DOCSLIB.ORG

Intro Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

REPORT ON STAGE 4 SALVAGE EXCAVATION OF THE SERENA SITE (AhGx-274) ALLISON ESTATES, SUBDIVISION (25T-91014), CITY OF HAMILTON, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON, ONTARIO Submitted to Urbex Engineering Limited Ontario Ministry of Culture 161 Rebecca Street 400 University Avenue, 4th Floor Hamilton, Ontario L8R 1B9 Toronto, Ontario M7A 2R9 Tel: (905) 522-3328 Tel: (416) 314-7100 Prepared by ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. 528 Bathurst Street Toronto, Ontario M5S 2P9 Tel: (416) 966-1069 Fax: (416) 966-9723 Email: [email protected] Website: www.archaeologicalservices.on.ca Edited by Ronald F. Williamson Licence #95-020, #96-019, #97-017, and #98-014 ASI File #97UR-02 June 2004 SECRETS IN THE SOIL The soil carries secrets of people long ago, the way they lived, the way they died and the types of crops they’d grow. You can see the change of colors as you shovel shine the dirt, a firepit, some pottery, or a piece of Erie chert. You can see how dark the stains are of the posts that stood so strong, once keeping out the enemy, relationships gone wrong. On moonlit nights, I hear the sounds, of the village long ago, where native people lived and died and watched their children grow. I hear sounds from the fire as it cooks the hunters catch, in pots that carry on their clay, a decorators etch. I hear the sounds of children, as they laugh so heartily, while they try to make a pipe, some beads, or piece of pottery. I hear the chipping of the chert, by hands so skilled and strong, I hear the drums, the calls, the cries and sometimes, even their song. Oh, how I long to go back in time, when these people shared the land, But, I must be content to see, their remnants in my hand. For beneath the cool, moist, darkened soil, these secrets they do lay, to be uncovered by strained hands, in the archaeologists’ day. -Heidi Scarfone 1997 Dedicated to Bruce, Jack, and Shaun and the other devoted archaeologists from the Serena Site. With much thanks and appreciation. The knowledge that you shared with my children and myself, has helped us to appreciate even more, the richness of our local history. i Project Personnel Project Director: Dr. Ronald F. Williamson Field Directors: Dr. Shaun J. Austin Dr. Bruce M. Welsh Field Archaeologists: Mr. Andrew Allan Ms. Jane Cottrill Ms. April DeLaurier Ms. Eva MacDonald Mr. Rob MacDonald Dr. Stephen Monckton Mr. David Robertson Ms. Deborah Steiss Mr. Rob Von Bitter Gradall Operator: Mr. Jack Rooney Report Preparation: Ms. Caroline Theriault Ms. Irena Miklavcic Artifact Processing: Ms. Monicke Thibeault Artifact Photography: Mr. Rob Pihl Ms. Keli Watson Graphics: Mr. Andrew Allan Mr. Andrew Clish ii Table of Contents Secrets in the Soil.....................................................................i Project Personnel .................................................................... ii Table of Contents....................................................................iii List of Figures ...................................................................... vi List of Tables....................................................................... vi List of Plates ...................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Shaun J. Austin and Bruce M. Welsh PROJECT BACKGROUND AND REPORT ORGANIZATION ................................... 1 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AT THE SERENA SITE (AhGx-274) .............................. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ....................................................... 3 RESEARCH METHODS ........................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2 SETTLEMENT PATTERNS Shaun J. Austin and Ronald F. Williamson INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 6 VILLAGE PLAN ................................................................ 6 HOUSE 1 ..................................................................... 7 HOUSE 2 ..................................................................... 9 HOUSE 3 .................................................................... 12 HOUSE 4 .................................................................... 15 HOUSE 5 .................................................................... 19 HOUSE 6 .................................................................... 21 EXTERIOR FENCES ............................................................ 23 EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AREAS .................................................. 23 EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AREA 1 (MIDDEN 1) ............................................ 23 EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AREA 2 ..................................................... 23 EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AREA 3 ..................................................... 24 EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AREA 4 ..................................................... 24 EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AREA 5 ..................................................... 25 EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AREA 6 ..................................................... 25 EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AREA 7 ..................................................... 26 EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AREA 8 ..................................................... 26 EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AREA 9 ..................................................... 26 EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AREA 10 .................................................... 27 EXTERIOR ACTIVITY AREA 11 .................................................... 27 CHAPTER 3 CERAMIC ARTIFACTS SECTION 1 CERAMIC VESSELS Robert H. Pihl and Shaun J. Austin INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 28 VESSEL RIMS ................................................................ 28 DESCRIPTIONS .............................................................. 29 iii Table of Contents (cont'd.) SECTION 1 CERAMIC VESSELS (cont’d.) TRADITIONAL TYPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS ............................................ 32 CERAMIC CHRONOLOGY SUMMARY ............................................... 34 SURFACE TREATMENT ......................................................... 34 CERAMICS WITH APPLIED PIGMENT ............................................... 34 CASTELLATIONS .............................................................. 35 JUVENILE CERAMICS ........................................................... 35 SECTION 2 CERAMIC PIPES Eva M. MacDonald DISCUSSION ................................................................. 36 CHAPTER 4 LITHIC ARTIFACTS SECTION 1 FLAKED STONE Shaun J. Austin INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 38 RAW MATERIALS ............................................................. 38 FORMAL FLAKED STONE TOOLS Projectile Points ....................................................... 38 Drills ............................................................... 41 Gravers.............................................................. 41 Spokeshaves.......................................................... 41 Wedges.............................................................. 42 Burins............................................................... 42 Scrapers............................................................. 42 Crude Bifaces ......................................................... 42 FLAKES AND FLAKE FRAGMENTS Primary Thinning, Secondary Knapping, Secondary Retouch, Bipolar and Shatter . 43 Utilized and Retouched Flakes ........................................... 43 CORES ..................................................................... 44 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION ........................................................ 44 THERMAL ALTERATION ........................................................ 44 FLAKED STONE SUMMARY ...................................................... 46 SECTION 2 GROUND STONE AND EXPEDIENT TOOLS Shaun J. Austin DISCUSSION ................................................................. 47 CHAPTER 5 FLORAL ANALYSIS Stephen G. Monckton INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 48 ANALYTICAL METHODS ........................................................ 48 RESULTS .................................................................... 48 WOOD CHARCOAL ............................................................ 52 iv Table of Contents (cont'd.) CHAPTER 6 FAUNAL REMAINS AND WORKED BONE Bev J. Garner DISCUSSION ................................................................. 53 CHAPTER 7 CREMATED HUMAN REMAINS Deborah Merritt INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 55 NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS ....................................................... 56 AGE-AT-DEATH ............................................................... 56 SEX DETERMINATION .......................................................... 56 CREMATION CONDITIONS ....................................................... 57 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 58 CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Shaun J. Austin and Ronald F. Williamson THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXT OF THE SERENA SITE . ...................... 59 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................. 62 PLATES ......................................................................... 65 APPENDIX A1: CERAMICS CATALOGUE APPENDIX A2: CERAMIC VESSELS INVENTORY APPENDIX B: PIPES CATALOGUE APPENDIX C1: CHIPPED LITHICS CATALOGUE APPENDIX C2: GROUND STONE AND EXPEDIENT TOOLS CATALOGUE APPENDIX D: FAUNAL REMAINS INVENTORY AND BONE TOOL CATALOGUE APPENDIX E: CREMATED HUMAN REMAINS INVENTORY v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Location of Study Area .................................................
Recommended publications
  • General Issues Committee Agenda Package

    General Issues Committee Agenda Package

    ​ City of Hamilton GENERAL ISSUES COMMITTEE ADDENDUM Meeting #: 19-020 Date: October 16, 2019 Time: 9:30 a.m. Location: Council Chambers, Hamilton City Hall 71 Main Street West Stephanie Paparella, Legislative Coordinator (905) 546-2424 ext. 3993 6. DELEGATION REQUESTS *6.1 Nicole Smith, Extinction Rebellion Hamilton, respecting Item 11.1 - Feasibility of a Municipal Carbon Tax to Generate Revenue from Fossil Fuel Pipelines within the Boundaries of the City of Hamilton (For the October 16th GIC) *6.2 Mike Wood, Hamilton ACORN, respecting Item 10.7 - Barton Kenilworth Tax Increment Grant Program - 301-303 Barton Street East, Hamilton (PED19192) (For the October 16th GIC) 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS *9.1 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program - Community, Culture and Recreation Stream Intake (FCS19080) (City Wide) MOVED FROM ITEM 10.1 - PRESENTATION ADDED 12. NOTICES OF MOTION *12.1 Multi-Use Community Hub for Diverse and Marginalized Communities 14. PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL Page 2 of 30 *14.4 Airport Sub-Committee Report 19-004 - September 20, 2019 - Item 2 - REVISED Appendix "B" to TradePort / City Lease Negotiation Information Report (PED19084(a)) (City Wide) Pursuant to Section 8.1, Sub-section (k) of the City's Procedural By-law 18-270; and, Section 239(2), Sub-section (k) of the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, as the subject matters pertain to a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board. PLEASE REFER TO ITEM 10.2 FOR THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS REPORT.
  • Rank of Pops

    Rank of Pops

    Table 1.3 Basic Pop Trends County by County Census 2001 - place names pop_1996 pop_2001 % diff rank order absolute 1996-01 Sorted by absolute pop growth on growth pop growth - Canada 28,846,761 30,007,094 1,160,333 4.0 - Ontario 10,753,573 11,410,046 656,473 6.1 - York Regional Municipality 1 592,445 729,254 136,809 23.1 - Peel Regional Municipality 2 852,526 988,948 136,422 16.0 - Toronto Division 3 2,385,421 2,481,494 96,073 4.0 - Ottawa Division 4 721,136 774,072 52,936 7.3 - Durham Regional Municipality 5 458,616 506,901 48,285 10.5 - Simcoe County 6 329,865 377,050 47,185 14.3 - Halton Regional Municipality 7 339,875 375,229 35,354 10.4 - Waterloo Regional Municipality 8 405,435 438,515 33,080 8.2 - Essex County 9 350,329 374,975 24,646 7.0 - Hamilton Division 10 467,799 490,268 22,469 4.8 - Wellington County 11 171,406 187,313 15,907 9.3 - Middlesex County 12 389,616 403,185 13,569 3.5 - Niagara Regional Municipality 13 403,504 410,574 7,070 1.8 - Dufferin County 14 45,657 51,013 5,356 11.7 - Brant County 15 114,564 118,485 3,921 3.4 - Northumberland County 16 74,437 77,497 3,060 4.1 - Lanark County 17 59,845 62,495 2,650 4.4 - Muskoka District Municipality 18 50,463 53,106 2,643 5.2 - Prescott and Russell United Counties 19 74,013 76,446 2,433 3.3 - Peterborough County 20 123,448 125,856 2,408 2.0 - Elgin County 21 79,159 81,553 2,394 3.0 - Frontenac County 22 136,365 138,606 2,241 1.6 - Oxford County 23 97,142 99,270 2,128 2.2 - Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Municipality 24 102,575 104,670 2,095 2.0 - Perth County 25 72,106 73,675
  • Water Quality Monitoring

    Water Quality Monitoring

    THE STORY OF THE CHEDOKE WATERSHED Monitoring Water Quality Summer 2015 Edward Berkelaar Darren Brouwer Janelle Vander Hout Nitrogen (N) & Phosphorous (P) THE STORY OF THE CHEDOKE WATERSHED Nitrogen (N) & Phosphorous (P) www.redeemer.ca/academics/offices- and-departments/our-faculty/edward- berkelaar/ - links to a talk on the history and environmental issues of our use of nitrogen THE STORY OF THE CHEDOKE WATERSHED Nutrient Atmosphere Cycling N2 + - Soil NH4 & NO3 + P fertilizers THE STORY OF THE CHEDOKE WATERSHED THE STORY OF THE CHEDOKE WATERSHED Cootes Paradise & Hamilton Harbor Stressed by high nutrient levels (among many other stressors) THE STORY OF THE CHEDOKE WATERSHED Water Quality Monitoring . Project-based learning in Analytical Chemistry course at Redeemer . Monitored multiple sites in Chedoke watershed . Fall 2012, Fall 2014, (Fall 2016) . Expanded water quality monitoring project last summer (2015) . Expanded number of sites . Weekly sampling THE STORY OF THE CHEDOKE WATERSHED Redeemer Water Monitoring Project www.redeemer.ca/academics/offices-and-departments/academic-departments/chemistry- and-environmental-studies-department/research THE STORY OF THE CHEDOKE WATERSHED THE STORY OF THE CHEDOKE WATERSHED Water Quality Monitoring . At the sample sites… . Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen . Estimates of creek depth, width flow . In the lab… . Nitrate, phosphate, chloride . Organic matter (biological oxygen demand) . Bacteria (E. coli and total coliform) THE STORY OF THE CHEDOKE WATERSHED Phosphate Nitrate + Nitrite Scenic Falls Phosphate Nitrate + Nitrite Princess Falls Phosphate Nitrate + Nitrite Mountview Falls Phosphate Nitrate + Nitrite Sanatorium Falls Phosphate Nitrate + Nitrite Westcliffe Falls Phosphate Nitrate + Nitrite Cliffview Falls Phosphate Nitrate + Nitrite Chedoke Falls Phosphate Nitrate + Nitrite Princess Point Rain events Total Coliform Bacteria E.
  • THE CHRONOLOGICAL POSITION of the CRS SITE, SIMCOE COUNTY, ONTARIO David R. Bush

    THE CHRONOLOGICAL POSITION of the CRS SITE, SIMCOE COUNTY, ONTARIO David R. Bush

    Bush: THE CRS SITE 17 THE CHRONOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE CRS SITE, SIMCOE COUNTY, ONTARIO David R. Bush ABSTRACT Through the application of the coefficient of similarity test (Emerson, 1966, 1968) on the ceramics excavated from the CRS site, the chronological position and cultural affiliation of this site was established. The ceramic vessel and pipe analyses of the recovered materials indicate the site to be a very Late Prehistoric Huron village occupied between A.D. 1550 and A.D. 1580. INTRODUCTION The preliminary excavation of the CRS site (from 1968-1973) was undertaken with the hopes of establishing the site's proper cultural and temporal position. Further studies of cultural processes could then proceed once the cultural and chronological position of the CRS site was evaluated. It has been the aim of this research to utilize the coefficient of similarity test as one method of determining the chronological placement and cultural affiliation of this site. The following is the study of the ceramics excavated from the CRS site. Simcoe County, Ontario (Figure 1, taken from Emerson, 1968, p. 63). SITE DESCRIPTION The exact location of the CRS site has been withheld by personal request of the landowner. The site lies approximately one-half mile east of Hog Creek and approximately 3-1 /2 miles south of Sturgeon Bay. The site sits within the 900 foot contour line about 320 feet above the water level of Georgian Bay. Within a 2 mile radius of the site the soils are generally deep, moderately well drained, and have a good water holding capacity.
  • Capital Projects Works-In-Progress Review Sub-Committee Agenda Package

    Capital Projects Works-In-Progress Review Sub-Committee Agenda Package

    City of Hamilton CAPITAL PROJECTS WORK-IN-PROGRESS REVIEW SUB-COMMITTEE Meeting #: 20-001 Date: January 27, 2020 Time: 1:00 p.m. Location: Council Chambers, Hamilton City Hall 71 Main Street West Angela McRae, Legislative Coordinator (905) 546-2424 ext. 5987 Pages 1. CEREMONIAL ACTIVITIES 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Added Items, if applicable, will be noted with *) 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 4.1 September 26, 2019 3 5. COMMUNICATIONS 6. DELEGATION REQUESTS 7. CONSENT ITEMS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS / DELEGATIONS 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS 10.1 Capital Project Closing Report as of September 30, 2019 5 (FCS19078(a)) (City Wide) 10.2 Capital Projects Status Report (Excluding Public Works) as of 25 September 30, 2019 (FCS19079(a)) (City Wide) Page 2 of 144 10.3 Public Works - Capital Projects Status Report as of September 30, 2019 61 (FCS19077(a)) (City Wide) 11. MOTIONS 12. NOTICES OF MOTION 13. GENERAL INFORMATION / OTHER BUSINESS 14. PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 15. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 of 144 4.1 CAPITAL PROJECTS WORK-IN-PROGRESS REVIEW SUB-COMMITTEE MINUTES 19-006 11:00 a.m. September 26, 2019 Council Chambers Hamilton City Hall Present: Councillors M. Pearson (Chair), J.P. Danko and N. Nann Absent: Councillor M Wilson – City Business THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE REFERRED TO THE GENERAL ISSUES COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION: 1. Capital Projects Status Report (Excluding Public Works) as of June 30, 2019 (FCS19079) (City Wide) (Item 10.1) (Danko/Nann) That the Capital Projects Status Report (excluding Public Works), as of June 30, 2019, attached as Appendix “A” to Report FCS19079, be received.
  • 7.0 Design Considerations & Branding

    7.0 Design Considerations & Branding

    Appendix A 7.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS & BRANDING Report PW18053 7.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS & BRANDING he Recreational Trails Master Plan (RTMP) recommends Ta network design that considers, among other elements, trail lighting, trail signage, trailheads and trail amenities (seating and rest areas, and bicycle parking), and public art along trails (See Chapter 3.1.2 Contextual Integration). In order to create a destination trail, these elements have been examined to create a consistent theme, or brand for the length of the trail. This section presents the recommended amenity and branding concept for the Mountain Brow Trail. 275 Appendix A MOUNTAIN BROW TRAIL FEASIBILITY MASTER PLAN Report PW18053 Interpretive signage at Hamilton Waterfront Trail 7.1 Trail Branding & Wayfinding One of the most important elements distances, key features), and rules and of the Mountain Brow Trail is ensuring regulations for the overall network. They that sections of the trail are built with a serve as a landmark for trail users. consistent brand and visual identity. This will help to create a cohesive, continuous • Route Confirmation & Directional and attractive facility. Signs – These signs assist trail users in Full Standard Logo locating and following along a particular As part of the feasibility master plan, an cycling facility, which may require turns. overall brand for the project has been They also confirm to users that they developed. The colours and logo identified are still on a specific cycling route, through the trail brand (Exhibit 31) can particularly on longer sections. be translated to a variety of wayfinding signage & pavement marking applications. • Interpretive Signage – Interpretive signage is typically placed at locations The following wayfinding & branding along trails that signify a historical Modified Logo signage elements should be considered feature, environmental feature, or feature for the Mountain Brow Trail, in accordance that is culturally significant to Canadian or with the Recreational Trails Master Plan: local heritage.
  • Water Quality Monitoring of the Chedoke Creek Watershed Analytical Chemistry, Fall 2014, Redeemer University College

    Water Quality Monitoring of the Chedoke Creek Watershed Analytical Chemistry, Fall 2014, Redeemer University College

    Water Quality Monitoring of the Chedoke Creek Watershed Analytical Chemistry, Fall 2014, Redeemer University College What we did and why: The lab portion of our analytical chemistry course focused on monitoring the quality of water at different locations throughout the Chedoke Creek watershed which drains into Cootes Paradise (highlighted in blue in the map below). Over the past decades, significant efforts have gone into restoring Cootes Paradise to its original wetland, in hopes that plants, fish, birds, and other wildlife may thrive and flourish. However, Cootes Paradise suffers from a number of environmental stressors, including sewage contamination and excess nutrients coming from the wider watershed which can cause eutrophication, a condition in which there is undesirable algae growth and depletion of dissolved oxygen in the water. The Chedoke Creek and its tributaries run through a highly urbanized area of Hamilton and are known to be contaminated with sewage likely caused by cross-connections between sanitary and storm sewers in homes on Hamilton Mountain. By monitoring the water quality at specific locations within the watershed, we hope to raise awareness of this issue as well as to provide further information to quantify the problem and identify particular problem areas so that the City of Hamilton can continue to address this complex issue. How often and where: Throughout the semester, samples were collected on six occasions from five sites throughout the Chedoke Creek watershed, all along the Niagara Escarpment and easily accessible from the Chedoke Radial Trail (Bruce Trail). These sites included Scenic Falls, Princess Falls, Mountview Falls, Westcliffe & Cliffview Falls, and Chedoke Falls (see map below).
  • History of the Simcoe County Region Indigenization Column: May 17, 2017

    History of the Simcoe County Region Indigenization Column: May 17, 2017

    History of the Simcoe County Region Indigenization Column: May 17, 2017 If anyone has been to the Simcoe County Museum on Highway 26, they will have seen the beautiful Huron-Wendat artifacts and replica longhouse they have on permanent display. With all the discussion around Anishnaabeg (Ojibwe people) and the Anishnaabemowin (Ojibwe language) program, many may be confused as to why there are different nations in the same region. Hopefully, I can shed some light on this question. This region was once inhabited by the Huron-Wendat nations, until about 350 years ago. The Huron- Wendat are a confederacy of five Haudenosaunee-speaking (Iroquois) nations. They are the; Attinniaoenten ("people of the bear"), Hatingeennonniahak ("makers of cords for nets"), Arendaenronnon ("people of the lying rock"), Atahontaenrat ("two white ears" i.e., “deer people”) and Ataronchronon ("people of the bog"). These nations had once been as far south as the Virginias and Ohio Valley, but had settled in this region pre-contact. These nations came into contact with the French settlers in the early 1600s, and it was this contact that caused a great deal of epidemics such as measles, influenza, and smallpox amongst the nations. The term ‘Huron’ comes from a demeaning nickname for the nation, which means ‘boar’s head’ in French and was used in reference to ruffians. The Wendat were enemies of the five Haudenosaunee nations (later joined by the Tuscarora in 1722 and became the Six Nations we know today). By the mid-1600s the Wendat population had been reduced by half, from approximately 20,000 to 9,000 by the epidemics brought by the French settlers living in close quarters with the nations.
  • How Well-Protected Are Greenlands in Simcoe County?

    How Well-Protected Are Greenlands in Simcoe County?

    HOW WELL-PROTECTED ARE GREENLANDS IN SIMCOE COUNTY? Proportion of total land area in each 'level of protection'. County of Simcoe July 2019 To see the full legend, go to bit.ly/greenlandsreport. Map produced by Assim Sayed Mohammed and Kirby Calvert, Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Guelph, on behalf of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition. HOW WELL-PROTECTED ARE GREENLANDS IN SIMCOE COUNTY? The Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition’s greenlands[i] mapping project seeks to identify how well- protected Simcoe County forests, wetlands and shorelines are by analyzing the strength of the policies that protect them, and mapping the results of our findings. Cartographers created four maps for this research, showing the land use mix in Simcoe County, the breakdown of the levels of protection, the locations of aggregate resources that could eat into the best protected greenlands if extraction were permitted, and the features identified in our “Best Protected” category. What should we have? Forest cover 50% forest cover or more of the watershed is likely to support most potential species, and healthy aquatic systems.[ii] Simcoe County has 22%, but is losing forest cover. Wetlands The greater of (a) 10% of each major watershed and 6% of each subwatershed, or (b) 40% of the historic watershed wetland coverage, should be protected and restored, and no net loss of wetlands. [iii] Simcoe County has 14% wetland cover based on our analysis, and approximately half of its historic wetland cover.[iv] Simcoe County is losing wetlands. [v] Simcoe County’s land use mix does not meet ideal greenlands protection targets, but it is possible to get it right in Simcoe County, and permanently protect an effective Natural Heritage System to buffer our waters and ecosystem from the impacts of climate change and development.
  • Identifying Land Acquisition Strategies for Simcoe County Forests a Review of Securement Strategies in Ontario

    Identifying Land Acquisition Strategies for Simcoe County Forests a Review of Securement Strategies in Ontario

    Identifying Land Acquisition Strategies for Simcoe County Forests A Review of Securement Strategies in Ontario by Anna Ketchum A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Forest Conservation Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design University of Toronto © Copyright by Anna Ketchum 2020 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Graeme Davis and the rest of the forestry staff at the County of Simcoe for the opportunity to learn and work in such an incredible role for my MFC internship and for giving me direction on a research topic for my capstone. Thank you to Dr. Anne Koven for providing guidance, feedback, and support throughout this process. Finally, thank you to my peers and friends in the MFC program for their kindness, camaraderie, and support. 2 EXCUTIVE SUMMARY Simcoe County Forests are municipally owned, and managed forested lands located in Central Ontario, originally established and expanded through the Agreement Forest Program. Historically, Simcoe County acquired and restored marginal agricultural land, known as ‘wastelands’ which were the result of the reduction in forest cover, erosion, and depletion of topsoil by wind and rain. While the restoration of degraded agricultural land and expansion of revenue from timber sales was the initial priority for the acquisition of County Forests, enhancement of natural heritage and recreational opportunities have become increasingly important priorities for the County. Current land acquisition protocols for the County of Simcoe are based on documentation nearly 25 years old, and with the centennial of the County Forests in 2022, land acquisition priorities should be reviewed. With pressure on the County to increase forest lands due to an influx in population and challenges in maintaining wood flow, the review of land acquisition strategies from similar municipalities in Ontario and conservation organization organizations within Simcoe County could provide insight on how the County may align its management of the municipal forest to meet shared goals.
  • Accessible Capital Package.Pdf

    Accessible Capital Package.Pdf

    2019 Development Charges Background Study – Draft Capital Listings City of Hamilton ________________________ Development Charges Stakeholders Sub-Committee Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 905-272-3600 January 28, 2019 [email protected] Table of Contents Page 1. Services Related to a Highway ....................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Services Related to a Highway ............................................................... 1-2 1.2 Detail Sheets (Prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited) ......................... 1-10 1.3 Facilities ................................................................................................ 1-15 1.4 Vehicles and Equipment ....................................................................... 1-16 2. Fire Protection Services ................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 All Fire Services ...................................................................................... 2-1 3. Police Services ................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 All Police Services .................................................................................. 3-1 4. Parking Services .............................................................................................. 4-3 4.1 All Parking Services ................................................................................ 4-1 5. Airport .............................................................................................................
  • Guelph: a People's Heritage

    Guelph: a People's Heritage

    “Buying a Reid’s Heritage Home” is a long-time Guelph tradition. Since 1978, the Reid’s Heritage Group has expanded that tradition by building homes for thousands of Guelph families, in many of our City’s favourite communities. It all started with Orin Reid building just a few houses in the first year. Today, we are the City’s leading Builder, responsible for building more than one in three new homes constructed in the City of Guelph. From all of us at the Reid’s Heritage Group on this 175 th Birthday, Congratulations & Thank you Guelph. Let’s keep growing together! BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS OF FINE COMMUNITIES www.reidsheritagegroup.com CaringCaring forfor Guelph,Guelph, CaringCaring forfor CanadaCanada Beginning in 1883 with Stephen Lett, our first Medical Superintendent and a pioneer in addiction medicine, until today with 650 staff members who work within Homewood Corporation and its three subsidiaries, Homewood has proudly maintained a tradition of caring, innovation and excellence. We’re honoured to have been an integral part of Guelph’s heritage for the past 118 years and proud of our contribution to the health and well-being of the people of Guelph, surrounding communities, and across Canada. As a local, provincial, national and international resource, Homewood is sought after as a leading, quality provider of mental and behavioural health care, and a provider of care for older adults. Homewood Manor, 1915 Occupational therapy Norm Ringler, (1920) Homewood’s chauffeur with Homewood’s first car. Norm is Homewood’s longest- serving employee with 50 years of service. Homewood grounds, 1923 150 Delhi Street • Guelph, ON N1E 6K9 • Tel: (519) 824-1010 • Fax: (519) 824-3361 • www.homewood.org Homewood Health Centre is a 312-bed Oakwood Retirement Communities Inc., Homewood Behavioural Health Corporation mental and behavioural health facility, is a joint venture involving Homewood (HBH) is a Canadian leader with 25 years’ offering unique and highly specialized Corporation and R.B.