AECOM Report 1.Dot

Appendix F RPT-DRAFT- St1AA Scugog-EA- 28 June, 2017

Township of Scugog Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 over the Nonquon River Class EA Part of Lot 24, Concession 13 and Lot 15, Concessions 7 and 8, Geographic Township of Reach, Ontario County, now the Township of Scugog, Ontario

Prepared by: AECOM 410 – 250 York Street, Citi Plaza 519 673 0510 tel London, ON, Canada N6A 6K2 519 673 5975 fax www.aecom.com

Licensee: Adria Grant License: P131 PIF Number: P131-0043-2017

June 28, 2017 Project Number: 60320440 Original Report Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Distribution List

# Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name

1 Yes Township of Scugog 0 Yes Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport 0 Yes AECOM

Revision History

Revision # Date Revised By: Revision Description

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

. is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); . represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; . may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; . has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; . must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; . was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and . in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.

AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof.

Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk.

Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client.

AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Quality Information

Report Prepared By: DRAFT Jennifer Morgan, PhD Intermediate Archaeologist

Report Reviewed By: DRAFT Adria Grant, MA, CAHP Manager, Cultural Resources

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Executive Summary

AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM) was retained by the Township of Scugog to conduct a Stage 1 archaeological assessment as part of the Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 over the Nonquon River Class Environmental Assessment (Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 EA). Seagrave Bridge is located on part of Lot 24, Concession 13 and Bridge No. 9 on part of Lot 15, Concessions 7 and 8, both in the Geographic Township of Reach, Ontario County, now the Township of Scugog, Ontario. The study areas include the bridges as well as a 20 m buffer from the road centreline on either side of each bridge in order to accommodate options for temporary laydown areas and bridge widening (Figures 1 and 2).

The Stage 1 archaeological assessment was conducted as part of a Schedule “B” Municipal Class EA study during the design stage of the project and was triggered by the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act in accordance with subsection 11(1) (Ontario Government 1990a). This project is subject to the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b) and the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011).

AECOM’s Stage 1 background study for the Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 EA has determined that the potential for the recovery of both First Nation and Euro-Canadian archaeological resources within parts of each of the study areas is high. Overall, as a result of bridge construction and road grading, some portions of the study area have been previously disturbed and archaeological potential has been removed. Other areas of no or low archaeological potential include permanently wet areas and areas of steep slope. Although the majority of both the Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 study areas were determined not to retain archaeological potential, small areas where archaeological potential may remain intact were identified within the study area limits for both bridges (Figure 6). Based on these findings, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment is recommended for all land within the study area limits that has been identified as retaining archaeological potential should it be impacted by the proposed development.

For those areas identified as requiring Stage 2 archaeological assessment, all work must be conducted by a licensed archaeologist and must follow the requirements set out in the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ontario Government 2011), including:

. The standard test pit survey method at 5 m intervals is to be conducted in all areas that will be impacted by the project where ploughing is not possible (e.g., woodlots, overgrown areas, manicured lawns); and,

. Pedestrian survey at 5 m intervals where ploughing is possible (e.g., agricultural fields). This assessment will occur when agricultural fields have been recently ploughed, weathered, and exhibit at least 80% surface visibility.

It should be noted that the Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 EA study areas include additional land that may not be impacted during construction and ground disturbing activities. This additional land was assessed as part of this Stage 1 archaeological assessment in order to accommodate options for temporary laydown areas and bridge widening options. Once the project impacts and details are determined, only the land that will be affected by this project will require Stage 2 archaeological assessment where archaeological potential has been identified.

Should additional land outside of the study area boundaries be included as part of the Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 EA, the standard requirements for archaeological assessments to be conducted prior to land disturbance remain in place.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 i Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

The MTCS is asked to accept this report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports thereby concurring with the recommendations presented herein.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 ii Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Project Personnel

Project Manager Dan Adamson, M.Sc, P.Eng, PE

Senior Archaeologist Adria Grant, MA, CAHP

Licensed Archaeologist Adria Grant, MA, CAHP (P131)

Field Supervisor Samantha Markham (P438)

Report Production Jennifer Morgan, PhD.

Office Assistance Jennifer Deline

Senior Review Adria Grant, MA, CAHP

GIS Analyst Ben Clark, BAA

Acknowledgements

Proponent Contact Carol Coleman, Township of Scugog

Approval Authority Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 iii Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Table of Contents

page

1. Project Context ...... 1 1.1 Development Context ...... 1 1.1.1 Objectives ...... 1 1.2 Historical Context ...... 2 1.2.1 Pre-Contact First Nation Settlement ...... 3 1.2.2 Post-Contact Period Settlement ...... 5 1.2.3 Euro-Canadian Settlement ...... 6 1.2.4 Reports with Relevant Background Information ...... 8 1.3 Archaeological Context ...... 9 1.3.1 Natural Environment ...... 9 1.3.2 Known Archaeological Sites ...... 10 1.3.3 Existing Conditions ...... 11

2. Property Inspection ...... 12

3. Analysis and Conclusions ...... 13 3.1 Determination of Archaeological Potential ...... 13 3.2 Conclusions ...... 13

4. Recommendations ...... 15

5. Advice on Compliance with Legislation...... 16

6. Bibliography ...... 17

7. Images ...... 20 7.1 Seagrave Bridge Study Area ...... 20 7.2 Bridge No. 9 Study Area ...... 22

8. Figures ...... 24

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of the Study Areas ...... 25 Figure 2: Study Areas in Detail ...... 26 Figure 3: Portion of Samuel Wilmot’s 1810 Survey of the Township of Reach ...... 27 Figure 4: Portion of Tremaine’s 1860 Map of the County of Ontario ...... 28 Figure 5: Portion of J.H. Beers and Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario ...... 29 Figure 6: Natural Environment and Physiographic Characteristics ...... 30 Figure 7: Results of the Stage 1 Property Inspection ...... 31

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

List of Tables

Table 1: Cultural Chronology for Ontario County...... 2 Table 2: Heritage Properties in Proximity to the Study Areas ...... 9 Table 3: Registered Archaeological Sites within 1 km of the Study Area ...... 10

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

1. Project Context

1.1 Development Context

The purpose of the Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 EA study is to identify a solution to address the deteriorated condition of the Seagrave Bridge (Bridge No. 6) on River Street and Bridge No. 9 on Scugog Line 8. A detailed bridge inspection identified the need for the rehabilitation or replacement of Seagrave Bridge and the complete replacement of the entire structure of Bridge No. 9.

1.1.1 Objectives

The objective of the Stage 1 background study is to document the archaeological and land use history and present conditions within the study area. This information will be used to support recommendations regarding cultural heritage values or interests as well as assessment and mitigation strategies. The results of Stage 1 archaeological assessment presented in this report are drawn in part from:

. The Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport’s (MTCS) Archaeological Sites Database (ASDB) for a listing of registered archaeological sites within a 1 km radius of the study area;

. Reports of previous archaeological assessments within 50 m of the study area;

. Recent and historical maps of the study area;

. A visual inspection of the existing conditions within the study area and the immediate surroundings; and,

. Archaeological management plans or other archaeological potential mapping, where available.

The Stage 1 archaeological assessment has been conducted to meet the requirements of the MTCS Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ontario Government 2011).

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 1 Township of Scugog Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

1.2 Historical Context

Years of archaeological research and assessments in southern Ontario have resulted in a well-developed understanding of the historic use of land in Ontario County from the earliest First Nation people to the more recent Euro-Canadian settlers and farmers. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the cultural and temporal history of past occupations in Ontario County.

Table 1: Cultural Chronology for Ontario County

Archaeological Period Characteristics Time Period Comments Early Paleo Fluted Points 9000-8400 BC Arctic tundra and spruce parkland, caribou hunters Late Paleo Holcombe, Hi-Lo and Lanceolate 8400-8000 BC Slight reduction in territory size Points Early Archaic Notched and Bifurcate base Points 8000-6000 BC Growing populations Middle Archaic Stemmed and Brewerton Points, 6000-2500 BC Increasing regionalization Laurentian Development Late Archaic Narrow Point 2000-1800 BC Environment similar to present Broad Point 1800-1500 BC Large lithic tools Small Point 1500-1100 BC Introduction of bow Terminal Archaic Hind Points, Glacial Kame 1100-950 BC Earliest true cemeteries Complex Early Woodland Meadowood Points 950-400 BC Introduction of pottery Dentate/Psuedo-scallop Ceramics 400 BC – AD 500 Increased sedentism Middle Woodland Princess Point AD 550-900 Introduction of corn horticulture Late Woodland Early Ontario Iroquoian AD 900-1300 Agricultural villages Middle Ontario Iroquoian AD 1300-1400 Increased longhouse sizes Late Ontario Iroquoian AD 1400-1650 Warring nations and displacement Contact Aboriginal Various Algonkian and Iroquoian AD 1600-1875 Early written records and treaties Groups Historic French and English Euro-Canadian AD 1749-present European settlement Notes: Taken from Ellis and Ferris (1990)

The following sections provide a detailed summary of the archaeological cultures that have settled in the vicinity of the study area. As Chapman and Putnam (1984) illustrate, the modern physiography of southern Ontario is largely a product of events of the last major glacial stage and the landscape is a complex mosaic of features and deposits produced during the last series of glacial retreats and advances prior to the withdrawal of the continental glaciers from the area. Southwestern Ontario was finally ice free by 12,500 years ago. With continuing ice retreat and lake regressions the land area of southern Ontario progressively increased while barriers to the influx of plants, animals, and people steadily diminished (Karrow and Warner 1990). The lands within Ontario County have been extensively utilized by pre-contact First Nation people who began occupying southwestern Ontario soon after the glaciers had receded.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 2 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

1.2.1 Pre-Contact First Nation Settlement

The Paleo Period

In this area the first human settlement can be traced back to 11,000 BC; these earliest well-documented groups are referred to as Paleo which literally means old or ancient. Paleo people were non-agriculturalists who depended on hunting and gathering of wild food stuffs, they moved their encampments on a regular basis to be in the locations where these resources naturally became available and the size of the groups occupying any particular location would vary depending on the nature and size of the available food resources (Ellis and Deller 1990). The picture that has emerged for the early and late Paleo is of groups at low population densities who were residentially mobile and made use of large territories during annual cycles of resource exploitation (Ellis and Deller 1990).

The Archaic Period

The next major cultural period following the Paleo is termed the Archaic, which is broken temporally into the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic periods. There is much debate on how the term Archaic is employed; general practice bases the designation off assemblage content as there are marked differences in artifact suites from the preceding Paleo and subsequent Woodland periods. As Ellis et al. (1990) note, from an artifact and site characteristic perspective the Archaic is simply used to refer to non-Paleo manifestations that pre-date the introduction of ceramics. Ellis et al. (1990) stress that Archaic groups can be distinguished from earlier groups based on site characteristics and artifact content.

Early Archaic sites have been reported throughout much of southwestern Ontario and extend as far north as the Lake Huron Basin region and as far east as Rice Lake (Deller et al. 1986). A lack of excavated assemblages from southern Ontario has limited understandings and inferences regarding the nature of stone tool kits in the Early Archaic and tool forms other than points are poorly known in Ontario; however, at least three major temporal horizons can be recognized and can be distinguished based on projectile point form (Ellis et al. 1990). These horizons are referred to as Side-Notched (ca. 8,000-7,700 BC), Corner-Notched (ca. 7,700-6,900 BC), and Bifurcated (ca. 6,900-6,000 BC) (Ellis et al. 1990). Additional details on each of these horizons and the temporal changes to tool types can be found in Ellis et al. (1990).

The Middle Archaic period (6,000-2,500 BC), like the Early Archaic, is relatively unknown in southern Ontario. Ellis et al. (1990) suggest that artifact traits that have come to be considered as characteristic of the Archaic period as a whole, first appear in the Middle Archaic. These traits include fully ground and polished stone tools, specific tool types including banner stones and net-sinkers, and the use of local and/or non-chert type materials for lithic tool manufacture (Ellis et al. 1990).

The Late Archaic begins around approximately 2,000 BC and ends with the beginning of ceramics and the Meadowood Phase at roughly 950 BC. Much more is known about this period than the Early and Middle Archaic and a number of Late Archaic sites are known. Sites appear to be more common than earlier periods, suggesting some degree of population increase. True cemeteries appear and have allowed for the analysis of band size, biological relationships, social organization, and health. Narrow and Small point traditions appear as well as tool recycling wherein points were modified into drills, knives, end scrapers, and other tools (Ellis et al.. 1990). Other tools including serrated flakes used for sawing or shredding, spokeshaves, and retouched flakes manufactured into perforators, gravers, micro-perforators, or piercers. Tools on coarse-grained rocks such as sandstone and quartz become common and include hammerstones, net-sinkers, anvils, and cobble spalls. Depending on preservation, several Late Archaic sites include bone and/or antler artifacts which likely represent fishing toolkits and ornamentation. These artifacts include bone harpoons, barbs or hooks, notched projectile points, and awls. Bone ornaments recovered have included tubular bone beads and drilled mammal canine pendants (Ellis et al.. 1990).

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 3 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Throughout the Early to Late Archaic periods the natural environment warmed and vegetation changed from closed conifer-dominated vegetation cover, to the mixed coniferous and deciduous forest in the north and deciduous vegetation in the south we see in Ontario today (Ellis et al. 1900). During the Archaic period there are indications of increasing populations and decreasing size of territories exploited during annual rounds; fewer moves of residential camps throughout the year and longer occupations at seasonal campsites; continuous use of certain locations on a seasonal basis over many years; increasing attention to ritual associated with the deceased; and, long range exchange and trade systems for the purpose of obtaining valued and geographically localized resources (Ellis et al. 1990).

The Woodland Period

The Early Woodland period is distinguished from the Archaic period primarily by the addition of ceramic technology, which provides a useful demarcation point for archaeologists but is expected to have made less difference in the lives of the Early Woodland peoples. The settlement and subsistence patterns of Early Woodland people shows much continuity with the earlier Archaic with seasonal camps occupied to exploit specific natural resources (Spence et al. 1990). During the Middle Woodland well-defined territories containing several key environmental zones were exploited over the yearly subsistence cycle. Large sites with structures and substantial middens appear in the Middle Woodland associated with spring macro-band occupations focussed on utilizing fish resources and created by consistent returns to the same site (Spence et al. 1990). Groups would come together into large macro-bands during the spring-summer at lakeshore or marshland areas to take advantage of spawning fish; in the fall inland sand plains and river valleys were occupied for deer and nut harvesting and groups split into small micro-bands for winter survival (Spence et al. 1990). This is a departure from earlier Woodland times when macro-band aggregation is thought to have taken place in the winter (Ellis et al. 1988; Granger 1978).

The period between the Middle and Late Woodland was both technically and socially transitional for the ethnically diverse populations of southern Ontario and these developments formed the basis for the emergence of settled villages and agriculturally based lifestyles (Fox 1990). The first agricultural villages in southwestern Ontario date to the 10th century AD. Unlike the riverine base camps of the Middle Woodland period, these sites are located in the uplands, on well-drained sandy soils. The Late Woodland period is often sub-divided into the Early (900-1300 AD), Middle (1300-1400 AD), and Late Iroquoian (1400-1650 AD) periods.

Early Ontario Iroquoian (900-1300 AD) villages tended to be small settlements with nearby camps and hamlets that served as temporary spaces for hunting game and gathering resources outside of the villages. Corn may have been introduced into southwestern Ontario from the American Midwest as early as 600 AD; however, it did not become a dietary staple until at least three to four hundred years later. Small amounts of corn appear to have been a dietary component at this time; however, archaeological evidence suggests that its role was not as a dietary staple at this time and was supplemental in nature. Village sites dating between 900 and 1300 AD, share many attributes with the historically reported Iroquoian sites, including the presence of longhouses and sometimes palisades. However, these early longhouses were actually not all that large, averaging only 12.4 metres (m) in length. It is also quite common to find the outlines of overlapping house structures, suggesting that these villages were occupied long enough to necessitate re-building. The Jesuits reported that the Huron moved their villages once every 10-15 years, when the nearby soils had been depleted by farming and conveniently collected firewood grew scarce. It’s likely that Early Ontario Iroquoians occupied their villages for considerably longer, as they relied less heavily on corn than did later groups, and since their villages were much smaller, there was less demand on nearby resources.

The Middle Ontario Iroquoian period (1300-1400 AD) witnessed several interesting developments in terms of settlement patterns and artifact assemblages. Changes in ceramic styles have been carefully documented, allowing the placement of sites in the first or second half of this 100-year period and widespread similarities in ceramic and smoking pipe styles suggest increasing levels of inter-community communication and integration. Village size, which previously averaged approximately 0.6 hectares (ha) in extent during the Early Ontario Iroquoian

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 4 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

period, grew significantly to between one and two ha. The Middle Iroquoian not only marks the emergence of fully developed horticulture, including the cultivation of corn, beans, and squash, but also the development of complex community political systems. House lengths also change dramatically, more than doubling to an average of 30 m in length. A number of hypotheses have been put forward to explain this radical increase in longhouse length. The simplest possibility is that increased house length is the result of a gradual, natural increase in population. Other possible explanations involve changes in economic and socio-political organization. One suggestion is that during the Middle Ontario Iroquoian period small villages were amalgamating to form larger communities for mutual defense. If this was the case, the more successful military leaders may have been able to absorb some of the smaller family groups into their households, thereby requiring longer structures. This hypothesis draws support from the fact that some sites had up to seven rows of palisades, indicating at least an occasional need for strong defensive measures. There are, however, other Middle Ontario Iroquoian villages which had no palisades present.

By the beginning of the fourteenth century, most Iroquoian people inhabited large and often fortified villages throughout southern Ontario as a result of an increasing reliance on horticulture. Larger village sites were often cleared to accommodate the cultivation of corn, beans, and squash. Several of these large village sites have been documented in the Toronto area including the central north shore of Lake Ontario within the Humber, Don, Duffins, and Rouge River drainage systems. For example, the Alexandra site is a 14th century Iroquoian village that was discovered in the summer of 2000 along Highland Creek in northeast Toronto. The site was over two ha in extent and archaeological evidence indicates that there were at least 17 house structures, over 600 cultural features, and approximately 19,000 artifacts. In 2003, three similar village sites were discovered near Toronto.

Between 1400 and 1450 AD house length continued to grow, reaching an average length of 62 m. However, after 1450 AD, house lengths began to decrease, with houses from 1500-1580 AD averaging only 30 m length. The reason house lengths decrease after 1450 AD is poorly understood, but it is believed that drastically shorter houses documented on historic period sites may be partially attributed to population reductions associated with the introduction of European diseases.

1.2.2 Post-Contact Period Settlement

The post-contact First Nation occupation of southern Ontario was heavily influenced by the dispersal of Iroquoian speaking peoples, such as the Huron, Petun and Neutral by the New York State Confederacy of Iroquois, followed by the arrival of Algonkian speaking groups from northern Ontario. The Ojibwa of southern Ontario date from about 1701 and occupied the territory between Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario (Schmalz 1991). This is also the period in which the Mississaugas are known to have returned to southern Ontario and the Great Lakes watersheds (Konrad 1981) while at the same time the members of the Three Fires Confederacy, the Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatomi were immigrating from Ohio and Michigan (Feest and Feest 1978).

It is important to note that, when discussing the historical documentation of the movement of Indigenous people, what has been documented by early European explorers and settlers represent only a very small snap-shot in time. Where Indigenous groups were residing during European exploration and settlement, as well as previous and subsequent movements of these groups, is restricted to only a very short period. This brief history does not reflect the full picture of the pre- or post-contact period occupation of Indigenous groups or cultures. As such, relying on historic documentation in regards to Indigenous occupation and movement across the landscape can lead to misinterpretation. For example, historic documentation of the movement of Indigenous groups into an area may suggest that these groups had not occupied the area previously; however, this is not the case. It is clear from Indigenous oral histories, as well as the archaeological record, that pre-contact Indigenous populations were extremely mobile and not tied to any one specific area. Over the vast period of time prior to the arrival of Europeans, Indigenous groups, language families, and cultures were fluid across the landscape.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 5 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

As European settlers encroached on their territory the nature of First Nation population distribution, settlement size and material culture changed. Despite these changes it is possible to correlate historically recorded villages with archaeological manifestations and the similarity of those sites to more ancient sites reveals an antiquity to documented cultural expressions that confirms a long continuity to First Nation systems of ideology and thought (Ferris 1009).

The study area falls within the portion of the Williams Treaties that comprises parts of the Counties of Northumberland, Durham, Ontario, and York. The Williams Treaties were made on October 31, 1923, after the Canadian Government made an inquiry into the status of land surrenders in Upper Canada. The Government determined that a new treaty should be undertaken for a large section of land in Central Ontario. The Government of Canada and seven First Nations groups were involved in the negotiation of the Williams Treaties. The Williams Treaties First Nations are comprised of the Mississaugas of Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Scugog Island First Nation, and the Chippewas of Beausoleil First Nation, Georgina Island First Nation, and the Rama First Nation (Williams Treaties First Nations 2017). At the time of the Williams Treaties, much of the land involved was already being used by the government for settlement and the exploitation of natural resources, including lumber and mineral extraction.

On October 29, 2012, in Alderville Indian Band et al v. Her Majesty the Queen et al, Canada and Ontario took the position at trial that harvesting rights associated with pre-Confederation treaties signed by the Williams Treaties First Nations were not intended to be surrendered in 1923, particularly the Treaty No. 20 area (signed in 1818). This position recognizes the Williams Treaty people’s constitutionally protected harvesting rights for the land included in Treaty No. 20. This meant that Williams Treaties harvesters are able to exercise rights in line with those of other treaty people in most of Ontario (Williams Treaties First Nations 2017).

1.2.3 Euro-Canadian Settlement

Ontario County

The original County of Ontario was formed in 1792 as part of the Eastern District and included the island on the St. Lawrence River. In 1800, this county was dissolved and the islands were re-assigned to the nearest mainland counties. The second Ontario County was created in 1851 from the eastern portion of York County (Armstrong 2004). Ontario County originally housed nine townships – Brock, Mara, Rama, Pickering, Reach, Scott, Thorah, Uxbridge, and Whitby (J.H.Beers and Co. 1877).

A number of villages were also incorporated as separate municipalities in Ontario County after its formation including Port Perry in 1871, Uxbridge in 1872, Cannington in 1878, and Beaverton in 1884. In 1973, the area of Ontario County south of the Trent Severn Waterway, along with half of adjacent Durham County to the east, was amalgamated into what is now the Regional Municipality of Durham. The remaining portion of Ontario County to the north was transferred to Simcoe County and Ontario County was dissolved (Armstrong 2004).

Township of Reach

The Township of Reach was originally surveyed in 1809 by Samuel Wilmot, Deputy Surveyor for the Government of Upper Canada. The earliest settlers in the area included the Crandall, Covey, Christy, Horne, and McKay families. Early villages in the township included Manchester, Green Bank, Saintfield, Sunderland, Port Perry, and Sonya (Advance Archaeology 2007).

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 6 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

In 1834, permission was granted to build a grinding mill at Lindsay, Ontario and the Scugog River was dammed, increasing lake levels up to 3 m. The flooding caused by the construction of the dam resulted in the formation of an island between Reach and Cartwright Townships. This island was named Scugog Island and was subsequently separated from Reach and Cartwright Townships to form Scugog Township. The current levels of Lake Scugog are the result of the significant watershed change caused by early Euro-Canadian industry (Advance Archaeology 2007, Scugog Lake Stewards 2017).

By 1860, the village of Seagrave, originally named Sonya, had developed on parts of Lots 23 and 24, Concession 13 on the north side of the Nonquon River. A second smaller settlement to the north is now known as Sonya. By 1877, Seagrave boasted its own post office and the Whitby, Port Perry, and Lindsay Railway (WPPL Railway) had been constructed to the west of the village, travelling north-south between the Nonquon River and Lake Scugog. The railway was an essential service providing a means for early settlers to transport agricultural products and timber to the commercial port in Whitby to the south (Advance Archaeology 2007).

In 1974, the formation of the Regional Municipality of Durham resulted in the restructuring of a number of townships in Ontario County. The present-day Township of Scugog was created through the amalgamation of the geographic townships of Scugog, Reach, and Cartwright as well as the Town of Port Perry.

Land Use within the Study Areas

Samuel Wilmot’s 1810 survey of the Township of Reach (updated on unknown dates), the 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario (Tremaine 1860), and the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Ontario County (J.H. Beers and Co. 1877) were reviewed to identify the presence of any historic features within the study areas during the 19th century settlement of the township. The Seagrave Bridge study area falls on part of Lot 24, Concession 13 along present-day River Street and Bridge No. 9 study area falls on part of Lot 15, Concessions 7 and 8 on Scugog Line 8.

Although unclear as to the exact dates landowners were added to the original survey, Wilmot’s 1810 survey lists Eunice Kelly as the landowner of Lot 24, Concession 13. Lot 15, Concession 7 is listed to Ann Smith, and Lot 15, Concession 8 is listed to the Canada Company. Although no historic features are noted, the original survey illustrates the lower water levels on Lake Scugog prior to the flooding caused by the 1834 dam (Figure 3).

On Lot 24, Concession 13, the 1860 Tremaine’s Map indicates that present-day River Street was constructed by 1860 with a bridge crossing over the Nonquon River where the current Seagrave Bridge is located. At this time, River Street was included as part of the northern section of present-day Simcoe Street, which travels south to connect with the Town of Port Perry. The small village of Sonya (later Seagrave) is illustrated to the north of the Nonquon River with village settlement fronted along River Street. At this time, Lot 24 had been severed into several parcels with the Farewell family owning the majority of the lot with the exception of a central portion, which is listed to Charles E. Coryell. The Seagrave Bridge study area falls on the properties owned by Charles Farewell and Charles Coryell (Figure 4).

In 1860, Lot 15, Concession 7 was listed as “Non Res.” and the Canada Company is listed as the owner of Lot 15, Concession 8. Scugog Line 8 was constructed as an early concession road during the original township survey and had only been partially constructed by 1860. The historic map indicates that Bridge No. 9 falls on a portion of the road allowance that had not yet been opened. As this portion of Scugog Line 8 was not open in 1860, it is not surprising that there are no structures or historic features illustrated in proximity to the Bridge No. 9 study area (Figure 4). Given the lack of landowners, this land was likely still forested at this time.

By 1878, the village of Sonya on Lot 24, Concession 13 is illustrated as Seagrave and village settlement had expanded into the northeast corner of the lot as well as onto adjacent Lot 23. This is evidenced by additional lot severances, additional structures both within the core and on the periphery of the village, and the construction of

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 7 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

several residential roadways, including present-day Coryell Street, Isabella Street, Keene Street, and Henrietta Street. The Whitby, Port Perry, and Lindsay Railway had been constructed in 1877 and is illustrated on the historic map. A crossing over the Nonquon River is still in place where the Seagrave Bridge is now located. It is unclear who the landowner of the properties surrounding the bridge are at this time with the exception of the central portion of the property to the south of the river which is owned by Roberts (No first name or intial). Structures associated with village development are illustrated to the north and one farmstead is illustrated on the west side of River Street to the south of the Seagrave Bridge study area (Figure 5).

Both Lot 15, Concession 7 and 8 have been severed and sold off to several different landowners by 1878. Lot 15, Concession 7 had been severed into four parcels with the west half and the northern ¼ of the east half owned by J.D. Lanier. A homestead is illustrated in the southeast corner of the portion of the lot owned by J.D. Lanier within a small severed parcel. The remaining ¾ of the east half of the lot was owned by Edward Major and a structure is noted in the southern portion of the lot. Finally, Lot 15, Concession 8 had also been severed into east and west halves with the west half still under ownership by the Canada Company and the east half owned by D. Ireland. A homestead is illustrated on the southwest corner of D. Ireland’s property, but is not in close proximity to the Bridge No. 9 study area. Given the number of homesteads fronted on Scugog Line 8 by this time, it appears that the road allowance at Bridge No. 9 was open. Given the presence of several homesteads, portions of these properties may have been cleared and under use for agricultural purposes by 1878 (Figure 5).

1.2.4 Reports with Relevant Background Information

Previous Archaeological Assessments

To inform the current Stage 1 archaeological assessment and further establish the archaeological context of the study area, a search of the ASDB was conducted by ASDB coordinator Rob von Bitter on June 2, 2017 to determine if any previous archeological work has been completed within the current study areas or within 50 m of the study area boundaries. One report was identified within 50 m of the Seagrave Bridge study area and is entitled “Stage 1 to 3 Archaeological Assessment of Seagrave Subdivision, Part of Lot 24, Concession 13 (#87 River Street), Reach Township, Ontario County” (Advance Archaeology 2007).

The Stage 1-3 archaeological assessment was conducted by Advance Archaeology in 2007 for a parcel of land on part of Lot 24, Concession 13, adjacent to the Seagrave Bridge study area. The Stage 2 test pit survey resulted in the identification of three lithic flakes from one positive test unit in the northeast portion of the property and two positive test pits in the southeast portion of the property. This material was registered with the MTCS under a single Borden number, BbGr-37. The subsequent Stage 3 excavation of BbGr-37 was undertaken in two locations, one in the northeast and one in the southeast in order to cover all positive test pits and determine the extent of the site. In the northeast location, no additional artifacts or subsoil features were identified during the Stage 3 excavation. Four lithic flakes and one ceramic body sherd were recovered from 11 units in the southeast location as well as two possible subsoil features. No cultural material was recovered from either of these features and they were determined not to be related to BbGr-37. Based on these findings, it was determined that Stage 4 mitigation was not required and it was recommended that the land be cleared of archaeological concern.

To the best of our knowledge, there are no other reports concerning archaeological work conducted within 50 m of the current study area; however, it should be noted that the MTCS does not maintain a database of all properties that have had past archaeological investigations, particularly those properties where no archaeological resources were documented. In consequence, the only way a consulting archaeologist will know that a past assessment has been conducted in a given area is if they have personal knowledge of it, or if the assessment resulted in the discovery and registration of one or more archaeological sites.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 8 Township of Scugog Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Archaeological Management Plans and Municipal Heritage Registers

The Township of Scugog does not currently have an archaeological management plan; however, the Township of Scugog does maintain a record of heritage properties that have been identified as being of value to the community. A review of the Township of Scugog Heritage Register (Township of Scugog 2008) was completed to determine the presence of any heritage properties or historically significant sites in proximity to the Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 study areas. Two heritage properties were identified in proximity to Seagrave Bridge (Plates 1 and 2) and one in proximity to Bridge No. 9. Table 2 provides details on the location of these heritage properties and Figure 6 provides the location of these structures in relation to each of the study areas.

Table 2: Heritage Properties in Proximity to the Study Areas

Date of Current Heritage Figure Address Details Construction Status Reference 15 Coryell Street Seagrave United Church, 1 storey brick ca. 1906 Listed 1 102 River Street Seagrave General Store, 2 storey brick ca. 1906 Listed 2 1251 Scugog Line 8 Colonial brick, 3 storey farmhouse ca. 1920 Listed 3

Plate 1: Seagrave United Church ca. 1906 Plate 2: Seagrave General Store ca. 1906 (Photo Courtesy of Scugog Township Heritage Gallery) (Photo Courtesy of Scugog Township Heritage Gallery)

Finally, a search of the Ontario Heritage Plaques Guide was also conducted to determine the presence of any historically significant sites in the area. This review did not result in the identification of any historical plaques within or adjacent to the study area boundaries.

1.3 Archaeological Context

1.3.1 Natural Environment

The landscape in Ontario County is made up of a complex arrangement of features and deposits produced during the last series of glacial advances and retreats by the Simcoe Lobe and Ontario Lobe of the North American

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 9 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Laurentide ice sheet prior to the withdrawal of the glacier from southern Ontario (Ellis and Ferris 1990). Those features and deposits that were formed by glacial action are represented by till plains, end moraines, and drumlins.

The study areas are situated within the Peterborough Drumlin Field physiographic region of southern Ontario (Chapman and Putnam 1984). This region is a rolling till plain with an area of about 1,750 square miles. The Scugog area overlies a flat till plain with the presence of some buried drumlins. Soils in the Seagrave Bridge study area includes Bondhead Loam surrounded by bottom land and the Bridge No. 9 study area is characterized by organic muck associated with the Nonquon River.

Drainage in the area is provided by the Nonquon River watershed, over which the study area bridges cross, and Lake Scugog to the east. Lake Scugog is located approximately 2 km east of the Seagrave Bridge study area and 2.5 km east of the Bridge No. 9 study area. Figure 6 illustrates the natural environment and physiographic characteristics of the study areas. The Nonquon River and Lake Scugog would have served as important pre- and post-contact transportation routes through the Kawartha Lakes as well as sources of potable water and riverine resources.

It should be noted that the natural shoreline of Lake Scugog has been altered over the course of the 19th century as a result of the construction of the dam at Lindsay in 1834. When the first European settlers arrived, lake levels were much lower. There were some areas of open water in the deeper sections of the lake and in the channels around Scugog Island; however, the rest of the surrounding area consisted of large wetlands with resource rich areas that included wild rice and cranberries. These wetland areas would have been used extensively by pre-contact First Nation groups; however, these wetlands have since been overtaken by Lake Scugog as a result of the increasing lake and river levels after 1834.

The well drained soils in this region, dense forests, and access to water sources and resource rich wetlands would have provided an ideal environment for temporary and permanent settlement throughout the pre-and post-contact periods as well as during early Euro-Canadian settlement. During the 19th and 20th century, rapid deforestation resulted in significant land clearance across Ontario Township. After the commencement of the lumber industry and increasing agricultural activities, the once dense forests of maple, beech, pine, and oak around the lake were depleted.

1.3.2 Known Archaeological Sites

AECOM requested a data search of the ASDB on June 1, 2017 to determine if any registered archaeological sites are located within the Seagrave Bridge and/or the Bridge No. 9 study areas as well as within 1 km of the current study area boundaries. This search resulted in the identification of one registered archaeological site within 1 km of the Seagrave Bridge study area. Table 3 provides details on the identified archaeological site.

Table 3: Registered Archaeological Sites within 1 km of the Study Area

Development Borden # Site Name Cultural Affiliation Site Type PIF# Status

BbGr-37 No name provided Woodland Period Unknown No Further CHVI*

*CHVI = Cultural Heritage Value or Interest

Archaeological site BbGr-37 is located approximately 200 m northeast of the Seagrave Bridge study area between River Street and Simcoe Street. In order to avoid redundancy, details on BbGr-37 are provided in Section 1.2.4 of this report.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 10 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Information concerning specific site locations is protected by provincial policy, and is not fully subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The release of such information in the past has led to looting or various forms of illegally conducted site destruction. Confidentiality extends to all media capable of conveying location, including maps, drawings, or textual descriptions of a site location. The MTCS will provide information concerning site location to the party or an agent of the party holding title to a property, or to a licensed archaeologist with relevant cultural resource management interests.

1.3.3 Existing Conditions

The Seagrave Bridge is a single span steel structure located on River Street in the village of Seagrave crossing the Nonquon River. The bridge was originally constructed in 1920 and recently rehabilitated in 2014. The bridge is approximately 4.9 m wide and 16.5 m long. With the exception of steeply sloped areas as a result of road and bridge grading and the shoreline leading to the Nonquon River, the surrounding area is relatively flat. With the exception of the southwest side of River Street, which is comprised of a low-lying wet area and a portion of an active agricultural field, the immediate surroundings are characterized by manicured lawn and large trees associated with private properties in the village of Seagrave.

Bridge No. 9 is a three span steel girder bridge structure located on Scugog Line 8 and crosses the Nonquon River. The bridge was constructed in 1940 and was subsequently closed in 2012 as a result of deteriorating conditions and has remained closed to this day. The bridge is approximately 7.5 m wide and 10.4 m long. Bridge No. 9 is located along a gravelled rural road to the east of the Nonquon River Water Pollution Control Plant. With the exception of the bridge itself, road grading and a small forested area, the immediate surroundings are characterized primarily by low-lying wet areas and wetland.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 11 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

2. Property Inspection

To assist in the archaeological evaluation of the Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 EA study area, a property inspection was conducted by licensed archaeologist Samantha Markham (P438) on June 15, 2017 under PIF# P131-0043-2017 issued to professional archaeologist Adria Grant of AECOM. The property inspection was conducted to meet the requirements of Section 1.2 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ontario Government 2011 and, in accordance with Section 1.2, Standard 1, the entire study area and its periphery was subject to systematic inspection to identify the presence or absence of any features of archaeological potential.

The weather on June 15, 2017 was overcast with a high temperature of 25°C and the weather conditions permitted excellent visibility of land features. To meet the requirements of Standard 4, Section 1.2, an attempt was made to document additional features of archaeological potential not visible on the mapping. Photographs were taken of the visible landscape features for both study areas (Photos 1-17).

The Seagrave Bridge study area is comprised of areas of manicured lawn spotted with large trees (~35%), steeply sloped and low-lying, permanently wet areas (~35%), previous disturbance associated River Street and associated road grading/artificial slope (~15%), a portion of an active agricultural field (~10%), and the Seagrave Bridge (~5%). No additional features of archaeological potential were identified during the site inspection.

The Bridge No. 9 study area is comprised almost entirely of low-lying permanently wet areas (~85%), a portion of a forested area (10%), and Bridge No.9 (~5%). No additional features of archaeological potential were identified during the site inspection.

As per the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Section 7.8.6, Standard 1a, Ontario Government 2011), photograph locations and directions, as well as the results of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment property inspection are provided on Figure 6 of this report.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 12 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

3. Analysis and Conclusions

3.1 Determination of Archaeological Potential

Archaeological potential is established by determining the likelihood that archaeological resources may be present on a subject property. Criteria commonly used by the MTCS to determine areas of archaeological potential are listed in Section 1.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ontario Government 2011). Distance to modern or ancient water sources is generally accepted as the most important element for past human settlement patterns and when considered alone may result in a determination of archaeological potential. In addition, any combination of two or more of the listed criteria indicates archaeological potential.

Based on a review of the historical, environmental, and archaeological context of the study area, it has been determined that potential for the recovery of pre- and post-contact First Nation and 19th century Euro-Canadian archaeological resources within the study area is high based on the presence of the following features:

. Proximity to previously identified archaeological sites (BbGr-37 within 200m);

. Distance to various types of water sources (Nonquon River and Lake Scugog);

. Soil texture and drainage (well drained soils within Nonquon River watershed);

. Glacial geomorphology, elevated topography and the general topographic variability of the area;

. Food resource areas (wild rice, wetland, and riverine resources);

. Areas of early Euro- Canadian settlement and early transportation routes (Village of Seagrave, Simcoe Street, WPPL Railway); and,

. Proximity of properties listed on the Township of Scugog municipal register.

Certain features also indicate areas where archaeological potential has been removed. Generally, these features include land that has been subject to extensive and intensive deep land alterations that have severely damaged the integrity of any archaeological resources such as landscaping or construction that involves grading below the topsoil level, building footprints, quarrying, and sewage and infrastructure development (Ontario Government 2011). In addition, land is also evaluated as having no or low potential for the recovery of archaeological resources when it is comprised of permanently wet areas, exposed bedrock, and steep slope greater than 20°.

3.2 Conclusions

Based on the Stage 1 background review and property inspections, the Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 study areas are generally located in areas with high potential for the recovery of archaeological resources. Within the Seagrave Bridge study area, land that retains high archaeological potential includes a small portion of active agricultural field and manicured lawns associated with private properties in the village of Seagrave. Archaeological potential has been removed from areas of disturbance associated with road and bridge grading, and there is no or

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 13 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

low potential in steeply sloped areas along the Nonquon River and a low-lying wet area in the southeast corner of the study area boundaries (Figure 6)

Land that retains high archaeological potential within the Bridge No. 9 study area includes a small, flat forested area in the northwest corner of the study area boundaries. Archaeological potential has been removed from areas of disturbance associated with bridge construction and road grading. Finally, there is no or low archaeological potential in the portions of the study area that consist of low-lying wet areas and wetland associated with the Nonquon River (Figure 6).

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 14 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

4. Recommendations

The MTCS is asked to accept this report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports thereby concurring with the recommendations presented herein.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 15 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

5. Advice on Compliance with Legislation

This report is submitted to the Ontario Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18. 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 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, 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.

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 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.

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.

Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork or protection remain subject to section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed from them, except by a person holding an archaeological license.

The Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force in 2012) requires that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ontario Ministry of Consumer Services.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 16 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

6. Bibliography

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) 2013 Treaty Texts – Upper CanADa Land Surrenders. Retrieved March 20, 2014 from: https://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/eng/1370372152585/1370372222012#ucls9

Advance Archaeology 2007 Stage 1 to 3 Archaeological Assessment of Seagrave Subdivision, Part of Lot 24, Concession 13 (#87 River Street), Reach Township, Ontario County. P121-040-2007.

Armstrong, Frederick H. 2004 Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Hamilton, Dundern Press, Ltd.

Chapman, L. J. and D. F. Putnam 1973 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Second Edition, Reprinted with revisions. Ontario Research Foundation, University of Toronto Press.

Ellis, C.J., J.A. Fisher and D.B. Deller 1988 Four Meadowood Phase Lithic Artifact Assemblages from Caradoc and Delaware Townships, Southwestern Ontario. Kewa 88(8):3-20.

Ellis, Chris J., Ian T. Kenyon and Michael W. Spence 1990 The Archaic. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5.

Ellis, Chris J. and D. Brian Deller 1990 Paleo-Indians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5.

Ellis, Christopher J. and Neal Ferris (editors) 1990 The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650, Eds. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.

Feest, Johanna E. and Christian F. Feest 1978 In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol.15 Northeast, pp.772-786. B.G. Trigger, Ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institute.

Ferris, Neal 2009 The Archaeology of Native-lived Colonialism: Challenging History in the Great Lakes. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Fisher, Jaqueline A. 1997 The Adder Orchard Site: Lithic Technology and Spatial Organization in the BroADpoint Late Archaic. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, OAS, Number 3.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 17 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Fox, William A. 1990 The Middle to Late Woodland Transition. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.

Grainger, Jennifer 2002 Vanished Villages of Middlesex. Dundurn Press. p. 293.

Heidenriech, Conrad E. 1990 History of the St. Lawrence - Great Lakes Area to AD 1650. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650, Eds. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.

J.H. Beers and Co. 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto: J.H. Beers and Co.

Karrow, P.F. and B.G Warner 1990 The Geological and Biological Environment for Human Occupation in Southern Ontario. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5.

Konrad, Victor 1981 An Iroquois Frontier: the North Shore of Lake Ontario during the Late Seventeenth Century. Journal of Historical Geography 7(2).

Morris, J.L. 1943 Indians of Ontario. 1964 reprint. Department of Lands and Forests, Toronto

Murphy, Carl and Neal Ferris 1990 The Late Woodland Western Basin Tradition of Southwestern Ontario. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5.

Ontario Government 1990a Environmental Assessment Act. R.S.O. 1990. CHAPTER O.18. Last amendment: 2010, c. 16, Sched. 7, s. 1. Electronic document: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e18_e.htm. Last assessed April 2013. 1990b Ontario Heritage Act. R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER O.18, Last amendment: 2009, c. 33, Sched. 11, s. 6. Electronic document: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o18_e.htm. Last assessed July 2014. 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. n.d Archaeological Sites Database (ASDB). Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Schmalz, Peter S. 1991 The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. University of Toronto Press.

Scugog Lake Stewards 2017 History of Lake Scugog. Accessed online: https://scugoglakestewards.com/about-the-lake/history/

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 18 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Spence, Michael W., Robert H. Pihl and Carl R. Murphy 1990 Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5.

Surtees, Robert 1994 Land Cessions, 1763-1830. In Aboriginal Ontario Historical Perspectives on the First Nations, Edward S. Rogers and Donald B. Smith editors. Ontario Historical Studies Series, Dundurn Press.

Township of Scugog 2008 Township of Scugog Heritage Register. Accessed online: http://www.scugog.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Heritage-Register---Township-of-Scugog-updated-April- 2017.pdf

Tremaine, G. 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario. John Shier, George R. Tremaine; George C. Tremaine (Firm).

Williams Treaties First Nations 2017 About Williams Treaties First Nations: Background. Accessed online: http://www.williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/about/

Wright, James V. 1994 Before European Contact. In Aboriginal Ontario: Historic Perspectives on the First Nations. Eds. Edward S. Rogers and Donald B. Smith. Ontario Historical Studies Series, Dundurn Press, Toronto.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 19 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

7. Images

7.1 Seagrave Bridge Study Area

Photo 1: Seagrave Bridge, facing northwest Photo 2: Road grading slope and area of manicured lawn, facing southeast

Photo 3: Nonquon River and permanently wet shoreline, Photo 4: Nonquon River and permanently wet shoreline, facing northeast facing southwest

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 20 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Photo 5: Area of road grading and build-up for bridge Photo 6: Area of manicured lawn and road grading, facing construction, facing southeast southeast

Photo 7: Road grading and treed area, facing northwest Photo 8: Road grading slope and permanently wet area, facing south

Photo 9: Naturally sloped area along Nonquon River, Photo 10: Agricultural field, facing south facing northwest

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 21 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

7.2 Bridge No. 9 Study Area

Photo 11: Bridge No. 9, facing southwest Photo 12: Permanently wet areas around Nonquon River, facing northwest

Photo 13: Permanently wet areas around Nonquon River, Photo 14: Nonquon River and permanently wet areas, facing southeast facing northeast

Photo 15: Nonquon River and wetlands, facing south Photo 16: Permanently wet area and Nonquon River, Facing southwest

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 22 Township of Scugog

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Photo 17: Forested area, also note road grading, facing

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 23 Township of Scugog Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

8. Figures

All figures pertaining to the Stage 1 archaeological assessment for the Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 EA in Township of Scugog, Ontario are provided on the following pages.

Rpt-Draft-St1aa Scugog Ea-27june2017 24 Cambray Woodville H Sturgeon Pigeon w

y Lake 3 Lake Lake 5 Simcoe Lindsay Cannington H w Pigeon y Oakwood 7 y 1 Hw m 8 y 4 2 Scugog Hw Pefferlaw River Sutton Manilla Omemee Little River Britain Georgina Sunderland H w y 3 Seagrave 5 Keswick Bridge Janetville H

w Leaskdale y

Zephyr 7 Bethany East & Lake

1 Gwillimbury 2 Scugog Bridge Millbrook A y 7 No. 9 Hw Queensville Mount Albert H

w Port y Uxbridge Pontypool 4 Perry Seagrave Sharon 8

Bridge Newmarket B

a l d w

i n

Aurora Whitchurch-Stouffville S Orono t

N Stouffville Claremont Clarington Brooklin 7 H wy Newcastle Lake Bowmanville Village Ontario

Legend StudyArea m N d x m . n o i

0 1.5 3 t a c o L a e Kilometres r A y d u t S - 1 g

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment i F \ 1 t

Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 S A A \ s t

over the Nonquon River Class EA r o p e

Township of Scugog, Ontario R _ 1 0 \ n

Bridge g i s e D \ S Location of Study Area I

No. 9 G \ k r o W - 0 0 9 Datum: NAD83 UTM17 \ s e

June g d Source: Web Mapping Service i 1:50,000 r B

2017 g

www.giscoecache.lrc.gov.on.ca o g u c S

P#: 60320440 V#: 0 4 4 0 M 2 P

3 6 0 1 6 : \ 9 S

Figure 1 1 T : 5 C

E 7 J 1 0 O 2 / R 6 P \ 0 : / 3 O

2 :

: This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or n d o i e t v relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by a a c o S l

governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, e p t a to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. a M D Seagrave Bridge Bridge No. 9 d x m . a e r A y d

H u

w t

y S

Cambray Sturgeon - 1 Goose

Lake 2 2

& g Woodville H Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment i w 4 Lake Lake F

Simcoe \ 8 y

1 3 Pigeon t 5 8 Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 S y 4 A Hw Lindsay m A Lake \ Cannington Hw s t H y r w over the Nonquon River Class EA

Legend o 7 y Oakwood & 35 p 1 y 7 8 2 Hw e y 4 y 7 Hw Hw R Pefferlaw Manilla Omemee Township of Scugog, Ontario _ Sutton Scugog 1 0 StudyArea Little \ Pigeon n g

Britain River i s

m Georgina River e

Sunderland H D \ w S y Study Areas in Detail I 3 5 G \

Seagrave k N r Bridge Janetville o W H - w Leaskdale 0 y 0 Zephyr Lake 7 Bethany 9

\ & s Datum: NAD83 UTM 17 1 Scugog e 2 June g d i 1:1,000 Source: LIO 2016 r B

Bridge 7A

y g Hw th 2017 No. 9 r o

o g N Mount Albert u

5 c H Port 1 w 1 S

Pontypool y y - Uxbridge Perry P#: 60320440 V#: 4 a 8 w 0

h 4

g 4

i M 0

H A

2 1 3 4 0 : 6 5 \ 3 S Figure 2 : T 1 1

B C

E a 7 l J d 1 w 0 O i n 2

/ R S 6

P t

0 12.5 25 50 Whitchurch-Stouffville \ Orono 0 : N / 6 O

2 :

Claremont Clarington

Stouffville : n d

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or o i e

Brooklin t v relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by a a Meters c o S l

Newcastle governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, e p t a Bowmanville Village a 7 to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. y M D Hw Oshawa Seagrave Bridge Bridge No. 9 H

Cambray Sturgeon 1 Goose

Lake 2

& Woodville H w 4 Lake Lake

Simcoe 8 y

3 Pigeon 5 8 y 4 Hw Lindsay m Lake Cannington Hw H y w

Legend 7 y Oakwood & 35 1 y 7 8 2 Hw y 4 y 7 Hw Hw Pefferlaw Manilla Omemee Sutton Scugog Little Pigeon

Britain River

m Georgina River Sunderland H w

y 3 5

Janetville H w Leaskdale y Zephyr Lake 7 Bethany

& 1 Scugog 2

y Hw th r

o N Mount Albert

5 H Port 1 w 1

Pontypool y y Uxbridge Perry 4 a 8 w

g i

H Figure 3

B a l d w i n

Whitchurch-Stouffville Orono N

Claremont Clarington

Stouffville

Brooklin Newcastle Bowmanville Village 7 y Hw Oshawa Seagrave Bridge Bridge No. 9 H

Cambray Sturgeon 1 Goose

Lake 2

& Woodville H w 4 Lake Lake

Simcoe 8 y

3 Pigeon 5 8 y 4 Hw Lindsay m Lake Cannington Hw H y w

Legend 7 y Oakwood & 35 1 y 7 8 2 Hw y 4 y 7 Hw Hw Pefferlaw Manilla Omemee Sutton Scugog Little Pigeon

Britain River

Georgina River

Sunderland H w

y 3 5

Janetville H w Leaskdale y Zephyr Lake 7 Bethany

& 1 Scugog 2

y Hw th r

o N Mount Albert

5 H Port 1 w 1

Pontypool y y Uxbridge Perry 4 a 8 w

g i

H Figure 4

B a l d w i n

Whitchurch-Stouffville Orono N

Claremont Clarington

Stouffville

Brooklin Newcastle Bowmanville Village 7 y Hw Oshawa Seagrave Bridge Bridge No. 9 d x m . 7 7 8 1 c i r o t H s

w i

y H

Cambray Sturgeon - 1 Goose

Lake 5 2

& g Woodville H Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment i w 4 Lake Lake F

Simcoe \ 8 y

1 3 Pigeon t 5 8 Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 S y 4 A Hw Lindsay m A Lake \ Cannington Hw s t H y r w over the Nonquon River Class EA

Legend o 7 y Oakwood & 35 p 1 y 7 8 2 Hw e y 4 y 7 Hw Hw R Pefferlaw Manilla Omemee Township of Scugog, Ontario _ Sutton Scugog 1 0 StudyArea Little \ Pigeon n g

Britain River i s

m Georgina River e Sunderland H Portion of J.H. Beers and Co. Illustrated D \ w S

y I 3 5 G \

Seagrave k N r

Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario o Bridge Janetville W H - w Leaskdale 0 y 0 Zephyr Lake 7 Bethany 9 Datum: NAD83 UTM 17 \ & s

1 Scugog e 2 June Source: Illustrated Historical Atlas g d i 1:30,000 r of the County of Ontario, B

Bridge 7A

y g Hw th 2017 No. 9 r o

o J.H. Beers and Co., 1877 g N Mount Albert u

5 c H Port 1 w 1 S

Pontypool y y - Uxbridge Perry P#: 60320440 V#: 4 a 8 w 0

h 4

ig 4 0 H M 2 P

3 0 0 3 6 : \ 8 S

Figure 5 1 T : 1

B C

E a 7 l J d 1 w 0 O i n 2

/ R S 6

P t

0 375 750 1,500 Whitchurch-Stouffville \ Orono 0 : N / 6 O

2 :

Claremont Clarington

Stouffville : n d

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or o i e

Brooklin t v relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by a a Meters c o S l

i m

c o Ma e Seagrave Bridge Bridge No. 9 R

d Bs ZZ Tsl Ll Bs P e tt e rr b o rr o u g h

R D rr u m ll ii n F ii e ll d i v e S r u S n t M Bs t V r C a C l e l do e r d Pa y a R 6 L r d i N R d R m g o i e d R o n g s q e 6 a u n o D o n r Is S D a t r b e l la C r t Wsc C o S ZZ ry i e m Brsl ll S c

t o

K e S B.L. en Tsl e t S t Bl B.L. 2 Ba S c h o m b e r g Gsl nk Rd S c h o m b e r g Gsl Bs C ll a y P ll a ii n s

S t u R b e 8 in i R L v og S c h o m b e r g d ug S c h o m b e r g Gul e Sc r

S C ll a y P ll a ii n s t

M P e t e r b o r o u g h e P e t e r b o r o u g h a d

o D r u m l i n F i e l d w i v e r D r u m l i n F i e l d G R B.L. n r B.L. o e Wsc S e out u n h cre q C s t n

r o

Bl t D r N Brsl B.L. ane n L d Nonq kso ce R uon Ri Psl Coo Bru v B.L. er

B.L. ZZ Gsl

Bs de Ave Bl gla bin Bl M Ro Bs S h e r S c h o m b e r g 12 r S c h o m b e r g 8 i Scl n St g h t c ea o C ll a y P ll a ii n s R n D Ma r Rd Bl view er d Riv x m . s l H i

Wsc o w

y S

Cambray Sturgeon - 1 Goose

Lake 6 2

& g Woodville H Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment i w 4 Lake Lake F

Simcoe \ 8 y

1 3 Pigeon t 5 8 Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 S y 4 A Hw Lindsay m A Lake \ Cannington Hw s t H y r w over the Nonquon River Class EA

Legend o 7 y Oakwood & 35 p 1 y 7 8 2 Hw e y 4 y 7 Hw Hw R Pefferlaw Manilla Omemee Township of Scugog, Ontario _ Sutton Scugog 1 0 StudyArea Permanent Stream Gul - Guerin, Loam Little \ Pigeon n g

Britain River i s

m Georgina River e

Sunderland H Natural Environment and D \ w S

Water Features Intermittent Stream Ll - Lyons, Loam y I 3 5 G \

Seagrave k N r

Physiographic Characteristics o Bridge Janetville W H - w Lake Soils M - Muck, Organic Leaskdale 0 y 0 Zephyr Lake 7 Bethany 9

\ & s Datum: NAD83 UTM 17 1 Scugog e 2 June g d i River B.L. - Bottom Land Ma - Marsh, Organic 1:15,000 Source: LIO 2016, Ontario r B

Bridge 7A

y g Hw th 2017 No. 9 r Soil Report Ontario County 1956 o

o g N Mount Albert u

5 c H Port 1 w

Pond Bl - Bondhead, Loam S Psl - Pontypool, Sandy Loam 1 Pontypool y y - Uxbridge Perry P#: 60320440 V#: 4 a 8 w 0

h 4

g 4 i M 0

H A

2 1 Reservoir Brsl - Brighton, Sandy Loam Scl - Smithfield, Clay Loam 3 4 0 : 6 8 \ 4 S Figure 6 : T 0 1

B C

E Canal Bs - Brookston, Sandy Loam a 7 Tsl - Tecumseth, Sandy Loam l J d 1 w 0 O i n 2

/ R S 6

P t

0 200 400 800 Whitchurch-Stouffville \ Orono 0 : N / 7 O

Beaver Pond Dsl - Donnybrook, Sandy Loam 2 Wsc - Waupoos, Clay Loam : Claremont Clarington

Stouffville : n d

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or o i e

Brooklin t v relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by a a Meters c o S l

Newcastle governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, Kettle Lake Gsl - Granby, Sandy Loam e p

ZZ - Water t a Bowmanville Village a 7 to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. y M D Hw Oshawa Seagrave Bridge Bridge No. 9 d x m . s t l u s e R

H 1

w t

y S

Cambray Sturgeon - 1 Goose

Lake 7 2

& g Woodville H Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment i w 4 Lake Lake F

Simcoe \ 8 y

1 3 Pigeon t 5 8 Seagrave Bridge and Bridge No. 9 S y 4 A Hw Lindsay m A Lake \ Cannington Hw s t H y r w over the Nonquon River Class EA

Legend o 7 y Oakwood & 35 p 1 y 7 8 2 Hw e y 4 y 7 Hw Hw R Pefferlaw Manilla Omemee Township of Scugog, Ontario _ Sutton Scugog 1

3 0 (! Photo Location and Direction Little \ > Pigeon n g

Britain River i s

m Georgina River e

Sunderland H D \ w S StudyArea y Results of the Stage 1 Property Inspection I 3 5 G \

Seagrave k N r Bridge Janetville o W H - w Leaskdale 0 Visually Confirmed Disturbance y 0 Zephyr Lake 7 Bethany 9

\ & s Datum: NAD83 UTM 17 1 Scugog e 2 June g d i Areas of Natural Slope 1:750 Source: LIO 2016 r B

Bridge 7A

y g Hw th 2017 No. 9 r o

o g N Mount Albert u

5 c H Port 1 w 1 S

Pontypool Areas Requiring Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment y y - Uxbridge Perry P#: 60320440 V#: 4 a 8 w 0

h 4

g 4

i M 0

H A

2 1 3

Permanently Wet Area 0 0 : 6 2 \ 3 S Figure 7 : T 1 1

B C

E a 7 l J d 1 w 0 O i n 2

/ R S 6

P t

0 10 20 40 Whitchurch-Stouffville \ Orono 0 : N / 7 O

2 :

Claremont Clarington

Stouffville : n d

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or o i e

Brooklin t v relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by a a Meters c o S l

About AECOM AECOM (NYSE: ACM) is built to deliver a better world. We design, build, finance and operate infrastructure assets for governments, businesses and organizations in more than 150 countries. As a fully integrated firm, we connect knowledge and experience across our global network of experts to help clients solve their most complex challenges. From high-performance buildings and infrastructure, to resilient communities and environments, to stable and secure nations, our work is transformative, differentiated and vital. A Fortune 500 firm, AECOM companies had revenue of approximately US$19 billion during the 12 months ended June 30, 2015. See how we deliver what others can only imagine at aecom.com and @AECOM.

Contact Adria Grant, MA, CAHP Manager, Cultural Resources T + (519) 963-5869 E [email protected]

aecom.com