Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Part of Lots 27-29, Concession B, and Part of Lots 25-28, Concession C, Former Township of Scarborough, Former York County, now City of ,

ORIGINAL REPORT

Prepared for: Metrolinx 20 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto ON M5J 2W3

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 300W-675 Cochrane Drive Markham ON L3R 0B8

Licensee: Paul David Ritchie, MA License Number: P392 PIF Number: P392-0254-2019

File No. 160540004 May 4, 2020

Sign-off Sheet

This document entitled Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092) was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Stantec”) for the account of Metrolinx (the “Client”). The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The report has been prepared based, in part, on information provided by others as cited in the Reference section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and / or completeness of third party information.

Prepared by (signature) Paul David Ritchie, MA Project Archaeologist

Quality Review (signature) Colin Varley, MA, RPA (P002) Senior Associate, Senior Archaeologist

Independent Review (signature) Tracie Carmichael, BA, B.Ed. (R140) Managing Principal, Environmental Services

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Table of Contents

Project Personnel ...... i Acknowledgments...... i Executive Summary ...... iii Abbreviations ...... v 1.0 Project Context ...... 1.6 1.1 Development Context ...... 1.6 1.2 Historical Context ...... 1.9 1.2.1 Post-contact Indigenous Resources ...... 1.9 1.2.2 Euro-Canadian Archaeological Resources ...... 1.10 1.3 Archaeological Context ...... 1.14 1.3.1 The Natural Environment ...... 1.14 1.3.2 Pre-contact Indigenous Resources...... 1.15 1.3.3 Registered Archaeological Sites and Known Surveys ...... 1.18 1.3.4 City of Toronto Archaeological Management Plan ...... 1.22 1.3.5 Existing Conditions ...... 1.22 1.4 Indigenous Engagement ...... 1.22

2.0 Field Methods ...... 2.1 3.0 Analysis and Conclusions ...... 3.1 4.0 Recommendations ...... 4.1 5.0 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring ...... 5.1 6.0 Advice on Compliance with Legislation ...... 6.4 7.0 Bibliography and Sources ...... 7.1 8.0 Images ...... 8.1 8.1 Photographs ...... 8.1 8.2 Plates ...... 8.6

9.0 Maps ...... 9.1 10.0 Closure ...... 10.1

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

List of Tables Table 1: Landowner Information from the 1860 Map of Scarborough Township ... 1.12 Table 2: Landowner Information from the 1878 Map of Scarborough Township ... 1.13 Table 3: Generalized Cultural Chronology for the Study Area ...... 1.16 Table 4: Previous Archaeological Assessments within 50 metres of the Study Area ...... 1.20 Table 5: Report Review Feedback – Indigenous Engagement ...... 1.23 Table 6: Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring ...... 5.1

List of Figures Figure 1: GO Transit Networks ...... 1.6 Figure 2: Location of Study Area ...... 9.3 Figure 3: Detail of Study Area ...... 9.5 Figure 4: Treaties and Purchases (Adapted from Morris 1943) ...... 9.7 Figure 5: Portion of the 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of York ...... 9.9 Figure 6: Portion of the 1878 Map of Scarboro Township ...... 9.11 Figure 7: Soils Classification ...... 9.13 Figure 8: Archaeological Potential ...... 9.15

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Personnel

Project Manager: Travis Brown, PMP

Environmental Services Lead: Alex Blasko, B.Sc.

Licensed Archaeologist: Paul David Ritchie, MA (P392)

Licensed Field Director: Kristen Hahne, B.Sc. (R1154)

Report Writer: Paul David Ritchie, MA (P392)

GIS Specialist: Brian Cowper, HNC

Quality Review: Colin Varley, MA, RPA (P002)

Independent Review: Tracie Carmichael, BA, B.Ed. (R140)

Acknowledgments

Proponent Contact: Simon Strauss, Metrolinx

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport: Robert von Bitter

c:\users\pritchie\desktop\working\may4\p392-0254-2019_4may2020_re.docx i

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Executive Summary

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Metrolinx to complete a Stage 1 archaeological assessment for the Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project in the City of Toronto, Ontario. The Study Area includes a project footprint that encompasses the total area within which the Project activities may occur, including, but not limited to, rail detours, temporary laydown areas, retaining walls, the new bridge, tunnels, railway realignment, the Scarborough GO Station, and the Corvette multi-use crossing. In addition, for the archaeological assessment the Study Area includes a 50 metre (m) buffer beyond the footprint for potential subsequent adjustments to the project design.

The Stage 1 archaeological assessment property inspection took place on April 3, 2019 and was conducted from the public right-of-way. Based on the results of the background research and property inspection, parts of the Study Area are documented to have been subject to previous extensive and intensive ground disturbance and do not required further archaeological assessment. Other portions of the Study Area however retain potential for the identification and documentation of archaeological resources. The Study Area includes a registered archaeological site, the Heinze site (AkGt-15). While the site may be destroyed by past disturbance, further work is required to confirm whether such disturbance has completely removed archaeological potential or whether evidence of the Heinze site (AkGt-15) remains in situ. Therefore, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment is required for any portion of the Project’s anticipated construction which impacts an area of archaeological potential.

In the event that human remains are encountered during the archaeological topsoil stripping or any phase of construction all work should stop, and the police or coroner and the Bereavement Authority of Ontario on behalf of the Ministry of Government and Consumer Service be notified, until the remains are properly dealt with by the appropriate authorities.

The Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries is asked to review the results presented and to accept this report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork remain subject to Section 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990a) and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed, except by a person holding an archaeological licence.

The Executive Summary highlights key points from the report only; for complete information and findings, the reader should examine the complete report.

iii

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Abbreviations

ASDB Ontario Archaeological Sites Database asl above sea level

BCE before Common Era

CE Common Era cm centimetre(s)

GTR Grand Trunk Railroad m metre(s)

MHSTCI Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries n.d. not dated

O. Reg. Ontario Regulation

PIF Project Information Form

Rail Corridor Stouffville Rail Corridor (GO Uxbridge Subdivision) and Lakeshore East Rail Corridor

ROW right-of-way / rights-of-way

Stantec Stantec Consulting Ltd.

T&NR The Toronto and Nipissing Railway

v Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

1.0 Project Context

1.1 Development Context

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Metrolinx, an agency of the Province of Ontario, to complete a Stage 1 archaeological assessment for the Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (the Project) located in the City of Toronto, Ontario.

Metrolinx is undertaking GO Expansion, a program that will transform GO Rail into a comprehensive regional rapid transit network that will provide faster and more frequent two-way all-day service to core parts of the rail network (refer to Figure 1 for the GO Transit Network). Metrolinx completed a full business case for GO Expansion illustrating its benefits and costs, and core requirements to successfully implement the program (Metrolinx 2018). As part of this program, Metrolinx plans to provide 15-minute, two-way electrified service along the Stouffville and Lakeshore East rail corridors. Infrastructure modifications are being planned to support the introduction of additional trains on the Stouffville and Lakeshore East rail corridors which will enhance safety, on time performance and operational flexibility/reliability.

Figure 1: GO Transit Networks

The Lakeshore East and Stouffville tracks both run east from Union Station along the same corridor until separation at the Scarborough Junction (Figure 2). From the Scarborough Junction, the Stouffville rail corridor runs north to the Lincolnville GO Station in Whitchurch-Stouffville and the Lakeshore East rail corridor runs east to the Oshawa GO Station. The Project is being planned to support Metrolinx’s GO Expansion program along these two rail corridors.

1.6 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

The Scarborough Junction is located just east of the existing Scarborough GO Station, near the intersection of Midland Avenue and St. Clair Avenue East, in the City of Toronto. The purpose of the proposed Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (the Project) is to accommodate the expansion of the Stouffville rail corridor at this location through infrastructure improvements at the Scarborough Junction. These improvements will reduce train conflicts (rail-rail separation) and traffic conflicts (road- rail separation), while maintaining pedestrian and cyclist access (multi-use crossing). The Project will address these three key objectives and facilitate the GO Expansion program, including the construction of a previously approved new track on the Stouffville rail corridor.

Given the service increases and resulting increased train volumes, current track configuration at the Scarborough Junction will not provide effective train movement between the Stouffville and Lakeshore East rail corridors. Currently, north-south trains along the Stouffville rail corridor would need to cross three tracks at-grade, creating potential train conflicts and delays. With future increased service and additional tracks, at-grade switching will not be feasible to maintain train flow. Therefore, a grade separation between the Stouffville rail corridor and the Lakeshore East rail corridor is proposed at the Scarborough Junction for the purpose of removing train conflicts between the Stouffville and Lakeshore East rail corridors and meeting service targets. In addition, a rail-road grade separation at Danforth Road is also proposed to eliminate potential rail-road conflicts. Furthermore, a grade separation is proposed at the current at-grade Corvette Avenue pedestrian crossing to facilitate safe pedestrian and cyclist activity over the rail corridor.

With the planned increase in service along the Stouffville and Lakeshore East lines, Metrolinx anticipates the need to have day-time storage for rail-cars to accommodate passenger demand. Metrolinx is considering several locations for layover areas throughout their system, one of which is the Midland Layover site located in the vicinity of the Scarborough Junction

The addition of the new track on the Stouffville rail corridor may require the relocation of the existing Scarborough GO Station building. The Scarborough GO Station building may be shifted south of its existing location if configuration of the new track on the Stouffville rail corridor cannot avoid the existing building.

The storm and sanitary sewers aligned beneath Danforth Road will require relocation to accommodate the road/rail grade separation at this location. Other utility realignments and relocations will occur where the Project conflicts with existing utilities.

The Study Area for the Project includes a project footprint that encompasses the total area within which the Project activities will occur, including but not limited to rail detours, temporary laydown areas, retaining walls, the new bridge, tunnels, railway realignment,

1.7 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

the Scarborough GO Station building, and the Corvette multi-use crossing. In addition, for the archaeological assessment the Study Area includes a 50 metre (m) buffer beyond the footprint for potential subsequent adjustments to the project design (Figure 2).

This Stage 1 archaeological assessment is being completed as one of the baseline environmental studies for the Project under the Transit Project Assessment Process (Government of Ontario 2015) and will provide information to assist in the development of the conceptual engineering design.

In compliance with the provincial standards and guidelines set out in the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries’ (MHSTCI) 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011), the objectives of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment / Background Study are as follows:

• To provide information about the study area’s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land conditions. • To evaluate the study area’s archaeological potential which will support recommendations for Stage 2 archaeological assessment for the property. • To recommend appropriate strategies for further archaeological assessment, if necessary. To meet these objectives, Stantec archaeologists employed the following research strategies:

• A review of relevant archaeological, historic, and environmental literature pertaining to the Study Area. • A review of the land use history, including pertinent historic maps. • An examination of the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (ASDB) to determine the presence of registered archaeological sites in and around the Project area. • A review of the City of Toronto Interim Archaeological Management Plan (Archaeological Services Inc. [ASI] 2004) to identify predetermined areas of archaeological potential. • A visual property inspection. Access to the Study Area for the purposes of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment was from existing public lands and rights-of-way (ROW).

1.8 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

1.2 Historical Context

1.2.1 Post-contact Indigenous Resources

“Contact” is typically used as a chronological benchmark when discussing Indigenous archaeology in and describes the contact between Indigenous and European cultures. The precise moment of contact is a constant matter of discussion. Contact in what is now the province of Ontario is broadly assigned to the 16th century (Loewen and Chapdelaine 2016).

By the turn of the 16th century, the region of the Study Area appears to have been abandoned of permanent Indigenous settlement. It has long been the understanding of archaeologists that prior to the 16th century the north shore of was occupied by Iroquoian-speaking populations such as the Huron-Wendat (Birch and Williamson 2013; Birch 2015; Dermarkar et al. 2016). Recently, the direct correlation in Ontario between archaeology and ethnicity, and especially regional identity, has been questioned (cf. Fox 2015:23; Gaudreau and Lesage 2016:9-12; Ramsden 2016:124). Recent considerations of Indigenous sources on culture history has led to the understanding that prior to the 16th century the north shore of Lake Ontario was co- habited by more mobile Anishnaabeg populations (Kapyrka 2018) who have not been represented in previous analyses of the archaeological record and who most likely have left a more ephemeral archaeological record than that of more densely populated agricultural settlements. The apparent void of permanent settlement along the north shore of Lake Ontario continued through the first half of the 17th century; however, this does not preclude the occupation of the region by mobile Anishnaabeg peoples.

In 1649, the Seneca and Mohawk led a campaign into the north shore of Lake Ontario and dispersed the Huron-Wendat, Tionontate (Petun) and Attiwandaron (Neutral) Nations, and the Seneca established dominance over the region (Heidenreich 1978). Approximately 13 kilometres northeast of the Study Area is the former Seneca settlement of Genatsekwyagon, which is understood to correspond with the Bead Hill National Historic Site (AkGs-8, also known as the Graham site) in the Rouge Park (Parks Canada n.d.; Williamson 2008:52). This permanently occupied settlement on the north shore of Lake Ontario was of great strategic importance, being situated at the natural landfall for one of the branches of the Toronto Carrying Place portage route up to (Williamson 2008:50-52). The settlement was also of great economic importance, serving as a staging point for Seneca fur trappers en route to the north shore of Lake Ontario to and from modern-day State (Konrad 1981).

1.9 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

By 1690, Anishnaabeg people had begun returning south into the lower Great Lakes basin (Konrad 1981; Rogers 1978). In particular, the former Seneca settlement of , at in Toronto was occupied by Anishnaabeg people (Benn 2008:53). The economy of many Anishnaabeg communities since the turn of the 18th century through the 20th century focused on fishing and the fur trade, supplemented by agriculture and hunting. The Study Area falls within the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (Mississaugas of the New [sic] Credit First Nation n.d.).

The Study Area is located within the area included in the Williams Treaty (Figure 4) between the Crown and the Chippewas. This treaty is comprised of “[t]hree separate and large parcels of land in southern and central Ontario…acquired by the Government of Canada in 1923” (Surtees 1986:1). The Study Area is situated within the parcel containing “parts of the Counties of Northumberland, Durham, Ontario and York...[c]ommencing at the point where the easterly limit of that portion of the lands said to have been ceded...[as part of Treaty Number 13] intersects the northerly shore of Lake Ontario; thence northerly along the said easterly and northerly limits of the confirmed tract to the Holland River; thence northerly along the Holland River and along the westerly shore of Lake Simcoe and Kempenfeldt Bay to the narrows between Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe; thence south easterly along the shores of Lake Simcoe to the Talbot River; thence easterly along the Talbot River to the boundary between the Counties of Victoria and Ontario; thence southerly along that boundary to the north west angle of the Township of Darlington; thence along the northern boundary of the Township of Darlington, Clarke, Hope and Hamilton to Rice Lake; thence along the southern shore of said Lake to River Trent, and along the River Trent to ; thence westerly and southerly along the shore of the Bay of Quinte to the road leading to Carrying Place and Wellers Bay; then westerly along the northern shore of Lake Ontario to the place of beginning” (Morris 1943:62). It is also worth noting that this area also “included substantial portions of land that had been the object of previous land cession treaties” (Surtees 1986:1).

1.2.2 Euro-Canadian Archaeological Resources

The Study Area is located within the former Township of Scarborough. The Euro- Canadian settlement history of this township is presented below.

1.2.2.1 Scarborough Township

In 1788, Lord Dorchester divided Upper Canada into four districts, Lunenburg, Nassau, Mecklenburg, and Hesse (Adam et al. 1885:116). When it was surveyed in 1791, the Township of Scarborough (alternatively spelled Scarboro) was originally part of the District of Nassau and was known as the Township of Glasgow (Boyle 1896:27). When Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe arrived in Upper Canada in 1792 from

1.10 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

England, he renamed the districts Eastern, Midland, Home, and Western. While travelling along the coast of the Township of Glasgow (Scarborough), with her husband (Simcoe) in August 1793, Elizabeth Simcoe remarked in her diary that, “The shore is extremely bold and has the appearance of chalk cliffs… They appeared so well that we talked of building a summer residence there and calling it Scarborough” (Archives of Ontario n.d.). Scarborough was chosen in reference to the chalk cliffs of Scarborough in Yorkshire, England, and became the name for the township in the Home District. The first land patents for the township were issued in 1796, when the township was opened for European settlement (Adam et al. 1885:107).

The first Euro-Canadian settlers into the township arrived in 1799 by way of the newly developed Danforth Road which was cut through the township (Bonis 1965:260). The township was slow to develop as thousands of hectares were held by non-resident speculators or reserved for the Clergy and the Crown. The census of 1809 only showed 34 men, 24 women, and 82 children under the age of 16 in the township (Bonis 1965:52). With an influx of immigration into Upper Canada, the population of the township increased to 1,135 people by 1830. In part with clearing the land, hardwood trees were the first resource used by settlers to yield an income. The trees were turned into crude potash or shipped along the rivers and Lake Ontario (Boyle 1896:127-128). The extraction of trees also led to the erection of numerous saw mills along the branches of Highland Creek and the . Once the land was cleared, Scarborough farmers produced a variety of farm crops and goods including wheat, oats, potatoes, peas, turnips, hay, wool, butter, and cheese. The population continued to increase from 2,750 people in 1842 to 3,821 residents in 1850 (Bonis 1965:73), the year that the Township of Scarborough was incorporated.

Danforth Road The Study Area includes the Danforth Road, which was one of the earliest Euro- Canadian roads in the City of Toronto. Asa Danforth was commissioned in March 1799 to open a road from the Town of York (now Toronto) to the mouth of the Trent River (Bonis 1965:260). This road was completed in 1800 following the route of modern-day East, Danforth Road, and Kingston Road. The York government refused to pay Danforth until the road was properly finished. Danforth, in disgust, left Canada and never returned to finish the road (Wise and Gould 2000:68-69).

1.2.2.2 Toronto and Nipissing Railway

The Stouffville rail line was historically owned by the Toronto and Nipissing Railway (T&NR) and was constructed in 1871. The T&NR line ran between Toronto and Lake Nipissing, to the northeast of the city of Toronto (Boles 2009:2). The railway stations became a focal point for communities in the township, as they were the location for the shipment of goods, and a transportation point for residents and visitors. The T&NR

1.11 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

crossed paths with the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR), completed through the southern portion of the Township of Scarborough in 1856 (Bonis 1965:165), at the Scarborough Junction. The T&NR line sold to the Midland Railway in 1881, then to the GTR in 1894 (York Durham Heritage Railway n.d.).

1.2.2.3 Grand Trunk Railway

The Lakeshore East rail corridor was historically owned by the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR), which was established in 1852, with the plan of a railway line between Toronto and Montreal. The line was completed through the southern portion of the Township of Scarborough in 1856 (Bonis 1965:165).

1.2.2.4 Built Heritage

Stantec conducted a separate cultural heritage assessment of the Study Area as part of the Project (Stantec 2019). This assessment identified four built heritage resources either within or immediately adjacent to the Study Area at 1 Granger Avenue, 70 Granger Avenue, 87 Granger Avenue, and 112 Granger Avenue. These built heritage resources range in date from the late 19th to early 20th century (Stantec 2019).

1.2.2.5 Historic Mapping

Tremaine’s 1860 map of County of York, Canada West (Tremaine 1860) was reviewed for this Stage 1 archaeological assessment (Figure 5). This map shows the Study Area prior to the construction of the T&NR in 1871. This map indicates that in 1860 the Study Area was located in proximity to historic features (e.g., farmsteads), and historic transportation routes (e.g., Danforth Road). Land tenure details are summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1: Landowner Information from the 1860 Map of Scarborough Township

Lot Concession Land Owner Features 27 B William Hale GTR 28 B George Auburn GTR E. Bales GTR 29 B I. Burton GTR Mrs. Davidson GTR 24 C J. Taber GTR 25 C Matthew Walton GTR Guy Walton GTR

1.12 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

Lot Concession Land Owner Features 26 C George Taylor Farmhouse located within Study Area; GTR 27 C W. Walton No structures indicated within John Torrance Study Area GTR 28 C J. Jones No structures indicated within Study Area

The 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of County of York (Miles & Company 1878) was also reviewed for this Stage 1 archaeological assessment (Figure 6). The Scarborough Township map (spelled Scarboro in historic atlas) shows the Study Area following the construction of the T&NR, as well as the increased settlement in the Township of Scarborough. The 1878 map of the Township of Scarborough (Figure 6) indicates that the Study Area continued to be located in proximity to historic features (e.g., farmsteads) as well as historic transportation routes (e.g., Danforth Road). Land tenure details are summarized below in Table 2.

Table 2: Landowner Information from the 1878 Map of Scarborough Township

Lot Concession Land Owner Features 27 B William Heal GTR 28 B Septimus Auburn GTR Simpson Bates GTR 29 B R. Davison Post Office; GTR 24 C John Tabor GTR 25 C Wiliam & George No structures indicated within Study Area Carbles Matthew Wilton Farmhouse and orchard located within Study Area; GTR Estate of Guy GTR Walton 26 C George B. Taylor Farmhouse and orchard located within Study Area; GTR; structure indicated south of GTR

1.13 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

Lot Concession Land Owner Features 27 C Robert Martin No structures indicated within Study Area; T&NR Robert Young Farmhouse located immediately north of Study Area; GTR; T&NR Jason Jones No structures indicated within Study Area; T&NR 28 C Jason Jones No structures indicated within Study Area

In discussing the late 19th century historical mapping it must be remembered that historical county atlases were produced primarily to identify factories, offices, residences and landholdings of subscribers and were funded by subscription fees. Land owners who did not subscribe were not always listed on the maps (Caston 1997:100). As such, all structures were not necessarily depicted or placed accurately (Gentilcore and Head 1984).

Review of historic mapping also has inherent accuracy difficulties due to potential error in georeferencing. Georeferencing is conducted by assigning spatial coordinates to fixed locations and using these points to spatially reference the remainder of the map. Due to changes in fixed locations over time (i.e., road intersections), errors / difficulties of scale and the relative idealism of the historic cartography, historic maps may not translate accurately into real space points. This may provide obvious inconsistencies during the historic map review.

Review of 20th century aerial photography indicates that the Study Area had been subject to suburban development by the mid-20th century (City of Toronto 2019a; Hunting Survey Corporation Limited 1954).

1.3 Archaeological Context

1.3.1 The Natural Environment

The Study Area is situated within the “South Slope” physiographic region within drumlinized till plain landform (Chapman and Putnam 1984). Till plains are large expanses of unstratified glacial drift deposited by glaciers and consisting of clay, sand, gravel or boulders intermixed in any proportion (Department of Agriculture 1976:40). The till plain within the Study Area was exposed, following the retreat of the Laurentian glacier’s Ontario lobe (Karrow and Warner 1990:15).

1.14 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

The “South Slope” physiographic region constitutes the southern aspect of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The region has an average breadth of approximately 10 to 11 kilometres (km) with an average elevation of between approximately 800 feet (244 metres [m]) and 1,000 feet (305 m) above sea level (asl) and spans from the in the west to the Trent River in the east. The surficial geology of the Study Area indicates that it is underlain by deposits of glacial till. These till deposits are stone- poor and sandy-silt to silty sand in texture and overlay a Paleozoic terrain (Ontario Geological Survey 2010). In Scarborough, the region is characterized by gently rolling till plain with bold fluting and low drumlins, possessing a variety of different soils (Chapman and Putnam 1984:172-174).

Historically, the Study Area consisted of a variety of soils which would have been suitable for agricultural activities (Department of Agriculture 1954). Subsequent soils surveys in the City of Toronto since the 1950s have documented that most of the City is now highly urbanized and most natural soils have been obscured by development activities (Figure 7).

The Study Area presently includes Taylor Massey-Creek. Early 20th century mapping (Department of Militia and Defence 1909) shows that the Study Area includes historic tributaries of both Taylor-Massey Creek and Highland Creek. These historic tributaries have since been buried and incorporated within the City of Toronto’s storm water management infrastructure.

1.3.2 Pre-contact Indigenous Resources

It has been demonstrated that Indigenous people began occupying southern Ontario as the Laurentide glacier receded, as early as 11,000 years ago (Ferris 2013:13). Much of what is understood about the lifeways of these Indigenous peoples is derived from archaeological evidence and ethnographic analogy. In Ontario, Indigenous culture prior to the period of contact with European peoples has been distinguished into cultural periods based on observed changes in material culture. These cultural periods are largely based in observed changes in formal lithic tools, and separated into the Early Paleo-Indian, Late Paleo-Indian, Early Archaic, Middle Archaic and Late Archaic periods. Following the advent of ceramic technology in the Indigenous archaeological record, cultural periods are separated into the Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland periods, based primarily on observed changes in formal ceramic decoration. It should be noted that these cultural periods do not necessarily represent specific cultural identities but are a useful paradigm for understanding changes in Indigenous culture through time. Table 3 provides a general outline of the cultural chronology of the Study Area, summarized from Ellis and Ferris (1990). The provided time periods are based on the “Common Era” calendar notation system: Before Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE).

1.15 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

Table 3: Generalized Cultural Chronology for the Study Area

Cultural Characteristics Time Period Comments Period Early Paleo- Fluted Projectiles 9,000 - 8,400 Spruce parkland / caribou Indian BCE hunters Late Paleo- Hi-Lo Projectiles 8,400 - 8,000 Smaller but more Indian BCE numerous sites Early Archaic Kirk and Bifurcate Base 8,000 - 6,000 Slow population growth Points BCE Middle Brewerton-like points 6,000 - 2,500 Environment similar to Archaic BCE present Late Archaic Lamoka (narrow points) 2,500 - 1,800 Increasing site size BCE Broad Points 1,800 - 1,500 Large chipped lithic tools BCE Small Points 1,500 - 1,100 Introduction of bow BCE hunting Terminal Hind Points 1,100 - 950 Emergence of true Archaic BCE cemeteries Early Meadowood Points 950 - 400 Introduction of pottery Woodland BCE Middle Dentate / Pseudo- 400 BCE – Increased sedentism Woodland Scallop Pottery 500 CE Princess Point 500 – 900 CE Introduction of corn Late Early Ontario Iroquoian 900 – 1300 Emergence of agricultural Woodland CE villages Middle Ontario 1300 – 1400 Long longhouses (100 m Iroquoian CE +) Late Ontario Iroquoian 1400 – 1650 Tribal warfare and CE displacement

1.16 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

Between 9,000 and 8,000 BCE, Indigenous populations were sustained by hunting, fishing, and foraging and lived a relatively mobile existence across an extensive geographic territory. Despite these wide territories, social ties were maintained between groups. One method in particular was through gift exchange, evident through exotic lithic material documented on many sites (Ellis 2013:35-40).

By approximately 8,000 BCE, evidence exists and becomes more common for the production of groundstone tools such as axes, chisels, and adzes. These tools themselves are believed to be indicative specifically of woodworking. This evidence can be extended to indicate an increase in craft production and arguably craft specialization. This latter statement is also supported by evidence, dating to approximately 7,000 BCE of ornately carved stone objects which would be laborious to produce and have explicit aesthetic qualities (Ellis 2013:41). This is indirectly indicative of changes in social organization which permitted individuals to devote time and effort to craft specialization. Since 8,000 BCE, the Great Lakes basin experienced a low-water phase, with shorelines significantly below modern lake levels (Stewart 2013: Figure 1.1.C). It is presumed that the majority of human settlements would have been focused along these former shorelines. At approximately 6,500 BCE the climate had warmed considerably since the recession of the glaciers and the environment had grown more similar to the present day. Evidence exists at this time for an increase in population and the contraction of group territories. By approximately 4,500 BCE, evidence exists from southern Ontario for the utilization of native copper (naturally occurring pure copper metal) (Ellis 2013:42). The known origin of this material along the north shore of Lake Superior indicates the existence of extensive exchange networks across the Great Lakes basin.

At approximately 3,500 BCE, the isostatic rebound of the North American plate following the melt of the Laurentide glacier had reached a point which significantly affected the watershed of the Great Lakes basin. Prior to this, the Upper Great Lakes had drained down the Ottawa Valley via the French-Mattawa river valleys. Following this shift in the watershed, the drainage course of the Great Lakes basin had changed to its present course. This also prompted a significant increase in water-level to approximately modern levels (with a brief high-water period); this change in water levels is believed to have occurred catastrophically (Stewart 2013:28-30). This change in geography coincides with the earliest evidence for cemeteries (Ellis 2013:46).

By 2,500 BCE, the earliest evidence exists for the construction of fishing weirs (Ellis et al. 1990: Figure 4.1). Construction of these weirs would have required a large amount of communal labour and are indicative of the continued development of social organization and communal identity. The large-scale procurement of food at a single location also has significant implications for permanence of settlement within the landscape. This

1.17 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

period is also marked by further population increase and by 1,500 BCE evidence exists for substantial permanent structures (Ellis 2013:45-46).

The earliest evidence exists for populations using ceramics occurs around 950 BCE. Populations are understood to have continued to seasonally exploit natural resources. This advent of the ceramic technology correlated, however, with the intensive exploitation of seed foods such as goosefoot and knotweed as well as mast such as nuts. The use of ceramics implies changes in the social organization of food storage as well as in the cooking of food and changes in diet. Fish also continued to be an important facet of the economy at this time. Evidence continues to exist for the expansion of social organization (including hierarchy), group identity, ceremonialism (particularly in burial), interregional exchange throughout the Great Lakes basin and beyond, and craft production (Williamson 2013:48-54).

By approximately 550 CE, evidence emerges for the introduction of maize into southern Ontario. This crop would have initially only supplemented Indigenous peoples’ diet and economy (Birch and Williamson 2013:13-14). Maize-based agriculture gradually became more important to societies and by approximately 900 CE permanent communities emerge which are primarily focused on agriculture and the storage of crops, with satellite locations oriented toward the procurement of other resources such as hunting, fishing and foraging. By approximately 1250 CE, evidence exists for the common cultivation of the historic Indigenous cultigens, including maize, beans, squash, sunflower, and tobacco. These communities living within the region of the Study Area are believed to have possessed many cultural traits similar to the historic Indigenous Nations (Williamson 2013:55).

The Study Area is located within the Highland Creek watershed, which possesses a well-documented Late Woodland period settlement sequence dating to between the 14th (e.g. the Alexandra site [AkGt-53]) and early 15th centuries CE (e.g., the Milroy site [AlGt-1]) (Birch and Williamson 2013:27-29). Both Huron-Wendat and Anishnaabeg traditional history indicate that the Huron-Wendat and Anishnaabeg cohabited the region (Kapyrka 2018).

1.3.3 Registered Archaeological Sites and Known Surveys In Canada, archaeological sites are registered within the Borden system, a national grid system designed by Charles Borden in 1952 (Borden 1952). The grid covers the entire surface area of Canada and is divided into major units containing an area that is two degrees in latitude by four degrees in longitude. Major units are designated by upper case letters. Each major unit is subdivided into 288 basic unit areas, each containing an area of 10 minutes in latitude by 10 minutes in longitude. The width of basic units reduces as one moves north due to the curvature of the earth. In southern Ontario, each basic unit measures approximately 13.5 kilometres east-west by 18.5 kilometres north-

1.18 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

south. In northern Ontario, adjacent to Hudson Bay, each basic unit measures approximately 10.2 kilometres east-west by 18.5 kilometres north-south. Basic units are designated by lower case letters. Individual sites are assigned a unique, sequential number as they are registered. These sequential numbers are issued by the MHSTCI. The Study Area is located within Borden block AkGt.

Information concerning specific site locations is protected by provincial policy and is not fully subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Government of Ontario 1990b). The release of such information in the past has led to looting or various forms of illegally conducted site destruction. Confidentiality extends to media capable of conveying location, including maps, drawings, or textual descriptions of a site location. The MHSTCI 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.

An examination of the ASDB by Stantec has shown that one archaeological site is registered within a one km radius of the Study Area, the Heinze site (AkGt-15) (Government of Ontario 2019a). In fact, the Heinze site (AkGt-15) is located within the Study Area (see Tile 1 in the Supplementary Documentation to this report). Little information is available on the Heinze site (AkGt-15). The size is reported to be approximately one to three acres (approximately 0.5-1.25 hectares) and it is described to have been partially disturbed at the time of reporting in 1971 (Government of Ontario 2019a). The site is understood to be a pre-contact Indigenous campsite. The majority of the site is understood to have been destroyed by adjacent railway and hydro construction and part of the site is reported to be sealed beneath concrete (Toronto Historical Association n.d.). The background research identified five previous archaeological assessments conducted within 50 m of the current Study Area (Government of Ontario 2019b). These reports are summarized in Table 4 and discussed below, and their extents mapped on Figure 8.

1.19 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

Table 4: Previous Archaeological Assessments within 50 metres of the Study Area

Project Information Year Title Author Form (PIF) Number Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (Background Study and Property Inspection) Stouffville Corridor Rail Service Expansion GO Transit Class Environmental P392-0021- 2014 Assessment Study and Preliminary Design ASI 2013 Former Township of Scarborough and Former Township of Markham, York County City of Toronto and Regional Municipality of York, Ontario

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments 362- St. Clair Avenue East Lot 2 Proposed Archaeological Storage Area for the Stouffville Railway Research P007-0750- 2016 Corridor Expansion Project City of Toronto Associates Ltd. 2016 Part of Lot 27, Concession C Geographic (ARA) Township of Scarborough Former York County, Ontario

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Lakeshore East Rail Corridor Expansion P088-0090- 2016 AECOM Don River to Scarborough GO Station 2016 (Segment 1) City of Toronto, Ontario

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Stouffville Rail Corridor Grade Separation P392-0187- 2016 Stantec Program (Danforth Road) RQQ-2014-C1- 2016 092

GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP Final P057-0834- 2017 ASI Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report 2016

1.20 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

ASI conducted a Stage 1 archaeological assessment as part of the Stouffville Corridor Rail Service Expansion Environmental Assessment in the Geographic Townships of Scarborough and Markham, former York County, now City of Toronto and Regional Municipality of York under the Project direction of Paul David Ritchie (P392-0021-2013) (ASI 2014). ASI’s (2014) assessment determined that parts of the current Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Study Area within the existing rail ROW are disturbed with no archaeological potential. This recommendation is discussed further in Section 3.0.

AECOM completed a Stage 1 archaeological assessment as part of the Lakeshore East Rail Corridor Expansion project in the City of Toronto, Ontario under the project direction of Charlton Carscallen (P088-0090-2016) (AECOM 2016). AECOM’s (2016) assessment identified that much of the lands within the current Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Study Area preliminary footprint, as well as within the 50 m buffer, are disturbed and retain no archaeological potential. Some lands, however, within the current Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Study Area preliminary footprint and the 50 m buffer were identified as retaining archaeological potential and recommended for Stage 2 archaeological assessment.

ARA completed a Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment of 3620 St. Clair Avenue East for the proposed storage area for the Stouffville Railway Corridor Expansion Project in the City of Toronto, Ontario under the project direction of Paul Racher (P007-0750- 2016) (ARA 2016). ARA’s (2016) assessment surveyed part of the current Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Study Area by test pit survey with no archaeological resources identified.

Stantec completed a Stage 1 archaeological assessment as part of the Stouffville Rail Corridor Grade Separation Program in the City of Toronto, Ontario under the project direction of Paul David Ritchie (P392-0187-2016) (Stantec 2016). Stantec’s (2016) assessment identified that most of the lands within the current preliminary footprint, as well as within the 50 m buffer, are disturbed and retain no archaeological potential. However, some lands within the current Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Study Area preliminary footprint and the 50 m buffer were identified as retaining archaeological potential and recommended for Stage 2 archaeological assessment.

ASI conducted a Stage 1 archaeological assessment as part of the GO Rail Network Electrification project in the City of Toronto, Regional Municipalities of Peel, Halton, York, and Durham, and County of Simcoe, Ontario (ASI 2017). ASI’s (2017) archaeological assessment was conducted under the project direction of Robert Pihl (P057-0834-2016) and determined that part of the current Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Study Area within the Stouffville Rail Corridor and Lakeshore East Rail Corridor existing rail ROWs are disturbed and retain no archaeological potential.

1.21 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

1.3.4 City of Toronto Archaeological Management Plan

Toronto’s municipal Archaeological Management Plan, entitled A Master Plan of Archaeological Resources for the City of Toronto – Interim Report (ASI 2004), and also available online (City of Toronto 2019b), was consulted. The Master Plan indicates the Study Area includes areas of archaeological potential. This archaeological potential will be further investigated in Section 3.0.

1.3.5 Existing Conditions

The Study Area for the Project is located on part of Lots 27-29, Concession B and part of Lots 25-28, Concession C in the former Township of Scarborough, former York County, now City of Toronto, Ontario. The Study Area includes an approximately 2.5 km long stretch of the Lakeshore East Rail Corridor from Kennedy Road in the west to in the east and an approximately 1.2 km long stretch of the Stouffville Rail Corridor from its junction with the Lakeshore East Rail corridor in the south to approximately 600 m south of East in the north. The Study Area includes a 50 m buffer on the preliminary project footprint. Overall, the Study Area for the Project comprises approximately 66 hectares.

To provide additional context for the determination of archaeological potential, a property inspection was completed. The archaeological assessment was conducted under PIF number P392-0254-2019 issued to Paul David Ritchie, MA by the MHSTCI.

1.4 Indigenous Engagement

A draft of this report was shared with the following potentially interested communities:

• Six Nations Grand River

• Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (FN)

• Chippewas of Georgina Island

• Curve Lake FN

• Alderville FN

• Hiawatha FN

• Kawartha Nishnawbe FN

• Mississaugas of the Credit FN

• Métis Nation of Ontario Head Office

1.22 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Project Context May 4, 2020

• Chippewas of Rama FN

• Beausoleil FN

• Huronne-wendat FN

• Haudenosaunee Development Institute

The information documented in Table 5 presents review comments and information input from the respective communities provided as part of the Indigenous engagement for this report. Copies of correspondence from respective communities is included in the report Supplementary Documentation, as per the MHSTCI’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, Section 7.6.2 (Government of Ontario 2011).

Table 5: Report Review Feedback – Indigenous Engagement

Community Feedback Huronne- -Advised the wording of Section 1.2.1 be revised to include Wendat First infectious disease and famine as additional reasons for dispersal of Nation Huronne-wendat from southern Ontario in mid-17th century. -Advised the wording in Section 1.3.2 be revised to indicate that while Late Woodland settlements in the Highland Creek watershed would have been co-habited by Anishnaabeg alongside ancestral Huronne-wendat, the Late Woodland village sites within the Highland Creek settlement sequence are typically interpreted by archaeologists to have been inhabited by ancestral Huronne-wendat and that Anishnaabeg settlements during this period of time are most likely not identified in archaeological record. -Agreed with report recommendations. -Requested to be consulted at every stage to be included in all fieldwork

1.23

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Field Methods May 4, 2020

2.0 Field Methods

The Stage 1 archaeological assessment compiled available information about the known and potential archaeological resources within the Study Area including the use of the City of Toronto’s archaeological master plan. A property inspection was completed to evaluate the Study Area for areas of disturbance, areas of poor drainage, areas of steep slope, or areas retaining low archaeological potential. The property inspection was conducted under archaeological consulting license P392 issued to Paul David Ritchie, MA, of Stantec by the MHSTCI. The property inspection took place on April 3, 2019 and was conducted by Kristen Hahne (R1154) and completed in accordance with Section 1.2 of the MHSTCI’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011).

Permission to enter private lands within the Study Area for the property inspection was not required as photo documentation for the Stage 1 assessment occurred from public spaces and municipal road ROWs. The property inspection involved random spot- checking of the Study Area to gather information pertaining to features of archaeological potential. Figure 8 provides an illustration of the Study Area, including photo locations from the property inspection.

The weather during the property inspection was cool and sunny. Small patches of snow existed in small areas however these did not negatively impact visibility of features of archaeological potential. During the property inspection, visibility and lighting conditions were sufficient to identify features of archaeological potential.

The Study Area is situated within a highly developed suburban area within the City of Toronto, with extensive ROW and property development. Overall, the Study Area for the Project comprises approximately 66 hectares.

The photography from the property inspection is presented in Section 7.1 and confirms that the requirements for a Stage 1 property inspection were met, as per Section 1.2 and Section 7.7.2 Standard 1 of the MHSTCI’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). Photos 1 to 8 document the existing conditions within the Study Area. The property inspection identified that most (approximately 90%) of the Study Area consists of land disturbed through residential housing developments, road construction, and the existing railway corridor (Photos 1, 3, 5-8 and Plates 1-2. The remaining portion of the Study Area (approximately 10%) consists of park areas composed of manicured lawn, treed areas, a baseball diamond, and meadowland (Photos 2 and 4). These areas are discussed with regards to archaeological potential in Section 3.0.

, c:\users\pritchie\desktop\working\may4\p392-0254-2019_4may2020_re.docx 2.1

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Analysis and Conclusions May 4, 2020

3.0 Analysis and Conclusions

Archaeological potential is established by determining the likelihood that archaeological resources may be present on a subject property. Stantec applied criteria indicative of archaeological potential, as outlined in the MHSTCI’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011: Section 1.3.1), to determine areas of archaeological potential within the Study Area. These variables include proximity to previously registered archaeological sites, distance to various types of water sources, soil texture and drainage, glacial geomorphology, elevated topography, and the general topographic variability of the area.

Distance to modern or ancient water sources is generally accepted as the most important determinant of past human settlement patterns and, considered alone, may be indicative of archaeological potential. However, any combination of two or more other criteria, such as well-drained soils or topographic variability, may also indicate archaeological potential. Finally, extensive land disturbance can eradicate archaeological potential (Government of Ontario 2011: Section 2.1).

Distance to water is an essential factor in archaeological potential modeling. When evaluating distance to water it is important to distinguish between water and shoreline, as well as natural and artificial water sources, as these features affect site locations and types to varying degrees. According to the Master Plan of Archaeological Resources for the City of Toronto, any areas within 250 m of a river or creek qualify as potential pre- contact Indigenous sites (ASI 2004). The MHSTCI (Government of Ontario 2011: Section 1.3.1) categorizes water sources in the following manner:

• Primary water sources: lakes, rivers, streams, creeks. • Secondary water sources: intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes and swamps. • Past water sources: glacial lake shorelines, relic river or stream channels, cobble beaches, shorelines of drained lakes or marshes. • Accessible or inaccessible shorelines: high bluffs, swamp or marshy lake edges, sandbars stretching into marsh. For Euro-Canadian sites, archaeological potential can be extended to areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement, including places of military or pioneer settlements; early transportation routes; properties listed on the municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990a); and properties that local histories or informants have identified with possible historical events, activities or occupations.

, c:\users\pritchie\desktop\working\may4\p392-0254-2019_4may2020_re.docx 3.1 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Analysis and Conclusions May 4, 2020

Based on mapping, portions of the Study Area are located within 300 metres of a water source (e.g., Taylor Massey Creek). The historic map review indicates that the Study Area includes a number of historic features (e.g., historic inn and post office) and is within 100 metres of historic transportation routes (e.g., Danforth Road and Grand Trunk Railway). The Study Area also includes a registered archaeological site, the Heinze site (AkGt-15), and parts of an existing 20th century cemetery. The Study Area also includes lands previously recommended as requiring Stage 2 archaeological assessment (AECOM 2016; Stantec 2016). A cultural heritage assessment conducted for the Project identified four built heritage resources (i.e., late 19th to early 20th century residences) either within or immediately adjacent to the Study Area (Stantec 2019).

When the above criteria are applied, the Study Area demonstrates potential for the identification of Indigenous and Euro-Canadian archaeological resources.

Some areas of the Study Area which have been recommended by previous archaeological assessments as requiring Stage 2 archaeological assessment have since been subject to extensive disturbance (Plates 1 and 2). These parts of the Study Area have been documented by the visual property inspection to have now been subject to previous deep and extensive disturbance (Photos 1, 3, 5-8). This disturbance has been on account of ROW construction and grading and / or adjacent property development. These lands, therefore, are considered to retain low to no archaeological potential, as per Section 2.1 of the MHSTCI’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.

The vast majority of the Study Area has been documented by visual property inspection, complemented by review of historic aerial photography, to have been subject to previous deep and extensive disturbance which has removed archaeological potential. For example, the entire property of the Scarborough Centre for Alternative Studies at 720 Midland Avenue was extensively graded during its construction in 1962 (City of Toronto 2019a).

Based on the results of the property inspection, parts of the Study Area are considered to possess archaeological potential and require further assessment (Figure 8). These areas would require Stage 2 archaeological assessment (Photos 2 and 4).

The Study Area includes a registered archaeological site, the Heinze site (AkGt-15). While this site is registered as undergoing disturbance at its original date of registration it has not been formally investigated. Some lands within 70 m of the Heinze site (AkGt- 15) are considered likely to have been subject to previous disturbance; however, Stage 2 archaeological assessment is required to confirm whether any such disturbance has completely removed archaeological potential or whether evidence of the Heinze site (AkGt-15) remains in situ.

3.2 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Recommendations May 4, 2020

4.0 Recommendations

Recommendations for further archaeological assessment requirements are depicted in Figure 8 and Tile 1 of the Supplementary Documentation. The majority of the Study Area is documented to have been subject to previous extensive and intensive ground disturbance. These lands are considered to possess low to no archaeological potential and do not require further archaeological assessment. In accordance with Section 1.3.2 and Section 7.7.4 of the MHSTCI’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011), Stage 2 archaeological assessment is not required for any portion of the Project’s anticipated construction which impacts an area of low to no archaeological potential (Figure 8).

Based on the discussion in Section 3.0, portions of the Study Area retain potential for the identification and documentation of archaeological resources in accordance with Section 1.3.1 and Section 7.7.4 of the MHSTCI’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). As mentioned, the Study Area includes a registered archaeological site, the Heinze site (AkGt-15). While this site is registered as undergoing disturbance at its original date of registration it has not been formally investigated. Some lands within 70 metres of the Heinze site (AkGt-15) (see Supplementary Documentation Tile 1) are considered likely to have been subject to previous disturbance; however, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment by test pit survey at judgmental intervals is required to confirm whether any such disturbance has completely removed archaeological potential or whether evidence of the Heinze site (AkGt-15) remains in situ.

Therefore, Stage 2 archaeological assessment is required for any portion of the Project’s anticipated construction which impacts an area of archaeological potential (Figure 8). Stage 2 archaeological assessment must be completed in accordance with the MHSTCI’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011), specifically Sections 2.1.2, 2.1.7, and 2.18, where it is appropriate to do so based on site conditions. Once the final design and construction impacts are determined, a full and detailed Stage 2 archaeological assessment work plan will be developed by the Client’s archaeological consultant.

In the event that human remains are encountered during the archaeological topsoil stripping or any phase of construction all work should stop, and the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services be notified, until the remains are properly dealt with by the appropriate authorities.

4.1 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Recommendations May 4, 2020

The MHSTCI is asked to review the results presented and to accept this report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork remain subject to Section 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990a) and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed, except by a person holding an archaeological licence.

4.2 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring May 4, 2020 5.0 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring

Mitigation measures and recommended monitoring activities summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring

Potential Effect Mitigation Measure(s) Monitoring Potential for the • The Constructor will develop • Performance of the disturbance of and implement an work will occur unassessed or Archaeological Risk within land documented Management Plan that previously subject to archaeological addresses any an Archaeological resources recommendations resulting Assessment. from Archaeological • Any site personnel Assessments and documents responsible for all protocols for the discovery carrying out or of human remains and overseeing land- undocumented disturbing activities archaeological resources. will be informed of The Archaeological Risk their responsibilities Management Plan shall be in the event that an amended to incorporate any archaeological additional actions required resource is resulting from subsequent encountered. Archaeological Assessment • Further Reports and/or subsequent Archaeological changes to Applicable Law. Assessment may • All work shall be performed identify the need for in accordance with monitoring during Applicable Law, including but construction. not limited to the Ontario Heritage Act, the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI), formerly the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011), and the MHSTCI document, Engaging Aboriginal

5.1 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring May 4, 2020

Potential Effect Mitigation Measure(s) Monitoring Communities in Archaeology: A Draft Bulletin for Consultant Archaeologists in Ontario (2011). • In the event that archaeological materials are encountered or suspected of being encountered during construction, all work will cease. The location of the findspot should be protected from impact by employing a buffer in accordance with requirements of the MHSTCI. A professionally licensed archaeologist will be consulted to complete the assessment. If materials are confirmed to possess cultural heritage value/interest then they will be reported to the MHSTCI, and further Archaeological Assessment of the materials may be required. If it is determined that there is a potential for Indigenous artifacts, the Contracting Authority should be contacted and Applicable Law will be followed. • If final limits of the Project footprint are altered and fall outside of the assessed study area, additional Archaeological Assessments will be conducted by a professionally licensed archaeologist prior to disturbance and prior to construction activities. This

5.2 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring May 4, 2020

Potential Effect Mitigation Measure(s) Monitoring will include completing all required Archaeological Assessments resulting from the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (Stage 2, Stage 3 and Stage 4, as required) as early as possible, prior to the completion of design, and in advance of any ground disturbance. • For areas determined to have archaeological potential or contain archaeological resources that will be impacted by project activities, additional Archaeological Assessment will be conducted by a professionally licensed archaeologist prior to disturbance. • If human remains are encountered or suspected of being encountered during project work, all activities must cease immediately and the local police/coroner as well as the Bereavement Authority of Ontario on behalf of the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services must be contacted. Archaeological investigations of human remains will not proceed until police have confirmed the remains are not subject to forensic investigation. Once human remains have been cleared of police concern, the

5.3 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Advice on Compliance with Legislation May 4, 2020

Potential Effect Mitigation Measure(s) Monitoring MHSTCI will also be notified to ensure that the site is not subject to unlicensed alterations which would be a contravention of the Ontario Heritage Act. If the human remains are determined to be of Indigenous origin, the Contracting Authority should be contacted and all Applicable Law must be adhered to. • All Archaeological Assessment findings will be shared with Indigenous communities, as per Metrolinx’s procedures.

6.0 Advice on Compliance with Legislation

This report is submitted to the Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18 (Government of Ontario 1990a). The report is reviewed to make sure 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 MHSTCI, 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 (Government of Ontario 1990a)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

6.4 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Advice on Compliance with Legislation May 4, 2020

Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990a).

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 (Government of Ontario 1990a). 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 (Government of Ontario 1990a).

The Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (Government of Ontario 2002) requires that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Bereavement Authority of Ontario on behalf of the Ministry of Government and Consumer Service.

Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork or protection remain subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990a) and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed from them, except by a person holding an archaeological licence.

6.5

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Bibliography and Sources May 4, 2020 7.0 Bibliography and Sources

Adam, G. Mercer, Charles Pelham Mulvany, and Christopher Blackett Robinson. 1885. and the County of York, Ontario. Volumes 1 and 2. Toronto: C. Blackett Robinson.

AECOM. 2016. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Lakeshore East Rail Corridor Expansion Don River to Scarborough GO Station (Segment 1) City of Toronto, Ontario [PIF P088-0090-2016]. Report submitted to the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, Toronto.

Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. 2016. Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments 362- St. Clair Avenue East Lot 2 Proposed Storage Area for the Stouffville Railway Corridor Expansion Project City of Toronto Part of Lot 27, Concession C Geographic Township of Scarborough Former York County, Ontario [PIF P007-0750-2016]. Report submitted to the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, Toronto.

Archaeological Services Inc. 2004. A Master Plan of Archaeological Resources for the City of Toronto – Interim Report. Electronic document: http://www.toronto.ca/heritage-preservation/pdf/masterplan_arc.resources.pdf. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

Archaeological Services Inc. 2014. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (Background Study and Property Inspection) Stouffville Corridor Rail Service Expansion GO Transit Class Environmental Assessment Study and Preliminary Design Former Township of Scarborough and Former Township of Markham, York County City of Toronto and Regional Municipality of York, Ontario [PIF P392-0021-2013]. Report submitted to the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, Toronto.

Archaeological Services Inc. 2017. GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP Final Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report [PIF P057-0834-2016]. Report submitted to the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, Toronto.

Archives of Ontario. n.d. Travels with Elizabeth Simcoe: A Visual Journey through Upper and Lower Canada. Electronic document: http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/explore/online/simcoe/simcoe-york.aspx. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

7.1 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Bibliography and Sources May 4, 2020

Benn, Carl. 2008. Colonial Transformations. In: Toronto: An Illustrated History of Its First 12,000 Years. Edited by Ronald F. Williamson, pp. 53-72. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company Ltd.

Birch, Jennifer. 2015. Current Research on the Historical Development of Northern Iroquoian Societies. Journal of Archaeological Research, 22 (4)

Birch, Jennifer and Ronald F. Williamson. 2013. The Mantle Site: An Archaeological History of an Ancestral Huron Wendat Community. Lanham: Altamira Press.

Boles, Derek. 2009. Toronto’s Railway Heritage. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing.

Bonis, Robert. 1965. A History of Scarborough. Scarborough: Scarborough Public Library.

Borden, Charles E. 1952. A Uniform Site Designation Scheme for Canada. Anthropology in British Columbia, No. 3, 44-48.

Boyle, David (editor). 1896. The Township of Scarboro 1796-1896. Toronto: William Briggs.

Caston, Wayne A. 1997. Evolution in the Mapping of Southern Ontario and Wellington County. Wellington County History 10:91-106.

Chapman, Lyman John and Donald F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Third edition. Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

City of Toronto. 2019a. Aerial Photographs 1962. Photograph 94. Electronic document: http://jpeg2000.eloquent- systems.com/toronto.html?image=ser12/s0012_fl1962_it0094.jp2. Last accessed May 9, 2019.

City of Toronto. 2019b. Toronto Archaeological Potential Map. Electronic document: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=659b5f21c1b92410Vgn VCM10000071d60f89RCRD. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

Department of Agriculture. 1954. Soil Map of York County (Regional Municipality of York) Ontario. Soil Survey Report No. 19. Ottawa: Department of Agriculture.

Department of Agriculture. 1976. Glossary of Terms in Soil Science. Publication 1459. Ottawa: Department of Agriculture. Electronic document: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/manuals/1976- glossary/pub1459_report.pdf. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

7.2 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Bibliography and Sources May 4, 2020

Department of Militia and Defence. 1909. Topographic Map, Oontario. Toronton Sheet No. 24. Department of Militia and Defence.

Dermarkar, Susan, Jennifer Birch, Termeh Shafie, John P. Hart, and Ronald F. Williamson. 2016. St. Lawrence Iroquoians and Pan-Iroquoian Social Network Analysis. Ontario Archaeology, 96: 87-103.

Ellis, Christopher J. 2013. Before Pottery: Paleoindian and Archaic Hunter-Gatherers. In Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province. Edited by Marit K. Munson and Susan M. Jamieson, pp. 35-47. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Ellis, Chris J. and Neal Ferris (editors). 1990. The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to CE 1650. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society Inc., Publication Number 5. London: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society.

Ellis, Chris J., Ian T Kenyon and Michael W. Spence. 1990. The Archaic. In Ellis and Ferris 1990, pp. 65-124.

Ferris, Neal. 2013. Introduction: Seeing Ontario’s Past Archaeologically. In Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province. Edited by Marit K. Munson and Susan M. Jamieson, pp. 3-23. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Fox, William. 2015. Ethnogenesis in the Lower Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Region. Ontario Archaeology, 95: 21-32.

Gaudreau, Mariane and Louis Lesage. 2016. Understanding Ethnicity and Cultural Affiliation: Huron-Wendat and Anthropological Perspectives. Ontario Archaeology, 96: 6-16.

Gentilcore, Louis R. and C. Grant Head. 1984. Ontario’s History in Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.

Google 2019. Street View. Google Earth. Imagery date: August 2018. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

Government of Ontario. 1990a. Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER O.18. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18 Last accessed May 2, 2019.

7.3 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Bibliography and Sources May 4, 2020

Government of Ontario. 1990b. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f31. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

Government of Ontario. 2002. Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 33. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02f33. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

Government of Ontario. 2011. Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Toronto: Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries.

Government of Ontario. 2015. Ontario Regulation 231/08. Transit Projects and Metrolinx Undertakings. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080231. Last accessed May 27, 2019.

Government of Ontario. 2019. PastPortal. Electronic document: https://www.iaa.gov.on.ca/iaalogin/IAALogin.jsp?REDID=PASTPORT. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

Government of Ontario. 2019a. PastPortal. Ontario Archaeological Sites Database. Electronic document: https://www.iaa.gov.on.ca/iaalogin/IAALogin.jsp?REDID=PASTPORT. Last accessed April 10, 2019.

Government of Ontario. 2019b. PastPortal. Ontario Public Register of Achaeological Reports. Electronic document: https://www.iaa.gov.on.ca/iaalogin/IAALogin.jsp?REDID=PASTPORT. Last accessed April 10, 2019.

Heidenreich, Conrad E. 1978. Huron. In Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 15, Northeast. Edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 368-388. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Hunting Survey Corporation Limited. 1954. 1:10,000. Digital Aerial Photographs, Southern Ontario. Photograph 436.792. Electronic document: http://maps.library.utoronto.ca/data/on/AP_1954/indexwest.html. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

Karrow, P.F. and B.G. Warner. 1990. The Geological and Biological Environment for Human Ooccupation in Southern Ontario. In Ellis and Ferris 1990, pp. 5-36.

Kapyrka, Julie. 2018. Remembering Original Relationships: Mississauga and Wendat. Arch Notes, 23(1): 5-7.

7.4 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Bibliography and Sources May 4, 2020

Konrad, Victor. 1981. An Frontier: The North Shore of Lake Ontario during the late Seventeenth Century. Journal of Historical Geography 7(2): 129-144.

Loewen, Brad and Claude Chapdelaine (editors). 2016. Contact in the 16th Century: Networks among Fishers, Foragers and Farmers. Mercury Series Archaeology Paper 176. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Metrolinx. 2018. GO Expansion Full Business Case. Electronic document: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20181206/20181206_Boar dMtg_GO_Expansion_Full_Business_Case.PDF. Last accessed June 18, 2019.

Miles & Company. 1878. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York. Toronto: Miles & Co.

Mississaugas of the New [sic] Credit First Nation. n.d. The History of the Mississaugas of the New [sic] Credit First Nation. Hagersville: Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation.

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

Ontario Geological Surveys. 2010. Quaternary Geology: Toronto and Surrounding Area. Electronic document: http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/pub/data/imaging/P2204/p 2204.pdf. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

Parks Canada. n.d. Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada. Electronic document: http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=16783. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

Ramsden, Peter. 2016. Becoming Wendat: Negotiating a New Identity around Balsam Lake in the Late Sixteenth Century. Ontario Archaeology, 96: 121-132.

Rogers, E.S. 1978. Southeastern Ojibwa. In Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 15, Northeast. Edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 760-771. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2016. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Stouffville Rail Corridor Grade Separation Program (Danforth Road) RQQ-2014-C1-092 [PIF P392-0187-2016]. Report submitted to the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, Toronto.

7.5 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Bibliography and Sources May 4, 2020

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2019. Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project: Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report submitted to Metrolinx, Toronto.

Stewart, Andrew M. 2013. Water and Land. In Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province. Edited b: Marit K. Munson and Susan M. Jamieson, pp. 24-34. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Surtees, Robert J. 1986. Treaty Research Report. The Williams Treaties. Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Toronto Historical Association. n.d. Heinze Site. Electronic document: http://torontohistory.net/heinze-site.html. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

Tremaine, Geo. R. 1860. Tremaine’s Map of the County of York, Canada West. Toronto: Geo. C. Tremaine.

Williamson, Ronald F. 2008. Before the Visitors. In Toronto: An Illustrated History of Its First 12,000 Years. Edited by Ronald F. Williamson, pp. 25-52. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company Ltd.

Williamson, Ronald F. 2013. The Woodland Period, 900 BCE to 1700 CE. In Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province. Edited by Marit K. Munson and Susan M. Jamieson, pp. 48-61. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Wise, Leonard and Alland Gould. 2000. Toronto Street Names: An Illustrated Guide to their Origins. Willowdale: Firefly Books.

York Durham Heritage Railway. n.d. History of the Rail Line Used by the YDHR. Electronic document: http://www.ydhr.ca/history_rail-line.php. Last accessed May 2, 2019.

7.6 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Images May 4, 2020 8.0 Images

Photographs and plates documenting the Study Area’s existing physical conditions are presented below. The location and orientation of these photographs and plates are shown on Figure 8.

8.1 Photographs

Photo 1: View of Study Area, facing northwest. Land is disturbed by construction of the Scarborough Centre for Alternative Studies at 720 Midland.

8.1 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Images May 4, 2020

Photo 2: View of parkland within Study Area, facing northwest. Park area retains archaeological potential.

Photo 3: View of Study Area along Corvette Avenue, facing southwest. Corvette Avenue ROW and adjacent properties are previously disturbed and retain no to low archaeological potential. Park lands north of Corvette Avenue retain archaeological potential.

8.2 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Images May 4, 2020

Photo 4: View of Study Area adjacent to rail ROW, facing southwest. Study Area retains archaeological potential.

Photo 5: View of Study Area from Brimley Road, facing northeast. Rail ROW, Brimley Road ROW, and adjacent properties are previously disturbed and retain no to low archaeological potential.

8.3 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Images May 4, 2020

Photo 6: View of Scarborough GO Station pedestrian underpass, facing north. Study Area is previously disturbed and retains no to low archaeological potential.

Photo 7: View of rail ROW from northside of Scarbrough GO station property, facing southwest. Study Area is previously disturbed and retains no to low archaeological potential.

8.4 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Images May 4, 2020

Photo 8: View of rail ROW from Kennedy Road overpass, facing northeast. Study Area is previously disturbed and retains no to low archaeological potential.

8.5 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Images May 4, 2020

8.2 Plates

Plate 1: Google Street View (Google 2019) of Part of Study Area, facing southeast. Area has been graded and disturbed and retains no to low archaeological potential.

Plate 2: Google Street View (Google 2019) of Part of Study Area, facing southwest. Area has been graded and disturbed and retains no to low archaeological potential.

8.6 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Maps May 4, 2020 9.0 Maps

General maps of the Stage 1 Study Area are provided on the following pages. Maps identifying exact archaeological site locations do not form part of this public report; they may be found in the Supplementary Documentation.

9.1 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Maps April 16, 2020 9.0 Maps

General maps of the Stage 1 Study Area are provided on the following pages. Maps identifying exact archaeological site locations do not form part of this public report; they may be found in the Supplementary Documentation.

9.1 638000 640000 642000 644000

e A v y t

Boem Aven e i Wa e e ue u H r d t u

on P s e e n iah

n s r t tre r ve L E m D n

e o t ki e c ee S t A a s a a

v a n o tr lk e w n

e v e S e

l w E J v F S a v ie e i n i A e l K w v r

e l ue iv a o l on r r s r o

v i n s e r L n d C s a lm e

d n d e u m l N t i e Burritt r r ve r l o v i e e a C S

R D g e

oad g A e r e a n N D n G

e y D a A e r J a D e e S u v

t L B e M a

L y c y s m D c i l o n e u d a l n re P k c e B n r i i y l m e h o d a l a w M s a b t B a o r n e P r

i n n e a r L o B o i D a H R A cos a u l k Dr r u a T r e l r e a C b d i a l a r T n il r s ve n u o B o s M a r t u D t u b z e B n m e o o G e l v l o D a h n c e s D u y A r B gar Co r w r r G k D n u urt o A d d e le e v a y o r e i m e r t C r v l o k e i e r C n a i r u e o i i e G v i r e U P e a R R v c

v d m r e a e

r n R a e e g l

a r a o t d d i e n d R S e B r e o c

h n a e d o h D o l r e S u d H ie C a h a R s rf o a or e Th e t G r e D g e d i d e i m e c D c u d e r v r n G

r g e t v l e n k o e r c n l i e l w M e t e w N iv $ $ r e i n sc a e r l R v e re S f r r e l t v i D t t C u e S c o D i e n r a r t i o t a le C r ve d in ve h t d h r e e r a e a d w A r t e D o e A oodD t h ethu l R M g d h s t B n u Legend d r e G e i r S e

s g t ac s e y e d l iv K b id e l t ¯ H tr e P l S q h

n i tr a t ava e m i n R li D v S ol s r t c n B F r e in n tt An e S ee u r S R o F n i e o w tre tr g o v e o ha rn K S h t S a n s o a e n A t o r e e P ( m m u e a L ou ac r n Study Area iv e e d e an A r o e a r d A u St sb e t G e l y iv a n u le v r T e d y r e ry y e ou C r M a D x v C a n e D l A t r C o v C e a r n G n R u r esce u o r u a

e a a o d r e C i b m r T riv g r

e a a r

u r o R el D L a i l S an e itad e o r r d e F C lu e v Railway D o e B n e s P u D ri u n R s n C l a e e c e c a u v d r D Av d en A e a ve e c e r v ve C ar o ri i

d c Ae ri g R D c e v a

o o t D l a i o n e E e d a n

w s h R n n v n e i

t v

r K c K a r le n l

he t e urt i t a r

b i o e o G k t a r S k g o l ro C e Major Road

i i e r e t

l Rd l N t L W r

n r S a

p f e T e e d S a

o r l o D

a a d g r o l d

a a r e o C

r o o e a y d R c L S

t d R s ru e o

e T g M e o i r h r s d v d v A W i u n e A o ro i ro e u t l

W c B o n S r e C M e B u Minor Road k r f v v

o w

a t le A t e D v

e i iv e T s o t m h r M e

D u n n t e e R y e

t n R c t

e e n u D d

x e d u n o e n a y n r n r n l a a b b a o r e n d d b r a e

f d G D e a m e

e i ro h c a o e c v t n D g

v v n L D B r e s D s o d v

r f t o W a n

s r A o a Watercourse

o s p a e a e

tan e

d A n o r e l r r

i v S r d e

a k i v

e v i t i n t

r r R z n v r G B v i i

M r e v l e o o A r d d e e C B v tt u R ne D r e

o e en u a a rd e R e

C a L a u o r v D P

o D e w t A n e ls O e n v n o n o riv il a le l y

z S g r v L u l o o

u n D F r o a l u e r e a re e M a o s o it d B s B a

a a N r t a M e Waterbody

i n M v l m e

l v y o d w g e l r t v c e L d n r t O

p i r i u

t A e R e a o n

v e i m a d e l iv y r e D n D le r i o e n k e d F o D w l

a e A l iv i c r r c D e

g u a r g r i R k h e k u

r en r m D S n s v

r v v i n r o B M o i o v

d a e n h r e A v i d D d

e w u il le o dV r l A

0 d n 0 r d Wooded Area x r G G a r o e t R a e d f n n o d r e B e 0 o e H r a C n 0

f in c t o a r m i o D A v i d e M u r s r r e o v G s l f a 0 re to ul l 0 r n o e v

e C a v B a kc i h l

4 d t S t ar R t 4 C h e P re ive t h d o H y 4 Dr s 4 m n o o a A ol ce K n e L t S Municipal Boundary - Lower Tier 8 u e 8 o h s u a a v id re u en D 4 h e v 4 c u r M C e A e t n d H e r n R e W riv e u h e r A e i k c i n e v n d D y n l A ci rb t d e oa ry Bo ve v

u n n n i tu e a a n R w n n A d e r r e a A

rt e e C al o e c e e M e o s t ni R Lot/Concession Boundary

s B d e lo e n n g o l

re C La C da

D r n

d n d C ti

r C A r i

r a e

a e M s

i M a d I

v o v t o s o lg S l

R L o e

e T R a e T

c n m yne rt c

R C u o o o C n d o M e c o

v m H w

s u a o R n i h a e e

e u e o w e o n

T e a o S w d n l t t

a m w n R t l n n a e

h V r v u a l

n i n s o a t

d t w y e e

e i o R i a l v n A e t r a e u M y n w y A n

r u e d v e W e c r t v ind e m o R g n R A y Rid D V n a O e e e ge l t c e r a s o r i o t s o l o re n C v g d t C R rd y e a e in s D e va a h n rd A u le a u d o

S sway C r d l e W R r n u A A b n l c

a e Be

iv Tr o e i lleha v v

e v v m s k en C B i r a o t v es

e e e t e w c

a re o r e u e

r n t A en u i n

d o lev n L v d B ar D r A o n d S y e F B k u s

e r u a v A lli o a t

a m i y e

n i e e d r h d l i m r P

a r w v l

r n j a D a

e f g e c m

A K a e n D S a

e a e n n r y

v e u k r o n h g u a B e R e v i P H t rt S d v L f s u A p i e t a d n a o n r i a t C u e e n v o a E n a rd k o B R u ue ce v e B e i k n s e V h a b n e e e h o e e e v r S r R b i P s o m A C e i C on e n n i O u t u dg re

t r on iv e m n e

h t r e e e S e k s i in D v l

A u gl l A e D

rn g l d A E l e r

d fe G e R e c v i d u fi la v e

h o y r P a

o a o t e v e v a H r e r i

e a d v b

a i R n l d r

o r S a m R W fe A d H n l v D ic o en o Ledge Road iv D E W ue a u C t G k p a C c l e n ra e i d d l w p nu

i a h a l C e o

g e s o e Av iv t M w e a

t r e H u M r rr m D A R n t e o n e u F a M r d o v en e n lc i

o e a G a A L a c v B o r te s s A S e p t S t e a M re on c A n v C c c n o a h r c ff ns n M i e o u n C du e A a w a e v w r a a c R r b i n l t n r d l h e g o l e r b o o h o n t B e C w e l o o w e

t a o A o d o v t t c i

R s en d e C r r o l o u l R c v i c i

L o t s a ra H f D d e r Cr e Te a u l fe e a o e t e n A ie h g e

v r e v b d a i D K r u h i v m dr g a o d e L o e C ve a D k r e ri h r v r n i D l H d i n D i k v n B t c a n G e N o e s c e e d u r l d P iv e r r u i A oa u r e e e e g R D d a s f b d e n J i f v ry g n e l e h

r e d y a m s s

e e o ri F H t h x g V n t S A e a o s o o o l

F R e t a D

n l e r

v e t t i r R

R ri v i eS d n i w v

u D r e r e v B

B o e W

y r e i u a o e t n m e e t e w

a m A e v o A o

i a n a r a m H n r A r e o

t d u u t va o R v u

c S v r d e n n M a e e o e

e H h e e S in y l

l n e c r c t M

m n R d n

s a a R o v t s t L

e u u

r r d A n o s A a r e B

oa o C o e y i r e o g

C s R a r v m

k u i a r v d

t n

c l e t d i o e

r o e

t n C

P s d

a ad

d n K o n o e a m

o a t t R

a a e t

C o u k u y N

h R R u a n le r l F y e l e lo R n 0 630 1,260 le e v

k l D d A t a S e a o e a M y e e

n n tre w g r o D u a S c

City Of i e rm a E g n l d v r a lg n

r H metres k d O i

a e a s i E S

o B G A s v l K a R s e

e s r u Toronto t t r t v C i n m n v 1:25,000 (At original document size of 11x17) n y e Q a e d H c g s i e T d l n r M u l s R d C w e u

a h e o e o 0 R 0

w o a n e A e n k B n 0 to 0

a p t t l Valdane e o l v Drive U e a t c i

0 A 0

l d u v n e

l ent o D e

resc n sa s h u C M r a

2 n 2 e ew C s ead A

n ve

i e m Notes H h r v A b l 4 l e i u d 4

G d r v a

d

o A v

8 8 A e i e k e o A e o 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

Edge Par v w u D e r 4 n 4 M e s

e e K e a n

nu iv Av v n B

e r r e t e r B e d

D n v i e u 2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and e t i n e C t

rs t g e v e r n n d u u n A R n e c h e i

a c s t r t

s d o a m e t r u

t L re v e e ls Forestry © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2019.

r K e il s c o u

u C e S e H v e H

o e C s i l

s e o e e e

C a o l t a R r n a r s n r u c e r m r m r t C D C y d

r a s e u r e rk a n C b l C

P e n h n Ba

t o e e S o t n o a R d e s w n t

a e A N r r

o c h t t t t r

R s n s t r i i o

o e re ent o o n

n C n c o t f W i o e x o e K a L yd fa r n A n u ll r n H d o d o i S e t N t e a

H a s h v a Av

g a A P e r t E o e ie S p D F r e D lk A w d u B v i a y

e i e n r n W o nn

r es ve t e t l o u e r e n h o u l e S u i C P A M e u

n v c ir n o e a t g a n v e l e e t r e rl C W u A A D ai e t n a h d e h l it e C e E S e ra lw n i r A v 12 p b o n e B 7 l o t l l s u e a o l f n v Richmond Hill w G e o g e u d y r h v n o n t A e o n e e D e d t e e u v S o h u u Markham c A r c C c y iv s d r R Blan en n e e e i l b l e r n v e d o a l o A u u e C r A M o : a ue n v w th S n Y o r k R e g i o n a l Y n u r e v y a o e e n B i A e Pickering

v o a w a a Ajax

A d r s v d r d B n e G o t B v l n g o r Ay a r M u n i c i p a l i t y

ia a A t L e A d 48 9

A d

l T h u o o S a t n v n K 1 a a

e l u o i R

-

u e e u d i

n a A r n

2 l w

r D m l C e

o v e e m 404

b n v o 0 a g

S n n C

- u r a u v l s v S e e P

r i a a l d d

0 t e

t e v r a i Vaughan h a n a l e n t A e r a d r r h 2 r e

m e e r n e v o

u e r N K n i i u v 0 m e V d i t n R A r o o l S e r

a m S e l

2 u e C l a o k e e i e k v q t n c p r D 401 : a a r S h t n G

e f d e r G o o P r i B k a

d u

o en n na c a a u S t

n v i u A r D 407 g l

e A r l s P l a a l r c u a o A e V e

s d e v 400 P r p A e r

i Lin d G a s r

e B t v e a i r v r l A e v v a e r c

e e n e e v i n f e i e b e f

r e f

l ra o n e iv N v f P D u i

e e s in n r n u b S R a r o l u b T u e D e n n h o T v r o u u l i

e C e L A le e e n r t u r l

v l C A e s d r u e u r o 427

u d a n

a n e B

e d M a S t u a r y a v g e e l e r v h A t

t e w a e e C s m e a e r n d m V a A i h l s N o t e x o r E M a 409 H i y v r R r c a c d A e L e m b e o u d r t C i t y o f . t c e v t s o o n g e a y p n e n H M nu e S c u e e e r u e v n w e e T o r o n t o r A t i r e A r Lake Ontario a e l n h d r y r o t n A r n u a W v r t bu s v r _ le P w e d S t i o e a r u e e O n t o S e k A o L a y o M n l Toronto B e n H t t a A n P l d s t v e s e r n a

r r u u e S a i e u c v n d e r t n k t e A e S

le e v n e s v c P G e b A a e o ri e S P y v v

o c u s l D R i A n n o t u a e M r 403 _ i

a e le d

i J e t g D u N g t

n v t u t o m i e n R a m f

e t e e h r f o e r C i i n l n n B u S t n A a u o c

B B S r Mississauga e o e a u v e e te P v n o S e i o r c a l t d

e e t k o e u c e A x in t r n o s n e

d n h r E g n v t r e A u U t s

L n

a v t ll e o h n e ve

i h e n e

u e e s A

_ o e l B c v D e e QEW

l a i c i a r s t r n r n 2 C R e r r W e i h

n A Te v A t

0 e s ll t g

e i u A e D v g C g r v B r i o t l i l d r e e e i e e v th s e o o F e l t a E e C eD c n e e n d n e d e _ F u E t C a Mal tr li s i ri e r n u ta S ff ve iv

1 n u c d a r A r u s e R o C S e e e A D r h L O k v y e v e rt l w l S i e e a ou o ly i S sf Project Location 165011004 REVA A n

J s C C o n t rvalley u B a _ t e i u e o e F W u u rd B n r s p u D m 4 B t o n rive Greater Toronto Prepared by BCC on 2020-02-19 S D A e e L i o e e t v 0 e ir v h u A r R o a e a c h a 0 n n

e A l w

g u k h

1 u i P i e E e ie Area Technical Review by CV on 2019-05-29

r A

1 l v v e l e y v F e ue d h a 0 e o n a n g l w

v e g i c w

5 v D M n r e t A L r n H o Independent Review by TC on 2019-05-29 e u o 6 a e y e f n r o r u d e t n t r i e A e o 1 r S n i l l v

\ o n v e l y k u A d to C i d

1 n e e n e n t e r u A v

e B n g Client/Project e A n e ve e g E

riv A t v R v

0 e D k e v n 0 a c o e iv

l a e t e o A r c b e

0 an Avenue id M n D u 0

pm s u n

S n a h

s a a n e

0 0 METROLINX

h o u e g

_ C D W n A d v i e

d t le u

0 0 a e e

J A r

o P M v o r h R v s e

4 4

S t o r i

s v e u

\

C ur ve a g F 8 y l e 8 i e o s h SCARBOROUGH JUNCTION GRADE SEPARATION r t c n n d A i

e s 4 h t 4 e lp in D n P M o o u C r D is e t v u i e u t n e d l

A e r c t i s M e M w g u

a

i en A

f v o A e

A o c i

_ v y n v v t se d

r l R e a e n H A o o M n n p s e n iv v u n Figure No. r L u

e e e D e a r r Cr e e o e i e S e e y \ e r ta l k i n l d u w d W y y a n is a r y u c f P o e g a V a T P rk t o v o e A o r A l t D e h c n v i d t t o la a r 2 e P fo n e e A A n l n A e a a sd v a Tee v u D e c h v ac s Title e e l c e s e e P e r re ce e C n n n u tt r a t n rke \ e u u n Pa C u u

s T n e e t e e u ve e v n d o A e ve rs

c rt A Location of Study Area x w po A n u

a e w e m n C l u e e dw h \ N R r n e idg hy e s o r

ad P e u i e v en nue Kim R nue k g s A v ve e a \ A cent on on y A Av L d bi nt dr llis a l De Lan Ho c A _ s i

g 638000 640000 642000 644000 \ :

O Disclaimer: This figure has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited under the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. 640000 641000 642000

ad d Ro a sels o ue e rus R ven riv B ay ly A rg D dw ave bI u r St ns o O Re n F v a T C i e l h h m w r rd a t u a o v L as s le r W R u i u E o t o

e h B t

n y i o u i e h w

n m n

v

ve R ja a i R

A n e t A e e r u d n B n e o o o e e l

t v r v u l lin Crescen D A en g y t a a e e $ v $ A

E wa d in A A e a ns d rr n ee

ra C o H v r v T c L u C e

o u e n e n n

m n e e Legend u t u u m ¯ e i

d n n e e K n o g L v e n t o d p o A ( r i a m e Study Area v d w m le In n y u a o e b B C A w rk a a a C o l v r g t m u e d a n h h k Project Footprint e y r n K e t A S t u e v ee C iv r tr v e r o S M ri e G r D fa e n t a n c en S l s e sc u e ue c re c g n C e n d e o ue e i Av n s r s w ve n lli A h k hy un t a P a rd e n e p O V ent t h R esc our a o fe Cr C r a od r n va d o n e e d W ge Sh A D u D a l r S l i r i v i s e v t e e d r oa od R A wo v ie ue e nn e d en Bo v oa Av n ace i R d u l r an fiel rt P D d rri or e lbe a Me H Ha k o Go c ue rdo i R A ven nrid w d A ge h le u lfe Pl s o irc t o ac A o u W e C w m 0 l t D 0

0 e o n 0

h i E o

0 0 ni p A r C s

3 p 3

v M le e 4 w e 4 R t 8 n 8 o R 4 r u a 4 t o h e n d a R ue nt a d o n e l ve sc l a B e A r C

d tte f C

e r uf rv i d r C

o e c

C m a e v M

s a

i l r t

e c

N e h D u y n e e M ve i A n d

ce R c n la k e o

a o s t r P l n

e c o A a

t H a e g l

a a a l

rg a v n r

A o B i r n e d

r p o e l

v W u

i e l T t R i r r D a f

e f e u o s D c nt i

L A n d r ce r o a s a D

k e o

o e v d s r C c t m t C u ri o e o v u M s e r n b w e y C a e a u n h l e e d o r t A e a t r r L W R o v a i G r n e i n G k d n r o e u a n D e P r A Co d i o u v H v n rt o G e e ra o a t e n r s v w r a a i t u P r y n A e a g D v M e e riv e e D r r e n t F idg e A R e r u v e rin oa e x ri v a d o e D d m F r e an r e e r A M a m m t l

l d m n n a u i o S S o R

u d rl l W y a e r E a e R C n G w o l o l i e e B t n A a e t J t a i a d a r e v e e N S a n e D nu n n d t ve N A u W r r e a i a V e v e v r e t ne a i e t i i e C v e M W l t t s i e r a a o e S r n l n s t t W r o s c R e w H A n e e i M e l ill a v d o i l rr n c o e e a t Ph r t a e w e n o d w u R R L o e 0 275 550 o h a o t a r e n d u d e o en f Av A metres n y on t v K a m e ar Stre e 1:11,000 (At original document size of 11x17) D H n e lga n O u n d e e t G Roa d ur i y o d le y d C Slo ee le R ns Notes oo y o M a R 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N d o a 2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and d B Forestry © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2019. r o o 3. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2019. Imagery Date, 2018. k S l a t w K Q i d n d a u b o A A e s r R v o n 0 a 0 B M n e T t 0 M o i 0 ew a o n n s k o t h 0 s u 0 n s ad Aven e a A e ue 2 i g e m 2 l t t d 12 4 d v n 4 r C i c v E a 7 o a e o Richmond Hill e 8 r K h a r 8 p n l n 4 e 4 e e s B Markham u w s r G C C t o c D e v A r Pickering c r Y o r k R e g i o n a l h e a i e r v l b i i l Ajax n n v d e : M s e t M u n i c i p a l i t y y w e c e e n 48 nu i A B e d e u e Av D v l n 9 e a e l e ev r l 1 e t 404 n i D n - R v 2 d e u Vaughan A r 0 i e

- A v n t

0 s a v e a E 2 d ny ue e oa un po 401 0 c n R S i ve n y n 2 o A le t 407 r g : ai u a s n l H ill C 400 d C e H d St e e n r a e e s d

i rk A a s

v B

v c e e e 427

R t

n H n r u K t H e u i o 409

e a C u t l d l s a C i t y o f b r x e r B o i e W m A n

. i T o r o n t o r r ue a c t n v e D e h A Av e r ie r k e O n t a r i o n L a m v lk i A Toronto C i v e W u e _ o o y n e u t d t u B n o A u e 403 t t r n t i

S l R e m

_ A l e i o l Mississauga v e a a t M A e y L

e d v a n a R D e r u r _ w QEW s e n o 3 h u a o 0 e e d o g u R i en v S d F A o p N _ lo o B nN a

1 u o u D d o S o r t u t h S r Project Location h e 165011004 REVA t l

J u h en e

_ S v B A v 4 i W B he Greater Toronto Prepared by BCC on 2020-02-19 l o lanc S a 0 v ue n n a r 0 i o e o v d 1 o n h A n e Area Technical Review by CV on 2019-05-29 1 t i r d A d n o u 0 w n v r g s o 5 le o y N e Independent Review by TC on 2019-05-29 6 e t A w v w o a 1 n n

\ A n rd u t 1 a a a v B A i e le e A l Client/Project u o e n g o v B nu A l v e o a el E u v e t n e n A v ls t rin l l o n s S T f e n ds e e a METROLINX r vi u d E _ L v t e u Da n K a en

J e e a a e u c d iv o es S r r r r \ a D e R C h m d K d s t n SCARBOROUGH JUNCTION GRADE SEPARATION A i en e la e B i d n Z e e r l g m V S R o u n r d

C a i e h e

g a u a e r i

n v t

f s t i l M l a n n e n e C r e a e Sca W

_ u b re r n r a e r t t n t b l n v e r S o e r a o p Park t r c D o v e e r L o s A u G re o a C r u w u e e D C r c o m p r t g g n r nd i a r k s n e e t a Figure No. d a S l e v t l r d G o h w s e r e t A s R \ e A v r t o c d y P A r S e v v e e d e r a g A h v n o e e e h n c o A f l h i e s a t f R n n l t i o l v n l 3 g S u u i i o k e p e t r e e u C a e d l n n a a A e i h o R a u c P Title c ff v r a R e st e s a g M r \ a Fl n e s e f u u f

d n ve lu Detail of Study Area x A e e ira B m u o \ en e M s v v i ds A Dri g n r \ wla adle d Ne S a c _ s i

g 640000 641000 642000 \ :

O Disclaimer: This figure has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited under the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. 84°W 82°W 80°W 78°W 76°W 74°W

AE N ° 8 4 $ $ Legend

¯ N Y ° 6

( 4 ^_ Study Area Municipal Boundary - Upper Tier Municipal Boundary - Lower or Single Tier Watercourse Z Waterbody

A Treaty No. 381, May 9th, 1781 (Mississauga and Chippewa) B Crawford's Purchase, October 9th, 1783 (Algonquin and Iroquois) B1 Crawford's Purchase, October 9th, 1783 (Mississauga) B2 Crawford's Purchases, 1784, 1787 And 1788 (Mississauga) A2 John Collins' Purchase, 1785 (Chippewa) X C Treaty No. 2, May 19th, 1790 (Odawa, Chippewa, AF B Pottawatomi, and Huron) K D Treaty No. 3, December 2nd, 1792 (Mississauga) E Haldimand Tract:from the Crown to the Mohawk, 1793 S F Tyendinaga:from the Crown to the Mohawk, 1793 N

° V 6 Treaty No. 3 3/4:from the Crown to Joseph Brant,

4 G October 24th, 1795 r Treaty No. 5, May 22nd, 1798 (Chippewa) e H p

w o I Treaty No. 6, September 7th, 1796 (Chippewa) C B

: J Treaty No. 7, September 7th, 1796 (Chippewa) y B Treaty No. 13, August 1st, 1805 (Mississauga) 8 L 2 - 1 N Treaty No. 13A, August 2nd, 1805 (Mississauga) 1 ° M - 4 9 4 1 Treaty No.16, November 18th, 1815 (Chippewa)

0 N

2 B1

: N d O Treaty No. 18, October 17th, 1818 (Chippewa) e s i v H P Treaty No. 19, October 28th 1818 (Chippewa) e Q

R A2

AB Q Treaty No. 20, November 5th, 1818 (Chippewa)

F d x R Treaty No. 21, March 9th, 1819 (Chippewa) m .

3 Treaty No. 27, May 31st, 1819 (Mississauga)

4 S

9 AA

1 N

_ T Treaty No. 27½, April 25th, 1825 (Ojibwa and Chippewa) s e Lake Huron i t Treaty No. 35, August 13th, 1833 (Wyandot or Huron) a U e r

T B2 Treaty No. 45, August 9th, 1836 (Chippewa and Odawa,

_ V 4 0

g "For All Indians To Reside Thereon") i F

_ AG

1 W Treaty No. 45½, August 9th, 1836 (Saugeen) S

S O J X Treaty No. 57, June 1st, 1847 (Iroquois of St. Regis)

_ Lake Ontario 4

0 Treaty No. 61, September 9th, 1850 (Robinson Treaty:Ojibwa)

0 Z

1 W 1

0 AA Treaty No. 72, October 30th, 1854 (Chippewa) 5 6 1 \ AB Treaty No. 82, February 9th, 1857 (Chippewa) 1 L e g Williams Treaty, October 31st and November 15th, 1923 a AF t ^_ S

_ (Chippewa and Mississauga) J S \ s P AG Williams Treaty, October 31st, 1923 (Chippewa) e r u g i f _ t r M o p e r N \ ° y g 4 o 4 l

o G e a h E

c T r a \ A 0 75 150 s d x D km m \ s i

g 1:3,000,000 (At original document size of 11x17) \ d a c _ s i g \ Notes a t a N 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 Statistics Canada Lambert ° d I _ 2

3 D 2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and 4 0 \ s Forestry © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2019. i g

_ 3. Treaty boundaries adapted from Morris 1943 (1964 reprint). 9 0 6 1 \ l a t n e R m n o r i v n e _ 6 J 1 \ Project Location n 165011004 REVA o i t

c Province of Prepared by BCC on 2019-11-28 n u

J Ontario Technical Review by CV on 2019-05-29

h Lake Erie g C Independent Review by TC on 2019-05-29 u o r o b Client/Project r a c S

\ METROLINX 4 0 0

1 SCARBOROUGH JUNCTION GRADE SEPARATION 1 0 5 6 1 \ e U v i t c Figure No. a \ 0 5 6

1 4 0 \ p u Title o r g N _ ° k r 2 Treaties and Purchases o 4 w \ 1

0 (Adapted from Morris 1943) F - 5 1 2

1 86°W 84°W 82°W 80°W 78°W 76°W D C \ \ Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data. $ $ (¯ Le g e nd Study Are a

NOT T O SCALE

Notes 1. Re fe re nce : T re m aine , Ge o. R. 1860. T re m aine ’s Map of th e County of York, Canada We st. T oronto: Ge o. C. T re m aine . r e p w o c b

: y B

9 1 - 2 0 - 0 2 0 2

: d e s i v e R

d x m . k r o Y p a M s e n i a m e r T _ 0 6 8 1 _ 5 0 g i F _ 1 S

S Proje ct Location 165011004 REVA J _

4 Gre ate r T oronto Pre pare d by BCC on 2020-02-19 0 0

1 Are a T e ch nical Re vie w by CV on 2019-05-29 1 0 5

6 Inde pe nde nt Re vie w by T C on 2019-05-29 1 \ 1 e Clie nt/Proje ct g a t

S MET ROLINX _ J S \ s SCARBOROUGH JUNCT ION GRADE SEPARAT ION e r u g i f _ t r o p

e Fig ure No. r \ y g o l

o 5 e a h T itle c r a \ s d Portion of the 1860 Tremaine’s Map of x m \ s i g

\ the County of York d a c _ s i g \ :

O Disclaim e r: T h is fig ure h as be e n pre pare d base d on inform ation provide d by oth e rs as cite d unde r th e Note s se ction. Stante c h as not ve rifie d th e accuracy and/or com ple te ne ss of th is inform ation and sh all not be re sponsible for any e rrors or om issions wh ich m ay be incorporate d h e re in as a re sult. $ $ (¯ Legend Study Area

NOT TO SCALE

Notes 1. Reference: Miles & Company. 1878. Illustrated Historical Atlas of York County. Toronto: Miles & Company. r e p w o c b

: y B

9 1 - 2 0 - 0 2 0 2

: d e s i v e R

d x m . p i h s n w o T o r o b r a c S p a M _ 8 7 8 1 _ 6 0 g i F _ 1 S

S Project Location 165011004 REVA J _

4 Greater Toronto Prepared by BCC on 2020-02-19 0 0

1 Area Technical Review by CV on 2019-05-29 1 0

5 Independent Review by TC on 2019-05-29 6 1 \ 1 e Client/Project g a t

S METROLINX _ J S \

s SCARBOROUGH JUNCTION GRADE SEPARATION e r u g i f _ t r o p Figure No. e r \ y g o l

o 6 e a h Title c r a \ s d Portion of the 1878 Map of Scarboro x m \ s i g

\ Township d a c _ s i g \ :

O Disclaimer: This figure has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited under the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. 638000 640000 642000 644000

e A v y t

Boem Aven e i Wa e e ue u H r d t u

on P s e e n iah

n s r t tre r ve L E m D n

e o t ki e c ee S t A a s a a

v a n o tr lk e w n

e v e S e

l w E J v F S a v ie e i n i A e l K w v r

e l ue iv a o l on r r s r o

v i n s e r L n d C s a lm e

d n d e u m l N t i e Burritt r r ve r l o v i e e a C S

R D g e

oad g A e r e a n N D n G

e y D a A e r J a D e e S u v

t L B e M a

L y c y s m D c i l o n e u d a l n re P k c e B n r i i y l m e h o d a l a w M s a b t B a o r n e P r

i n n e a r L o B o i D a H R A cos a u l k Dr r u a T r e l r e a C b d i a l a r T n il r s ve n u o B o s M a r t u D t u b z e B n m e o o G e l v l o D a h n c e s D u y A r B gar Co r w r r G k D n u urt o A d d e le e v a y o r e i m e r t C r v l o k e i e r C n a i r u e o i i e G v i r e U P e a R R v c

v d m r e a e

r n R a e e g l

a r a o t d d i e n d R S e B r e o c

h n a e d o h D o l r e S u d H ie C a h a R s rf o a or e Th e t G r e D g e d i d e i m e c D c u d e r v r n G

r g e t v l e n k o e r c n l i e l w M e t e w N iv $ $ r e i n sc a e r l R v e re S f r r e l t v i D t t C u e S c o D i e n r a r t i o t a le C r ve d in ve h t d h r e e r a e a d w A r t e D o e A oodD t h ethu l R M g d h s t B n u Legend d r e G e i r S e

s g t ac s e y e d l iv K b id e l t ¯ H tr e P l S q h

n i tr a t ava e m i n R li D v S ol s r t c n B F r e in n tt An e S ee u r S R o F n i e o w tre tr g o v e o ha rn K S h t S a n s o a e n A t o r e e P ( m e a L u c n m u iv e e d e an o A ra r o e a Study Area r d A u St sb e t G e l y iv a n u le v r T e d y r e ry y e ou C r M a D x v C a n e D l A t r C o v C e a r n G n R u r esce u o r u a

e a a o d r e C i b m r T riv g r e a a r

u r o R el D L a i n e l ad e r r d S e a F Cit lu o D o e B n e v Railway e s P u D ri u n R s n C l a e e c e c a u v d r D Av d en A e a ve e c e r v ve C ar o ri i

d c Ae ri g R D c e v a

o o t D l a i o n e E e d a n

w s h R n n v n e i

t v

r K c K a r le n l

he t e urt i t a r

b i o e o G k t a r g C S i k o l ro re t Major Road

i e e

l Rd l N t L W r

n r S a

p f e T e e d S a

o r l o D

a a d g r o l d

a a r e o C

r o o e a y d R c L S

t d R s ru e o

e T g M e o i r h r s d v d v A W i u n e A o ro i

ro e u t l

W c B o n S r e C M e v B u Minor Road k r f v

o w

a t le A t e D v

e i iv e T s o t m h r M e

D u n n t e e R y e

t n R c t

e e n u D d

x e d u n o e n a y n r n r n l a a b b a o r e n d d b r a e

f d G D e a m e

e i ro h c a o e c v t n D g

v v n L D B r e s D s o d v

r f t o W a n

o s s r A p a o a e a e

tan e Watercourse

d A n o r e l r r

i v S r d e

a k i v

e v i t i n t

r r R z n v r G B v i i

M r e v l e o o A r d d e e C B v tt u R ne D r e

o e en u a a rd e R e

C a L a u o r v D P

o D e w t A n e ls O e n v n o n o riv il a le l y

z S g r v L u l o o

u n D F r o a l u e r e a re e a o s o i d B s

a a M t a B a

i n M v N r tl m M e e Waterbody

l v y o d w g e l r t v c e L d n r t O

p i r i u

t A e R e a o n

v e i m a d e l iv y r e D n D le r i o e n k e d F o D w l

a e A l iv i c r r c D e

g u a r g r i R k h e k u

r en r m D S n s v

r v v i n r o B M o i o v

d a e n h r e A v i d D d e w u il le o dV r l A

0 d n 0 x r r r t d G G e a fo n e n o R a B Soil Capability Classification of Agriculture d d r e e 0 o e H r a C n 0

f in c t o a r m i o D A v i d e M u r s r r e o v G s l f a 0 re to ul l 0 r n o e v

e C a v B a kc i h l

4 d t S t ar R t 4 C h e P re ive t h d o H y 4 Dr s 4 m n o o a A ol ce K n e L t S 8 u e 8 1: Soils in this class have no significant o h s u a a v id re u en D 4 h e v 4 c u r M C e A e t n d H e r n R e W riv e u h e r A e i k c i n e v n d D y n l A ci rb t d e oa ry Bo ve v

u n n n i tu e a R w n limitations in use for crops a n n A d e r r e a A

rt e e C al o e c e e M e o s t ni R

s B d e lo e n n g o l

re C La C da

D r n

d n d C ti

r C A r i

r a e

a e M s

i M a d I

v o v t o s o lg 2: Soils in this class have moderate limitations S l

R L o e

e T R a e T

c n m yne rt c

R C u o o o C n d o M e c o

v m H w

s u a o R n i h a

e o e that restrict the range of crops or require

e u e w e o n

T e a o S w d n l t t

a m w n R t l n n a e

h V r v u a l

n i n s o a t

d t w y e e

e i o R i a l v n A e t r e a y n w y A nu

r M u e W moderate conservation practices e d v e c r t v ind e m o R g n R A y Rid D V n a O e e e ge l t c e r a s o r i o t s o l o re n C v g d t C R rd y e a e in s D e va a h n rd A u le a u d o

S sway C r d l e W R r n u A A b n l c

a e Be

iv Tr o e i lleha 5: Soils in this class gave very severe v v

e v v m s k en C B i r a o t v es

e e e t e w c

a re o r e u e

r n t A en u i n

d o lev n L v d B ar D r A o n d S y e F B limitations that restrict their capability in k u s

e r u a v A lli o a t

a m i y e

n i e e d r h d l i m r P

a r w v l

r n j a D a

e f g e c m

A K a e n D S a

e a e n n r y producing perennial forage crops, and

v e u k r o n h g u a B e R e v i P H t rt S d v L f s u A p i e t a d n a o n r i a t C u e e n v o a E n a rd k o B R u ue ce v e B e i improvement practices are feasible k n s e V h a b n e e e h o e e e v r S r R b i P s o m A C e i C on e n n i O u t u dg re

t r on iv e m n e

h t r e e e S e k s i in D v l

A u gl l A e D

rn g l d A E l e r

d fe G e R e c v i d u fi la v e

h o y r P a

o o e Soil Unclassified

a t v e v a H r e r i

e a d v b

a i R n l d r

o r S a m R W fe A d H n l v D ic o en o Ledge Road iv D E W ue a u C t G k p a C c l e n ra e i d d l w p nu

i a h a l C e o

g e s o e Av iv t M w e a

t r e H u M r rr m D A R n t e o n e u F a M r d o v en e n lc i

o e a G a A L a c v B o r te s s A S e p t S t e a M re on c A n v C c c n o a h r c ff ns n M i e o u n C du e A a w a e v w r a a c R r b i n l t n r d l h e g o l e r b o o h o n t B e C w e l o o w e

t a o A o d o v t t c i

R s en d e C r r o l o u l R c v i c i

L o t s a ra H f D d e r Cr e Te a u l fe e a o e t e n A ie h g e

v r e v b d a i D K r u h i v m dr g a o d e L o e C ve a D k r e ri h r v r n i D l H d i n D i k v n B t c a n G e N o e s c e e d u r l d P iv e r r u i A oa u r e e e e g R D d a s f b d e n J i f v ry g n e l e h

r e d y a m s s

e e o ri F H t h x g V n t S A e a o s o o o l

F R e t a D

n l e r

v e t t i r R

R ri v i eS d n i w v

u D r e r e v B

B o e W

y r e i u a o e t n m e e t e w

a m A e v o A o

i a n a r a m H n r A r e o

t d u u t va o R v u

c S v r d e n n M a e e o e

e H h e e S in y l

l n e c r c t M

m n R d n

s a a R o v t s t L

e u u

r r d A n o s A a r e B

oa o C o e y i r e o g

C s R a r v m

k u i a r v d

t n

c l e t d i o e

r o e

t n C

P s d

a ad

d n K o n o e a m

o a t t R

a a e t

C o u k u y N

h R R u a n le r l F y e l e lo R n 0 630 1,260 le e v

k l D d A t a S e a o e a M y e e

n n tre w g r o D u a S c

i e rm a E g n l d v r a lg n

r H metres k d O i

a e a s i E S

o B G A s v l K a R s e

e s r u t t r t v C i n m n v 1:25,000 (At original document size of 11x17) n y e Q a e d H c g s i e T d l n r M u l s R d C w e u

a h e o e o 0 R 0

w o a n e A e n k B n 0 to 0

a p t t l Valdane e o l v Drive U e a t c i

0 A 0

l d u v n e

l ent o D e

resc n sa s h u C M r a

2 n 2 e ew C s ead A

n ve

i e m Notes H h r v A b l 4 l e i u d 4

G d r v a

d

o A v

8 8 A e i e k e o A e o 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

Edge Par v w u D e r 4 n 4 M e s

e e K e a n

nu iv Av v n B

e r r e t e r B e d

D n v i e u 2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and e t i n e C t

rs t g e v e r n n d u u n A R n e c h e i

a c s t r t

s d o a m e t r u

t L re v e e ls Forestry © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2019.

r K e il s c o u

u C e S e H v e H

o e C s i l

s e o e e e

C a o l t a R r n a r s n r u c e r m r m r t C D C y d

r a s e u r e rk a n C b l C

P e n h n Ba

t o e e S o t n o a R d e s w n t

a e A N r r

o c h t t t t r

R s n s t r i i o

o e re ent o o n

n C n c o t f W i o e x o e K a L yd fa r n A n u ll r n H d o d o i S e t N t e a

H a s h v a Av

g a A P e r t E o e ie S p D F r e D lk A w d u B v i a y

e i e n r n W o nn

r es ve t e t l o u e r e n h o u l e S u i C P A M e u

n v c ir n o e a t g a n v le l e e t A e ir e C W u A d h D la t n a h t e e E S i l C n e v r a i r A 12 br w o n e B 7 l o t l l s u e e a o l f en v Richmond Hill G e y o g h v o p u d t r A n n n e d e ve D e S t e e u w o h u u Markham A ri sc C d R nc n n y v r Bla e e l o e e i l e r o n v u e e d C o A a l o A u c r M a e n v w th S Y o r k R e g i o n a l Y u u r e n v b n e n i A a o Pickering

e B e v o a w a a Ajax

: A d r s v d r n d e G o t B v l n y g o r Ay a r M u n i c i p a l i t y

ia a A t L e A d 48

A d

B l T h u o o

S a

t n v a n K a

e l u o i R

9

u e e u d A r i

n a l w n 1

r D m l C e

o v n e e m 404

- b v o a g

S n r a v n C

2 u u l s v S e e P

r i a a l d d

t e

0 t e v r a i Vaughan h a n a l e n t A e r - a d r r h r e

m e e r n e v o

e N K n i 0 u r i u v m e V d i t n R A r o l e r 2 a o SS

u e C l m a e l o k k q e te n i r e 401 0 v S a c p a h D r

e f d e r G P t n G 2 o o i B r u n a k a S t a o n c a u

n e in A D 407 : v u r g l

A r l s P l a o a l A e r e c

d u da e v V 400 P r p A e r in d G a s e L

e t v e a r i r

r l B A e v v s

a e e e r c i n e

e iv i e n b f e f

l r a o e v N v e f v r n i f P D u i

e e s in n r n u b S a r o l u T u e D e n e b T n h l io v r o u u

e C e L A le e e n r t u r l v l s d C R A e r u e u r o 427

a u d a n B

n e e d M y a S t u e e a r v la v g e r t e w h A e t

a e C s V m A e a e r h n i lm a N o e s t o r E M a 409 H i y v r R r d c a c d A e L e b e d r x o u t C i t y o f t c e v t s o o y n p g e n m e n H M nu e S c . r u u e e e v n w e e T o r o n t o s A t i r e A r Lake Ontario d a e r l rn h t n r n y u u o n va W v r t b s o le P r w e d S t o i i e a r u e e O n t o S e k A o t L a o M n l Toronto B e n H t l a t a A n t P s s e v n a c e r

r r u u e S a i e i c v n d e r f n k t e A e S

i le e v n e s v c P G e b A a e o ri e s P y v v

o c u s l D R i A n n o t u a e M r 403 s i

a e le d

i J e t g D

u N t ig e t a v t u o m n R a l t e h r m f

e e r e C if u S n l n C n A n B a u o c B B S r Mississauga _

e e e P n o S o e l u v te v e

i a il o t r d e k c e e x t i o e u r n o A s n n t e

d n h r E g n v t r e A u U t s

S n

a v t ll e o h n e ve

i h e n e

u e e s A

_ o e l B c v D e e QEW

l a i c i a r s t r n r n 7 C R e r r W e i h

n A Te v A t

0 e s ll t g

e i u A e D v g C g r v B r i o t l i l d r e e e i e e v th s e o o F e l t a E e C eD c n e e n d n e d e _ F u E t C a Mal tr li s i ri e r n u ta S ff ve iv

1 n u c d a r A r u s e R o C S e e e A D r h L O k v y e v e rt l w l S i e e a ou o ly i S sf Project Location 165011004 REVA A n

J s C C o n t rvalley u B a _ t e i u e o e F W u u rd B n r s p u D m 4 B t o n rive Greater Toronto Prepared by BCC on 2020-02-19 S D A e e L i o e e t v 0 e ir v h u A r R o a e a c h a 0 n n

e A l w

g u k h

1 u i P i e E e ie Area Technical Review by CV on 2019-05-29

r A

1 l v v e l e y v F e ue d h a 0 e o n a n g l w

v e g i c w

5 v D M n r e t A L r n H o Independent Review by TC on 2019-05-29 e u o 6 a e y e f n r o r u d e t n t r i e A e o 1 r S n i l l v

\ o n v e l y k u A d to C i d

1 n e e n e n t e r u A v

e B n g Client/Project e A n e ve e g E

riv A t v R v

0 e D k e v n 0 a c o e iv

l a e t e o A r c b e

0 an Avenue id M n D u 0

pm s u n

S n a h

s a a n e

0 0 METROLINX

h o u e g

_ C D W n A d v i e

d t le u

0 0 a e e

J A r

o P M v o r h R v s e

4 4

S t o r i

s v e u

\

C ur ve a g F 8 y l e 8 i e o s h SCARBOROUGH JUNCTION GRADE SEPARATION r t c n n d A i

e s 4 h t 4 e lp in D n P M o o u C r D is e t v u i e u t n e d l

A e r c t i s M e M w g u

a

i en A

f v o A e

A o c i

_ v y n v v t se d

r l R e a e n H A o o M n n p s e n iv v u n Figure No. r L u

e e e D e a r r Cr e e o e i e S e e y \ e r ta l k i n l d u w d W y y a n is a r y u c f P o e g a V a T P rk t o v o e A o r A l t D e h c n v i d t t o la a r 7 e P fo n e e A A n l n A e a a sd v a Tee v u D e c h v ac s Title e e l c e s e e P e r re ce e C n n n u tt r a t n rke \ e u u n Pa C u u

s T n e e t e e u ve e v n d o A e ve rs

c rt A Soil Classifications x w po A n u

a e w e m n C l u e e dw h \ N R r n e idg hy e s o r

ad P e u i e v en nue Kim R nue k g s A v ve e a \ A cent on on y A Av L d bi nt dr llis a l De Lan Ho c A _ s i

g 638000 640000 642000 644000 \ :

O Disclaimer: This figure has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited under the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. 639000 640000 641000 642000

e ue riv ven g D a d yA R bur Ro vel o s y ta en wa S s R rd e O F C m T a h h l o r d m u r a u va le r o n s u i o t W u

t h B y t n e

s i t

a R a m v i h

D E nj i R e n e e r u r u o B n t A

n o e e iv ve D Av A Crescent a a v

e n a y d ine r to sw e d ra e

lin a n or A c $ $ g r L n

E T C H v n u

u e e e o e n M n u m ue d u n n t e c Legend i v m e e A c n L ¯ K n v e g re o e o o A C d i p w a r m e t m ; lev Ind n o y

u ( a o w n b a

B C !! w n Study Area

k e a

r A C o r 5 g a a R ! m u v d ! a

n h l k e t e y o e r h K ; S t t n 4 e a ; v e C v e A u i d r tr r o S r ri v e G D fa e Archa eology Photo Log n nt a e ! e S l s e e ! sc n e e g u re nu c n C u e n d ve v e i A e A s r s un n lli d h k hy V er t a P e Pla te Loca tion p O nt rt h esce ou a Cr a C r en hev d Assessment Method e S A ug D ve a l ri S l D r i n i s er v df t oo e e W r Area of Archa eologica l Potentia l - Sta ge 2

A e v d d enu e Archa eologica l Assessment Required oa oa Av n R R d u od ia n rfiel iewo err Ho e onn M G B ue ordo Previously Disturbed, Low to No Archa eologica l A ven nridg le u lfe A e Pl irc t o a c ; u W e D Potentia l – No Further Work Required C ; m 1 o 0 t 2 ! 0 r 0 ! n 0 o i E ! s

0 0 ni p A e

3 A p t 3 Previously Assessed (AECOM 2016, ARA 2016, M v

l !

e ; 4 4

3 ! R s w e R 8 h o n o 8 4 w r u a a 4 t ASI 2014, 2017, Sta ntec 2016) – No Further n d i h e c d R k e t a H o u n e l a Work Required D en c l a v B s A re C r

r d te C e i t r ff

v e u r rv e i d o m c w

e C a e

Plate 2 v M i s o

l

r e e c o

N u D n y e e d M v i A n

e R c n c k o A

la a e s t l o n

a d P c A

e H o v o t e g l

R e a a

d g a a a e o r v n

o v A o r w i

el i r d n n h r r o

C p W e t u

l R D e i T r D a e

e u o

k c t e

n i c n L A o d r ce r a

u e s a o o e v C d s r t m b tC u o e e M s o r n o w e y C a a u n R h l e e r d t A e a t r r L W o v a i G r n e i k n G d n r o e u a D n e P r A Co d i o u v H v n rt o e G e ra o a t e n r s v w r a a i t u P r y n A e a g D v M e e e r r n t F e A e u iv e inRoa e r v a r d m e D e nd r er e r A a a m t M l m l n m n i Su S o

u d l W y e r a e e R riv C n G w D o l o e l i e g e B t n A a rid e t J ox t a ia d F a r e v e N e S a e D n u n n n d t ve W r r e A u i a V e va v t er e a i e t in e C v e M W t t e i r a S a r e B n l W s t t r r o s c R e w o n i e e l M o Plate 1 o e l ll i o ri n c er k a t h t e w P l d d a

a R L w o o a n R a n A e e 0 275 550 u d h n v t ve r A e o y f on t n K rm ee metres n Ha Str u e a a e n lg D O 1:11,000 (At origina l document size of 11x17) n

e G d d i oa y t d y R ur l le R Co e Slo ed y o se on Notes a M o R d o 1. Coordina te System: NAD 1983 U T M Z one 17N a d 2. Ba se fea tures produced under license with the Onta rio M inistry of Na tura l Resources a nd Forestry © Queen's Printer for Onta rio, 2018. E S a 3. Orthoima gery © First Ba se Solutions, 2019. Ima gery Da te, 2018. t s K t Q v i d i u l b l A e e r s o n 0 a B M A 0 o T t 0 M a i v 0 ews k o h n

0 e 0 s n r e a 2 i A n 2

e t l t u 4 B d C v c v 4 p

a e e 8 i o h 8 w r r 12 A n l n 4 e e 4 7 o c e Richmond Hill

u c n h ; s r G

C b D e

a m c A Markham ! r : r e c 6 ! r d a e v y o ! i n a o ! v e d Pickering s Y o r k R e g i o n a l B u t o n M e w ; ue c R n Ajax

9 n d n u 7 e i e e M u n i c i p a l i t y 407

1 v a t A d n 48 - e e n e l riv R v o l 2 e l D A e a t t t D 0 n o R s - u v n g 404 o a r 0 400 e d in i 2 m d v n A Vaughan

0 K e w u

2 d v a 401 o o

: e l e R l y d t le i t a s n g lls e n a i e E u H H s e e i W u c n e en v e d s Av rk e ir a e la B R r C t C S

H t

427 e d u H x tn u a Ches l m b e 409 . K l e C i t y o f a A i d i r t a t e o t u v s R n n k A ve e o ric T o r o n t o e A r

t a v ie n n G C lk o i e W u t a r i o D O n P L a k e o l n e Toronto r a t u t A i c o v i e e B g n t l 403 o e r

l A i e m o v e M A e l L a e Mississauga v h a n y a

c e r u r r s R w e n A h u o o _ QEW e a o 8 R

0 d d o g e i N u S B eN n a F v o A d o o _ o p r lo C u u 1 un r t h e t S D t u h l h n h e S e S v i B A n v Project Loca tion 165011004 REV A J i W e o Bla h S e a

_ l nc v e u r 4 o n n a i D d Grea ter T oronto Prepa red by BCC on 2020-02-19 o e 0 v o n A n e 0 i th d u r A d n r i

1 o n v r sw o Area T echnica l Review by CV on 2019-05-29 1 v g e o le N e y w 0 e t A v w o a 5 n n A

6 n t Independent Review by T C on 2019-05-29 u B a a 1 A i \ e A l o v n 1 ue A v n o e E u e e e Av v s Client/Project g l n n l l e n o e st a f s e C d u d a t r i E L v u a v n K t e e a n S D l a a e u e a d ve o sc M ET ROLINX _ ri e D r r e r J p a m d R C A h K d p it n S n e a

\ B e e l n e i d e T Z l g e s m n R SCARBOROU GH JU NCT ION GRADE SEPARAT ION r r n o d e r e V S a i

r t

i a u a r

o n a L t C h e u s n l M C t n e n n e r e n e W

g e n u l a r e v t i t n n a l n f e v a o e b S e A D o v ; r Pa rk i c w s

_ A r e a u r r p t S G r t l r w e C v l r t c o e o r u c d i r a r sg u e e n e B k a m d a D la o v d t l ! g d G n !8 e r e p S n n o e A A h r b t R u e o t e a Figure No. u v t o s r l v v P r A r S \ e e S r e e e e e o y A r v h v n e h g n a A fc h i e s C f o u u l t i

l r g l v n l d e e i i o r o p t 8 e u e d e C e a o l n n e A e i s a nu f R e a f a u c c h t Av s v T itle c g R e e e la e r k F M ea n a p ue n \ a n t s e u s Che a Av d oir e Archaeological Potential x ue ve M m en ri \ Av r D s s e i nd a dl g la S \ ew d N a c _ s i

g 639000 640000 641000 642000 \ :

O Discla imer: T his figure ha s been prepa red ba sed on informa tion provided by others a s cited under the Notes section. Sta ntec ha s not verified the a ccura cy a nd/or completeness of this informa tion a nd sha ll not be responsible for a ny errors or omissions which ma y be incorpora ted herein a s a result. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Scarborough Junction Grade Separation Project (RQQ-2014-C1-092)

Closure May 4, 2020

10.0 Closure

This report documents work that was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards at the time and location in which the services were provided. No other representations, warranties or guarantees are made concerning the accuracy or completeness of the data or conclusions contained within this report, including no assurance that this work has uncovered all potential archaeological resources associated with the identified property.

All information received from the client or third parties in the preparation of this report has been assumed by Stantec to be correct. Stantec assumes no responsibility for any deficiency or inaccuracy in information received from others.

Conclusions made within this report consist of Stantec’s professional opinion as of the time of the writing of this report and are based solely on the scope of work described in the report, the limited data available and the results of the work. The conclusions are based on the conditions encountered by Stantec at the time the work was performed. Due to the nature of archaeological assessment, which consists of systematic sampling, Stantec does not warrant against undiscovered environmental liabilities or that the sampling results are indicative of the condition of the entire property.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client identified herein and any use by any third party is prohibited. Stantec assumes no responsibility for losses, damages, liabilities or claims, howsoever arising, from third party use of this report. We trust this report meets your current requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require further information or have additional questions about any facet of this report.

10.1