Stages 1-3 Archaeological Assessment Of

Home , Lake Muskoka

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment for the: Mountview Wastewater Treatment Plant and Huntsville Sewage Works Upgrades Class Environmental Assessment

Geographic Townships of Brunel and Chaffey Town of Huntsville District Municipality of Muskoka Ontario

Project #: 008-HU922-13 Licensee (#): Nimal Nithiyanantham (P390) PIF#: P390-0088-2013

Original Report

August 26th, 2014

Presented to: CH2M HILL Canada Limited 245 Consumers Road Toronto, Ontario M2J 1R3 T: 416.499.0090 F: 416.499.4687

Prepared by: Archeoworks Inc. 16715-12 Yonge Street, Suite 1029 ARCHEOWORKS INC. Newmarket, Ontario L3X 1X4 T: 416.676.5597 F: 416.676.5810 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Archeoworks Inc. was retained by CH2M HILL Canada Limited to conduct a Stage 1 AA in support of the new Schedule ‘C’ Class Environmental Assessment (EA) initiated by the District Municipality of Muskoka, which seeks to update the preferred approach established in the previous 1989 EA to provide sewage works servicing to the Town of Huntsville.

The Stage 1 AA identified potential for the recovery of historic Euro-Canadian and Aboriginal archaeological remains within undisturbed portions of the study area based on its proximity to water sources, which would have been able to sustain food resources within 300 metres of their limits. In addition, a review of historic maps revealed that the area was well-settled in the 19th century, with historic roads and structures documented as having existed throughout the study area. A total of one archaeological site, 13 designated and 64 listed heritage properties, and 6 historic cemeteries are also located within the study area limits. The entire study area is therefore considered to have high archaeological potential.

Areas that had been subjected to previous assessments are recommended to be exempt from further assessment, given that the archaeological concerns within their specific footprints have already been addressed. Areas identified to have no or low archaeological potential due to extensive disturbance or physical features such as permanently wet or steeply sloping areas, are considered to be potentially exempt from further assessment, given that only a combination of background research and on-site inspection (which was not performed) can exclude any area from Stage 2 AA. Following the selection of the preferred solution and design concept, all lands identified as having archaeological potential lying within the limits of proposed construction and/or staging areas must be subjected to Stage 2 archaeological assessment, commencing with the identification of disturbances and physical features indicating no or low archaeological potential by a licensed archaeologist. The presence and exact extent of such features must be documented and mapped; it is at this point that lands deemed unsuitable for testing can be made exempt from further Stage 2 assessment.

Should proposed work occur within or immediately adjacent (within 10 metres) to any cemetery, following the Stage 2 archaeological investigation of this area, a Stage 3 investigation involving mechanical topsoil stripping will be required in the area to be impacted, including a 10-metre buffer, to confirm the presence or absence of any grave shafts.

No excavation activities shall take place within the study area prior to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport (Archaeology Program Unit) confirming in writing that all archaeological licensing and technical review requirements have been satisfied.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. i

STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... II

PROJECT PERSONNEL ...... III

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT ...... 1

1.1 OBJECTIVES ...... 1 1.2 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT ...... 1 1.3 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 2 1.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ...... 12

2.0 PROPERTY INSPECTION ...... 19

3.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 20

3.1 IDENTIFIED DISTURBANCES ...... 20 3.2 PHYSICAL FEATURES...... 20 3.3 PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED AREAS ...... 21 3.4 AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ...... 21 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 22

5.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION ...... 24

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES ...... 25

APPENDICES ...... 30

APPENDIX A: MAPS ...... 31 APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...... 38 APPENDIX C: LAND USE INFORMATION FROM 1879 HISTORICAL MAP ...... 39 APPENDIX D: IMAGES ...... 42 APPENDIX E: INVENTORY OF DOCUMENTARY AND MATERIAL RECORD ...... 47

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: DESIGNATED HERITAGE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ...... 13 TABLE 2: LISTED HERITAGE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ...... 14

ARCHEOWORKS INC. ii

Project Director ...... Nimal Nithiyanantham – MTCS licence P390

Report Preparation ...... Jay Villapando

Report Review ...... Nimal Nithiyanantham – MTCS licence P390 Kim Slocki – MTCS licence P029

Historical and Archival Research ...... Lee Templeton – MTCS licence R454

Graphics ...... Michael Lawson Lee Templeton – MTCS licence R454 Jay Villapando

ARCHEOWORKS INC. iii

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (AA), as outlined by the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (‘2011 S&G’) (2011), are as follows:

 To provide information about the property’s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land condition  To evaluate in detail the property’s archaeological potential, which will support recommendations for Stage 2 survey for all or parts of the property  To recommend appropriate strategies for Stage 2 survey

1.2 Development Context

In 1989 the District Municipality of Muskoka completed a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for sewage works improvements to the Town of Hunstville, with the preferred solution to be implemented in two phases (R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd., 1989). Phase 1, completed in 1996, involved the construction of the Golden Pheasant Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) with a new outfall. This facility and the existing Mountview WWTP currently treat sewage in the Town of Huntsville. Phase 2, which was deferred, involves the expansion of the Golden Pheasant WWTP, the conversion of Mountview WWTP to a sewage pump station, and the construction of a new forcemain between the two facilities.

Given that the Mountview WWTP is nearing the end of its useful life, the 1989 Class EA has expired; the District Municipality of Muskoka initiated a new Schedule ‘C’ Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to update the preferred approach established in the previous EA. In order to identify an updated Preferred Solution for replacing the Mountview Wastewater Treatment Plant and improving sewage works in the Town of Hunstville for the future, the current Class EA will verify the information and the preferred solution (Phase 2) from the 1989 EA; strive to plan sufficient capacity to support growth in the Town of Huntsville for the next 20 years; and address effluent discharge from the existing wastewater treatment plants to the receiving waters.

Archeoworks Inc. was retained by CH2M HILL Canada Limited to conduct a Stage 1 AA for the project’s environmental impact study area, with a detailed focus on the areas that would have been impacted by the implementation of Phase 2 of the 1989 Class EA Preferred Solution (see Appendix A – Map 1).

This study was triggered by the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act in support of the Schedule ‘C’ Municipal Class EA initiated by the District Municipality of Muskoka. This Stage 1 AA was conducted under the project direction of Mr. Nimal Nithiyanantham, under the archaeological consultant licence number P390, in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 1 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO (2009). Permission to investigate the study area was granted by CH2M Hill Canada Limited on February 28th, 2014.

1.3 Historical Context

The 2011 S&G, published by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) considers areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement, including places of early military pioneer or pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, and farmstead complexes), early wharf or dock complexes, and pioneer churches and early cemeteries, as having archaeological potential. There may be commemorative markers of their history, such as local, provincial, or federal monuments or heritage parks. Early historical transportation routes (trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes), properties listed in a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or a federal, provincial, or municipal historic landmark or site, and properties that local histories or informants have identified with possible archaeological sites, historical events, activities, or occupations are also considered to have archaeological potential.

To establish the archaeological and historical significance of the study area, Archeoworks Inc. conducted a comprehensive review of listed and designated heritage properties, and registered archaeological sites in close proximity to its limits. Furthermore, a review of the physiography of the overall area and its correlation to locating archaeological remains, as well as consultation of available historical documentation, was performed.

The results of this background research are documented below and summarized in Appendix B – Summary of Archaeological Potential.

1.3.1 Pre-Contact Period

1.3.1.1 Glacial Ontario and the Paleoindian Period The region where the study area is situated was first inhabited after the final retreat of the North American Laurentide ice sheet. The formation of the Canadian Shield, or the Precambrian Shield, has been dated to roughly 3.96 billion years old and the multitudinous lakes within the Canadian Shield in Muskoka were carved by the retreated glacial ice (Coombe, 1976, p.1; Bastedo, 2012). Massive amounts of glacial meltwater expanded against the retreating ice boundary in the north, flooding the Huron and Georgian Bay (Stewart, 2013, p.25). Eventually, the water within these basins coalesced, forming glacial Lake Algonquin, which “covered parts or all of Lake Huron, Lake Superior, and Erie basins, which included Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching” (Frim, 2002, p.xi; Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.15). The lessening ice load created isostatic rebound, causing abandoned shorelines to tilt northward towards the ice centre and caused water to accumulate along the southern shorelines, creating the main glacial strandline of Lake Algonquin which extended around the southern shore of Lake Simcoe (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.15). Current drainage models suggest Lake Algonquin was at an elevation higher than the current Lake Huron and the Kirkfield outlet, beginning in Fenelon Falls down the

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 2 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO Trent Valley and into the Lake Ontario Basin provided the main drainage flow out of Lake Algonquin at this time (Jackson et al, 2000, p.416; Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.15).

Along this glacial strandline of Lake Algonquin, there is definite evidence of human occupations (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.15). During this transgression, small groups of Paleoindians may have settled in the Muskoka District immediately following the lowering of the Lake Algonquin water levels (ASI, 1994, p.5). Paleoindian sites are extraordinarily rare and consist of small clusters in an area of less than 200-300 square metres (Ellis, 2013, p.35). These sites appear to have been small campsites used during travel episodes. They can be found on loamy, well- drained soils in elevated locations, which would have provided more comfortable sites in which to camp and view the surrounding territory (Ellis and Deller, 1990, p.50). Traditionally, Paleoindian sites have been located primarily along abandoned glacial lake strandlines or beaches (Ellis and Deller, 1990, p.50).

Paleoindians are thought to have been small groups of nomadic hunter-gathers who depended on naturally available foodstuff such as game or wild plants (Ellis and Deller, 1990, p.38). For much of the year, Paleoindians “hunted in small family groups; they would periodically gather into a larger grouping or bands during a favourable period in their hunting cycle, such as the annual caribou migration” (Wright, 1994, p.25). The artifact assemblage from this period is characterized by fluted and lanceolate stone points, scrapers, and small projectile points produced from specific chert types (Ellis and Deller, 1990). Distinctive dart heads were used to kill game, and knives for butchering and other tasks (Wright, 1994, p.24). These items were created and transported over great distances while following migratory animals within a massive territory.

The continuing retreat of the glaciers between 10,500 and 10,000 B.P. (ca. 8500-8000 B.C.) uncovered a series of lower outlets near the North Bay, Ontario, and water flooded the Ottawa River (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.17). The level of Lake Algonquin rapidly fell to form a series of short-lived post-Algonquin lakes located in the Georgian Bay and Lake Huron Basins which “exposed about half the present lake floor areas as dry land” (Jackson et al, 2000, p.419). This dramatically lowered the water levels of Lake Algonquin, forming a series of post-glacial lakes such as Lake Stanley in Lake Huron and Lake Hough in Georgian Bay (Jackson et al, 2000, p.419; Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.17). These low-water lakes exposed as much as 12,000 to 14,000km of lake plain along the Ontario side of modern Lake Huron (Jackson, 2004, p.38). Streams and stream valleys extended throughout the flat newly-exposed lake plain opening large tracts of land available for flora and fauna to colonize (Karrow, 2004, p. 8; Karrow and Warner, 1990, p. 17).

1.3.1.2 The Archaic Period As the climate steadily warmed, deciduous trees slowly began to permeate throughout Ontario, creating mixed deciduous and coniferous forests (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.30). The “Archaic peoples are the direct descendants of Paleoindian ancestors” that have adapted to meet new environmental and social conditions (Ellis, 2013, p.41; Wright, 1994, p.25). The Archaic Period is divided chronologically and cultural groups are divided geographically and sequentially. Archaic

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 3 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO peoples lived in “hunter-gatherer bands whose social and economic organization was probably characterized by openness and flexibility” (Ellis et al, 1990, p.123). This fluidity creates ‘traditions’ and ‘phases’ which encompass large groups of Archaic peoples that “may not exist in discrete and readily identifiable forms” (Ellis et al, 1990, p.123).

Very few confirmed Early or Middle Archaic sites have been recorded in the Canadian Shield. However, by the Late Archaic period, nearly every lake and river system in north-central and northeastern Ontario had been occupied or travelled across (ASI, 1994, p.6). House structures have “left no trace” due to the high acidic content of Ontario soils (Wright, 1994, p.27). Burial, grave goods and ritual items, although very rare, appear. By the Late Archaic, multiple individuals were buried together, suggesting semi-permanent communities were in existence (Ellis, 2013, p.46). Ceremonial and decorative items also appear on Archaic sites through widespread trade networks, such as conch shells from the Atlantic coast and galena from New York (Ellis, 2013, p.41). Through trade with the northern Archaic peoples situated around Lake Superior, native copper was initially utilized to make hooks and knives but gradually became used for decorative and ritual items (Ellis, 2013, p.42).

During the Archaic period, stone points were reformed from the fluted and lanceolate points to stone points with notched bases to be attached to a wooden shaft (Ellis, 2013, p.41). The artifact assemblages from this period is characterized by a reliance on a wide range of lithic raw materials in order to make stone artifacts, the presence of stone tools shaped by grinding and polishing, and an increase in the use of polished stone axes and adze as wood working tools (Ellis et al, 1990, p. 65; Wright, 1994, p.26). Ground-stone tools were also produced from hard stones and reformed into tools and throwing weapons (Ellis, 2013, p.41). The bow and arrow was first used during the Archaic period (Ellis, 2013, p.42).

As isostatic uplift continued, by about 5,000 B.P. (3,000B.C.), drainage through the North Bay outlet was closed off, elevating water levels in the Huron Basin to levels higher than modern levels (Jackson et al, 2000, p.419). This high water phase is known as the “Nipissing Phase” which inundated large areas probably previous occupied by humans (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p. 21). It is generally believed that during the Nipissing Phase, water levels achieved the same elevation as those during the Lake Algonquin Phase with the same strandlines, and occupying Lake Superior, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron basins forming one contiguous lake (Jackson et al, 2000, p.419). The recession of Lake Algonquin and transgression of the Nipissing Lake Phase ultimately destroyed and submerged many Paleoindian and early Archaic sites along the Lake Hough/Georgian Bay coastline (Ellis et al, 1990, p.68; Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.21).

1.3.1.3. The Woodland Period The Woodland period began in ca. 800 B.C. It is divided chronologically into subsequent stages of cultural development. Early Woodland cultures evolved out of the Late Archaic period. The Woodland period is marked by the use of both hunting and gathering to procure a larger variety of foods, although with an increased reliance on domesticated plants. Pottery (ceramics) first appeared on Woodland Period sites, indicative of a successful subsistence pattern that required long-term storage of abundant resources. Furthermore, graves and grave goods gradually

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 4 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO became more exotic and frequent indicative of growing complexity and developing trade networks between Great Lakes communities (Bursey et al, 2013a; Spence et al, 1990; Fox, 1990; Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.89).

The Early Woodland Period is represented in the Canadian Shield area by the Meadowood Phase (ASI, 1994, p.7). Meadowood sites have produced a number of distinctive material culture that function in both domestic and ritual spheres (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.90). This allows correlations to be made between habitations and mortuary sites that create a well- rounded view of Meadowood culture (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.90). ‘Quaternary blanks’, a formal chipped stone technology, were employed to make tool types from secondary chipping using primarily Onondaga chert (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.93). The settlement-subsistence system is poorly understood as only a few settlement types have been adequately investigated throughout differing physiographic regions (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.93). Generally, Meadowood sites are in association with the Point Peninsula and Saugeen complexes and “then eventually changed or were absorbed into the Point Peninsula complex” (Wright, 1994, pp. 29- 30).

The Middle Woodland Period is manifested across the southern Canadian Shield by the Laurel artifact assemblage (ASI, 1994, p.7). However, the northern limits of the Point Peninsula complex in Ontario fall along the “French and Mattawa Rivers and Lake Nipissing, where Middle Woodland sites show a mixture of Laurel and Point Peninsula ceramic traits” (Spence et al, 1990, p. 157). As Point Peninsula sites have been identified throughout much of Southern Ontario, their distribution suggests population increase, with adaptive capabilities to reside in various environments (Bursey et al, 2013b). Settlement-subsistence patterns include “large macroband sites on the lakeshore in the spring, summer and fall, with an early emphasis on fish and shellfish giving way, in the fall, to the exploitation of wild rice, deer and nuts. By the late fall, the macrobands dispersed into microbands moving into the interior to winter on stored foods” (Spence et al, 1990, p.164). This settlement-subsistence pattern has been conceptualized but suffers from a lack of solid data (Spence et al, 1990, p.164).

The Laurel culture is primarily located in Northern Ontario and extends into parts of Manitoba and Quebec (Wright, 1994, p.28). Laurel Aboriginals hunted moose and other game in the dense northern forests and may have supplemented their diet by gathering wild rice (Hessel, 1993, p.8). Chipped stone, ground stone, and bone tools were utilized as well as copper implements for smaller detailed work. The “common materials must have been wood, bark and leather, but no objects made from these have survived” (Hessel, 1993, p.8). Laurel Aboriginals used red ochre as pigment. They also “had considerable contact with other cultures through trade and intermarriage” (Hessel, 1993, p.8). The Laurel culture developed into the Algonquin culture (Hessel, 1993, p.9).

After A.D. 900, during the Late Woodland Period, the distinct cultural groups of the post- contact period, such as the Algonquin-speaking linguistic and cultural groups of northern Ontario and the Iroquoian-speaking linguistic and cultural groups of southern Ontario, had begun to develop and interacted with one another along the southern fringe of the Canadian

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 5 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO Shield (Bursey et al, 2013c). The Algonquin are a group of communities of Algonquin-speaking people who call themselves ‘Anissinapek (Anishinabeg)’ (Black, 2012). The Algonquin territory encompassed a significant portion of Ontario and is divided into the Northern Area, Western Area and Eastern Area. The eastern area of Algonquin “cultural development extended northward to Lake Abitibi and westward to the northeast shore of Lake Superior; on the east it was adjacent to land occupied by the Huron-Wendat, Petun (Tionnontaté or Khionontateronon) and St. Lawrence Iroquois” (Wright, 1994, p.36).

1.3.2 Contact Period The Algonquin, Nipissing and Ottawa groups, identified as the inhabitants of southeastern and central Ontario, all spoke a single Algonquin-language and were not related to the Iroquoian- linguistic and cultural groups of Southern Ontario (Trigger and Day, 1994, p.64). The expression ‘Algonquin’ came to designate not only the inhabitants of the Ottawa valley, as [Samuel de] Champlain called them, but several neighbouring Nations, such as the Ottawa and Nipissing, who practiced similar languages and customs (Clément, 1996, p.1). The Nipissing territorial homeland was the environs of Lake Nipissing and may have been a single large band with about 800 members, although Father Henri Nouvel, a priest and Jesuit missionary, spoke of them as consisting of four bands; little is known about their social organization (Day, 1978, pp. 787-788; Pouliot, 2014). However, although the precise territorial limits of the Nipissing are not known, they were surrounded by the Ottawa, Algonquin, Huron-Wendat and Ojibwa (Day, 1978, p.787; Trigger and Day, 1994, p.64). The Algonquin and Nipissing territory lay within the glaciated Canadian Shield, within the mixed coniferous-deciduous forests of the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence region and represent the northernmost extent of maize horticultural production (Day, 1978, p.787).

The Nipissing, like the Algonquin and Ottawa, depended on hunting, fishing and collecting wild plant foods, yet they differed from the Algonquin who lived further north, as they regularly planted corn (Trigger and Day, 1994, p.65). However, as the Nipissing occupied a region with a short growing season that limited agricultural production, these groups dispersed into small hunting parties to survive the winter (Trigger and Day, 1994, p.65; Day, 1978, p.788). During summer months, the hunting parties assembled on a lake or river to fish and grow corn (Trigger and Day, 1994, p.66). The material culture and the world view closely resembles the Iroquois- speaking groups in the south, where they used birch bark for canoes, toboggans, and snowshoes; practiced polygamy based on a man’s economic capacity; and were renowned for their shamanism (Trigger and Day, 1994, p.66). They erected barrel-vaulted multi-family houses that were shorter than the Huron-Wendat (Trigger and Day, 1994, p.66).

Following the St. Lawrence Iroquois dispersal from the St. Lawrence Valley, the Montagnais of Quebec allowed the Algonquin to conclude a direct trading relationship with the French, and temporarily acted as a middle-man between the Huron-Wendat and French (Trigger and Day, 1994, p.68). The Mohawk, prior to the creation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, continually raided the St. Lawrence Valley to seek control of the trade goods. Consequently, the Algonquin traveled to Quebec via northern routes along the Ottawa River. The Nipissing were known to Samuel de Champlain in 1613, who attempted to visit them, but the Algonquin prevented it

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 6 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO (Day, 1978, p.788). In 1615, Samuel de Champlain arrived on the western boundary of Muskoka and identified the Algonquin Aboriginals to have been the first recorded inhabitants of the territory (Coombe, 1976, p.6). Soon, the French encountered the Huron-Wendat and, desiring greater quantities of furs, concluded a trading relationship with the Huron-Wendat (Trigger and Day, 1994, p.68). Consequently, the Huron-Wendat became the middlemen for trade goods between the French and its Algonquin-speaking neighbours, infuriating the Algonquin. Although the Huron-Wendat trade route passed through Nipissing territory, the Nipissing remained in good terms with the Huron-Wendat: trading furs for surplus corn, cornmeal, wampum and fish nets (Trigger and Washburn, 1996, p.329; Day, 1978, p.788).

From 1615 to 1633, Recollect priests were aware of the Nipissing presence in the area, but focused their activities on the Huron-Wendat (Day, 1978, p.788). From 1621-22, the Recollet priest Guillaume Poulain wintered with the Nipissing and from 1620 to 1633, Jean Nicollet lived among them (Trigger and Day, 1994, p.71). As early as 1634, epidemics killed numerous Nipissing making them more receptive to the teaching Claude Pijart and Charles Raymbault, Jesuits priests who established a mission for the Nipissing in 1640, called the Nipissing Mission of the Holy Ghost (Day, 1978, p.789).

By 1645, having grown dependent on European goods and with their territory no longer yielding enough animal pelts, the Haudenosaunee (Mohawk Confederacy) became increasingly aggressive towards the Huron-Wendat Confederacy (Trigger, 1994, p.53). Armed with guns and ammunition from the Dutch, the Haudenosaunee engaged in brutal warfare with the Huron- Wendat and brutally attacked and destroyed several Huron-Wendat villages throughout Southern Ontario (Trigger, 1994, p.53). In 1647, the Haudenosaunee had decimated the Lower Algonquins; the Nipissing and the Montagnais formed a defensive alliance for several years which culminated in 1653 in a skirmish at Lake Nipissing (Day, 1978, p.789). The Nipissing fled west to Lake Nipigon, settled and continued to trade with the Cree and French until 1667 when the French and the Haudenosaunee concluded a peace agreement (Day, 1978, p.789). The Nipissing returned to their ancestral homeland and remained firm allies of the French during the Indian Wars, and during the Seven Years War (Day, 1978, p.789; Trigger and Day, 1994, p.73). After the fall of New France in 1763, all aboriginal groups fell under administration of Sir William Johnson, the British superintendent of Indian Affairs (Day, 1978, p.790).

The Ojibwa, also an Algonquin-speaking linguistic and cultural group, was the most closely connected aboriginal group to the territory of Muskoka from around 1750, under the leadership of William Yellowhead, also known as Musquakie or Mesqua Ukie, the son of Chief William Yellowhead the elder (Coombe, 1976, p.9; Murray, 1963, p.lv). Originally from the northern shores of Lake Huron, the Ojibwa began to expand into southern Ontario and claimed land around Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe and Severn River (Rogers, 1978, p.760; Murray, 1963, p.lv). However, there appears to be no written records to show at what date the Ojibwa were first in or near Muskoka (Murray, 1963, p.lviii). In 1785, an agreement was made between the Ojibwa and the British which allowed the British Crown to construct roads and continue with trade throughout Ojibwa territory, which included one mile on each side of Severn River (Coombe, 1976, p.9; Murray 1963, p.lv).

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 7 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO 1.3.3 Euro-Canadian Settlement History During the War of 1812, Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe became increasingly concerned about creating a northern transportation route, as the St. Lawrence River became increasingly dangerous to travel and trade on (Coombe, 1976, p.9; Boyer, 1979, p.5). Simcoe believed a route connecting Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay by way of Lake Simcoe through Severn River was a military necessity; however, this route was abandoned in favour of Nottawasaga River (Coombe, 1976, p.9)., In 1815, after the war with the United States of America was over, a survey of the Great Lakes was carried out by Sir E.W.C.R. Owens and his brother, Captain William Fitzwilliam Owen, which included “Manitoulin Islands and the navigation north and east of them to the Bay of Matchidash” (Murray, 1963, p. xliii). Illness prevented the Owens from completing their survey and by 1819, the British began to focus on a discovering a water route between the Ottawa River and Georgian Bay south of Lake Nipissing and the French River (Murray, 1963, p.xliv). Lieutenant Joseph E. Portlock was tasked to examine the Severn River. However, his lengthy report regarding dams and canals to avoid the falls ultimately led to the creation of the Trent Canal system (Coombe, 1976, p. 10; Murray, 1963, p. xliv).

Until 1826, only the fringe of the District of Muskoka had been explored by Euro-Canadians. Lieutenant Henry Briscoe of the Royal Engineers ventured into the interior of Muskoka to survey the Talbot and Black River, in the eastern part of Muskoka, but being unable to find Aboriginal guides familiar with the area, he traversed Lake Muskoka to the South Branch of the Muskoka River before reaching the Ottawa River (Murray, 1963, p.xlvii; Coombe, 1976, p. 10; Boyer, 1979, p.7). In 1829, Alexander Shirreff prepared a report of his canoe trip from Rideau River to Penetanguishene on Lake Huron; he traversed Lake Muskoka and the south branch of the Muskoka River (Murray, 1963, p.li; Boyer, 1979, p.10). Several additional surveys were conducted to locate a route to the Ottawa River. The first survey line was established in 1835 (Boyer, 1979, p.11). In 1837, David Thompson, explorer of the Columbia River, found the mouth of the Muskoka River, proceeded up-river, located a route to the Ottawa River and ultimately made the British government aware of land valuable to purchase within the District of Newcastle and Muskoka (Murray, 1963, p. li; Coombe, 1976, p.11). This land included 1,024,000 acres of land along the Muskoka River system suitable for cultivation (Boyer, 1979, p.17). In 1847, an Order in Council directed the Commissioner of Crown Lands to open the “waste lands” in the rear of Midland, Victoria and Colborne Districts. Surveyor Robert Bell began from the boundary line of Home District across the Muskoka River near the future site of the Town of Bracebridge (Murray, 1963, p. lxiii; Boyer, 1979, p.18). Bell ran a direct road line from Bark Lake to Muskoka, known as the Bell Line, which ran between present townships of Draper and Macaulay, as far as the boundary of Home District (Murray, 1963, p.lxiii; Boyer, 1979, p.18).

In 1850, William B. Robinson arranged a treaty for a large, poorly-defined tract of land which “stretched from Penetanguishene to Batchawana Bay on Lake Superior, together with the islands off the shores and inland to the height of land which separated the territory of the Hudson’s Bay Company…interpreted to include lands unceded in Muskoka” (Murray, 1963, p. lix). The treaty envisioned the continual use of lands by the natives for hunting and fishing purposes until it was sold or leased to an individual with the consent of the Provincial

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 8 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO Government (Boyer, 1979, p.21). This treaty, the Huron-Ottawa Treaty or Robinson-Huron Treaty, did not include rightful compensation and since the land was poorly defined, the Chippewas and Mississaugas, related to the Ojibwas, considered the land not rightfully surrendered and the matter of land cession within the District of Muskoka remained a legal dispute (Surtees, 1994, p.107). After the Anishinaabeg Nation, consisting of the Chippewas and Mississaugas, continually pressured the Federal government to review the land cession documents, it became apparent land had not been correctly purchased by the British (Surtees, 1994, p.107; Surtees, 1986, p.19). The William’s Treaty of 1923 provided for the surrender of the last substantial portion of the territory that had not been given up to government (Surtees, 1986, p.19).

The District of Muskoka covers an area of 987,283 acres and is drained by a maze of lakes and rivers via the Muskoka River into Georgian Bay (Mika and Mika, 1981, pp.705-706). James W. Bridgland, surveying from the east of Muskoka in Haliburtion District, examined the land around Lake Muskoka and the south bank of the Muskoka River towards Georgian Bay and in 1852, submitted a discouraging report identifying the lands as being “generally rocky and broken, and advised against incurring future expenses in the subdivision of a country into Townships, and farm lots, which is entirely unfitted, as a whole, for agricultural purposes” (Coombe, 1976, p. 14; Murray, 1963, p.lxiv). Although his opinion was valued, the pressure for lands for settlement was greater and the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada opened the District of Muskoka for settlement (Coombe, 1976, p.14).

In 1853, ‘An Act to Amend the Law for the Sale and Settlement of the Public Lands’ provided the sale of land at a fixed price to land companies and free grants to settlers in the vicinity of colonization roads (Murray, 1963, p.lxxx). However, settlers, having no means of earning money from the agriculturally unproductive lands, sold lands to large land speculators who stripped the lumber resources and abandoned it or left it unclear, handicapping settlers within the vicinity (Murray, 1963, p. lxxx). In 1859, the government commenced the construction of a road from Washago on Lake Couchiching to interior Muskoka, the Muskoka Colonization Road, and ended at the two branches of the Muskoka River in 1860 (Page, 1879, p.16; Smith, 2012, p.10).

Euro-Canadian settlement to the area was nearly non-existent when the ‘Act to Secure Free Grants and Homesteads to Actual Settlers on the Public Lands’ was passed in 1868 to provide the distribution of lands in the District of Muskoka as free grants (Coombe, 1976, p.17). Any settler eighteen years or older was able to select 100 acres within any surveyed township, and a head of a family was able to select 200 acres with extra land allowance if rocky portions existed (Coombe, 1976, p.17). Furthermore, any persons applying for a location ticket and crown patent had to make an affidavit that the land was suitable for settlement, cultivation and for their personal benefit and not for “the purpose of obtaining, possessing or disposing of any of the pine trees growing, or being on the said land, or any benefit of advantage therefrom or any gold, silver, copper, lead, iron or their mines or minerals, or any quarry or bed of stone, marble or gypsum thereon” (Coombe, 1976, p. 17). Strict settlement duties were observed including clearing “fifteen acres of land for cultivation, two acres of which were to be cleared and cultivated annually during the first five years following the date of location; build a house

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 9 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO sixteen by twenty feet and continually reside on the land for five years after the date of location” (Murray, 1963, p. lxxxi). The soil was not conducive to agriculture, and rural settlement was slow. However, Muskoka was covered in pine trees which were essential for ship masts and rafters to support the heavy British roofs (Murray, 1963, p.lxxxv). These pine trees were cut square and these trees were initially in demand in Britain during the 1860s and American lumbermen were importing logs from Canada (Murray, 1963, p.lxxxv). The lumber from Muskoka was diverse in type and quality and continued to be the main economic pursuit of settlers in Muskoka.

Prior to the ‘Act to Secure Free Grants and Homesteads to Actual Settlers on the Public Lands’ of 1868, the County of Simcoe had judicial control of the geographic Township of Brunel, which the current study area partially encompasses. The township of Brunel was surveyed by John P. Vansittart and completed in 1862 (Boyer, 1979, p.50). Brunel consists of 41,206 acres of land and 3,437 acres of water, and nearly one-third of lands available was rocky land (Boyer, 1979, p.50; Page & Co., 1879, p. 31). The Township was named after Isambard Kingdom Brunel, a British engineer who built several railway lines in England and four trans-atlantic steam-driven ocean liners (Boyer, 1979, p.50).

The official survey of the geographic Township of Chaffey, which the current study area also encompasses, was completed in 1869 by Walter Beatty P.L.S., although there were few squatters in the township already, particularly at the Muskoka River (Boyer, 1979, p.54). Walter Beatty concluded that the Muskoka Road should be constructed to this point along the Muskoka River and then turn northward, along side-road 15-16, and continue to the Magnetawan River. Highway 11 is generally east of this line. Chaffey consists of 46,236 acres of land and 4,039 acres of water, with an abundance of good land consisting of rolling terrain. The Township was named Benjamin Chaffey, the brother-in-law of Honorable Stephen Richards, Commissioner of Crown Lands in the Ontario Government after Confederation and a prominent construction worker in Upper Canada (Boyer, 1979, p.54; Page & Co., 1879, p. 31).

The official survey of the geographic Township of Sinclair occurred in 1876 and was completed by John McAree. Settlers had already arrived in this township before the survey was complete. The terrain consisted of rolling hills, and did not praise the Townships agricultural possibilities. The township did consist of lumbering advantages, tourist and scenic attractions (Boyer, 1979, p.57).

The Town of Huntsville was named in 1870 after Captain George Hunt, who served with the military of Canada East, and retired to the site of Huntsville in 1869 (Rayburn, 1997, p.164; Coombe, 1976, p.209). However, William Cann, a resident of Orillia, is noted to have built the first shanty on the river’s edge that he would use for trapping, hunting and fishing in 1860 (Coombe, 1976, p.209). Captain George Hunt arrived with a guide and settled on the location of his future property, and the future location of Huntsville, in Lots 14 and 15, Concession 1, in the Township of Chaffey, in early 1869 (Pryke, 2000, p.23). By late 1869, he had constructed a shanty and brought his wife to Huntsville and began pressing the Government to extend the colonization road to his settlement as he continued to construct a bridge over the Muskoka

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 10 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO River (Coombe, 1976, p.209; Pryke, 2000, p.25). By 1871, several settlers, after having obtained the rights to the land they previously squatted on or obtained free grants, congregated at the mouth of the Muskoka River, creating a small village where Captain Hunt organized the first school, opened the first retail store, was appointed as the Postmaster, inquired for a doctor to be brought to the community and fought to have a railway routed through Huntsville (Coombe, 1976, p.210). By 1874, two saw mills were located in the village and in the following years, several plan of subdivisions were surveyed (Pryke, 2000, pp.29, 32). Captain Hunt, a pious man, submitted a plan of subdivision, Plan 3, and a later plan which extended the subdivision, on the west side of the Muskoka River (Pryke, 2000, p.32). However, a temperance clause within every deed prohibiting the consumption and sale of alcohol by the deed holder that, “was to remain in effect not only in Hunt’s lifetime, but 20 years and 10 months after the grandchildren of Queen Victoria had died” (Pryke, 2000, p.32). The reference to Queen Victoria’s grandchildren was later removed.

In 1873, a navigation lock between Fairy Lake and Mark Lake began construction and was completed by 1877 (Pryke, 2000, p.34). By 1879, Huntsville contained “three churches, a public school, Orange Hall, temperance lodge, doctor printing and job office, weekly newspaper, telegraph office, freight office, two hotels, five general stores, hardware stores, butcher, shoemaker, tailor, milliner and dressmaker, harness shop, two blacksmiths, seven carpenters, a pump and wagon shop, and two saw mills” (Page & Co., 1879, p.31). After nearly five years of petitioning and failed plans, the Northern and Pacific Junction Railway opened in Huntsville in 1886, the same year the hamlet was incorporated as a village (Pryke, 2000, p.42). The lumber industry had existed in the Huntsville area as early as 1850, when logs traveled by river, but it was not until the railways did the logging industry increase (Pryke, 2000, p.55).

Huntsville, with its wide harbour and flat flood plain, had many mill yards and one in five men worked in the lumber industry by 1890 (Pryke, 2000, p.56; Boyer, 1970, p.58). A tannery, established by Shaw, Cassels and Co. developed into one of the largest sold leather tanneries in the world, owned and operated by the Anglo Canadian Leather Company (Boyer, 1970, p.58). A major fire occurred in 1894, but the settlers rebuilt with better materials and better firefighting material was obtained (Boyer, 1970, p.59; Pryke, 2000, p.74). Around 1900, both passenger and freight steamships traversed the lock system and holiday seekers began to arrive in Huntsville (Coombes, 1976, p.215). In 1900, Huntsville was incorporated as a town and the town continued to prosper throughout the twentieth century (Pryke, 2000, p.103).

1.3.4 Past Land Use To assess the study area’s potential for the recovery of historic pre-1900 remains, the 1879 Guidebook & Atlas of Muskoka and Parry Sound Districts was reviewed (see Map 2). The study area encompasses portions of several geographic townships, all part of the District of Muskoka.

The portion of the study area which falls within the present boundaries of the Town of Huntsville are as follows:  Within the geographic township of Chaffey: Lots 7 to 34, Concession 1; Lots 8 to 35, Concession 2; Lots 9 to 35, Concession 3; and Lots 11 to 16, Concession 4.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 11 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO  Within the geographic township of Brunel: Lots 11 to 17, Concession 12; Lots 9 to 17, Concession 13; and Lots 7 to 17 and 30, Concession 14.;

A very small portion of the study area falls within the current municipal boundaries of the Township of the Lake of Bays. Specifically, it is a small portion of Lot 25, Concession 3, in the geographic township of Sinclair. It should be noted that, although the Township of Sinclair is located in the District of Muskoka, it was not illustrated in the 1879 Guidebook & Atlas.

The 1879 map (see Map 2) shows that most lots encompassed within the study area had already been bought, with a number already occupied by settlers, as evidenced by the presence of square dots indicating residential structures. The village lots for Huntsville are also depicted on the map. A table containing the list of property owners of lands encompassed within the study area, as well as information on the presence of historical structures, are provided in Appendix C. The lack of markings that denote tree cover suggests that the lands had been cleared of vegetation and agriculturally cultivated; however this is not always for certain.

Thirty-six structures, an outbuilding, two saw mills and the village lots of the Town of Huntsville were depicted within the study area in the 1879 map (see Appendix C). A number of water features such as creeks, lakes and rivers are also present on the map (see Map 3). Furthermore, the study area encompasses several historic settlement roads, some of which were originally laid out during the survey of the Townships of Brunel and Chaffey Townships.

In Southern Ontario, the 2011 S&G considers undisturbed lands within 300 metres of early Euro-Canadian settlements and 100 metres of early historic transportation routes (e.g., trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes) to be of elevated archaeological potential. Therefore, based on the proximity of several historical structures and transportation routes, elevated potential for the location of Euro-Canadian archaeological resources (pre-1900) within undisturbed portions of the study area can be established, as shown in Map 5.

1.3.5 Present Land Use The study area encompasses private lands (residential lots, commercial properties, golf courses, resorts, airstrip, pastures), paved roads and their respective rights-of-way, hydrological features (wetlands, streams, creeks, ponds, rivers, lakes), and public properties (schools, cemeteries, utility and public works installations).

1.4 Archaeological Context

1.4.1 Designated and Listed Cultural Heritage Resources Consultation of the Ontario Heritage Properties Database which records heritage resources that have been designated for their Provincial cultural value or interest under the Ontario Heritage

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 12 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO Act (O.Reg. 10/06), confirmed the presence of 13 provincially designated heritage resources within the study area, all within the Town of Huntsville1.

Consultation of the document entitled, “Heritage Resources Huntsville” (Town of Huntsville, 1996) confirmed the presence of the same 13 designated heritage properties (see Table 1) as well as an additional 64 listed heritage properties of cultural heritage interest (see Table 2) within the study area, all within the Town of Huntsville (see Map 5). In an attempt to obtain updated inventory of all designated and listed heritage properties within the Town of Huntsville, the Town of Huntsville’s Manager of Arts, Culture and Heritage (Souter, 2014) was contacted and confirmed no updated inventory of the Town’s heritage properties is currently available. The Town of Huntsville is “currently updating [the] procedure for heritage properties, and updating the registry” (Souter, 2014).

Consultation of the document entitled, “Heritage Register – Designated Properties” (Township of Lake of Bays, 2014a) confirmed no designated heritage properties are located within, or within 300 metres of, the study area limits within the Township of Lake of Bays. Consultation with the document entitled, “Non-Designated ‘Listed’ Properties” (Township of Lake of Bays, 2014b) confirmed the presence of listed heritage properties within the Township, however, no addresses were provided. To determine if listed heritage properties were located within and within 300 metres of the study area, the Heritage Advisory Committee at the Township of Lake of Bays was contacted, which confirmed that no listed heritage properties are located within the portion of the study area that falls within the Township of Lake of Bays (Tapley, 2014). Furthermore, the register is current, but is in the process of being transferred to a different web format, so it has not been updated recently (Tapley, 2014).

Table 1: Designated Heritage Properties within the Study Area Address Name Status Brunel Ward The Locks Designated Part IV Pt. of Lot 14 and 15, Con. 1 The Pursers Cabin, Hunstville Memorial Park Designated Part IV 34 Chaffey St Proudfoot House Designated Part IV 17 Church St Howland House Designated Part IV 7 High St St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church Designated Part IV 24 King St Hart House Designated Part IV Main Street Huntsville Bridge – steel arch truss swing bridge Designated Part IV Main Street East OPP log cabin Designated Part IV 37 Main St E Huntsville Town Hall Designated Part IV 72 Main St E Forester Press Designated Part IV 93 Main St E Commercial Block Designated Part IV 50 Main St W Huntsville CN Railway Station Designated Part IV 12 Susan St. Bandshell of the Anglo Leather Co. Designated Part IV

1 Clarification: As of 2005, the Ontario Heritage Properties Database is no longer being updated. The MTSC is currently updating a new system which will provide much greater detail to users and will become publicly accessible in the future. (http://www.hpd.mcl.gov.on.ca)

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 13 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO Table 2: Listed Heritage Properties within the Study Area Address Name Status Pt. Lot 11, Con.13, Brunel Ward Brunel Community Centre Listed Pt. Lot 12, Con.2, Chaffey Ward McFarland House Listed Lots 22&23, Con.2, Chaffey Ward Skelding Farm Listed Lot 28, Concession 1, Chaffey Ward 681666 Ont. Ltd Listed 27 Brunel Road Hall House Listed 2 Caroline Street Listed 8 Caroline Street Listed 18 Centre Street Listed 6 Church Street Presbyterian Manse Listed 11 Dairy Lane Listed 1 Elm Street Listed 11 Elm Street Listed 17 Elm Street Listed 9 Fairy Avenue Listed 15 Fairy Avenue Listed 19 Fairy Avenue Listed 25 Fairy Avenue Listed 26 Fairy Drive Listed 23 Hanes Street, Plan 7, Lot 10 Listed 23 Hanes Street, Plan 7, Lot F Listed 11 High Street Listed 21 King St. Listed 15Lake Drive Listed 31 Lake Drive Listed 38 Lake Drive Listed 1 Lansdowne St. E. Listed 1 Lansdowne St. W. Listed 5 Lorne St. Sven Nyquist Listed 25 Lorne St. S. Listed 33 Main St E. Trinity United Church Listed 34 Main St. E. Listed 38 Main St. E. Listed 57 Main St. E. Listed 67 Main St. E. Listed 68 Main St. E. Listed 77 Main St. E. Listed 87 Main St. E. All Saint’s House Listed 6 Main St. W. Listed 7 Main St. W. Listed 15 Main St. W. First Baptist Church Listed 18 Main St. W. H.E. Rice House Listed 22 Main St. W. Listed 31 Main St. W. Listed 40 Main St. W. G.W. Martin Lumber Ltd. Listed 52 Main St. W. Bayview Hotel “Chumley’s” Listed 57 Main St. W. Betty’s Bed & Breakfast Listed 59 Main St. W. Listed 75 Main St. W. Paget House Listed

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 14 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

Address Name Status 112 Main St. W. Listed 482 North Mary Lake Road Locks United Church Listed 23 Mary St. W. Listed 27 Minerva Street Harmony Hall Listed 83 Morgan Road Morgan House Listed 175 Morgan Road Stone House Gallery Listed 326 Ravenscliffe Road Listed River Street, Plan 1 All Saint’s Anglican Church Listed 9 River Street Listed 1 Susan St. W. Sullivan House Listed 2 Walpole St. Listed 12 West Road Listed 22 West Road Listed 99 West Road Stone School House Listed 37 West St. S. Hutcheson House Listed 68 West St. S. Listed

Therefore, based on the study area’s proximity to designated and listed heritage properties, there is elevated potential for the location of Euro-Canadian archaeological resources (pre- 1900) within undisturbed portions of the study area that lie within and in close proximity (within 300 metres) to these cultural heritage resources.

1.4.2 Heritage Conservation Districts A Heritage Conservation District (HCD) includes areas that have been protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. A HCD can be found in both urban and rural environments and may include residential, commercial and industrial areas, rural landscapes or entire villages or hamlets with features or land patterns that contribute to a cohesive sense of time or place and contribute to an understanding and appreciation of the cultural identity of a local community, region, province or nation. An HCD may comprise an area with a group or complex of buildings, or a large area with many buildings and properties. They often extend beyond their built heritage, structures, streets, landscapes, and other physical and spatial elements, to include important vistas and views between and towards buildings and spaces within the district (MTCS, 2006, p.5). HCDs are a valuable cultural heritage and must be taken into consideration during municipal planning to ensure that they are conserved.

In an attempt to determine if the study area encompasses a Heritage Conservation District, the Town of Huntsville’s Manager of Arts, Culture and Heritage was contacted, and stated the Town of Huntsville is “currently updating [the] procedure for heritage properties, and updating the registry” (Souter, 2014). To determine if the portion of the study area that falls within the Township of Lake of Bays, encompasses a Heritage Conservation District, the Heritage Advisory Committee at the Township of Lake of Bays was contacted, which confirmed the absence of Heritage Conservation Districts within the portion of the study area that falls within the Township of Lake of Bays or, within 300 metres of the study area limits (Tapley, 2014).

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 15 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO 1.4.3 Commemorative Plaques or Monuments According to Section 1.3.1, Standard 1 of the 2011 S&G, undisturbed lands within 300 metres of Euro-Canadian settlements where commemorative markers of their history, such as local, provincial, or federal monuments, cairns or plaques, or heritage parks, are considered to have elevated archaeological potential. To determine if any historical plaques are present, the Ontario’s Historical Plaques inventory, which contains a catalogue of all federal Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada plaques, all the provincial Ontario Heritage Trust plaques, all the plaques from the various historical societies and all other published plaques located in Ontario, confirmed one historical plaque is located within the study area or within 300 metres outside its limits: titled “The Founding of Huntsville,” the plaque is installed in front of the Huntsville Town Hall (already a designated heritage property) at 37 Main Street East, and recounts a brief history of the town (Brown, 2014). Since this historical plaque does not commemorate a specific structure, activity or event that would leave distinct archaeological remains in its immediate vicinity (such as the existence of a former historic building or residence like Captain George Hunt’s log cabin, William Cann’s hunting/fishing shanty on the river, etc.), it does not in itself contribute to elevated archaeological potential in its immediate vicinity. Cultural heritage resources tied to the 19th century development of Huntsville, which is the topic of theplaque, are identified in Section 1.4.1; it is these properties that actually contain archaeological potential.

1.4.4 Historic Cemeteries Six cemeteries, representing historic and cultural heritage resources of archaeological importance, are encompassed within the study area (Town of Huntsville, 2012a; 2012b) (see Map 5):  All Saints Anglican Cemetery - 500 Ravenscliffe Road, Lot 11, Concession 3, Chaffey Township; active  Salvation Army Cemetery - 550 Ravenscliffe Road, Lot 11, Concession 3, Chaffey Township; inactive  St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Cemetery - 560 Ravenscliffe Road, Lot 10, Concession 3, Chaffey Township; active  Hutcheson Memorial Cemetery - 485 Muskoka Road 3 North, Lot 18, Concession 2, Chaffey Township; active, with portion on Lot 19 reserved for expansion  St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Cemetery - 320 Brunel Road, Lot 15, Concession 13, Brunel Township; active  Locks Cemetery - 320 Brunel Road, Lot 14, Concession 13, Brunel Township; active

1.4.5 Registered Archaeological Sites In order for an inventory of archaeological resources to be compiled for this study area, the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) maintained by the MTCS was consulted. Every archaeological site is registered according to the Borden System, which is a numbering used throughout Canada to track archaeological sites and their artifacts. The study area is located within Borden blocks BhGt, BiGt, and BiGs.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 16 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO According to the MTCS (2014), only one archaeological site, the Goodwin Grant Site (BhGt-2), has been registered within the study area. No other archaeological sites have been registered inside the study area or within 1000 metres of the study area limits.

It must be noted, however, that the paucity of archaeological sites is not reflective of the scale of previous habitation, but more likely a lack of detailed archaeological surveys within the study area and its environments.

1.4.6 Previous Archaeological Assessments In order to further establish the archaeological context of the project area, descriptions of previous archaeological fieldwork carried out within the limits of, or immediately adjacent (i.e., within 50 metres) to the project area, as documented by all available reports that include archaeological fieldwork carried out on the lands to be impacted by this project, are presented below. Three known reports were identified:

1. Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment for Highway 60 Improvements Section 1: Highway 60/Highway 11 Interchange to Muskoka Road 3 Section 2: Muskoka Road 23 to Highway 35, District Municipality of Muskoka G.W.P. 5006-05-00 (New Directions Archaeology Ltd., 2012)

New Directions Archaeology Ltd. conducted a Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment of a 23- kilometre corridor of Highway 60, divided between two sections: Section 1 extends from the Highway 60/Highway 11 interchange to Muskoka Road 3, while Section 2 extends from Muskoka Road 23 to Highway 35 (see Map 4). The assessment included lands within the current Highway 60 right-of-way (ROW) and some additional property requirements adjacent to it. Background research revealed that the alignment of Highway 60 does not necessarily follow the old settlement road on the north side of Fairy Lake, and that several structures present in the 1879 map were in close proximity to the subject corridor. During the Stage 2 AA, steep slopes and obviously disturbed and low-lying wet areas within the corridor were recorded; confirmation of disturbance within areas visually determined to be disturbed was accomplished by spot-checking with test pits. A total of only five locations within the corridor were considered undisturbed; these were assessed by shovel test pit survey at five-metre intervals. The section of Highway 60 from Muskoka Road 3 and Muskoka Road 23 (which lies close to some areas of the Phase 2 preferred solution) was also visually assessed at the time, and it was determined that all areas within the Highway 60 ROW in this segment is also disturbed (see Map 7). Overall, the majority of the Highway 60 right-of-way was disturbed, and no archaeological material was recovered. It was recommended that no further assessment would be required within the limits of the subject corridor.

2. Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment, Chaffey Township Road. Part of Lot 20 Concession 2 (Geographic Township of Chaffey), Part of Block 89 Registered Plan 35M-612, Town of Huntsville, District Municipality of Muskoka (Amick Consultants Ltd., 2012)

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 17 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO Amick Consultants Ltd. conducted a Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment of part of Block 89, Registered Plan 35M-612, in part of Lot 20, Concession 2, Geographic Township of Chaffey (see Map 4). This subject area is located within the study area, and approximately 450 metres north of the Phase 2 preferred solution (see Map 7). Background research concluded the potential for Aboriginal archaeological resources within the subject area based on proximity to potable water and potential for Euro-Canadian archaeological resources based on the proximity to historic roadways. During the Stage 2 AA, obviously disturbed and low-lying wet areas within the subject area were recorded which included a wet creek located centrally within the subject area. Additionally, a portion of the subject area was cleared of trees and had piles of woodchips and debris across it, which was still subjected to high intensity test pit survey. The remainder of the subject area consisted of a large area of woodlot and was subjected to high intensity test pit survey. No archaeological resources were encountered and it is recommended no further archaeological assessment of this property is required.

3. BhGt-2, The Goodwin Grant Site, Huntsville, Ontario, 2004 Excavation and the Stage 1 AA, Stage 2 AA and Stage 3 AA associated with the discovery of the Goodwin Grant Site (Lea, J., 2004)

In 2004, an archaeological survey and excavation work was carried out on The Goodwin Grant Site (BbGt-2) as part of an introductory level Archaeological course offered by the Muskoka campus of Nipissing University, part of research about public archaeology programming in partial fullfillment of requirements of doctoral studies at the University of Newcastle-upon- Tyne in the U.K., and as two-day public archaeology program offered to students from Riverside Public School in Huntsville. BbGt-2 is located within the study area, on the east side of Brunel Road, across from Riverside Public School in lands owned by the Trillium Lakelands District School Board and is comprised of the historic remains of a root cellar. The background research consisting of personal communication with Mrs. Una Goodwin, whose family had constructed the root cellar, established a general chronology and use for the site. A Stage 2 walking survey noted related artifacts were found scattered in the forested area and along the creek bank for up to seventy metres east and west of the root cellar. A Stage 3 AA was conducted consisting of the excavation of six one metre square units. A hearth feature was encountered and the artifacts were predominantly architectural relating to the building itself rather than its use. The site, as part of a larger cultural landscape reflecting European settlement of the District of Muskoka is recommened for continued investigation.

1.4.7 Physical Features An investigation of the study area’s physical features was conducted to aid the researcher in developing an argument for archaeological potential based on the environmental conditions of the study area. Environmental factors such as close proximity to water, soil type, and nature of the terrain, for example, can be used as predictors to determine where human occupation may have occurred in the past.

The study area is mostly situated within the “Number 11 Strip” physiographic region of Southern Ontario. So-called because Highway 11 runs through a majority of it, this region is

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 18 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO comprised of a narrow strip of land that formed the area just below the shoreline of glacial Lake Algonquin, in which the hollows are occupied by sand, silt and clay deposits. These materials were deposited by streams that were entering the lake: the sand formed deltas while the silt and clay settled farther offshore (Chapman & Putnam, 1984: pp. 214-215). The portion of the study area lying north of the shores of Fairy Lake is considered part of the Algonquin Highlands physiographic region, described by Chapman and Putnam (1984: p. 211) as being underlain by granite and other hard Precambrian rocks. The terrain relief is composed of rough, rounded knobs and ridges, usually between 15 to 60 metres high but can reach up to 150 metres in height. Outcrops of bare rock could be frequently encountered, and soils are generally shallow but thickness over bedrock can vary greatly over short distances. Swamps and bogs are numerous but detract from the land’s usefulness for farming; they are, however, good forest soils.

In terms of archaeological potential, potable water is a highly important resource necessary for any extended human occupation or settlement. As water sources have remained relatively stable in Southern Ontario since post-glacial times, proximity to water can be regarded as a useful index for the evaluation of archaeological site potential. Indeed, distance from water has been one of the most commonly used variables for predictive modeling of site location. In Southern Ontario, the 2011 S&G considers undisturbed lands in proximity to a water source to be of elevated archaeological potential. Hydrological features such as lakes, rivers, creeks, swamps, and marshes would have helped supply plant and food resources to the surrounding area, and consequently support high potential for locating archaeological resources within 300 metres of their limits. The many wetlands, creeks, streams, rivers, ponds and lakes (all part of the Muskoka River watershed) that are encompassed within the study area would have helped supply plant and food resources to the surrounding area, and consequently support high potential for locating archaeological resources within 300 metres of their limits.

1.4.8 Current Land Conditions The study area (see Map 1) is located within a predominantly forested setting within the District Municipality of Muskoka (mostly within the Town of Huntsville, with a small portion within the Township of Lake of Bays), with land clearings and developments mostly limited to the north and west shores of Fairy Lake, along Muskoka River, around Hunters Bay, and along the Highway 11 corridor. The terrain is hilly, and many bogs and swamps could be found in depressions without drainage outlets. Other hydrological features such as wetlands, ponds, lakes, creeks, rivers and streams still exist. Several islands within Fairy Lake are also encompassed within the study area. The lands in the northeast corner of Fairy Lake contain large resorts, golf courses and an airstrip, which would have likely involved large-scale soil disturbance due to landscaping needs and facility requirements.

2.0 PROPERTY INSPECTION

The optional property inspection was not carried out.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 19 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO 3.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

A review of land conditions was carried out using satellite and street view imagery obtained using the Google Maps website. In combination with data gathered from background research (see Sections 1.3 and 1.4), archaeological potential within the study area was identified (see Maps 5-7). A selection of street view images is provided in Appendix D, and their locations are mapped in Map 7.

3.1 Identified Disturbances

The study area was evaluated for extensive disturbances that have removed archaeological potential. Disturbances may include but are not limited to: grading below topsoil, quarrying, building footprints or sewage and infrastructure development. Section 1.3.2 of the 2011 S&G’s counts infrastructure development among those “features indicating that archaeological potential has been removed.” Paved roadways, existing public infrastructure, as well as the newer industrial, commercial and residential developments, exhibit disturbed conditions (see Map 6). These land and infrastructure developments, the construction of which often entail soil-grading operations and the installation of utilities essential to service the areas (i.e., hydro, cable, sewer, water, etc.), would have caused extensive and deep disturbance to any archaeological resources that could have been present in the ground, thus resulting in the removal of archaeological potential within their footprints. Specifically within the proposed forcemain route corridor as part of the 1989 Phase 2 Preferred Solution (see Map 7), the disturbances consist of built structures, paved areas, roadside ditching and utility installations (see Images 1-6, 10-11). Extensive disturbance through significant landscape alterations within most, if not the entirety, of both the Mountview WWTP and Golden Pheasant WWTP properties are also visible in aerial photography (see Images 13-14).

However, since only a combination of background study and property inspection can exempt any area from further Stage 2 assessment (Section 1.3.2 of the 2011 S&G), it is recommended that the aforementioned areas of disturbance – marked in purple in Maps 6 and 7 – be classified as potentially disturbed areas. A Stage 2 assessment will be required during the detailed design phase to provide a confirmation of the disturbed condition of these areas, as well as the exact limits of their disturbed footprints, after which can such areas be subsequently exempt from Stage 2 survey.

3.2 Physical Features

Section 2.1, Standard 2.a. of the 2011 S&G states that Stage 2 pedestrian or test pit survey is not required in lands evaluated as having no or low archaeological potential based on the identification of certain physical features. Such features include (but are not limited to) permanently wet areas (such as rivers, creeks, streams, marshes, ponds, lakes, swamps, wetlands, etc.), exposed bedrock, and steep slopes (greater than 20 degrees) except in

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 20 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO locations likely to contain pictographs or petroglyphs (see Map 6). Specifically within the proposed Phase 2 solution area (see Map 7), these physical features of low or no archaeological potential consist of the Muskoka River watercourse, and several other smaller watercourses emptying into Fairy Lake, as well as steeply sloping terrain (see Images 7-8, 11).

However, since only a combination of background study and property inspection can exempt any area from further Stage 2 assessment (Section 1.3.2 of the 2011 S&G), it is recommended that the aforementioned areas of low or no archaeological potential due to physical features – marked in cyan in Maps 6 and 7 – only be considered as potentially not requiring assessment. A Stage 2 assessment will be required during the detailed design phase to provide confirmation of the actual condition and exact extent of the physical features, after which can such areas be subsequently exempt from Stage 2 survey.

3.3 Previously Assessed Areas

Background research has revealed that portions of the study area had already been subjected to a Stage 2 AA (see Map 4). With previous assessments having already addressed archaeological concerns within their respective portions of the current study area, it is therefore recommended that these areas be exempt from further assessment. Specifically within the Phase 2 Solution focus area, the present Highway 60 right-of-way was visually assessed during New Direction Archaeology’s Stage 1-2 AA. No area within the current Highway 60 ROW was identified as having archaeological potential (New Directions Archaeology, 2012). With the disturbed conditions and presence of permanently wet and steeply sloping areas within the present Highway 60 ROW already documented (thereby addressing archaeological concerns), another Stage 2 AA will not be necessary for this portion of the study area.

3.4 Areas of Archaeological Potential

Portions of the study area that exhibit neither extensive disturbed conditions nor contain physical features of no or low archaeological potential are considered to have archaeological potential (see Maps 5-7). These areas include, but are not limited to, shrubbed, treed and/or grassed margins outside the paved road alignments, yards and frontages, woodlands, park lands and agricultural fields.

Elevated archaeological potential exists where Section 1.4.1, Standards 1.c., 1.d. and 1.e. of the 2011 S&G stipulates that Stage 2 assessment must always occur:  in lands lying within 300 metres of previously identified archaeological sites; water sources; areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement  in areas lying within 100 metres of early historic transportation routes  in areas containing elevated topography; pockets of well-drained sandy soil; distinctive land formations; resource extraction areas; locations listed or designated by a municipality

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 21 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO Such areas of elevated archaeological potential, highlighted in bright orange in Maps 5-7, will require Stage 2 pedestrian survey (in areas, or corridors of land measuring more than 10 metres wide, that can be subjected to mechanical ploughing), or test pit survey (in lands where ploughing is not possible or viable), at standard intervals of 5 metres. All other undisturbed and testable areas lying outside these areas of elevated archaeological potential – shaded in pale orange in Maps 5-7 – are identified as areas of moderate archaeological potential and should be test pit-surveyed at 10-metre intervals, as per Section 2.1.2, Standard 3 of the 2011 S&G.

Despite the presence of modern developments within the community of Huntsville, the portion of the built-up area that existed prior to 1900 (as depicted in the 1879 historical map – see Maps 2-3) is still considered to contain high archaeological potential. Any development or construction activities extending beyond the disturbed road alignments will require a Stage 2 AA in order to ascertain the presence or absence of archaeological resources within this historic village. Additionally, any work to be undertaken within or adjacent (within 10 metres) to any of the six cemeteries within the study area (see Map 5) will require Stage 3 assessment involving mechanical topsoil stripping given the possibility of unmarked grave shafts being present in the immediate vicinities of the cemeteries, as burials and grave marker installation in the past were often unregulated and inconsistent.

The original 1989 Environmental Study Report (R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd., 1989, Chapter 3, p. 7-8) concluded that “no significant cultural or heritage resources have been identified that will be impacted by the project.” However, as clearly demonstrated in the background research, the potential to encounter archaeological resources within the study area still exists. It is therefore important to carry out a systematic Stage 2 archaeological survey of lands to be impacted by the Phase 2 preferred solution in order to identify and document any archaeological resources, prior to any construction or soil-disturbing activities.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are presented:

1. The portion of the study area that had been subjected to previous archaeological assessment, namely the current Highway 60 right-of-way, which cleared this specific area of further archaeological concern, is recommended to be exempt from further assessment.

2. Following the selection of the preferred design concept for implementing the Preferred Solution of the current Schedule C Class EA, all lands lying within the limits of proposed construction and/or staging areas are subject to a Stage 2 archaeological assessment, commencing with the identification of disturbances and physical features indicating no or low archaeological potential by a licensed archaeologist. The presence and exact

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 22 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO extent of such features must be documented and mapped; it is at this point that lands deemed unsuitable for testing can be made exempt from further Stage 2 assessment.

Stage 2 testing must be conducted at standard 5-metre intervals in areas of elevated archaeological potential (i.e. areas within 100 metres of historic transportation routes, and within 300 metres of historical structures, water sources, known archaeological sites), and at 10-metre intervals in all other undisturbed areas deemed as land with moderate archaeological potential. Pedestrian survey must be carried out in lands which can be subjected to ploughing (except if the corridor of land measures less than 10 metres wide), while test pit survey must be used in all other instances. Test pit survey must also be carried out to one metre of existing structures, confirmed disturbances, and physical features of no or low archaeological potential.

3. Should proposed work occur within or immediately adjacent (within 10 metres) to any cemetery, following the Stage 2 archaeological investigation of this area, a Stage 3 investigation involving mechanical topsoil stripping will be required in the area to be impacted, including a 10-metre buffer, to confirm the presence or absence of any grave shafts.

No excavation activities shall take place within the study area prior to the MTCS (Archaeology Program Unit) confirming in writing that all archaeological licensing and technical review requirements have been satisfied.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 23 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO 5.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION

1. This report is submitted to the MTCS as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the MTCS, a letter will be issued by the Ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development.

2. It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

3. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

4. The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 require that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 24 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO 6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES

Amick Consultants Ltd. (2012). Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Chaffey Township ROad. Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, (Geographic Township of Chaffey), Part of Block 89, Registered Plan 35M-612, Town of Huntsville, District Municipality of Muskoka. (P058-860-2012).

Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI). (1994). Report of the Master Plan of Archaeological Resources of the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Wahta Mohawks - Volume 1: Background Research. [Online]. Available at: https://muskoka.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=4785 [Accessed 11 March 2014].

Bastedo, J. (2012). Shield. [Online].Available at: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/shield [Accessed 11 March 2014].

Bing Maps (2014). Bird’s Eye View of Huntsville.[Online]. Available at: http://www.bing.com/maps [Accessed 28 April 2014].

Black, M.J. (2012). Algonquin. [Online]. Available at: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/algonquin [Accessed 11 March 2014].

Boyer, G.W. (1970). Early Days in Muskoka: A Story about the Settlement of Communities in the Free Grant lands and of Pioneer Life in Muskoka.[Online]. http://www.ourroots.ca/e/toc.aspx?id=11261 [Accessed 10 March 2014].

Boyer, R. J. (1979). Early Exploration and Surveying of Muskoka District, Ontario, Canada. Bracebridge: Herald-Gazette Press.

Brown, A. L. (2014). Ontario’s Historical Plaques – The Founding of Huntsville. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ontarioplaques.com/Plaques/Plaque_Muskoka12.html [Accessed 28 April 2014].

Bursey, J., Daechsel, H., Hinshelwood, A., and Murphy, C. (2013a). The Archaeology of Ontario – The Early Woodland Period. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/summary/earlyw.htm [Accessed 11 March 2014].

Bursey, J., Daechsel, H., Hinshelwood, A., and Murphy, C. (2013b). The Archaeology of Ontario – The Middle Woodland Period. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/summary/middlew.htm [Accessed 11 March 2014].

Bursey, J., Daechsel, H., Hinshelwood, A., and Murphy, C. (2013c). The Archaeology of Ontario – he Late Woodland Period. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/summary/latew.htm [Accessed 11 March 2014].

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 25 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

Chapman, L. J. and Putnam, D. F. (1984). Physiography of Southern Ontario. 3rd ed. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ministry of Natural Resources.

Clément, D. (1996). The Algonquins. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Museum of Civilzation.

Coombe, G. (1976). Muskoka Past and Present. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited.

Day, G.M. (1978). Nipissing . In B.G. Trigger (Ed.). Handbook of North American Indians - Volume 15: Northeast. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, pp.787-791.

Ellis, C.J. and Deller, D.B. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In C.J. Ellis, and N. Ferris, (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 37-64.

Ellis, C.J., Kenyon, I.T., and Spence, M.W. (1990). The Archaic. In C.J. Ellis, and N. Ferris, (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 65-124.

Ellis, C. J. (2013). Before Pottery: Paleoindian and Archaic Hunter-Gathers. In Munson, M.K. and Jamieson, S.M (Eds.) Before Archaeology: The Archaeology of a Province. Montreal & Kingston, Ontario: McGill Queen’s University Press.

Energy, Mines and Resources. (1996). National Topographic Survey of Canada, Series A 751, Map 31E/06. 4th ed. Ottawa.

Ferris, N. and Spence, M.W. (1995). The Woodland Traditions in Southern Ontario. Revista de Arquiologia Americana (9), 83-138.

Fox, W. A. (1990). The Middle Woodland to Late Woodland Transition. In C.J. Ellis, and N. Ferris, (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 171-188.

Frim, M. (2002). Secrets of the Lakes. Toronto, Ontario: Lynx Images Inc.

Google Maps. (2012). Satellite Imaging and Street Views. [Online]. Available at: http://maps.google.ca [Accessed 17 March 2014].

Hessel, P. (1993) The Algonkin Nation – The Algonkins of the Ottawa Valley: An Historical Outline. Arnprior, Ontario: Kichesippi Books.

Jackson, L. J., Ellis, C., Morgan, A.V., McAndrews, J.H. (2000). Glacial Lake Levels in Eastern Great Lakes Palaeo-Indians. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 15(5).

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 26 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO Jackson, L.J. (2004).Changing Our Views of Late Palaeo-Indian in Southern Ontario. In L.J. Lawrence and A. Hinshelwood, (Ed.). The Late Palaeo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments. Gatineau, Quebec: The Canadian Museum of Civilization, pp. 25-56.

Karrow, P.F. and Warner, B.G. (1990). The Geological and Biological Environment for Human Occupation in Southern Ontario. In Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 5-35.

Karrow, P.F. (2004).Ontario Geological Events and Environmental Change in the Time of the Lake Palaeo-Indian and Early Archaic Cultures (10,500 to 8,500 B.P.). In L.J. Lawrence and A. Hinshelwood, (Ed.). The Late Palaeo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments. Gatineau, Quebec: The Canadian Museum of Civilization, pp. 25-56.

Lea, J. (2004). BhGt-2, The Goodwin Grant Site, Huntsville, Ontario, 2004 Excavation and the Stage 1 AA, Stage 2 AA and Stage 3 AA associated with the discovery of the Goodwin Grant Site (R147-011).

Mika, N. and Mika, H. (1981). Places in Ontario: Their Name Origins and History – Part II F-M. Belleville, Ontario: Mika Publishing Company.

Murray, F.B. (1963). Muskoka and Haliburton - 1615-1875: A Collection of Documents. Toronto: The Champlain Society for the Government of Ontario, University of Toronto Press.

New Directions Archaeology Ltd. (2014). Email to L. Templeton re. Report Request: Huntsville. 17 March 2014.

Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. (2006). Heritage Conservation Districts: A Guide to District Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. [Online]. Available at: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_HCD_English.pdf [Accessed 07 March 2014].

Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (2014). Sites within a One Kilometre Radius of the Project Area, provided from the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database, 14 March 2014.

Page, H.R. & Co. (1879). Guidebook and Atlas of Muskoka and Parry Sound Districts. Toronto.

Pouliot, L. (2014). Nouvel, Henri. [Online]. Available at: http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/nouvel_henri_2E.html [Accessed 11 March 2014].

Pryke, S. (2000). Huntsville: With Spirit and Resolve. Huntsville, Ontario: Heritage Huntsville.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 27 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO Rayburn, A. (1997). Place Names of Ontario. Canada: University of Toronto Press Inc.

Rogers, E.S. (1978). Southern Ojibwa . In B.G. Trigger (Ed.). Handbook of North American Indians - Volume 15: Northeast. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, pp.760-771.

R. V. Anderson Associates Limited. (1989). Town of Huntsville Sewage Works Improvements Environmental Study Report, Vol. 1 of 2.

Souter, T. (2014). Email to L. Templeton re: Designated and Listed Heritage Properties in the Town of Huntsville. 07 March 2014.

Smith, L.A.E. (2012). Muskoka’s Main Street: 150 Years of Courage and Adventure Along the Muskoka Colonization Road. Bracebridge, Ontario: Muskoka Books.

Spence, M.W., Pihl, R.H., and Murphy, C.R. (1990). Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 125-169.

Stewart, A.M. (2013). Water and Land. In Munson, M.K. and Jamieson, S.M (Eds.) Before Archaeology: The Archaeology of a Province. Montreal & Kingston, Ontario: McGill Queen’s University Press

Surtees, R. J. (1986). Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties. [Online]. Available at http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ/STAGING/texte- text/traw_1100100029001_eng.pdf [Accessed 11 March 2014].

Surtees, R.J. (1994). Land Cessions, 1763-1830. In E.S. Rogers, (Ed.). Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited, pp. 92- 121.

Tapley, N. (2014). Email to L. Templeton re: Designated and Listed Heritage Properties in the Township of Lake of Bays, 11 March 2014.

Town of Huntsville. (1996). Heritage Resources Huntsville. [Online]. Available at: http://www.huntsville.ca/en/living/resources/MunicipalHeritagePropertyListingLedger.pdf [Accessed 07 March 2014].

Town of Huntsville. (2012a). Cemeteries – Brunel Ward – Town of Huntsville. [Online]. Available at: http://www.huntsville.ca/en/townHall/resources/Map_Cemeteries_Brunel.pdf [Accessed 17 March 2014].

Town of Huntsville. (2012b). Cemeteries – Chaffey Ward – Town of Huntsville. [Online]. Available at: http://www.huntsville.ca/en/townHall/resources/Map_Cemeteries_Chaffey.pdf [Accessed 17 March 2014].

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 28 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

Township of Lake of Bays. (2014a). Heritage Register – Designated Properties. [Online]. Available at: http://www.lakeofbays.on.ca/content/heritage-register-designated-properties [Accessed 07 March 2014].

Township of Lake of Bays. (2014b). Heritage Register – Non-Designated ‘Listed’ Properties. [Online]. Available at: http://www.lakeofbays.on.ca/content/heritage-register-listed-properties [Accessed 07 March 2014].

Trigger, B.G. (1994). The Original Iroquoians: Huron, Petun and Neutral. In E.S. Rogers, (Ed.). Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited, pp. 41-63.

Trigger, B.G. and Day, G. (1994). Southern Algonquin Middlemen: Algonquin, Nipissing and Ottawa 1550-1780. In E.S. Rogers, (Ed.). Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited, pp.64-91

Trigger, B.G and Washburn, W.E., Ed. (1996). The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas – Volume 1: North America, Part 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.

URS Corporation. (2014). Email to L. Templeton re. Report Request: Huntsville. 17 March 2014.

Wright, J.V. (1994).Before European Contact. In Edward S. Rogers (Eds.). Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited, pp 21-40

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 29 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

APPENDICES

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 30 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

APPENDIX A: MAPS

MAP 1 National Topographical System Map (Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, 1996) identifying the Stage 1 AA study area, coterminous with the 1989 Huntsville Sewage Works Environmental Impact Study Area.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 31 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

MAP 2 1989 Huntsville Sewage Works Environmental Impact Study Area within the Guidebook and Atlas of Muskoka and Parry Sound District (H.R.Page & Co., 1879).

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 32 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

MAP 3 1989 Huntsville Sewage Works Environmental Impact Study Area with historical watercourses, roads and settlements identified in the 1879 Guidebook and Atlas of Muskoka and Parry Sound District.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 33 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

MAP 4 Study area with areas previously cleared of archaeological concern marked.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 34 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

MAP 5 1989 Huntsville Sewage Works Environmental Impact Study Area with designated and listed heritage properties and historic cemetery grounds, as well as other areas being recommended for Stage 2 AA, marked.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 35 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

MAP 6 1989 Huntsville Sewage Works Environmental Impact Study Area with areas of disturbance and physical features of no or low archaeological potential marked. Note that a Stage 2 AA is required to confirm and document the nature and extent of these areas.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 36 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

MAP 7 Evaluation of archaeological potential within the Phase 2 Proposed Forecemain Route Corridor. Numbered locations correspond to streetview images found in Appendix D.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 37 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Feature of Archaeological Potential Yes No Unknown Comment

1 Known archaeological sites within 300 m? X If Yes, potential confirmed Physical Features Yes No Unknown Comment 2 Is there water on or near the property? X If Yes, potential confirmed 2a Presence of primary water source within 300 metres of the study area (lakes, X If Yes, potential confirmed rivers, streams, creeks) 2b Presence of secondary water source within 300 metres of the study area X If Yes, potential confirmed (intermittent creeks and streams, springs, marshes, swamps) 2c Features indicating past presence of water source within 300 metres (former X If Yes, potential confirmed shorelines, relic water channels, beach ridges) 2d Accessible or inaccessible shoreline (high bluffs, swamp or marsh fields by X If Yes, potential confirmed the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh) 3 Elevated topography (knolls, drumlins, eskers, plateaus, etc) X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed 4 Pockets of well-drained sandy soil, especially near areas of heavy soil or rocky X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed ground 5 Distinctive land formations (mounds, caverns, waterfalls, peninsulas, etc) X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed Cultural Features Yes No Unknown Comment 6 Is there a known burial site or cemetery that is registered with the X If Yes, potential confirmed Cemeteries Regulation Unit on or directly adjacent to the property? 7 Associated with food or scarce resource harvest areas (traditional fishing X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed locations, food extraction areas, raw material outcrops, etc) 8 Indications of early Euro-Canadian settlement (monuments, cemeteries, X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed structures, etc) within 300 metres 9 Associated with historic transportation route (historic road, trail, portage, rail X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed corridor, etc) within 100 metres of the property Property-specific Information Yes No Unknown Comment 10 Contains property designated under the Ontario Heritage Act X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed 11 Local knowledge (aboriginal communities, heritage organizations, municipal X If Yes, potential confirmed heritage committees, etc) 12 Recent ground disturbance, not including agricultural cultivation (post-1960, Yes, but only If Yes, low archaeological potential is determined extensive and deep land alterations) some portions

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 38 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO APPENDIX C: LAND USE INFORMATION FROM 1879 HISTORICAL MAP

Township Con. Lot Portion Occupant/Owner Structure(s) Brunel 12 11 All A. Buchanon No structure(s) Brunel 12 12 All Samuel Johnson No structure(s) Brunel 12 13 All Clark No structure(s) Brunel 12 14 All James Later One structure Brunel 12 15 All Colin Feterley One structure Brunel 12 16 All George West One structure Brunel 12 17 All George West No structure(s) Brunel 13 9 All Joseph C. Rumsey No structure(s) Brunel 13 10 All Unlisted No structure(s) Brunel 13 11 All William Booth One structure Brunel 13 12 All Samuel Jonson One structure Brunel 13 13 All John Scarlett No structure(s) Brunel 13 14 All John Feterley Saw mill + another structure Brunel 13 15 All John Feterley No structure(s) Brunel 13 16 All John Feterley No structure(s) Brunel 13 17 All John Feterley No structure(s) Brunel 14 7 All Kitchen No structure(s) Brunel 14 8 All Kitchen No structure(s) Brunel 14 9 All Richard Rowe No structure(s) Brunel 14 10 All Richard Rowe One structure Brunel 14 11 All Carter No structure(s) Brunel 14 12 All John W. McCan No structure(s) Brunel 14 13 All John Scarlett No structure(s) Brunel 14 14 All John Feterley No structure(s) Brunel 14 15 All Unlisted No structure(s) Brunel 14 16 All Philip Say Outbuilding Brunel 14 17 All Unlisted No structure(s) Brunel 14 30 All James Casselman No structure(s) Chaffey 1 7 All D. Baxter One structure Chaffey 1 8 All W.F. Hanes One structure Chaffey 1 9 All Matt. Markel One structure Chaffey 1 10 All J. Elliott No structure(s) Chaffey 1 11 All J. Elliott One structure Chaffey 1 12 All J.F. Hanes One structure Chaffey 1 13 All Allen Shay Village lots of Huntsville Chaffey 1 15 North part C. Hunt No structure(s) Chaffey 1 15 South part Canon Village lots of Huntsville Chaffey 1 15 North part C. Hunt Village lots of Huntsville Chaffey 1 15 South part Canon No structure(s) Chaffey 1 16 All F. Hanes No structure(s) Chaffey 1 17 All F. Hanes No structure(s) Chaffey 1 18 All Unlisted No structure(s) Chaffey 1 19 All Unlisted No structure(s) Chaffey 1 20 All Unlisted No structure(s) Chaffey 1 21 All Unlisted No structure(s) Chaffey 1 22 All Unlisted No structure(s)

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 39 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

Township Con. Lot Portion Occupant/Owner Structure(s) Chaffey 1 23 All F. Morgan No structure(s) Chaffey 1 24 All Chris. Peacock No structure(s) Chaffey 1 25 All I. Armstrong One structure Chaffey 1 26 All Jno. Cookson One structure Chaffey 1 27 All Jno. Taylor One structure Chaffey 1 28 All Jno. Taylor No structure(s) Chaffey 1 29 All Hugh Taylor One structure Chaffey 1 30 All Jno. Hood One structure Chaffey 1 31 All Richard Thornton No structure(s) Chaffey 1 32 All Richard Thornton One structure Chaffey 1 33 All Unlisted One structure Chaffey 1 34 All Unlisted No structure(s) Chaffey 2 8 All J. Bilson No structure(s) Chaffey 2 9 All J. Bilson No structure(s) Chaffey 2 10 All J. Bilson One structure Chaffey 2 11 All Jno. Hanes One structure Chaffey 2 12 All Allen Hanes No structure(s) Chaffey 2 13 All J. Early One structure Chaffey 2 14 All R. Toomes One structure Chaffey 2 15 All Mrs. Hunt One structure Chaffey 2 16 All G. Selkirk One structure Chaffey 2 17 All Wm. Knott No structure(s) Chaffey 2 18 All Wm. Knott One structure + saw mill Chaffey 2 19 All Jas. Knott No structure(s) Chaffey 2 20 All Jas. Knott One structure Chaffey 2 21 All Wm. Marshall One structure Chaffey 2 22 All Wm. Marshall No structure(s) Chaffey 2 23 All F. Morgan No structure(s) Chaffey 2 24 All Chris. Peacock No structure(s) Chaffey 2 25 All Geo. Dill No structure(s) Chaffey 2 26 All Ezra Froats One structure Chaffey 2 27 All Wm. Casselman No structure(s) Chaffey 2 28 All C. Monley No structure(s) Chaffey 2 29 All F. Francis No structure(s) Chaffey 2 30 All Jno. Brooks One structure Chaffey 2 31 All Jno. Brooks No structure(s) Chaffey 2 32 All F. Morgan One structure Chaffey 2 33 All J. Grace No structure(s) Chaffey 2 34 All J. Copeland No structure(s) Chaffey 2 35 All R. Ballantyne No structure(s) Chaffey 3 9 All J. Early No structure(s) Chaffey 3 10 All W. Patterson No structure(s) Chaffey 3 11 All Geo. Hutchins No structure(s) Chaffey 3 12 All Milan Markle No structure(s) Chaffey 3 13 All J. Smith No structure(s) Chaffey 3 14 All Geo. Norton No structure(s) Chaffey 3 15 All Geo. Norton One structure Chaffey 3 16 All Nathan Norton One structure Chaffey 3 17 All D. Later No structure(s)

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 40 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

Township Con. Lot Portion Occupant/Owner Structure(s) Chaffey 3 18 All B. Phillips No structure(s) Chaffey 3 19 All Unlisted No structure(s) Chaffey 3 20 All R. Mxy No structure(s) Chaffey 3 21 All R. Mxy No structure(s) Chaffey 3 22 All Unlisted No structure(s) Chaffey 3 23 All N. K. Lyman No structure(s) Chaffey 3 24 All N. K. Lyman No structure(s) Chaffey 3 25 All Isaac Armstrong No structure(s) Chaffey 3 26 All Wm. Henwood No structure(s) Chaffey 3 27 All Wm. Henwood No structure(s) Chaffey 3 28 All F. Francis No structure(s) Chaffey 3 29 All Jane Winter No structure(s) Chaffey 3 30 All Jane Winter No structure(s) Chaffey 3 31 All H. Woodward No structure(s) Chaffey 3 32 All J. Levitt One structure Chaffey 3 33 All J. Levitt No structure(s) Chaffey 3 34 All E. Henwood One structure Chaffey 3 35 All E. Henwood No structure(s) Chaffey 4 10 All Jas. Pasterson No structure(s) Chaffey 4 11 All C. Hanes No structure(s) Chaffey 4 12 All S.C. Silverwood No structure(s) Chaffey 4 13 All J. Smith No structure(s) Chaffey 4 14 All Henry Hammond One structure Chaffey 4 15 All Henry Hammond No structure(s) Chaffey 4 16 All Nathan Norton No structure(s)

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 41 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

APPENDIX D: IMAGES

IMAGE 1: Looking northwest at testable landscaped area east of the current IMAGE 2: Looking southwest at Fairvern Nursing Home grounds, featuring Mountview WWTP facility. built structures, paved areas and manicured landscapes.

IMAGE 3: Looking southeast at paved parking lot, road and sidewalk along IMAGE 4: Looking west along Morris Avenue at existing built structure and Church Street, and testable lands. Designated heritage property, 17 Church paved area. Street, is visible at left.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 42 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

IMAGE 5: Looking northeast along Meadow Park Drive at paved road and IMAGE 6: Looking northeast along Muskoka Road 3 at paved areas, driveways, built structures and testable residential frontages. disturbed roadside ditching, and built structures.

IMAGE 7: Looking north along Fairyview Drive at undisturbed vacant lot IMAGE 8: Looking northwest along Fairyview Drive at forested banks and fronted by vegetated slope. permanently wet area associated with Gypsy Bill Creek.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 43 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

IMAGE 9: Looking northeast along Highview Drive at testable residential lawn. IMAGE 10: Looking northwest along Glenwood Drive at built structures, paved areas, utility installations and testable residential lawns.

IMAGE 11: Looking north along Highway 60 at landscaped valley lands of Fairy IMAGE 12: Looking north along Highway 60 at testable pastureland within Lake tributary, west of the Huntsville Water Treatment Plant. the Skelding Farm, a listed heritage property.

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 44 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

IMAGE 13: Looking at the bird’s eye view of Mountview Wastewater Treatment Plant and vicinity (Bing Maps, 2014).

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 45 STAGE 1 AA FOR THE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOUNTVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND HUNTSVILLE SEWAGE WORKS UPGRADES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE, DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, ONTARIO

IMAGE 14: Looking at the bird’s eye view of Golden Pheasant Wastewater Treatment Plant and vicinity (Bing Maps, 2014).

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 46 STAGE 2 AA FOR THE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAKEVIEW HOMES INC. PROPERTY WITHIN PART OF LOT 6, CON.7,TOWN OF WHITBY, R.M. OF DURHAM, ONTARIO

APPENDIX E: INVENTORY OF DOCUMENTARY AND MATERIAL RECORD

Project Information: Project Number: 008-HU922-13 Licensee: Nimal Nithiyanantham (P390) MTCS PIF: P390-0088-2013 Document/ Material Location Comments 1. Research/ Digital files stored in: Archeoworks Inc., Stored on Archeoworks Analysis/ Reporting /2013/ 008-HU922-13 - 16715-12 Yonge Street, network servers Material Mountainview Wastewater Suite 1029, Newmarket, Treatment Plant + Huntsville ON, Canada, L3X 1X4 Sewage Works Upgrades

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 47