DOCSLIB.ORG

REPORT of the MASTER PLAN of ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ( of the Districf MUNICIPALITY of MUSKOKA and the WAHTA MOHAWKS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

REPORT OF THE MASTER PLAN OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ( OF THE DISTRICf MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AND THE WAHTA MOHAWKS VOLUME 1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ~...",.,.--_ ... .. .,~".~-"'''--- '- ( scale o 20 em ope Petroglyph Site (BeGu-4) Submitted to THE DISTRICf MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA and THE WAHTA MOHAWKS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. February 1994 REPORT OF THE MASTER PLAN OF HERITAGE RESOURCES OF THE DISTRICf MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AND THE WAHTA MOHAWKS VOLUME 1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH Submitted to THE DISTRICf MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA and THE WAHTA MOHAWKS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. 662 Bathurst St Toronto, Ontario M5S 2R3 in association with Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Mount McGovern Co., Ltd. Dr. Carole Carpenter Ms. Susan L. Maltby, Conservator February, 1994 Project Personnel Project Director: Dr. Ronald F. Williamson' Research and Report Preparation: Dr. Carole H. Carpenter" Mr. Martin S. Cooper' Mr. David Cuming" Ms. Eva M. MacDonald1 Mr. Robert 1 MacDonald1 Ms. Barbara McPhail 2 Ms. Susan L Maltby" Mr. David A Robertson! Ms. Jean Simonton" Mr. Phillip J. Wright3 Report Editors: Mr. David A Robertson Dr. Ronald F. Williamson Project Information and Communication Co-Ordinators: Ms. Beverly J. Gamer' Ms. Eva M. Maclsonald! lArchaeological Services Inc. 2Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates 3Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. "Susan L. Maltby, Conservator sYork University ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many individuals have contnbuted to the collection and compilation of data for this study. It is only through their co-operation and generosity that this work was made possible. We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Ron Reid, of the Muskoka Heritage Areas Program, for providing detailed environmental data which has been generated as part ofthe Heritage Areas study; Ms. Judi Brouse, of the District of Muskoka, for her support and provision ofmapping; Ms. Bernice Field, of the Ministry of Culture and Communications, for providing access to the database of archaeological sites listed with that Ministry; Mr. Peter Carruthers, of the Ministry of Culture and Communications, for information regarding the survey of the Severn waterway; and Dr. Barry Warner, of the University of Waterloo, for discussing his own unpublished data on the paleoecology of Plastic Lake. Fmally, we thank all those who responded to our appeal for information concerning the history of the Muskoka region and its heritage as well as those members of the Muskoka Cultural Advisory Committee who provided comments on an earlier draft of this document. Logistical and financial support was provided by the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation, through the Muskoka Heritage Areas Program, the Wahta Mohawks, the Lake of Bays Heritage Foundation, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Culture Tourism and Recreation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Personnel i Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents iii list ofFigures ........................................................ : . v list of Tables v INTRODUCTION by RF. Williamson and DA Robertson 1 CHAPTER 1 LANDBASED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN MUSKOKA by RI. MacDonald, DA Robertson and M.S. Cooper 5 1.1 Culture History of the Study Area 5 1.2 Archaeological Research in the Study Area Prior to the Master Plan 9 13 Modelling Archaeological Site Potential 19 1.4 Modelling in Ontario: A Selective Review. ............................23 1.5 Research Design . 25 1.6 Paleoenvironmental Constraints 26 1.7 Analysis and Interpretations 42 1.8 Recommendations and Application ..................................46 CHAPTER 2 THE UNDERWATER AND INUNDATED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD INMUSKOKA by Phillip Wright 53 2.1 The Marine Archaeological Record 53 2.2 The Approach 53 23 A Freshwater Maritime Perspective: Prehistoric to Contact . 55 2.4 The Underwater Archaeological Record in Other Southern Shield Areas ...................................................59 2.5 A Case Study of Underwater Ceramic Deposits in the Frontenac Axis ......•.••....••..•..••••...•••••....•...•..•..•. 61 2.6 Assessing Submerged and Inundated Prehistoric Site Potential in the Muskoka Area by Theme .................................................63 27 A Freshwater Maritime Perspective: The Historic Period 66 2.8 Conclusions: The Marine Archaeological Record and Predictive Modelling . 79 iii CHAPTER 3 BUILT HERITAGE AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN MUSKOKA by D. Cuming, B. McPhail and J. Simonton ~ 81 3.1 The Approach to Planning for Built Heritage and Cultural Landscapes 81 32 Thematic Overview of the Settlement History of Muskoka 82 33 Identification of Cultural/Historic Landscape Units 114 3.4 Review of Existing Built Heritage Resource Databases 122 3.5 Conclusions and Delineation of Historic Thematic Zones 143 CHAPTER 4 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF mSTORIC EURO-CANADIAN SE'ITLEMENT by M.S. Cooper and DA Roberston 183 4.1 Introduction. ............................................... .. 183 42 The Archaeology of Euro-Canadian Settlement 183 43 Defining Euro-Canadian Archaeological Site Potential 183 4.4 Historic Euro-Canadain Site Potential: Applications 185 CHAPTER 5 THE INTANGmLE HERITAGE OF MUSKOKA by Carole Carpenter 187 5.1 Introduction to the Concept of Intangible Heritage ..................•.. 187 5.2 Sources of Intangible Heritage Identified in Muskoka ................. .. 188 5.3 Historical Outline " 193 5.4 Conclusions and Rationale for Phase 2 Collection . .. 195 REFEREN"CES 199 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Vessels in the Muskoka Lake Fleet (c. 1866 to present) Appendix 2: Lake of Bays Vessels (c. 1877-1958) Appendix 3: Severn River Vessels (c. 1875-1920) Appendix 4: Major Ports and Desitinations on Lake Muskoka and Severn River Appendix 5: Historic Theme Mapping Appendix 6: Intangible Heritage: Individuals, Agencies and Insitutions Consulted ( iv List of Figures Figure 1 The District Municipality of Muskoka, Master plan Study Area 2 Figure 2 Surveyed Areas and Documented Archaeological Sites on the Severn River 16 Figure 3 Time Series Diagram, Inferred Regional Vegetation Communities for the Study Area and Vicinity 35 Figure 4 Cultural Landscapes and Historic Thematic Zones 145 Figure 5 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/14) . .. 147 Figure 6 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/14) . .. 148 Figure 7 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/14) . .. 149 Figure 8 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/14) 150 Figure 9 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/13) 152 Figure 10 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/13) 153 Figure 11 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/13) 154 Figure 12 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/13) 155 Figure 13 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E;2) 157 Figure 14 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E!3) 159 Figure 15 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E!3) 160 Figure 16 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E!3) 161 Figure 17 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/3) 162 Figure 18 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/3) 163 Figure 19 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/3) 164 Figure 20 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E!3) 165 Figure 21 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/4) 167 Figure 22 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/4) 168 Figure 23 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/4) 169 Figure 24 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/4) 170 Figure 25 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/5) 172 Figure 26 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/6) 175 Figure 27 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/6) 176 Figure 28 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/6) 177 Figure 29 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/6) 178 Figure 30 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31EI7) 180 Figure 31 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E17) 181 List of Tables Table 1 Summary Data: Documented Archaeological Sites 17 Table 2 Climate of the Study Area 30 Table 3 Land Use Constraints 42 Table 4 Survey Localities 50 v INTRODUCTION byRF. Williamson and D.A. Roberston Archaeological Services Inc. (AS!), in association with Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates, Dr. Carole Carpenter of York University, Mr. Phillip Wright of Mount McGovern Co. Ltd., and Ms. Susan Maltby of Susan L. Maltby, Conservator, was contracted by The District Municipality of Muskoka and the Wahta Mohawks to prepare a master plan of heritage features for those lands within their respective jurisdictions. The project study team was under the direction of Dr. Ronald F. Williamson, Senior Archaeologist, (AS!). The ultimate objective of the research was the preparation of a high quality heritage planning study which identifies, analyses and establishes priorities concerning archaeological and other heritage sites located within the study area's boundaries. This study area was defined as those lands within the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Reserve lands of the Wahta Mohawks, incorporating approximately 3000 square kilometres (Figure 1). This study also resulted in the provision for land developers of a set of clear procedures to follow with respect to heritage features prior to securing development approvals. The benefits to the community at large include an enhanced understanding of the region's
Recommended publications
  • Operation Plan for the Charlton And

    Operation Plan for the Charlton And

    The Municipality of Charlton and Dack MULTI-FACILITY OPERATIONAL PLAN for the Charlton Drinking Water System & the Bradley Subdivision Distribution System Revision 7: September 29, 2017 © Ontario Clean Water Agency Operational Plan – Revision 7: September 29, 2017 Ontario Clean Water Agency – Charlton Drinking Water System and Bradley Subdivision Distribution System DISCLAIMER STATEMENT This Operational Plan is designed for the exclusive use of the Corporation of the Municipality of Charlton and Dack. This Operational Plan has been developed with OCWA’s operating practices in mind and utilizing OCWA personnel to implement it. Any use which a third party makes of this Operational Plan, or any part thereof, or any reliance on or decisions made based on information within it, is the responsibility of such third parties. OCWA accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this Operational Plan or any part thereof. Any documents developed and owned by OCWA which are referred to in this Operational Plan (including, but not limited to, OCWA’s QEMS and its associated Standard Operating Procedures, policies, Facility Emergency Plans, and audit protocol) remain the property of OCWA. Accordingly, these documents shall not be considered to form part of the Operational Plan belonging to the owner of a drinking-water system under Section 17 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Ontario Clean Water Agency – Charlton Drinking Water System and Bradley Subdivision Distribution System OPERATIONAL PLAN Charlton Drinking Water System and Bradley Subdivision Distribution System Owned by the Corporation of the Municipality of Charlton and Dack Operated by the Ontario Clean Water Agency This Operational Plan defines and documents the Quality & Environmental Management System (QEMS) for the Charlton Drinking Water System and the Bradley Subdivision Distribution System operated by the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA).
  • Community Profile Mayor’S Message

    Community Profile Mayor’S Message

    COMMUNITY PROFILE MAYOR’S MESSAGE irstly, it is such a privilege all combine to make Muskoka Lakes an for economic growth and community as the newly elected Mayor iconic choice to work, to visit and live. prosperity by recognizing that the of Muskoka Lakes to write “Environment is the Economy”. the Mayor’s Message for our Whether you prefer small Focus is given to working closely Community Profile. communities, rural areas, country together with community partners settings or spectacular waterfront to improve the conditions that exist FThe Community Profile provides properties, Muskoka Lakes has it all. throughout the municipality in an an overview of the operating The municipality has encouraged effort to create a sustainable year environment in Muskoka Lakes. responsible growth, while at the round economy. You will find information regrading same time protecting the historic demographics, geography, labour significance, character and natural If I can be of any assistance in creating force, taxes, infrastructure, services beauty of the area. or helping with your Muskoka Lakes, and local contacts. please contact me anytime. I know one It is recognized that different groups thing, if you choose Muskoka Lakes, it The quality of life in Muskoka Lakes is enjoy the natural beauty of Muskoka will be a decision you will never regret. often unmatched. Muskoka Lakes is a Lakes, from year round and seasonal diverse community where generations residents, to a transient tourist Sincerely, interact with nature, recreation, history population. Economic
  • The Evolving Muskoka Vacation Experience 1860-1945 by Geoffrey

    The Evolving Muskoka Vacation Experience 1860-1945 by Geoffrey

    The Evolving Muskoka Vacation Experience 1860-1945 by Geoffrey Shifflett A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2012 © Geoffrey Shifflett 2012 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract This dissertation examines the development of tourism in Muskoka in the Canadian Shield region from 1860 to 1945. Three key themes are examined: the tourists, the resorts and projected image of the area. When taken together, they provide insight into the origin and evolution of the meanings attached to tourist destinations in the Canadian Shield. The Muskoka Lakes region provides the venue in which continuity and change in each of these elements of the tourism landscape are explored. This dissertation uses previously underutilized primary source materials ranging from hotel ledgers, financial reports, personal correspondence, period brochures, guidebooks, and contemporary newspaper articles to reconstruct the Muskoka tourist experience over an extended period of time. The volume of literature pertaining to American tourism history significantly outweighs similar work conducted on Canadian destinations. This dissertation, therefore, begins with an overview of key works related to the historical development of tourism in the United States followed by a survey of corresponding Canadian literature. The lack of an analytical structure in many tourist historical works is identified as a methodological gap in the literature.
  • NOAA Great Lakes Charts Catalog Reference

    NOAA Great Lakes Charts Catalog Reference

    Charts on the Great Lakes and Adjacent Waters 96° 94° Data On the Great Lakes System Chart Number Title Scale Chart Number Title Scale Chart Number Title Scale LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE 14500 Great Lakes—Lake Champlain to Lake of the Woods 1:1,500,000 14847 Toledo Harbor 1:20,000 14915 Little Bay de Noc 1:30,000 GENERAL LAKE DIMENSION SUPERIOR MICHIGAN HURON ST. CLAIR ERIE ONTARIO ST. LAWRENCE RIVER Entrance Channel 1:40,000 14916 SMALL-CRAFT BOOK CHART Length in miles 350 307 206 26 241 193 14770 Morristown, N.Y. to Butternut Bay, Ont. 1:15,000 14848 Detroit River 1:30,000 Lake Winnebago and Lower Fox River (book of 34 charts) Various 14850 Lake St. Clair 1:60,000 14917 Menominee and Marinette Harbors 1:15,000 14500 Breadth in miles 160 118(1) 183(2) 24 57 53 14771 Butternut Bay, Ont., to Ironsides lsland., N.Y. 1:15,000 Length in coastline (including islands) 2,730 1,640 3,830(3) 257 871 712 14772 Ironsides lsland, N.Y., to Bingham lsland, Ont. 1:15,000 14852 St. Clair River 1:40,000 14918 Head of Green Bay, including Fox River below De Pere 1:25,000 Area in square miles 14773 Gananoque, Ont., to St. Lawrence Park. N.Y. 1:15,000 Head of St. Clair River 1:15,000 Green Bay 1:10,000 1450 Water Surface, United States 20,600(4) 22,300(5) 9,150(6) 198(7) 4,980 3,560(8) 14774 Round lsland, N.Y., and Gananoque, Ont., to Wolfe l., Ont.
  • Go Home Bay Summary Report

    Go Home Bay Summary Report

    Eastern Georgian Bay Stewardship Council www.helpourfisheries.com Project Completion Report Go Home Bay (of Eastern Georgian Bay) Walleye Spawning Habitat Enhancement Project (2009-10 Canada-Ontario Agreement Project #3-06) October 2009 Go Home Bay Chutes (October 2009) 1 Go Home Bay Walleye Spawning Habitat Enhancement – Project Completion Report Go Home Bay Walleye Spawning Habitat Enhancement Project Executive Summary The Eastern Georgian Bay Stewardship Council (EGBSC) in partnership with the Ministry of Natural Resources through the Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) Respecting the Great Lake Basin, have embarked on a program to reintroduce walleye into the Go Home Bay area of Georgian Bay. The successful completion of walleye spawning habitat enhancement work in October of 2009 represents completion of step #4 in a seven-step plan to re-introduce walleye into the Go Home Bay area of eastern Georgian Bay. The complete seven step process entails: 1. Pre-treatment assessment of the Go Home Bay walleye population. 2. Site characterization and evaluation of the Go Home Bay chutes walleye spawning site. 3. Design a site-specific, enhanced walleye spawning bed at Go Home Chutes 4. Enhance the Go Home Bay chutes spawning site 5. Rehabilitative walleye plantings for three – four years. 6. Conduct post-treatment assessment after the four-year stocking period. 7. Based on post-treatment assessment, consider the need for walleye harvest and fishing regulation revisions. This report relates specifically to walleye spawning bed enhancement work (Step 4) conducted at Go Home Chutes in October of 2009. 1.0 Project Goal: The over-all goal of this enhancement project was to contribute to towards the successful reintroduction of walleye to Go Home Bay with the intention of creating a natural, self-sustaining population.
  • What's Important in Getting on the Destination Wish List

    What's Important in Getting on the Destination Wish List

    Ontario RTO7 Image Study Final Report February, 2011 Table of Contents Background and Purpose 3 Research Objectives 4 Method 5 Executive Summary 7 Conclusions & Implications 52 Detailed Findings 66 Destination Awareness and Visitation 67 Awareness, Past Visitation and Interest in Local Attractions 159 Awareness/Experience with Grey County Places/Attractions 160 Awareness/Experience with Bruce County Places/Attractions 178 Awareness/Experience with Simcoe County Places/Attractions 199 Interest in Types of Activities/Attractions/Events 220 Image Hot Buttons 243 RTO7’s Image vs. Competitors 246 Image Strengths & Weaknesses vs. Individual Competitors 280 Image Strengths & Weaknesses vs. Individual Competitors — Ontario Residents 320 RTO7’s Competitive Image in Each Region 355 RTO7’s Image by Region of Residence and Demographics 361 RTO7’s Product Delivery 382 Appendix: Questionnaire 389 2 Background & Purpose The Government of Ontario has recently realigned the province’s tourism regions. The new RTO7 region consists of Grey, Bruce and Simcoe Counties. The Region 7 RTO recognizes the importance of tourism to the welfare of the area and has expressed interest in development of a comprehensive strategic plan. As part of this process, Longwoods was engaged to carry out consumer research designed to provide Region 7 with market insights to inform brand strategy development aimed at increasing demand for the region among leisure visitors: Measuring familiarity and experience with the region/its attractions Measuring the region’s image and
  • Cstmr Ofc Id Cstmr Ofc Plys Id

    Cstmr Ofc Id Cstmr Ofc Plys Id

    CSTMR_OFC_ID CSTMR_OFC_PLYS_ID CSTMR_LBL_ENG_NM CSTMR_LBL_FR_NM CSTMR_OFC_ENG_NM CSTMR_OFC_FR_NM CSTMR_LN1_ADDR CSTMR_LN2_ADDR CSTMR_CTY_NM CNTRY_SBLCTN CNTRY_PSTL_CD CNTRY_CD CSTMR_OFC_STS_CD 5P002 5P002 PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA CEO'S OFFICE 5TH FLOOR, (PC-05-A) 30 VICTORIA GATINEAU QC J8X0B3 CAN 1 5P003 5P003 PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA CAO-REAL PROPERTY 4TH FLOOR 30 VICTORIA STREET GATINEAU QC J8X0B3 CAN 1 5P004 5P004 PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA EXT RELTNS & VISITOR EXP DIR 2ND FLOOR (PC-02-E) 30 VICTORIA Gatineau QC J8X0B3 CAN 1 5P005 5P005 PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA STRAT PLAN&REPORT,INVEST PLAN 4TH FLOOR 30 VICTORIA STREET GATINEAU QC J8X0B3 CAN 1 5P009 5P009 PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA STRATEGIC PLANNING & REPORTING 4TH FLOOR 30 VICTORIA STREET GATINEAU QC J8X0B3 CAN 1 5P010 5P010 PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA CFOD 30 VICTORIA (PC-5-K) GATINEAU QC J8X0B3 CAN 1 5P012 5P012 PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA HRD-CORPORATE SERVICES TEAM 4TH FL, STN 157 (PC-04-J) 30 VICTORIA ST GATINEAU QC J8X0B3 CAN 1 5P013 5P013 PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA EXECUTIVE GROUP HRNO 30 VICTORIA Gatineau QC J8X0B3 CAN 1 5P014 5P014 PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA HRD-OFFICE OF THE CHRO 4TH FL, STN 146 (PC-04-J) 30 VICTORIA ST GATINEAU QC J8X0B3 CAN 1 5P015 5P015 PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA HRD-WORKPLACE RELATIONS BRANCH 4TH FL, STN 187 (PC-04-K) 30 VICTORIA ST GATINEAU QC J8X0B3 CAN 1 5P016 5P016 PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA HRD-HR BUS INFO & SYSTEMS BR 4TH FL, STN 172 (PC-04-M) 30 VICTORIA ST GATINEAU QC J8X0B3 CAN 1 5P018 5P018 PARKS CANADA PARCS CANADA HRD-WORKFORCE MGMT&LEADERSHIP
  • Jennifer Szymanski Usfish and Wildlife Service Endangered

    Jennifer Szymanski Usfish and Wildlife Service Endangered

    Written by: Jennifer Szymanski U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Division 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111 Acknowledgements: Numerous State and Federal agency personnel and interested individuals provided information regarding Sistrurus c. catenatus’status. The following individuals graciously provided critical input and numerous reviews on portions of the manuscript: Richard Seigel, Robert Hay, Richard King, Bruce Kingsbury, Glen Johnson, John Legge, Michael Oldham, Kent Prior, Mary Rabe, Andy Shiels, Doug Wynn, and Jeff Davis. Mary Mitchell and Kim Mitchell provided graphic assistance. Cover photo provided by Bruce Kingsbury Table of Contents Taxonomy....................................................................................................................... 1 Physical Description....................................................................................................... 3 Distribution & State Status............................................................................................. 3 Illinois................................................................................................................. 5 Indiana................................................................................................................ 5 Iowa.................................................................................................................... 5 Michigan............................................................................................................ 6 Minnesota..........................................................................................................
  • Land Information Ontario Data Description OTN Trailhead

    Land Information Ontario Data Description OTN Trailhead

    Unclassified Land Information Ontario Data Description OTN Trailhead Disclaimer This technical documentation has been prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources (the “Ministry”), representing Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario. Although every effort has been made to verify the information, this document is presented as is, and the Ministry makes no guarantees, representations or warranties with respect to the information contained within this document, either express or implied, arising by law or otherwise, including but not limited to, effectiveness, completeness, accuracy, or fitness for purpose. The Ministry is not liable or responsible for any loss or harm of any kind arising from use of this information. For an accessible version of this document, please contact Land Information Ontario at (705) 755 1878 or [email protected] ©Queens Printer for Ontario, 2012 LIO Class Catalogue OTN Trailhead Class Short Name: OTNTHD Version Number: 1 Class Description: The point at which the trail starts. A trailhead exists for each trail. A trail may consist of one or more trail segments. Abstract Class Name: SPSPNT Abstract Class Description: Spatial Single-Point: An object is represented by ONE and ONLY ONE point. Examples: A cabin, bird nest, tower. Tables in LIO Class: OTN Trailhead OTN_TRAILHEAD_FT The point at which the trail starts. A trailhead exists for each trail. A trail may consist of one or more trail segments. Column Name Column Mandatory Short Name Valid Values Type OGF_ID NUMBER Yes OGF_ID (13,0) A unique numeric provincial identifier assigned to each object. TRAIL_NAME VARCHAR2 Yes TRAIL_NAME (200) The name that the trail is most commonly known as.
  • Lighthouses – Clippings

    Lighthouses – Clippings

    GREAT LAKES MARINE COLLECTION MILWAUKEE PUBLIC LIBRARY/WISCONSIN MARINE HISTORICAL SOCIETY MARINE SUBJECT FILES LIGHTHOUSE CLIPPINGS Current as of November 7, 2018 LIGHTHOUSE NAME – STATE - LAKE – FILE LOCATION Algoma Pierhead Light – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan - Algoma Alpena Light – Michigan – Lake Huron - Alpena Apostle Islands Lights – Wisconsin – Lake Superior - Apostle Islands Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light – Wisconsin – Lake Superior - Ashland Ashtabula Harbor Light – Ohio – Lake Erie - Ashtabula Badgeley Island – Ontario – Georgian Bay, Lake Huron – Badgeley Island Bailey’s Harbor Light – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan – Bailey’s Harbor, Door County Bailey’s Harbor Range Lights – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan – Bailey’s Harbor, Door County Bala Light – Ontario – Lake Muskoka – Muskoka Lakes Bar Point Shoal Light – Michigan – Lake Erie – Detroit River Baraga (Escanaba) (Sand Point) Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – Sand Point Barber’s Point Light (Old) – New York – Lake Champlain – Barber’s Point Barcelona Light – New York – Lake Erie – Barcelona Lighthouse Battle Island Lightstation – Ontario – Lake Superior – Battle Island Light Beaver Head Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – Beaver Island Beaver Island Harbor Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – St. James (Beaver Island Harbor) Belle Isle Lighthouse – Michigan – Lake St. Clair – Belle Isle Bellevue Park Old Range Light – Michigan/Ontario – St. Mary’s River – Bellevue Park Bete Grise Light – Michigan – Lake Superior – Mendota (Bete Grise) Bete Grise Bay Light – Michigan – Lake Superior
  • 2.8 Steamboats and Canals on the Ottawa River

    2.8 Steamboats and Canals on the Ottawa River

    CULTURAL HERITAGE 105 2.8 Steamboats and Canals on the Ottawa River The Ottawa River was once the only way to access the Upper Ottawa Valley, to travel between Montreal and Ottawa and beyond. It was a viable option for military and commercial access to the Great Lakes. Before roads and even railways were built, the Ottawa River was literally the one and only highway, carrying merchandise, people, and mail in both directions. From Montreal, there were two Figure 2.63 Canoe on the River, 1841 main routes inland: the St. Lawrence – Great Lakes system, and the Ottawa River – Lake Nipissing – Georgian Bay to Upper Great Lakes route (Canadian Public Works Association 113). At first, canoes plied the waters of the Ottawa, carrying First Nations Peoples, explorers and voyageurs into the interior of the land. But the development of the lumber industry in the Ottawa Valley and the related settlement in its upper reaches soon required larger boats. These Source : Philip John Bainbrigge/Library and Archives Canada/C-011815 boats faced logistical challenges hoisting themselves up or around the many sections of chutes and rapids they encountered along the Ottawa. A series of canals, initially built for military purposes, facilitated the transportation of goods and people along the river. Figure 2.64 Steamer, “Duchess of York” Steamboats appeared on the Ottawa River during the construction of these canals, enabling a more reliable and efficient transportation system. The canals only circumvented certain rapids. Others, such as the Chaudiere Falls, still represent an Canada/C-003949 obstacle to navigation. Steamboats were therefore confined to particular sections of the river.
  • Distances Between United States Ports 2019 (13Th) Edition

    Distances Between United States Ports 2019 (13Th) Edition

    Distances Between United States Ports 2019 (13th) Edition T OF EN CO M M T M R E A R P C E E D U N A I C T I E R D E S M T A ATES OF U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) RDML Timothy Gallaudet., Ph.D., USN Ret., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere National Ocean Service Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management Cover image courtesy of Megan Greenaway—Great Salt Pond, Block Island, RI III Preface Distances Between United States Ports is published by the Office of Coast Survey, National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), pursuant to the Act of 6 August 1947 (33 U.S.C. 883a and b), and the Act of 22 October 1968 (44 U.S.C. 1310). Distances Between United States Ports contains distances from a port of the United States to other ports in the United States, and from a port in the Great Lakes in the United States to Canadian ports in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Distances Between Ports, Publication 151, is published by National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and distributed by NOS. NGA Pub. 151 is international in scope and lists distances from foreign port to foreign port and from foreign port to major U.S. ports. The two publications, Distances Between United States Ports and Distances Between Ports, complement each other.