted, please indicate that as well. This information should be submitted on a monthly basis, as indicated in the terms of your permit. We will be expecting an interim report for this permit at the end of April, 2016 (1.5 years since permit issuance plus 3 months, as is given to final reports). 2. The new coordinates you have sent us did not decrease the size of Area 1, in order to create a buffer between it and HTQ's contract area. Instead, you decreased the area of HTQ, which is not allowable. That contract has already been renewed with set coordinates. Please resubmit coordinates for Area 1 by bringing south its northern boundary. 3. For Area 1 you have listed 8 targets, each 60 x 60 feet. I'm assuming the coordinate for each is the central point. If not, please identify their locations. Are these 8 anomalies going to be assessed over the course of three years or for the first season of the permit? In the 2014 permit, you broke down your work into phases. Is this not the plan for areas 1 and 3 as well? What about the prioritized anomalies for Area 3? They were not provided. 4, With regard to your methodology for assessing anomalies, | am not sure what you mean by “dusting”, but the use of propwash deflectors is prohibited, as is the case for Area 2. 5. Please provide us with better maps of the two new areas showing the prioritized targets. Those included in the applications show no detail. Additionally, please be consistent in providing coordinates. Some of your numbers are in lat-longs, while others are in decimal degrees. 6. We were recently contacted by Dr. DeBry, who has asked permission to assess a wooden anomaly, which | assume is in Area 2, per Seafarer’s request. Why is your archaeologist not ‘making this assessment and communicating to us about it? 7. I would like to comment on a recent e-mail of yours, in which you said Roger misrepresented the status of your 2014 permit. First off, the permit you were issued is an “exploration” permit nota “discovery” permit. There are no “Dig and Identify” permits according to 14-31, only exploration and recovery ones. An exploration permit may be amended to test anomalies identified by remote sensing work. What Roger stated is exactly true. Secondly, we do not issue permits for “treasure,” and a “conversion” to a recovery permit is not guaranteed. As you acknowledged in your permit application, there is “no guarantee of being granted a renewal or new permit,” and no promises have been made to you. Additionally, as | explained in my e-mail to you and Jim Sinclair, contracts and permits are two different types of agreements that follow different terms, and what is stated in the news should not be assumed to be accurate. 8. Asa reminder, following 1A-31.055, Notice of Approval or Denial of an application, the divison has 90 days upon completion of an application to repond. The clock resets every time we have to repond and ask for further information. complete and thorough application is faster to process than one that is not. Our organization is responsible for protecting cultural resources on state land and waters. We expect the standard of the application requirements be met.Thank you for your time, Mary