Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 Appendix E - Cultural Heritage (Archaeological Assessment) August 2007

2 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...E Scope of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment...E COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES... E Description of Site Expansion Alternatives...E Study Area...E Evaluation Criteria...E Data Collection...E Previous Archaeological Research...E Physiography and Assessment of Pre-contact Archaeological Potential...E Assessment of Historic Archaeological Potential: Summary Review of Historical Maps...E Existing Environment...E Stisted Landfill, Town of Huntsville...E Rosewarne Drive Landfill, Town of Bracebridge...E Beiers Road Landfill, Town of Gravenhurst...E Evaluation of Site Expansion Alternatives...E Evaluation Approach...E Evaluation Results and Recommendations...E ASSESSMENT OF THE ROSEWARNE DRIVE LANDFILL EXPANSION...E Methodology...E Stage 1 Background Research...E Stage 2 Field Survey...E Proposed Rosewarne Drive Landfill Expansion Site...E Summary of Field Results...E Mitigation and Net Effects...E IMPACT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY...E Monitoring...E Contingency Measures...E REFERENCES CITED...E-3 Page E-i

3 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 LIST OF TABLES Table E2.1 Table E2.2 Heritage Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources...E-3 Detailed Data and Ranking Evaluation Site Expansion...E-14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure E2.1 Location of the Beiers Road Landfill on Historic Map...E-6 Figure E2.2 Location of the Rosewarne Drive Landfill on Historic Map...E-7 Figure E2.3 Location of the Stisted Landfill on Historic Map...E-8 Figure E3.1 Rosewarne Drive Study Area Location...E-15 Figure E3.2 Results of the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment...E-18 Attachment A: Archaeological Assessment Referenced Plates Attachment B: Archaeological Assessment - Rosewarne Drive Site Expansion Referenced Plates Page E-ii

4 Archaeological Assessment - August INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope of the Archaeological Assessment The role of Cultural Heritage in the Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan was twofold: a) comparatively evaluate landfill site expansion alternatives; and b) assess the preferred alternative. Cultural Heritage includes Archaeology and Built Heritage. This report discusses Archaeology. The Archaeological Assessment fulfills the requirements of a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Assessment for the preferred site expansion. Archaeological work for this project was undertaken by Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI). The role of the Archaeological discipline in the assessment of the three site expansion alternatives was to comparatively evaluate the alternatives from an archaeological perspective to identify an order of preference. To accomplish this, data on the archaeological features associated with each of the alternatives was collected, potential effects of the landfill expansion alternatives on archaeological resources was identified and the sites were ranked from most preferred (rank of 1) to least preferred (rank of 3). This was then combined with the Built Heritage & Cultural Landscape Assessment to arrive at an overall ranking for Cultural Heritage. For the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, the evaluation of the landfill expansion alternatives considered the potential for: Presence of known archaeological resources on site, and Archaeological potential on site. The results of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment were integrated with information from other project disciplines to develop the multi-discipline evaluation of the three site expansion alternatives, which concluded that Rosewarne Drive was the preferred landfill expansion site. An archaeological assessment (Stage 2) was carried out for the Rosewarne Drive expansion site as part of the impact assessment of the preferred alternative. Page E-1

5 Archaeological Assessment - August COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Description of Site Expansion Alternatives The landfill site expansion alternatives considered in this evaluation are as follows: Stisted Landfill Expansion, Town of Huntsville; Rosewarne Drive Landfill Expansion, Town of Bracebridge; Beiers Road Landfill Expansion; Town of Gravenhurst These three site expansion alternatives were first presented in the report Alternative Methods Step 1 Conclusion; Step 2 Site Alternatives, September, Study Area In order to assess the potential effects of the site expansion alternatives, site-specific study area(s) have been identified as follows: On-site study area This is the land that will be acquired for the landfill site (includes waste fill area with suitable buffer). Off-site study area This study area encompasses the vicinity of the site. It will be based on a distance of 0.5 to 1 km from the site boundary. This distance is commonly used to assess the relative potential for impacts between alternative site locations. Landfill access route study area This study area represents the route that landfill trucks would take from Highway 11 to the site entrance. For the archaeological assessment, only the on-site study area was applicable. 2.3 Evaluation Criteria Criteria for the evaluation of Alternative Methods were included in the EA Terms of Reference. Specific indicators or measurements for the criteria were developed for the evaluation of specific sites and were presented for discussion at the August 2005 workshops. Table E2.1 presents the criteria and indicators and data sources used as the basis for archaeology data collection and evaluation of the site expansion alternatives. In some instances, minor modifications have been made to the indicators to better reflect the data that was available. Any changes from the criteria presented in the September 2005 report are highlighted. Page E-2

6 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Table E2.1 - Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of Site Expansion Alternatives Criteria Group/Criteria Indicators Data Sources Compare potential for Presence of known archaeological Ministry of Culture displacement or resources on-site disruption of heritage or archaeological resources Archaeological potential on site Roadside surveys Topographic mapping 2.4 Data Collection Data collection for the Archaeological Assessment discipline included a combination of secondary source information and field visits to each of the three expansion sites. For the purposes of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment all potentially affected archaeological resources within the three expansion sites were subject to summary inventory following a field review Previous Archaeological Research In order that an inventory of archaeological resources could be compiled for the study areas, three sources of information were consulted: the site record forms for registered sites housed at the Ontario Ministry of Culture; published and unpublished documentary sources; and the files of ASI. In Ontario, information concerning archaeological sites is stored in the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Culture. This database contains archaeological sites registered within the Borden system. Under the Borden system, Canada has been divided into grid blocks based on latitude and longitude. A Borden block is approximately 13 kilometres east to west, and approximately 18.5 kilometres north to south. Each Borden block is referenced by a four-letter designator, and sites within a block are numbered sequentially as they are found. The three sites under review are located in Borden Blocks BeGt, BgGt, and BiGt. According to the O.A.S.D., there are no previously registered sites within or in the vicinity of any of the three landfill site alternatives. Page E-3

7 Archaeological Assessment - August Physiography and Assessment of Pre-contact Archaeological Potential The landfill site alternatives are located within the Number 11 Strip physiographic region of Southern Ontario. The narrow strip, which extends from Gravenhurst to North Bay, is occupied by hollows of sand, silt, and clay deposits and falls just below the shoreline of glacial Lake Algonquin (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 214). Glacial Lake Algonquin adjoined the rapidly retreating margin of the ice sheet which stagnated in the eastern highlands. During this period significant quantities of outwash were deposited along, and at the mouths of, meltwater rivers and streams which entered the lake along the Number 11 Strip. The deep soils developed on the fine sand, silt and clay have been cleared and support farming settlements (ibid.215). Predictive modelling involves reconstructing natural and social environments of the past, reconstructing the life ways of various culture groups that occupied these past environments, examining relationships between the life ways and the environment in order to predict the locations that may have been the focus of past human activity. By identifying the relationship between known sites and past environments, it is possible to select the factors that influenced site selection. However, while site selection may have been influenced by a few important variables, it was a complex decision-making process. Water has been identified as the major determinant of site selection. Indeed, potable water is arguably the single most important resource necessary for any extended human occupation or settlement. Distance to water has been used in southern Ontario as a useful index for the evaluation of archaeological site potential. The Ministry of Culture (formerly Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation) Primer on Archaeology, Land Use Planning and Development in Ontario (1997:12-13) stipulates that undisturbed lands within 300 metres of a primary water source and 200 metres of a secondary water source are considered to be of high archaeological potential. In the Canadian Shield in general and within Muskoka, in particular, there is an overabundance of water as attested to by the extensive wetlands and small streams and lakes. Therefore, distance from water alone is not a useful predictive index. One must take into account other environmental features in addition to potable water to predict the location of sites. In order to develop a model that is relevant to the sub-boreal nature of the Canadian Shield in the three landfill site areas, it is necessary to examine the existing prehistoric site database as well as ethnographic or historic descriptions of native land use. Page E-4

8 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 The wealth of recent historical information available from the Temagami District can be used to augment the prehistoric model and the results of the archaeological potential model developed for the District Municipality of Muskoka (ASI 1994). By testing these models in different areas of the Canadian Shield their utility and versatility can be assessed. The basic pattern of settlement, which has been identified historically, ethnographically and archaeologically in the nearby Temagami (ASI, et al 1991) and Muskoka (ASI 1994) districts, involves the later spring and early summer occupation of a main settlement by a band or several bands to exploit the rich fishery of the larger lakes and to engage in social interaction. Within the study areas, these settlements may have been located at or near the mouths of the major rivers draining into large lakes. During the fall, the macro-band would separate into smaller family or extended family groups for the purposes of hunting, fishing, gathering and trapping. At this time, smaller camps would be established along trap lines, in good hunting locations and at locations where fall spawning lake trout could be procured. In early spring, family groups moved to the maple bush for sap collection. In addition to the primary camps and settlements, small special purpose sites were occupied including camps associated with portages and overland travel, quarry sites, kill sites, plant collecting camps and fishing camps. Another important site type relates to spiritual activities. Sites of this type include pictographs, vision quest locations and spiritual landscape features. Lakes and large rivers are probably the most important foci of settlement. Generally, lakes over 25 hectares are likely to be suitable for extended occupation as the presence of a reliable fishery is a necessary prerequisite to settlement. While the general shoreline of a lake has moderate to high potential, certain shoreline features enhance the potential for sites. These include points of land, islands, river mouths and narrows. A higher potential rating can also be given to secondary features such as rapids, falls, portages, and river mouths or confluences along rivers that drain to, or from, lakes greater than 25 hectares. Wetland areas have the potential for sites related to hunting and plant collecting. Camps associated with wetlands would be located on well-drained locations adjacent to the wetland. These may be situated on ridges that extend into wetland areas. Soil data can indicate the presence of well-drained locations that may have potential for settlement. Environmental information for the three landfill site areas is available from 1:50,000 topographic maps. However, changes have taken place in the local hydrology since the Nineteenth Century. Most significant are changes in water level, which affect the extent of wetlands, the position of the shoreline and the identification of shoreline features. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, water levels were altered for the production of hydroelectric power and to maintain year round high water levels for Page E-5

9 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 recreational purposes. In the three landfill site areas, it is not clear to what degree changes have affected the local water table. In particular, the numerous wetland areas shown in close proximity to the study areas may have been lakes prior to reduction in water levels. For the purposes of this assessment, any areas to be impacted by the proposed expansion of the landfill site and associated construction, or areas of impact that fall within 200 metres of secondary or tertiary watercourses, and which are further characterized by an elevated setting with improved drainage and level terrain are deemed to constitute areas of moderate to high archaeological potential for the presence of pre-contact or contact period aboriginal activity, provided that they have not previously been disturbed by the current road, or any associated works Assessment of Historic Archaeological Potential: Summary Review of Historical Maps The 1879 Guide Book & Atlas of Muskoka and Parry Sound Districts was reviewed to determine the potential for the presence of historical archaeological remains within the study corridor during the Nineteenth Century. The Beiers Road Landfill (existing fill area and expansion site area) is located on Lot 18, Concession X West of the Muskoka Road and Lots 26 & 27, along the Muskoka Road, in the former Township of Morrison, District Municipality of Muskoka (Figure E2.1). The Township of Morrison was surveyed in Settlement began in earnest after 1875 when a rail line was completed, connecting Gravenhurst with the south. The rail line was Proposed Beiers Road Landfill Expansion Figure E2.1: Location of the Beiers Road Landfill on the historic map of the Township of Morrison, District of Muskoka as found in the 1879 Guide Book & Atlas of Muskoka and Parry Sound Districts Page E-6

10 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 constructed by the Toronto, Simcoe & Lake Huron Union Railroad Company that amalgamated in that year with the Toronto, Simcoe & Muskoka Junction Railway Company (Andreae 1997: , ). The line which traverses the western edge of the one kilometer Off-Site Study Area is now operated by the Canadian National Railway. Luigi Road and portions of Highway 11 correspond to the historic Muskoka Road. Also, Beiers Road corresponds to an historic concession road. No structures are illustrated within this area, but six homesteads and a saw mill are illustrated within the one kilometer Off-Site Study Area. Most of these are situated west of the proposed site near the Beiers Road railway crossing or to the north along Muskoka Road. The Rosewarne Drive Landfill (existing fill area and expansion site area) is located on Lots 8 & 9, Concession III & IV, in the former Township of Macaulay, District Municipality of Muskoka (Figure E2.2). Taylor Road east of Rosewarne Drive and Rosewarne Drive follows the historic routes. Between Rosewarne Drive and Mcnaughtan, Taylor Road, formerly included several curves. No structures are illustrated within the proposed expansion area, but nine homesteads are illustrated within the one kilometer Off-Site Study Area, all along situated along Taylor Road. The Township of Macaulay contained 38,639 acres of land, and 1,341 acres of water. The township, for the most part, was best suited as pasture, except around Bracebridge where market gardening enabled the adjacent town to grow in size. Proposed Rosewarne Drive Landfill Expansion Figure E2.2: Location of the Rosewarne Drive Landfill on the historic map of the Township of Morrison, District of Muskoka as found in the 1879 Guide Book & Atlas of Muskoka and Parry Sound Districts Page E-7

11 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 The rail line through Bracebridge was laid in 1886 by Northern, North Western & Sault Ste Marie Railway Company (Ibid: , ). This line is situated just west of the study area. The Stisted Landfill (existing fill area and expansion site area) is located on Lots 8 to 10, Concession VII & VIII, in the former Township of Stisted, District Municipality of Muskoka (Figure E2.3). The area was opened for settlement ca. 1877, and the Aspdin Road, followed by the access route) postdates Originally the settlers found a hardwood forest with scattered pine tracts. The historic atlas indicates one structure in lot 10 Conc. 7, although it may be situated just north of the proposed expansion site. The haul road follows historic roads through the hamlet of Aspdin where the historic atlas depicts numerous structures along the route including two churches, and a schoolhouse. Further north a church is depicted on the Crompton property in Lot 12, Concession 5. For the Euro- Canadian period, the majority of early Nineteenth Century farmsteads (i.e., those which are arguably the most potentially significant resources and whose locations are rarely recorded on Nineteenth Century maps) are likely to be captured by the basic proximity to Figure E2.3: Location of the Stisted Landfill on the historic map of the water model Township of Morrison, District of Muskoka as found in the 1879 Guide Book & Atlas of Muskoka and Parry Sound Districts outlined above, since these occupations were subject to similar environmental constraints. An added factor, however, is the development of the network of concession roads through the course of the Nineteenth Century. These transportation routes frequently influenced the siting of farmsteads. Accordingly, undisturbed lands within 100 metres of an early settlement Page E-8

12 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 road are also considered to have potential for the presence of Euro-Canadian archaeological sites. Therefore, depending on the degree of previous land disturbance, it may be concluded that there is potential for the recovery of historic cultural material within the three landfill site areas. Furthermore, it should be noted that not every feature of potential interest today would have been illustrated on the Nineteenth Century mapping. 2.5 Existing Environment A field review was conducted by Mr. Peter Carruthers, ASI (P163) on January 9, The weather at the time was overcast and the temperature at freezing. The proposed landfill expansion sites are all situated on the low north-south tending ridge of the former glacial Lake Algonquin shoreline. The sandy glaciofluvial deposits overlie the rocky bedrock ridges that are evident elsewhere in the region. The sites are all situated near Highway 11 which follows the glacio fluvial deposits Stisted Landfill, Town of Huntsville The Stisted Landfill is situated well to the northwest of Huntsville and will require a long access route from Highway 11. This access route utilizes two lane paved and unpaved roads, most of which have been minimally improved. Because of its location on the relict shore, the landfill is situated on level ground at a higher elevation than the surrounding countryside (Plate 1 ). The higher ground is defined on the southwest and north by the Black Creek drainage (Plates 2 and 4). Existing vegetation is dominated by young coniferous forest regenerating on abandoned agricultural fields (Plate 1 and 5) and by wetland. Despite the higher elevation, the proposed expansion site area includes small wetland pockets, and is situated within 200 metres of larger wetland areas associated with the creek. Aggregate has been extracted just north of the proposed expansion area (Plate 3). In view of the proximity of the creek and the wetlands, there is potential for archaeological sites in approximately 30% of the proposed expansion site area. All plates are found in Attachment A. Page E-9

13 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Historic potential near the Stisted Landfill expansion site area is limited to the margins of the historic roads that border the site on the east and south. One historic residence is depicted in the historic atlas in the vicinity of the northeast corner of the expansion area. Although the area was originally settled and cleared towards the end of the Nineteenth Century, most of the farms were abandoned and the area is now largely covered by pine forest. It should be noted that there is potential for archaeological sites along the extensive access route, since it follows historic roads (Plates 6 and 7). Of particular interest is the village of Aspdin (Plate 9). In 1879 Aspdin included two churches, a cemetery (Plate 10), and a school (Page 1879), and little has changed in the community since then. Also, although no longer standing, the church of Rev. William Crompton appears in the historic atlas on Lot 12 Concession 5; no associated cemetery is indicated. Also, there is potential for pre-contact sites near the east end of the access route in the vicinity of Lake Vernon Rosewarne Drive Landfill, Town of Bracebridge The Rosewarne Drive Landfill is adjacent to the east side of Highway 11, east of Bracebridge. The existing landfill and proposed expansion site is situated on either side of Rosewarne Drive atop a low ridge (Plate 11). The ridge lands north of the landfill sites are active aggregate pits (Plates 12, 13, and 14). The proposed expansion site on the west side of Rosewarne Drive has been licensed for use as an aggregate pit and will be disturbed prior to use for the proposed landfill expansion. Thus, only 10-20% of the site expansion area has archaeological potential. From the Highway 11 ramp the access route follows Taylor Road to Rosewarne Drive, and there is the potential for archaeological sites along the historic Taylor Road. Prior to construction of Highway 11, Taylor Road extended west from the Rosewarne Drive intersection before following an S-curve as it turned to the southwest. Thus, there is the potential for historic archaeological sites in the vicinity of the original route of Taylor Road (Plates 17 and 18), although the existing Taylor Road has been widened and improved (Plate 16). Much of the area to the south of the proposed landfill expansion site (north side of Taylor Road) has been disturbed by commercial and municipal development (Plate 15). There is no historic potential along Rosewarne Drive since it is a recent road. The Off-Site Study Area is comprised of Lake Algonquin shoreline to the east of the South Branch of Bracebridge River. Much of the area on the west side of Highway 11 has been disturbed. To the east, small stream courses follow fault lines in the bedrock ridge, and there is potential for archaeological sites in the vicinity of such water sources. Page E-10

14 Archaeological Assessment - August Beiers Road Landfill, Town of Gravenhurst The Beiers Road Landfill is south of the town and adjacent to the west side of Highway 11. The ridge on which the landfill is located was formerly farmed (Plate 26), but more recently a series of aggregate pits utilizing these outwash sediments occupy the ridge (Plates 19 and 21). Underlying the sediments is rugged precambrian rock with north-south tending ridges (Plate 25); watercourses tend to follow the fault lines in the bedrock. The proposed expansion site area is to the east of the existing and licensed landfill area. The area includes abandoned fields and borders historic Beiers Road (Plate 22). Also, it includes a small wet area. Perhaps 30% of the area has potential for archaeological sites. The access route follows the Highway 11 exit to Ure and Sedore Roads. Sedore Road, an improved rural road, goes south to Beiers Road which forms the south boundary of the existing and proposed landfill expansion site. Beiers Road is relatively unimproved and junctions with Highway 11 just east of the proposed expansion area. Both sides of Highway 11 are occupied by commercial properties (Plate 20). Within the Off-Site Study Area, a small historic hamlet is present where historic Beiers Road crosses the CN rail line (Plate 24). Luigi Road corresponds to the original Muskoka Road route. To the east of Highway 11, the land is rocky and rugged and dotted by numerous small streams and wetlands which follow the fault lines in the bedrock. 2.6 Evaluation of Site Expansion Alternatives Evaluation Approach In order to conduct the comparative evaluation of the three site expansion alternatives, the results of the field work and secondary source material collected for the study areas was reviewed and compared using the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 2.3. In the absence of any features of archaeological interest having been previously identified in Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Culture, all identified archaeological resources have been given equal weighting. Page E-11

15 Archaeological Assessment - August Evaluation Results and Recommendations The results of the comparative evaluation from an archaeological perspective are presented in Table E2.2. For each indicator, the alternatives are ranked from most preferred (Ranked first) to least preferred (Ranked third). The ranking of alternatives assumed standard mitigation measures would be put in place to reduce negative impacts. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment for the Muskoka Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan, determined that no archaeological sites are registered within two kilometres of any of the three proposed expansion sites. Additionally, a review of the general physiography and local Nineteenth Century land uses of the study areas suggested that the area in the vicinity of all three site expansion alternatives has archaeological site potential. Field review of the three landfill expansion sites determined that the proposed expansion site of the Rosewarne Drive Landfill, approximately 10-20% of the site has potential for archaeological sites. If not used as a landfill, this site will likely be disturbed by an existing aggregate operation. At the proposed expansion areas of the Stisted and Beiers Road Landfills, approximately 30% of the expansion area has potential for archaeological sites. There is also the potential for impact to archaeological sites if access routes require construction to improve them. This potential is expected where the access routes follow historic roads, particularly if they intersect historic hamlets such as Aspdin (on the Stisted Landfill access route). Also, there would be potential for pre-contact sites on better drained locations near reliable water sources, prominent landforms and portage routes. In light of these results, the following recommendations are made: 1. In accordance with the Ministry of Culture s Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines (1993), Stage 2 archaeological assessment is recommended for the preferred site expansion alternative. 2. If there will be construction impact along the access routes, archaeological assessment of the routes is recommended. The above recommendation is subject to Ministry of Culture approval, and it is an offence to alter any archaeological site without Ministry of Culture concurrence. No grading or other activities that may result in the destruction or disturbance of an Page E-12

16 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 archaeological site are permitted until notice of Ministry of Culture approval has been received. 3. Should deeply buried archaeological remains be found during construction activities, the Heritage Operations Unit of the Ministry of Culture should be immediately notified. 4. In the event that human remains are encountered during construction, the proponent should immediately contact both the Ministry of Culture, and the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services. The documentation related to the archaeological assessment of this project will be curated by Archaeological Services Inc. until such a time that arrangements for their ultimate transfer to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, or other public institution, can be made to the satisfaction of the project owner, the Ontario Ministry of Culture, and any other legitimate interest groups. Page E-13

17 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Table E2.2 Detailed Data and Ranking Evaluation of Site Expansion Alternatives Criteria Group/Criteria Indicators Stisted Rosewarne Beiers Compare potential for Presence of known archaeological Ranked Equally Ranked Equally displacement or disruption of resources on site There are no known archaeological resources on There are no known archaeological resources on heritage or archaeological site. site. resources Archaeological potential on site Ranked Second Thirty percent of the site expansion area has archaeological potential due to proximity to site locational factors including proximity to water, location of historic features, and land forms (i.e. excessive slope, low/wet have low potential). There are no known archaeological resources within 2 km of the site. Ranked First Ten to twenty percent of the site expansion area has archaeological potential. There are no known archaeological resources within 2 km of the site. Ranked Equally There are no known archaeological resources on site. Ranked Second Thirty percent of the expansion area has archaeological potential due to proximity to site locational factors (including proximity to water), location of historic features, and land forms (i.e. excessive slope, low/wet have low potential. There are no known archaeological resources within 2 km of the site. Page E-14

18 Archaeological Assessment - August ASSESSMENT OF THE ROSEWARNE DRIVE LANDFILL EXPANSION 3.1 Methodology Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) was contracted by Dillon Consulting Limited (Toronto) to conduct a Stage 2 archaeological assessment for the preferred Muskoka landfill expansion site. The preferred site is situated on the west side of Rosewarne Drive, opposite the existing landfill northeast of Bracebridge (Figure E3.1). The subject property is approximately 36 hectares. The leachate pipeline route between the landfill and Pine Street was also assessed. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment was conducted under the project direction of Mr. Robert Pihl, ASI, under an archaeological licence (P057) issued to Mr. Pihl pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act (2005). A field review of the study corridor was conducted by Mr. Peter Carruthers (P163), ASI. Stage 2 fieldwork was directed by Dr. Bruce Welsh (P047), ASI. Permission to access the subject property corridor and to carry out the activities necessary for the completion of the Stage 2 archaeological assessment was granted to ASI by Dillon Consulting Limited on September 29, This chapter presents the results of the Stage 2 fieldwork and makes several recommendations. Figure E3.1: Rosewarne Drive Study area location (NTS Page E-15

19 Archaeological Assessment - August Stage 1 Background Research The Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the three site expansion alternatives for the Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Class EA was completed by ASI and a report submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Culture (2006). The Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD), maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Culture, indicated that no sites have been registered in the vicinity of the preferred expansion site at Rosewarne Drive. The Rosewarne Drive site is located within the Number 11 Strip physiographic region of southern Ontario. The undulating sand, silt and clay deposits originated by meltwater entering glacial Lake Algonquin (Chapman and Putnam 1984: ). The location is situated on a ridge of gravel along the east shore of the lake. Historic settlement in the area began in earnest in the 1880 s after the arrival of the railroad. The 1879 atlas map indicates a series of residences along Taylor Road (H.R. Page & Co.). However, west of the intersection with Rosewarne Drive, the modern route of Taylor Road diverges southward from the historic route. Rosewarne Drive is not considered an historic transportation route. The field review determined that, dependent on the degree of previous land disturbance, archaeological site potential may exist at the proposed Rosewarne expansion site and along the access route between the site and Pine Street Stage 2 Field Survey In accordance with the determination of archaeological site potential, the subject property (Figure E3.2) was subject to a Stage 2 archaeological field assessment of the preferred landfill expansion site under the field direction of Dr. Bruce Welsh, ASI. The work was conducted on November 1 and 2, The weather was cold and sunny on one day and cold and snowy on the other. The assessment of the leachate/access route was conducted by Mr. Robert Pihl, ASI, on November 30, 2006, under cold but sunny conditions. Areas of confirmed archaeological site potential were assessed at five metre intervals by means of pedestrian survey (for open agricultural lands) or test pit survey (for closed lands such as woodlots, grassland, etc.). Test pits were excavated to sterile subsoil and fills in all areas of confirmed site potential were screened through six millimeter mesh to facilitate the recovery of artifactual remains. All test pits were backfilled and their locations recorded on field maps. Any factors which precluded the excavation of test pits (e.g. slope, drainage, previous disturbance) were mapped and photographed. Page E-16

20 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Where necessary, areas of disturbance were confirmed by the excavation of test pits at judgmental intervals. 3.2 Proposed Rosewarne Drive Landfill Expansion Site Most of the subject property has been disturbed by the existing aggregate extraction operation (Figure E3.2), and areas undisturbed by those activities are largely covered by bush (Plates 1-12). The wooded areas along the west side, and in the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of the property were assessed by the systematic excavation of test pits. Soils are sand and gravel, and the topsoil varied from 5-10 cm in depth. In the central part of the property between the two pits, a thick humic layer on the ground surface is covered by a thick moss and lichens. Judgmental testing determined that the area is imperfectly drained and wet, and there is no potential for archaeological sites. Along the south margin of the property, there are large patches where there is no topsoil and these areas are believed to reflect disturbance. This area was judgmentally tested wherever topsoil was present. The leachate pipeline route extends southward from the landfill entrance following Rosewarne Drive to Taylor Road. From the intersection, it follows Taylor Road west to Taylor Court, under Highway 11, along Macnaughtan and back to Taylor Road, where it would connect to an existing sewer at Pine Street. It is assumed that the pipeline would be inserted within the existing ROW and will be situated approximately 3-5 metres from the edge of pavement. Generally, the right-of-way along these roads has no potential for sites due to typical rural right-of-way disturbance. The roadbed is often elevated on fill, and the bedrock is shallow over most of the route. The only stream in the vicinity is southeast of the intersection with Highway 11. The only area with historic potential is between the Taylor Road/Rosewarne Drive intersection and the junction of Taylor Court with Taylor Road, but the ROW is visibly disturbed in this area Summary of Field Results Much of the subject property had been disturbed by aggregate extraction activity. All areas with potential for archaeological sites were systematically assessed. No cultural material was located on the subject property. Page E-17

21 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Page E-18

22 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 The leachate pipeline will presumably be installed within the existing ROW and is assumed to be situated 3-5 m from the edge of pavement. The ROW margins are disturbed in all areas due to road construction: elevation of the roadbed on fill, or excavation of roadside ditches. Over much of the ROW, bedrock is visible at the ground surface. 3.3 Mitigation and Net Effects The Stage 1 archaeological assessment for the Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan s three alternative sites in Muskoka revealed that no archaeological sites had previously been registered within 2 km of the Rosewarne Drive site. Review of the general physiography and local Nineteenth Century land use suggested that the subject property and associated haul and leachate pipeline route exhibit archaeological site potential. A field review of the subject property determined that most of the subject property had been disturbed by aggregate extraction activities. In accordance with this determination of potential and the Ministry of Culture s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2006), a Stage 2 archaeological assessment was conducted of the subject property on Rosewarne Drive, the majority of which had been disturbed by aggregate extraction. The bush-covered undisturbed areas were largely assessed by systematic excavation of test pits. Test pit assessment was judgmental in two locales one poorly drained area and the other partially disturbed. In light of these results, the following recommendations are made: 1. No further archaeological work is recommended on the subject property (Figure E3.2), and the property can be considered clear of additional archaeological concern; 2. No further archaeological work is recommended on the leachate pipeline route (Figure 3), provided that the impact area is within existing ROW (assumed to extend to a maximum of 5 metres of the pavement edge), and the corridor can be considered clear of additional archaeological concern; The above recommendations are subject to Ministry of Culture approval, and it is an offence to alter any archaeological site without Ministry of Culture concurrence. No grading or other activities that may result in the destruction or disturbance of an archaeological site are permitted until notice of Ministry of Culture approval has been received. Page E-19

23 Archaeological Assessment - August Should deeply buried archaeological remains be found during construction activities, the Heritage Operations Unit, Ontario Ministry of Culture, should be notified immediately. 4. In the event that human remains are encountered during construction, the proponent should immediately contact both the Ontario Ministry of Culture, and the Registrar or Deputy Registrar, Cemeteries Regulation Unit, Ontario Ministry of Government Services, Consumer Protection Branch at (416) or tollfree at The documentation related to the archaeological assessment of this project will be curated by Archaeological Services Inc. until such a time that arrangements for their ultimate transfer to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, or other public institution, can be made to the satisfaction of the project owner, the Ontario Ministry of Culture, and any other legitimate interest groups. 4.0 IMPACT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 4.1 Monitoring No archaeological monitoring is proposed. 4.2 Contingency Measures No archaeological contingency measures are proposed. Page E-20

24 Archaeological Assessment - August REFERENCES CITED Andrea, C Lines of Country: An Atlas of Railway and Waterway History in Canada. The Boston Mills Press. Erin Mills. Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) 1994 Report on the Master Plan of Archaeological Resources of the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Wahta Mohawks: Volume 1, Background Research. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Toronto Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment From 3.7 km North of Road 28, Northerly 3.6 km, and from 1.0km South of Road 33, Northerly 2.1 km, Township of Georgian Bay, District Municipality of Muskoka, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Toronto. Archaeological Services Inc., Algonquin Associates and Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates 1991 A Heritage Study of the Temagami Comprehensive Planning Area. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sudbury District. Chapman, L.J. and F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. H.R. Page and Co Guide Book & Atlas of Muskoka and Parry Sound Districts. H.R. Page and Co., Toronto. Ministry of Culture 1993 Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines (Stages 1-3 & Reporting Format). Toronto: Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology & Heritage Planning Unit Conserving A Future For Our Past: Archaeology, Land Use Planning & Development in Ontario. Toronto: Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology & Heritage Planning Unit Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2006 final draft). Ontario Ministry of Culture, Cultural Programs Branch, Toronto. Page E-21

25 Attachment A: Archaeological Assessment Reference Plates

26 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 ATTACHMENT A Reference Plates Stisted Landfill Proposed Site Expansion Plate 1: view to east, level terrain & mixed forest along Stisted Landfill Rd, south side of expansion area. Plate 2: view to west along unused Stisted Landfill Road allowance west of gate. Note sandy ridge that drops to wetland on far side. Young forest. Plate 3: view to west, existing aggregate pit outside north boundary of proposed Stisted expansion area. Plate 4: view to west, Black Creek and associated wetland at north end of 1 km Off-Site area. Page Attach-A.1

27 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Plate 5: view to north along Yearley Rd. Stisted Landfill Rd intersection in photo centre. Young forest on regenerating agricultural fields. Plate 6: view to southwest of Golden City Lake from Yearley Road. Note mature pines at left between road and lake. Shore line cottages & historic farmsteads. Plate 7: view to east, historic residence on southeast corner at Yearley Road curve around Golden City Lake. Plate 8: view to north, level terrain and young mixed forest along Yearley Road. Level terrain. Page Attach-A.2

28 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Plate 9: view to west along Aspdin Rd, Yearley Rd intersection in photo centre. Note proximity of mature trees and residences to road. Plate 10: view to northeast, historic 1882 church and cemetery in Aspdin. Note proximity to Aspdin Road. Rosewarne Drive Landfill Proposed Site Expansion Plate 11: view to east from Rosewarne Dr into entrance of existing Rosewarne Drive Landfill. Plate 12: view to south along Rosewarne Dr., aggregate pits on both sides. Proposed expansion site on right. Note gently southward slope. Page Attach-A.3

29 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Plate 13: view to southeast, entrance to existing aggregate pit north of existing landfill. Plate 14: view to south from Hwy 11, treed berm on left screens existing aggregate pits north of proposed expansion site. Highway curves around ridge on left. Plate 15: view to north, new commercial buildings and road within the northwest corner of the intersection of Taylor Road intersection and Rosewarne Dr. Plate 16: view to northeast from junction of Hwy 11 ramps and Taylor Road. Note wide and improved Taylor Road right-of-way. Page Attach-A.4

30 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Plate 17: view to northwest, historic residence on north side of former Taylor Road (west of intersection of Taylor Road and Rosewarne Dr.). Plate 18: view to east, recent and historic residences on south side of Taylor Road at intersection with Rosewarne Dr. Beiers Road Landfill Proposed Site Expansion Plate 19: view to east, aggregate pit on the east side of Sedore Rd and to the north of the proposed landfill expansion site. Plate 20: view to east along Beiers Rd., commercial development along both sides of Hwy 11. Luigi Rd is on forested ridge in background. Page Attach-A.5

31 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Plate 21: view to southwest, aggregate pit on south side of Beiers Rd, south of proposed landfill expansion site. Plate 22: view to west along Beiers Road, young forest on regenerating fields on right on proposed expansion site. The Beiers Road right-of-way is relatively unimproved. Plate 23: view to east along Beiers Road from rail crossing. In the distance the road rises on the ridge. Plate 24: view to west along Beiers Road, historic residence at rail crossing. Page Attach-A.6

32 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Plate 25: view to southwest, from Hwy 11 exit ramp to Ure and Luigi Roads. Note rugged rock outcrops. Plate 26: view to southwest along Sedore Rd., note relatively level terrain on low ridge east of Highway 11. Note young forest on regenerating fields and improved right-of-way of Sedore Rd. Page Attach-A.7

33 Attachment B: Archaeological Assessment Rosewarne Drive Landfill Expansion Reference Plates

34 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Rosewarne Landfill Expansion Site Plate 1: View to south from north end of west aggregate pit. Plate 2: View to southeast, no test pit assessment of hummock slopes. Plate 3: View to east, bedrock outcrop in northeast woods. Plate 4: View to east, test pit assessment in northeast woods. Page Attach-B.1

35 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Plate 5: View to south, east aggregate pit. Plate 6: View to southwest, moss and lichen ground cover in imperfectly drained central area. Plate 7: View to northeast from south end of east aggregate pit. Plate 8: View to southeast, test pit assessment within southeast woods. Page Attach-B.2

36 Archaeological Assessment - August 2007 Plate 9: View to southwest, across south end of west aggregate pit. Plate 10: View to south, judgmental test pit assessment within south-central area of patchy disturbance. Plate 11: Subsoil visible on the surface in southcentral area where there is patchy disturbance. Plate 12: View to west, test pit assessment along west margin of property. Page Attach-B.3

37 (Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment) August 2007

38 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...E Scope of the Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment...E COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES...E Description of Site Expansion Alternatives...E Study Area...E Evaluation Criteria...E Data Collection...E Existing Environment...E Stisted Landfill Site (Huntsville)...E Rosewarne Drive Landfill Site (Bracebridge)...E Beiers Road Landfill Site (Gravenhurst)...E Evaluation of Site Expansion Alternatives...E Evaluation Approach...E Evaluation Results...E ASSESSMENT OF THE ROSEWARNE DRIVE LANDFILL EXPANSION...E Approach and Methodology...E Data Collection...E Existing Conditions...E Background History...E Existing Features...E Proposed Mitigation and Net Effects...E REFERENCES CITED...E-24 LIST OF TABLES Table E2.1 Table E2.2 Table E3.1 Heritage Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources...E-4 Evaluation of Site Expansion Alternatives...E-14 Built Heritage Features (BHF) and Cultural Landscape Units Located within the Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan...E-26 Page E-i

39 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 LIST OF FIGURES Figure E2.1 Stisted Landfill Identified Heritage Features...E-10 Figure E2.2 Rosewarne Drive Landfill Identified Heritage Features...E-11 Figure E2.3 Beiers Road Landfill Identified Heritage Features...E-12 Figure E3.1 Built Heritage Features...E-27 ATTACHMENT A Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Inventory Page E-ii

40 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August INTRODUCTION 1.1. Scope of the Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment The role of Cultural Heritage in the Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan was twofold: a) comparatively evaluate landfill expansion alternatives; b) assess the preferred alternative. Cultural Heritage includes Archaeology and Built Heritage & Cultural Landscape. This report discusses Built Heritage and Cultural Landscapes. Heritage work for this project was undertaken by Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI). The role of the Heritage discipline in the assessment of the three site expansion alternatives was to comparatively evaluate the alternatives from a built heritage and cultural landscape perspective and identify an order of preference. To accomplish this, data on heritage features associated with each of the alternatives was collected, potential effects of the landfill expansion alternatives on heritage resources were identified and the sites were ranked from most preferred (rank of 1) to least preferred (rank of 3). This was then combined with the Archaeological Assessment to arrive at an overall ranking for Cultural Heritage. The Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Assessment considered the potential for: displacement of built heritage features and cultural landscapes through construction related activities, and disruption or disturbance caused by nuisance effects such as litter, noise, vibration, dust, etc. during operation. The results of the Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment were integrated with information from other project disciplines to develop the multi-discipline evaluation of the three site expansion alternatives which concluded that Rosewarne Drive was the preferred landfill expansion site. A detailed assessment of potential effects on built heritage and cultural resources was undertaken for the preferred site. Page E-1

41 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES 2.1. Description of Site Expansion Alternatives The landfill site expansion alternatives considered in this evaluation are as follows: Stisted Landfill Expansion, town of Huntsville; Rosewarne Drive Landfill Expansion, Town of Bracebridge; Beiers Road Landfill Expansion, Town of Gravenhurst. These three site expansion alternatives were first presented in the report Alternative Methods Step 1 Conclusion; Step 2 Site Alternatives, September Study Area In order to assess the potential effects of the site expansion alternatives, site-specific study area(s) have been identified as follows: On-site study area This is the land that will be acquired for the landfill site (includes waste fill area with suitable buffer). Off-site study area This study area encompasses the vicinity of the site. It will be based on a distance of 0.5 to1 km from the site boundary. This distance is commonly used to assess the relative potential for impacts between alternative site locations. Landfill access route study area This study area represents the route that landfill trucks would take from Highway 11 to the site entrance. The data collection and assessment of alternatives has been carried out based on these three study areas Evaluation Criteria Criteria for the evaluation of Alternative Methods were included in the EA Terms of Reference. Specific indicators or measurements for the criteria were developed for the evaluation of specific sites and were presented for discussion at the August 2005 workshops. Table E2.1 presents the criteria and indicators and data sources used as the basis for cultural heritage data collection and evaluation of the site expansion alternatives. In some instances, minor modifications have been made to the indicators to better reflect Page E-2

42 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 the data that was available. Any changes from the criteria presented in the September 2005 report are highlighted Data Collection For the purposes of the cultural heritage assessment all potentially affected cultural heritage resources within the three study areas were subject to summary inventory following a windshield survey. A short form name was applied to each resource type, (e.g. historic settlement, residence, roadscape, railscape, farm complex) and the locations were plotted on area maps. Building interiors were not subject to survey. Cultural landscapes were inventoried according to a consistent typology of units based upon Ministry of Culture guidelines and past experience. The following definitions of typical cultural landscape units were used: Farm complexes: comprise two or more buildings, one of which must be a farmhouse or barn, and may include a tree-lined drive, tree windbreaks, fences, domestic gardens and small orchards. Roadscapes: generally two-lanes in width with absence of shoulders or narrow shoulders only, ditches, tree lines, bridges, culverts and other associated features. Railscapes: active or inactive railway lines or railway rights of way and associated features. Historical settlements: groupings of two or more structures, often located at crossroads or clustered around railway lines. Historical research was also conducted for the purposes of identifying broad agents or themes of historical change in the area while historic mapping was consulted to reveal cultural landscape development. In addition, the Ontario Heritage Properties Database and municipally compiled heritage inventories were consulted for information collected by the Ministry of Culture about any previously identified heritage features within the study area. Page E-3

43 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Table E2.1 Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of Site Expansion Alternatives Criteria Group/Criteria Indicators Data Sources Social-Cultural Environment Compare potential for displacement or disruption of heritage or archaeological resources number of built heritage or cultural landscape features onsite that would be displaced number of built heritage or cultural landscape features offsite that might be disrupted number of built heritage or cultural landscape features along the haul route that might be disrupted Historical records Muskoka and municipal staff Roadside surveys Ministry of Culture Historical records Muskoka and municipal staff Roadside surveys Ministry of Culture Historical records Muskoka and municipal staff Roadside surveys Ministry of Culture Page E-4

44 2.5. Existing Environment Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 The following figures and tables illustrate the identified heritage features within each of the study areas Stisted Landfill Site (Huntsville) (Figure E2.1) There are no municipally or provincially identified heritage features within the study area. There are no built heritage features or cultural landscapes on-site. Within 1km of the site there is one built heritage feature (pre-1900 farm house) and two cultural landscapes (one former farm complex and one roadscape). Along the haul route there is one built heritage feature and six cultural landscapes (two roadscapes, one cemetery, one historic settlement (Aspdin) containing approximately six built heritage features, one farm complex and one former farm complex Rosewarne Drive Landfill Site (Bracebridge) (Figure E2.2) There are no municipally or provincially identified heritage features within the study area. There are no built heritage features or cultural landscapes on-site. Within 1km of the site there are eight cultural landscapes (three roadscapes, one west of Highway 11 and two east of Highway 11, two historic settlement areas, one east of Highway 11 comprising two built heritage features and one west of Highway 11 comprising four built heritage features, one farm complex east of Highway 11 and two cemeteries. Along the haul route there are two cultural landscapes (one historic settlement containing two built heritage features and one farm complex) Beiers Road Landfill Site (Gravenhurst) (Figure E2.3) There are no municipally or provincially identified heritage features within the study area. There are no built heritage features or cultural landscapes on-site. Within 1km of the site there are 4 cultural landscapes (two roadscapes, one west of Highway 11 and one east of Highway 11, one historic settlement area west of Highway 11, comprising three built heritage features and one railscape, west of Highway11. Along the haul route there are no built heritage features or cultural landscapes. Page E-5

45 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Figure E2.1 Page E-6

46 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Figure E2.2: Page E-7

47 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Figure E2.3 Page E-8

48 2.6. Evaluation of Site Expansion Alternatives Evaluation Approach Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 In order to conduct the comparative evaluation of the three site expansion alternatives, the results of the field work and secondary source material collected for the study areas was reviewed and compared using the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 2.3. In the absence of any features of heritage interest having been previously identified by provincial or municipal authorities, all cultural heritage resources identified during the windshield survey have been given equal significance weightings. However, cultural landscapes with a higher concentration of component features were relatively weighted with respect to their size and extent Evaluation Results The results of the comparative evaluation from a heritage perspective are presented in Table E2.2. For each indicator, the alternatives are ranked from most preferred (Ranked first) to least preferred (Ranked third). The ranking of alternatives assumed standard mitigation measures would be put in place to reduce negative impacts. Nuisance impacts such as noise, odour, litter, etc. are universal to all landfills and technology to mitigate these impacts is well developed. Page E-9

49 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Table E2.2 Detailed Data and Ranking Evaluation of Site Expansion Alternatives Criteria Group/Criteria Indicators Stisted Rosewarne Beiers Natural Environment Compare potential for Number of built heritage or cultural Ranked Equally Ranked Equally displacement or disruption of landscape features on-site that would There are no on-site built heritage or cultural There are no on-site built heritage or cultural heritage or archaeological be displaced landscape features that would be displaced. landscape features that would be displaced. resources Number of built heritage or cultural landscape features off-site that might be disrupted number of built heritage or cultural landscape features along the haul route that might be disrupted Ranked First One built heritage feature Two cultural landscapes (one former farm complex and 1 roadscape) Ranked Third 1 built heritage feature 6 cultural landscapes (2 roadscapes, 1 historic settlement (Aspdin, containing approximately 6 built heritage features), 1 cemetery, 1 farm complex, 1 former farm complex) Ranked Third Eight cultural landscapes: 3 roadscapes (1 west of Highway 11; 2 east of Highway 11), 2 historic settlements (1 east of Highway 11 comprising 2 built heritage features; 1 west of Highway 11 comprising 4 built heritage features), 1 farm complex (east of Highway 11), and 2 cemeteries. Ranked Second 2 cultural landscapes (1 historic settlement containing 2 built heritage features, 1 farm complex) Ranked Equally There are no on-site built heritage or cultural landscape features that would be displaced. Ranked Second 4 cultural landscapes: 1 historic settlement (west of Highway 11), 2 roadscapes (1 west; 1 east of Highway 11 comprising 3 built heritage features), 1 railscape (west of Highway 11) Ranked First There are no built heritage features or cultural landscapes on the Beiers Road haul route. Page E-10

50 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August ASSESSMENT OF THE ROSEWARNE DRIVE LANDFILL EXPANSION 3.1. Approach and Methodology The cultural heritage assessment considers cultural heritage resources in the context of improvements to specified areas, pursuant to the Act. This assessment addresses above ground cultural heritage resources over 50 years old. Landfill expansions have the potential to affect cultural heritage resources in a variety of ways. These include the loss or displacement of resources through removal or demolition and the disruption of resources by introducing physical, visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the resources and/or their setting. For the purposes of this assessment, the term cultural heritage resources was used to describe both cultural landscapes and built heritage features. A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection of individual built heritage features and other related features that together form farm complexes, roadscapes and nucleated settlements. Built heritage features are typically individual buildings or structures that may be associated with a variety of human activities, such as historical settlement and patterns of architectural development. The analysis throughout the study process addresses cultural heritage resources under various pieces of legislation and their supporting guidelines. Under the Environmental Assessment Act, environment is defined in subsection 1(c) to include: cultural conditions that influence the life of man or a community, and; any building, structure, machine, or other device or thing made by man. The Ministry of Culture is charged under Section 2 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the responsibility to determine policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario and has published two guidelines to assist in assessing cultural heritage resources as part of an environmental assessment: Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of s (1992), and Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of s (1980). Accordingly, both guidelines have been utilized in this assessment process. The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of s states the following: Page E-11

51 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 When speaking of man-made heritage we are concerned with the works of man and the effects of his activities in the environment rather than with movable human artifacts or those environments that are natural and completely undisturbed by man. In addition, environment may be interpreted to include the combination and interrelationships of human artifacts with all other aspects of the physical environment, as well as with the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of the people and communities in Ontario. The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of s distinguish between two basic ways of visually experiencing this heritage in the environment, namely as cultural landscapes and as cultural features. Within this document, cultural landscapes are defined as follows: The use and physical appearance of the land as we see it now is a result of man s activities over time in modifying pristine landscapes for his own purposes. A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection of individual man-made features into a whole. Urban cultural landscapes are sometimes given special names such as townscapes or streetscapes that describe various scales of perception from the general scene to the particular view. Cultural landscapes in the countryside are viewed in or adjacent to natural undisturbed landscapes, or waterscapes, and include such land-uses as agriculture, mining, forestry, recreation, and transportation. Like urban cultural landscapes, they too may be perceived at various scales: as a large area of homogeneous character; or as an intermediate sized area of homogeneous character or a collection of settings such as a group of farms; or as a discrete example of specific landscape character such as a single farm, or an individual village or hamlet. A cultural feature is defined as the following: an individual part of a cultural landscape that may be focused upon as part of a broader scene, or viewed independently. The term refers to any man-made or modified object in or on the land or underwater, such as buildings of various types, street furniture, engineering works, plantings and landscaping, archaeological sites, or a collection of such objects seen as a group because of close physical or social relationships. Additionally, the Planning Act and related Provincial Policy Statement make a number of provisions relating to heritage conservation. One of the general purposes of the Page E-12

52 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Planning Act is to integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions. In order to inform all those involved in planning activities of the scope of these matters of provincial interest, Section 2 of the Planning Act provides an extensive listing. These matters of provincial interest shall be regarded when certain authorities, including the council of a municipality, carry out their responsibilities under the Act. One of these provincial interests is directly concerned with: 2(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; In Part IV of the Policy Statement it is mandated that: These policies are to be applied in dealing with planning matters. Official Plans will integrate all applicable provincial policies and apply appropriate land use designations and policies. Since the policies focus on end results, the official plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the Policy Statement. Those policies of particular relevance for the conservation of heritage features are contained in Section 2- Resources, wherein subsection 2.5- Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources, makes the following provisions: Significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes will be conserved. A number of definitions that have specific meanings for use in a policy context accompany the policy statement. These definitions include built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Built heritage resources mean one or more buildings, structures, monuments, installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history, and identified as being important to a community. Cultural heritage landscapes mean a defined geographical area of heritage significance that has been modified by human activities. Such an area is valued by a community, and is of significance to the understanding of the history of a people or place. In addition, the term significant is also more generally defined. It is assigned a specific meaning according to the subject matter or policy context, such as wetlands or ecologically important areas. As cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage resources may be considered another matter, the following definition of significant applies: Page E-13

53 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 in regard to other matters, important in terms of amount, content, representation or effect. Accordingly, the foregoing guidelines and relevant policy statement were used to guide the scope and methodology of the cultural heritage analysis for the assessment of the proposed landfill expansion Data Collection For the purposes of this assessment, an off-site impact study area of 500 m from the landfill expansion was used. This study area is comparable to the study area used for the Social and Economic Assessments. It is also noted that there are no nuisance effects anticipated outside of the 500 metre study area. All potentially affected cultural heritage resources within the study area were subject to inventory during a field review. There were no features on-site or along the haul route. A short form name was applied to each resource type (e.g. barn, residence), and the locations were plotted on area maps. Building interiors were not subject to survey. Historical research was also conducted for the purposes of identifying broad agents or themes of historical change in the area, while historic mapping was consulted to reveal cultural landscape development in the area. The results of historical research are contained in the main body of this appendix while the built heritage and cultural landscape inventory is contained in Attachment A. It should be noted that this Phase 2 inventory work represents a more detailed refinement of Phase 1 findings used in the comparison of the three landfill expansion alternatives. Therefore, some features have been removed from the inventory while others have been renumbered. Built heritage features and cultural landscapes were inventoried according to a consistent typology of units based upon Ministry of Culture guidelines and past experience (see Table E3.1). The following definitions of typical cultural landscapes units were used: Farm complex: comprise two or more buildings, one of which must be a farmhouse or barn, and may include a tree-lined drive, tree windbreaks, fences, domestic gardens and small orchards. Roadscapes: generally two-lanes in width with absence of shoulders or narrow shoulders only, ditches, tree lines, bridges, culverts and other associated features. Page E-14

54 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Waterscapes: waterway features that contribute to the overall character of the cultural heritage landscape, usually in relation to their influence on historic development and settlement patterns. Railscapes: features. active or inactive railway lines or railway rights-of-way and associated Historical settlements: name. groupings of two or more structures with a commonly applied Results of the field survey, as well as conclusions and recommendations with respect to all identified heritage resources are described in the remainder of this report Existing Conditions This section provides the results of historical research and a description of above ground cultural heritage resources that may be affected by the proposed expansion of the Rosewarne Drive Landfill. The study area is contained within the former geographic township of Macaulay, being parts of Lots 5-11 in Concessions 2, 3 and Background History District Municipality of Muskoka The origins of the name, Muskoka, are not known with any certainty. Most sources concur that the name is native in origin. Some historians state that it was named in honour of an Indian doctor called Misquadeh, meaning Clear Sky Land Others think that it was to honour a Chippawa chief named William Yellowhead or Mesqua Ukee (Mesqua Ukie, Musquakie). Yellowhead fought with the British during the War of 1812, notably during the defence of York in April His face was scarred from a wound he received during the War. Yellowhead lived with his band at the Narrows during the 1830s, and later settled at Rama. This warrior died at Rama in January 1864, at the advanced age of nearly 100 years (Rogers 1879:15; Fraser 1942:2-3; Murray 1963:100, 130). Township Survey and Settlement In his history of Macaulay Township, Captain Levi Fraser noted that there was a large Indian village situated in the vicinity of the four corners created where the townships of Draper, Oakley, Macaulay and McLean touched (Fraser 1942:3). There were many evidences of the Indian occupation of Macaulay and the early settlers found numerous arrow heads and other articles fashioned of stone as they cleared the land. One settler reported that on his farm, near and including what is now the Town, was an area of about 35 acres which was entirely clear of trees and stumps and boulders. It had evidently been Page E-15

55 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 the headquarters of the Chippawa Indians, whose mighty chief, Mesqua Ukee, gave Muskoka its name (Boyer 1970:36). Macaulay Township is said to have been named in honour of Sir James Buchanan Macaulay ( ), who served as Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas of Upper Canada between 1849 and 1856 (Fraser 1942:150; Rayburn 1997:201). The lands contained within Macaulay Township were just north of the lands acquired by the British from the native Chippawas in November 1818 (Murray 1963: ; Treaty No. 20). The line between the lands purchased under this treaty and those which remained in the possession of the natives ran roughly along the line between the townships of Macaulay and Draper. In September 1850, a treaty was negotiated between William B. Robinson and the Ojibwa Indians which was interpreted to include the lands hitherto unceded in Muskoka and Haliburton (Murray 1963:lix, ). One of the first surveys which was conducted in Muskoka was that carried out by Robert Bell in In that year, Bell was hired by the government to open an exploration line which would form the basis for a road connecting the Ottawa and Muskoka Rivers, and possibly connect with Georgian Bay. Bell s original line ran between the townships of Macaulay and Draper. Construction of this road was not undertaken until nearly one decade later, at which time it was discovered that better soil conditions existed a few miles to the south. As a result, the route of Bell s line was changed and the route surveyed by J.S. Peterson. The road which was then constructed has since been called the Peterson Road (Murray 1963:lxxiv-lxxv; Coombe 1976:12). The first partial survey of Macaulay township was conducted by John Ryan in Out of the 41,902 acres surveyed, he considered more than half the area (26,000 acres) as fit for cultivation. His survey notes referred to large swamps within the township, and he noted the several waterfalls along the river (Boyer 1970:35). Ryan left a portion of the township unsurveyed, which he considered too rocky or swampy and unfit for settlement (Kirkwood & Murphy 1878:87). In 1862, a further survey was undertaken by W.H. Dean which covered parts of Concessions 4 to 13 (see Macaulay Patent Plans). Both Ryan and Dean reported that the township contained a soil mixture of good clay and rich, sandy loam, and covered in maple, birch, beech, hemlock, white pine, cedar, balsam, tamarack and spruce. There was an abundance of saw log timber (Kirkwood & Murphy 1878:87). In August 1859, the Department of Crown Lands announced that Macaulay and Draper Townships would be opened for sale through the Crown Lands Agencies located at Lindsay and Barrie (Coombe 1976:15). At that time, Macaulay Township was added to Victoria County for administrative purposes (Murray 1963:cv, 358). By 1877, the Page E-16

56 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Muskoka Agency for the disposal of lands had been established at Bracebridge under the supervision of C.W. Lount. He retired in 1878, and was succeeded by Aubry White (Kirkwood & Murphy 1878:55). An enticement for settlement in Macaulay was the fact that the Muskoka Road, the main colonization road leading to Huntsville, and another road leading to Parry Sound, passed through this township. Access to the interior parts of the township prior to large scale road construction was made possible by water during the summer months (Kirkwood & Murphy 1878:87; Boyer 1970:36). It was noted that there was an abundance of fish salmon and speckled trout as well as other game for food for the inhabitants (Kirkwood & Murphy 1878:87). The township also contained an estimated 200 water privileges, which would provide unrivalled manufacturing facilities (Rogers 1879:23). The first location tickets were said to have been issued to prospective settlers in October 1859 (Coombe 1976:16). The first entries in the Crown Land Agent s Book recorded the names of David Leith and James Johnston on Lots 2 and 3 in Concession 1 in July 1861 (Crown Land Agent s Records, p. 42) The first permanent settler in Macaulay Township was acknowledged to have been John Beal in 1861 (Murray 1963:336). Another early settler was James McDonald who was given a location ticket for Lot 9 Concession 4 around He, however, made no improvements on this lot and never resided in the township. As a result he forfeited title to this land which was relocated by Joseph Zimmerman (Township Papers pp ). The settlement of the township remained slow until February 1868, when the government passed the Free Grant Act ( An Act to Secure Free Grants and Homesteads to Actual Settlers on Public Lands.) This legislation provided for grants of 100 acres to actual settlers aged eighteen years or older, or 200 acres for the heads of families. Extra land could be granted as compensation to settlers for rocky areas. Before receiving a patent, the settler was required to have built a house measuring 16x20 feet, and to have cleared at least fifteen acres of land within five years. Out of this amount, two acres were to be cultivated annually. Moreover, the locatee could not be absent from his land for more than six months during any year until he had obtained the patent for the lot. Upon application for a grant, each settler was also required to file an affidavit which stated that the land was sit for settlement or farming only, and that he/she had no interest in the pine or timber, nor in any gold, silver or other minerals either on or beneath the ground (Rogers 1879:41-42; Coombe 1976:16). Between 1868 and 1877, there was a great rush for land in Macaulay Township (Fraser 1942:3), and by 1879 nearly every available lot within the township had been taken up (Boyer 1970:36). During the first years of settlement, for administrative Page E-17

57 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 purposes Macaulay formed part of the United Townships of Draper, Macaulay, Stephenson and Ryde (Coombe 1976:71). The research for part of this report has been hampered due to the unavailability of certain records at the Archives of Ontario. In particular, the Archives do not possess copies of Land Registry Abstract Index volumes for Macaulay, nor do they possess copies of the assessment rolls or minutes from the township meetings. 1 Records contained within the Township Papers indicate that the majority of the settlers within the study area did not arrive in Macaulay to take up their lands until May and June of Most heads of household described themselves as farmers or yeomen, while some like George Napier were labourers, Robert Leader and Samuel Richardson who were carpenters, Jonathan Leader who was a cooper and Gilman Willson who was a mill owner. One notable exception was the widow Jessie Esther Green, who settled on the west half of Lot 10 Concession 3 (50 acres) in 1882 with her minor son and daughter. Some of the prospective settlers described their residence on their affidavits as Macaulay, while others came from the more populous, older townships in Southern Ontario. Some of these settlers included, for example, John Marsland and John Oliver Wadge or Wedge from Walsingham Township in Norfolk County, Jonathan Leader or Leeder (York Township, York County), and Joseph Zimmerman and Arthur Honsberger (Rainham Township, Haldimand County). The majority of these new settlers were either of Canadian, English or Scottish origin. Edward Nicholson, for example, was a native of England who immigrated to Canada in His youngest son, Germany Nicholson, was born on the Ocean (1871 Macaulay census, division i p. 19). The 1871 agricultural census for Macaulay Township showed that although most households owned tracts consisting of 100 or 200 acres in extent, the acreage cleared was generally not more than 20% of the total land owned. For example, Alexander Barron and Andrew Milne both owned 200 acre farms, and both men had cleared just twenty acres each. The remaining farms, all 100 acre properties, ranged between two and seventeen acres cleared. By 1871, the majority of the original Crown patentees still owned the land which they were granted. Exceptions included James Boyer (Lot 7 Concession 3) who had sold to Robert Leader, Edward Bothamley (Lot 10 Concession 3) who had sold to John Oliver Wedge (or Wadge), and Joseph Zimmerman (Lot 9 Concession 4) who had sold to Samuel Richardson. 1 The only land related records which the Archives holds, in addition to the Township Papers, are the General Registers, Alpha Index books and copy books of instruments for Macaulay (RG61-35, microfilm reels GSU , and GSU ). Page E-18

58 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 The agricultural produce on the farms within the study area was limited in comparison to other farms enumerated in other parts of Southern Ontario in Most families grew grains, legumes and root crops, and they included wheat, oats, rye, peas, barley, corn, carrots, turnip, mangel wurzel and potatoes. One farmer, John Bailey, grew buckwheat on part Lot 11 Concession 3. Nearly every farm produced crops of hay, which was necessary as winter fodder and bedding for their livestock. The 1879 Atlas noted that most of the land in Macaulay Township was best suited for pasture (Rogers 1879:23). Most farmers owned small numbers of livestock, which included horses, milk cows, sheep, pigs, and horned cattle, while a few families owned working oxen. Additional produce on most farms included butter and firewood. Some farms produced maple sugar, while only the farm owned by Alexander Barron (Lot 5 Concession 2) produced wool. There was no evidence in this census that there was fruit growing or cheese production within the study area. Some farmers did enumerate a variety of animal pelts on the census schedule, such as beaver and muskrat (Gilman Willson, Lot 4 Concession 5) and mink skins (Edward Nicholson, Lot 9 Concession 3). Several farmers within the study area sold the pine timber which they had cleared from their lands. In 1871, for example, Gilman Willson cut 480 standard pine logs from his land, and produced 1,300 cubic feet of squared pine timber. Robert Warner cut 270 logs and produced 1,800 cubic feet of timber. Andrew Milne cut 1,150 pine logs, and produced 1,700 cubic feet of timber. Samuel Richardson cut 400 pine logs and produced 500 cubic feet of timber. Alexander Barron and Charles Stephens produced the smallest amount, 40 logs and 120 and 170 cubic feet of timber respectively. Out of the fifteen families sampled for this research from the 1871 census, all were Protestants. The two largest denominations were Methodists and Presbyterians (33% each), followed by the Church of England (20%), and Baptists and Congregationalists (7% each). Some of the families within the study area had prospered sufficiently that they owned wagons, and carriages or sleighs. Gilman Willson owned two pleasure boats. Early Roads and Transportation Taylor Road (CLU 4) 2 is an original township road, established under the Ryan survey of 1857, which comprised the road allowance between Concessions 2 and 3. The jogs taken by the road in several places was clearly dictated by the local topography, since corresponding hills were depicted on the township map produced by J. Stoughton Dennis in September It is noted that the numbering of cultural landscape units (CLU) was revised for the assessment of Rosewarne Drive. Page E-19

59 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Rosewarne Drive appears to mark the limits between Township Lots 8 and 9 within the study area, and the line for this road would have been allocated when the first survey was undertaken in However, unlike the typical pattern established in the older and more populous townships surrounding Lakes Ontario and Erie where sidelines were opened between every second lot, the system in Muskoka created a sideline road for every fifth lot. Travelled roads opened between these lots were established much later, normally through a petition of the township inhabitants which was presented to the township council. The 1879 map of Macaulay suggests that this road was not formally opened until after that year; however, due to the lack of records at the Archives of Ontario, the Township bylaws could not be searched in order to establish a date for this road. Cedar Lane, former historic Baysville Road, appears to have been a forced road created across part of Lots 5 and 6 after the underlying Township fabric was surveyed in It may have been a commonly traveled road which followed the local topography, and would therefore have provided an easier route than the original sideline allowance. Travelled roads opened between these lots were established much later, normally through a petition of the township inhabitants which was presented to the township council. The 1879 map of Macaulay suggests that this road was not formally opened until after that year; however, due to the lack of records at the Archives of Ontario, the Township bylaws could not be searched in order to establish a date for this road Existing Features Mary MacDonald completed a field survey in November, It should be noted that this Phase 2 (Assessment of the Preferred Site) inventory work represents a refinement of Phase 1 (Evaluation of the Site Expansion Alternatives) findings. Therefore, some features have been removed from the inventory while others have been renumbered. West of Highway 11, the study area is predominantly residential (Town of Bracebridge). The current landfill, the proposed Rosewarne Landfill expansion site, which is presently a gravel pit, as well as a few residences and businesses are located east of the highway. There are a few features of heritage interest within the study area, including the former Macaulay Township Hall (BHF 1) located on the school board property, and a Nineteenth Century homestead (CLU 1). There are also two historic cemeteries (CLU 2 and CLU 3 and one roadscape, Taylor Road (CLU 4). Taylor Road consists of a narrow and winding two lane paved road with gravel shoulders at some locations. With the exception of CLU 3, which is more than 500 m from the expansion site in the one kilometre off-site study area, all features are located within the 500 m off-site study area. There are no structures designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Page E-20

60 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Attachment A provides an inventory, description and photos of all identified features. The following provide a summary of each of the identified features. BHF 1 The former Macauley Township Hall was originally built to serve School Section No. 1, Bracebridge. It was one of the few Muskoka school houses built of cement blocks and was constructed in It was replaced in 1959 by the new Macauley Public School across the road. CLU 1 The farm complex at 1060 Taylor Road, at the crossroad of Rosewarne Drive and Taylor Road, appears to have been built prior to These buildings would have been constructed on part Lot 9 Concession 3 by Edward Nicholson. These houses may possibly date from the late 1860s, and would have been constructed in partial fulfillment of the requisite settlement duties. CLU 2 This cemetery has been identified by the Ontario Genealogical Society as the Nicholson Cemetery situated on part Lot 9 Concession 3 (OGS 1987:99). This cemetery has been transcribed and the records published, although there were no copies available at the Archives of Ontario, nor within the Toronto Library system. It was opened in CLU 3 3 This cemetery has been identified by the Ontario Genealogical Society as the Free Methodist Cemetery situated on part Lot 10 Concession 2 (OGS 1987:99). This cemetery has been transcribed and the records published, although there were no copies available at the Archives of Ontario, nor within the Toronto Library system. It was opened in CLU4 Taylor Road is an original township road, established under the Ryan survey of 1857, which comprised the road allowance between Concessions 2 and 3. Table E3.1 lists all of the features of heritage interest and Figure E3.1 shows their general locations. 3 It is noted that this feature is outside of the 500 metre study area. Page E-21

61 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 TABLE E3.1 - Built Heritage Features (BHF) and Cultural Landscape Units (CLU) Located within the Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Feature Address Feature Type Age BHF Cedar Lane Macaulay Twp Hall 1924 CLU Taylor Road Farm Complex Pre-1900 CLU Taylor Road Cemetery 1888 CLU Taylor Road Cemetery 1890 CLU 4 Taylor Road Roadscape Pre Proposed Mitigation and Net Effects Historic research revealed that the study area has origins in Nineteenth Century survey and settlement in Macauley Township. Field survey conducted in November 2006 confirmed an altered Nineteenth Century landscape that maintains some of its rural heritage character. A few cultural heritage resources exist within the study area. These include; One built heritage feature which consists of the Macaulay Township Hall, and four cultural landscapes, including a farm complex, a roadscape and two cemeteries. With the exception of one of the cemeteries, which is greater than 500 m from the expansion site, all of the heritage features are located within the 500 m off-site study area. There are no designated structures under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act within the study area. No adverse effects (displacements or disruptions) are anticipated for any of the identified features, during the construction, operation or post-closure periods of the landfill. The leachate pipeline construction will not affect the roadscape on Taylor Road. To minimize the potential for effects on built heritage features or cultural landscapes, the vegetated buffer around the site should be left to screen views, and fencerows and hedgerows in the study area that may be affected by construction of the landfill or leachate pipeline should be preserved where extant. This will help to preserve the historic environment. Page E-22

62 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August REFERENCES CITED A. Books and Manuscripts. Armstrong, Frederick H Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Toronto: Dundurn Press. Boyer, George W Early Days in Muskoka. A Story About the Settlement of Communities in the Free Grant Lands and of Pioneer Life in Muskoka. Bracebridge: Herald-Gazette Press. Coombe, Geraldine Muskoka Past and Present. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd. Fraser, Capt. Levi R History of Muskoka (no publisher cited). Kirkwood, A. and J.J. Murphy The Undeveloped Lands in Northern & Western Ontario. Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co. Ministry of Culture 1981 Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component s. Ministry of Transportation 2002 Environmental Reference for Highway Design. Murray, Florence B Muskoka and Haliburton A Collection of Documents. (Ontario Series VI) Toronto: printed by the University of Toronto Press for the Champlain Society. Ontario Genealogical Society Inventory of Cemeteries in Ontario: A Genealogical Research Guide. (Verna Ronnow, ed.) Toronto: OGS. Rayburn, Alan Place Names of Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Rogers, John and S. Penson Guide Book & Atlas of Muskoka and Parry Sound Districts. Toronto: H.R. Page & Co. Page E-24

63 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 [ ] n.d. Macaulay Township Papers, Archives of Ontario RG1-58 (formerly RG1 C-IV), envelope 2 box 296 item 4; envelope 3 box 296 item 5 and envelope 4 item 296 item 6 (microfilm MS658 reel 266). [ ] 1858 Crown Land Agent s Records for the Muskoka District, Victoria County ( ) Archives of Ontario RG (formerly RG1 D-13 volume 1), B Crown Land Agent, Locations in Muskoka District ( ) Archives of Ontario RG (microfilm MS693 reels ). [ ] 1871 Macaulay Township Census, division I pages and (NAC microfilm C10023). [ ] 1891 Canada. Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to Ottawa: Brown Chamberlin, Queen s Printer. B. Maps. Deane, W.H Copy of Part of Macaulay, Muskoka District (Town of Bracebridge). Plan filed in the Crown Lands Office, July 28, Archives of Ontario RG1-100 drawer 180 (DO27921, Winearls A1170). Dennis, J. Stoughton Tracing Showing Survey of Muskoka Road Through Draper and Macaulay. Plan dated September 1, 1860 (SR11110) Archives of Ontario C (container N916). Ryan, John Copy of Plan of the Township of Macaulay, Town of Bracebridge, Muskoka District, No. 1. Plan dated March 1858, filed in the Crown Lands Office, April 24, Archives of Ontario RG1-100, drawer 180 (DO27919, Winearls A1168). [ ] 1927 Control Survey in the Townships of Monck, Stephenson, Macaulay, Draper, Oakley, McLean, Ridout and Brunel in the District of Muskoka. Archives of Ontario: RG box O-1015 (B164081). [ ] n.d. Bracebridge-Town-, Draper, Macaulay and Oakley Townships. Archives of Ontario: RG box 1. Page E-25

64 ATTACHMENT A: Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Inventory Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan District Municipality of Muskoka, Ontario

65 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Built Heritage Feature: BHF 1 Address: 1281 Cedar Lane (address is approximate) Feature Type: Macaulay Township Hall, former schoolhouse Construction Period: 1924 Construction Material: Description: Architecture Type: Integrity: Condition: Historical Associations: Other Comments: Textured concrete walling on a stone foundation. One storey, wood frame and concrete structure with a hipped asphalt roof and triangular dormer. There are stone sills, a wooden entrance and a bell tower, typical of early schoolhouses. Vernacular Very good Poor Township settlement and community activity This public building was formerly a school and is located across the street from the Macaulay Public School. There are mature trees on the property, as well as a barn. Letters are carved into the face of the structure which reads: SSNOIGKWFWH. The former Macauley Township Hall was originally built to serve School Section No. 1, Bracebridge. It was one of the few Muskoka shool houses built of cement blocks and was constructed in It was replaced in 1959 by the new Macauley Public School across the road. Page Attach A.1

66 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Cultural Landscape Unit: CLU 1 Address: 1060 Taylor Road Feature Type: Construction Period: Construction Material: Description: Architecture Type: Historical Associations: Other Comments: Farm Complex Pre-1900 The house has unknown walling on a stone foundation. This farm complex is comprised of a farm residence and a variety of ancillary sheds and barns. The one and one half storey house has synthetic siding and a cross gable metal roof. It also has aluminium windows. The ancillary sheds and barns are generally horizontal plank with metal roofs. Vernacular Township settlement There are mature trees on the large lot. Page Attach A.2

67 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Cultural Landscape Unit: CLU 2 Address: 1091 Taylor Road Landscape Feature Type: Nicholson Cemetery Construction Period: 1888 Historical Associations: Description: Township Settlement The Nicholson Cemetery is largely free of headstones and the boundary of the property is defined by trees and wire fence. It is situated on part Lot 9 Concession 3 (OGS 1987:99). This cemetery has been transcribed and the records published, although there were no copies available at the Archives of Ontario, nor within the Toronto Library system. It was opened in Page Attach A.3

68 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Cultural Landscape Unit: CLU 3 Address: 1124 Taylor Road Landscape Feature Type: Free Methodist Cemetery Construction Period: 1890 Historical Associations: Description: Township Settlement The Free Methodist Cemetery is a small rural cemetery this is largely free of headstones. It is situated on part Lot 10 Concession 2 (OGS 1987:99) and its boundary is defined by a tree line and wire fencing. This cemetery has been transcribed and the records published, although there were no copies available at the Archives of Ontario, nor within the Toronto Library system. It was opened in Page Attach A.4

69 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment August 2007 Cultural Landscape Unit: CLU 4 Address: Taylor Road Landscape Feature Type: Integrity: Roadscape Good Associated BHF/CLU: CLU 1, CLU 2, CLU 3 Historical Associations: Description: Early township survey and settlement, transportation Taylor Road consists of two paved lanes with narrow gravel shoulders. The road winds with the topography and has minimal improvements. Page Attach A.5