Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation Hall/environmental-assessment-studies... · and Lake Simcoe is located approximately 650 m from the southern limit. 4.2 Vegetation The study

Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation

Appendix E: Natural Heritage Impact Assessment Report

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

Natural Heritage Impact Assessment

Duckworth Street Class Environmental Assessment

From Bell Farm Road to St. Vincent Street, City of Barrie

Prepared for: C. C. Tatham & Associated Ltd.

Prepared by: Azimuth Environmental

Consulting, Inc.

May 2015

AEC 14-317

85 Bayfield Street, Suite 400, Barrie, Ontario L4M 3A7

telephone: (705) 721-8451 • fax: (705) 721-8926 • [email protected] • www.azimuthenvironmental.com

May 5, 2015 AEC 14-317

C. C. Tatham & Associates Ltd.

115 Sandford Fleming Drive, Suite 200

Barrie, Ontario

L9Y 5A6

Attention: Mr. Michael Cullip, B. Eng. & Mgmt., M. Eng., P. Eng.

Re: Duckworth Street Natural Heritage Impact Assessment for the Municipal

Class EA

From Bell Farm Road to St. Vincent Street, City of Barrie

Dear Mr. Cullip:

Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. (Azimuth) was retained to complete the Natural

Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed widening of Duckworth Street, from Bell

Farm Road to St. Vincent Street, in the City of Barrie. It is our understanding the

proposed widening will result in the existing road platform being widened approximately

1.5-2.0 m on either side (3.0-4.0 m total) in order to accommodate a proposed 300 mm

watermain, bike lanes, turning lanes and medians.

Azimuth was retained by C. C. Tatham & Associates Ltd (CCTA) to assist in the

completion of the natural heritage component for the Environmental Study Report (ESR)

for this undertaking. Azimuth did not find any significant environmental concerns

associated with the proposed undertaking.

We would like to thank you for involving us in this most interesting project. Please do

not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or comments.

Yours truly,


Kate Ellis, B.Sc. Melissa Fuller, B.Sc.

Aquatic Ecologist Terrestrial Ecologist KLE:MMF

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. II

Table of Contents

page

Letter of transmittal i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1

2.0 STUDY APPROACH ........................................................................... 1

3.0 PLANNING CONTEXT ...................................................................... 2

3.1 Provincial Planning Policy ................................................................................... 2

3.2 Endangered Species Act (Ontario) ...................................................................... 2

3.3 Migratory Birds Convention Act ......................................................................... 3

3.4 City of Barrie ......................................................................................................... 3

3.5 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority .................................................... 3

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................. 4

4.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 4

4.1.1 Onsite Land Use ............................................................................................. 4

4.1.2 Adjacent Land Use ......................................................................................... 4

4.2 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 4

4.3 Wildlife Habitat ..................................................................................................... 4

4.3.2 Birds ................................................................................................................ 4

4.4 Species at Risk ....................................................................................................... 5

4.4.1 Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas ........................................................................... 5

4.4.2 Additional Species .......................................................................................... 5

4.5 Watercourse and Fish Habitat ............................................................................. 5

5.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... 6

6.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 6

6.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 6

6.2 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 6

6.3 Wildlife Habitat ..................................................................................................... 6

6.3.1 Mammals ........................................................................................................ 6

6.3.2 Birds ................................................................................................................ 6

6.4 Species at Risk ....................................................................................................... 7

6.5 Watercourse and Fish Habitat ............................................................................. 7

7.0 MITIGATION ....................................................................................... 7

7.1 Avian Timing Restrictions ................................................................................... 7

7.2 Species at Risk ....................................................................................................... 7

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. III

7.3 Sediment and Erosion Controls ........................................................................... 8

7.4 Site Restoration ..................................................................................................... 8

7.5 Operations ............................................................................................................. 8

8.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 9

List of Figures

Figure 1 Study Area Location

Tables

Table 1 Vegetation Species Observed

Table 2 Species at Risk Habitat Assessment

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Municipal Background Information

Appendix B: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Information

Appendix C: Provincial Background Information

Appendix D: Agency Consultation

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. (Azimuth) has completed natural heritage field

assessments for properties adjacent Duckworth Street, from Bell Farm Road to

St. Vincent Street in the City of Barrie (Figure 1). It is our understanding that the City of

Barrie (the "City") is proposing to widen the existing road platform of Duckworth Street

by 1.5-2.0 m on either side in order to accommodate a 300 mm nominal diameter

watermain as well as bike lanes, additional turning lanes and medians at select

intersections. A Natural Heritage Impact Assessment (NHIA) is required to address the

potential for Species at Risk to occur in the area and to identify potential impact to

Environmental Protection Areas present on adjacent lands.

The following document represents the findings of our field investigation and presents an

assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed

development.

2.0 STUDY APPROACH

The following outlines the activities undertaken to satisfy the informational requirements

of the City, and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) in the

production of the NHIA:

Classify vegetation communities using the methods of the Ecological Land

Classification for Southern Ontario (Lee et al 1998. Ecological land classification

for southern Ontario: first approximation and its applications. SCSS Field Guide

FG-02);

Map the location(s) of vegetation communities and any other environmental

features on current aerial photographs;

Acquire background data from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

(MNRF) to determine if there are records of Species at Risk within the area;

Compile lists of all vegetation and wildlife species observed during the site visit;

Conduct a Species at Risk screening for the study area;

Identify and classify fish habitat within the limits of the proposed development;

Review the engineering plans (including the site grading and functional servicing

plans) to determine the impact of development on the natural heritage features;

and

Prepare a NHIA report that assesses the impact of development to identified

natural features and provides mitigation measures for the development, where

applicable.


3.0 PLANNING CONTEXT

3.1 Provincial Planning Policy

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014 outlines policies related to natural heritage

features and water resources. The Planning Act requires that planning decisions shall be

consistent with the PPS.

According to the PPS, development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

Significant habitat of endangered or threatened species;

Significant wetlands (in coastal areas or in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E);

Significant coastal wetlands; and

Fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

Unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural

features or their ecological functions, development and site alteration shall not be

permitted in:

Significant woodlands (south and east of the Canadian Shield);

Significant valley lands (south and east of the Canadian Shield);

Significant wildlife habitat; and

Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI).

Similarly, no development and site alteration will be permitted on lands adjacent to the

areas defined above unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been

evaluated and it has been demonstrated there will be no negative impacts on the natural

features and ecological functions.

There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), designated Significant

Woodlands, Significant Valleylands, Significant Wetlands, Significant Wildlife Habitat

or known habitat of endangered or threatened species on or adjacent to the property (i.e.,

within 120 m).

3.2 Endangered Species Act (Ontario)

Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007 provides regulatory protection to

endangered and threatened species and prohibits harassment, harm and/or killing of

individuals and destruction of their habitats. Habitat is broadly characterized within the

ESA as the area prescribed by a regulation as the habitat of the species, or, an area on

which the species depends, directly or indirectly, to carry on its life processes including

reproduction, rearing of young, hibernation, migration or feeding.


The various schedules of the ESA identify SAR in Ontario. These include species listed

as extirpated, endangered, threatened and special concern. As noted above, only species

listed as endangered and threatened receive protection from harm and destruction to

habitat on which they depend.

3.3 Migratory Birds Convention Act

The Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 is a piece of federal legislation that makes

provision for the protection of nesting migratory bird species. Specifically,

Regulation 5(6) a) states that "… no person shall disturb, destroy or take a nest, egg, nest

shelter, eider duck shelter or duck box of a migratory bird [Migratory Birds Regulations

(C.R.C., c. 1035)] …". The proposed works should proceed such that nesting migratory

species are not disturbed during the avian breeding season. Typically breeding season

occurs from April - July of any given year, but depends on seasonal variability.

3.4 City of Barrie

The property is currently designated as Residential and General Commercial within the

City of Barrie (City 2014; [Appendix A]). Schedule E of the Official Plan identifies this

reach of Duckworth for expansion to widths varying from 26-30 m (Appendix A). It is

the ultimate goal of the City (Section 5.4.1 of the Official Plan):

(a) To provide a sustainable transportation system for the safe, efficient, and

convenient, movement of people and goods including linkages to the overall

Provincial and County transportation system.;

(b) To provide a transportation system that supports the maximum economic

development of the City with minimum social, health and environmental

impacts.;

(c) To promote healthy communities, active living and energy efficiency, public

transit, car pooling, all forms of active transportation, safe integration and

connectivity between these various modes of transportation will be

encouraged.; and

(d) To develop the Intensification Areas identified on Schedule I –

Intensification Areas of this Plan at densities that are transit supportive and

provide linkages to major transportation hubs and routes such as the major

transit stations.

No natural heritage areas have been identified adjacent to the existing road right-of-way

(ROW) as per Schedule H of the Official Plan (Appendix A).

3.5 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

A small portion of the study area is subject to Ontario Regulation 179/06 “Regulation of

Development Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and


Watercourses”, associated with a valley slope (Appendix B). A headwater tributary of

Sophia Creek originates east of Duckworth Street, at its intersection with Davies

Crescent.

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 Land Use

4.1.1 Onsite Land Use

The majority of the study area is an active municipal roadway located within a residential

neighborhood. The road is bordered by manicured lawns, sidewalks and landscape

vegetation typical of urban environs.

4.1.2 Adjacent Land Use

Commercial and residential developments completely surround the study area.

Highway 400 is located approximately 350 m from the northern limit of the study area

and Lake Simcoe is located approximately 650 m from the southern limit.

4.2 Vegetation

The study area consists mainly of manicured lawns and landscape vegetation and has

generally been defined as ROW. No vegetation communities were observed that would

warrant classification under the ELC protocols. Various trees are located throughout the

property, including: Black Walnut, Green Ash, Sugar Maple, Willow, and Balsam Fir.

Small shrubs can be found within the ditch system of Duckworth including: Red Osier

Dogwood. A full list of species observed during the site visit is presented in Table 1.

4.3 Wildlife Habitat

4.3.1 Mammals

Wildlife species utilizing the property were identified from direct observation and

through interpretation of sign (i.e. tracks, scats, vocalizations, etc.) as a matter of course

while conducting the site visit. No sign was observed; however, given the orientation of

the property within the greater urban landscape, the following species could potentially

utilize the natural habitat of the property: Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Grey Squirrel

(Sciurus carolinensis), and Skunk (Mephitis mephitis). These species are not of

conservation concern.

4.3.2 Birds

The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (BSC, 2006) was consulted to identify species that

could be utilizing the area for breeding purposes. Data for the atlas is presented in


100 km2 data squares, each with a unique identifier. The property is located within the

17PK01 square. A full species list for this square is presented in Appendix C.

Avian Species at Risk (SAR) identified within the OBBA are addressed below.

4.4 Species at Risk

4.4.1 Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas

The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA, 2009, Appendix C) was consulted to identify

additional sensitive species that could be utilizing the area for breeding purposes. A full

species list for this square is provided as attached. Eight Species at Risk (SAR) were

identified as occurring within the square: Peregrine Falcon, Common Nighthawk,

Red-headed Woodpecker, Chimney Swift, Whip-poor-will, Eastern Wood-Pewee, Bank

Swallow, Barn Swallow, Wood Thrush, Eastern Meadowlark and Bobolink. Table 2

presents a habitat assessment for the species, as it relates to the property. No habitat for

avian SAR was observed within the property limits.

4.4.2 Additional Species

Butternut and Milksnake are also known to occur within the City of Barrie. No Butternut

trees were identified within the property limits. A habitat assessment for Milksnake is

presented in Table 2.

A letter has been sent to the Midhurst District MNR requesting additional information

regarding Species at Risk in the area (Appendix D). No response has been received at

this time. The MNR response will be addressed when received.

We have determined that the study area does not present suitable habitat for SAR

identified above.

4.5 Watercourse and Fish Habitat

A small tributary of Sophia Creek originates on the west side of Duckworth Street, south

of Davies Crescent.

Azimuth did not complete fish community sampling within this watercourse. LSRCA

(2012) reports that there is no record of fish being captured within Sophia Creek based on

various studies completed between 1975 and 2011. Therefore this watercourse is not

classified as fish habitat.


5.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The City of Barrie has initiated the Municipal Class EA process to implement

transportation improvements along Duckworth Street from Bell Farm Road to St. Vincent

Street. The improvements include the implementation of 1.5 to 1.8 m bicycle lanes, 0.5

m buffer (where recommended) and supplementary improvements to the sidewalk

network, watermain and stormwater management system. CCTAA has developed three

options for consideration in the implementation of the proposed improvements, each

requiring varying degrees of widening throughout the study area.

6.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 Land Use

The proposed road widening appears to be consistent with the existing urban land use and

the future direction of the City.

6.2 Vegetation

The proposed road expansion is contained within the urbanized ROW, comprised of

residential lawns. The majority of the ROW is comprised of manicured lawn with

occurrences of trees and shrubs typical of landscaped urban areas. These ROW lands do

not satisfy the criteria outlined within the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR

2010) for the identification of significant natural features within the province of Ontario.

No provincially rare species or vegetation communities were identified within or the

development footprint.

6.3 Wildlife Habitat

6.3.1 Mammals

Urban mammals will continue to utilize the ROW habitat after road expansion.

Development will not impact mammalian species as the land is subjected to considerable

disturbance, is located adjacent to a high-traffic city street and provides minimal cover.

All small mammals assumed to be present are tolerant of urban disturbance, and as such,

will not be impacted by the proposed development.

6.3.2 Birds

Development will not impact avian species as the land is subjected to considerable

disturbance, is located adjacent to a high-traffic city street and provides minimal cover.

All birds assumed to be present are tolerant of urban disturbance, and as such, will not be

impacted by the proposed development. Vegetation clearing within the ROW should

occur outside of the breeding bird timing window to reduce impact to breeding migratory


birds. For this location, vegetation removal should occur between August 1 and April 30,

inclusive.

6.4 Species at Risk

No suitable habitat for potential SAR species was identified within study area.

Therefore, the proposed development can proceed with no impact to SAR or their habitat.

If the disturbance footprint was to expand such that removal of structures was required,

the structures should be assessed for their ability to provide nesting habitat for Barn

Swallow and Chimney Swift prior to structure removal.

6.5 Watercourse and Fish Habitat

The tributary of Sophia Creek located within the study limits does not provide fish

habitat. As a result there will be no impact to fish habitat as a result of the road widening

and this project will not result in serious harm to fish. A Request for Review submission

to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is not required for this undertaking.

7.0 MITIGATION

As described in Section 6.0 above, there are no ‘non-mitigable’ effects resulting from this

project and therefore no negative residual effects are expected to result from this

undertaking. The following mitigation measures are recommended.

7.1 Avian Timing Restrictions

Construction activities involving the removal of vegetation and existing structures should

be restricted from occurring between May 1 and July 31 in accordance with the

Migratory Birds Convention Act, and the Migratory Birds Regulations, to avoid

impacting migratory birds, nests and eggs during the breeding season. Alternatively, a

nest survey can be conducted by qualified avian biologist during the breeding bird

nesting season to determine if nests are present within the footprint prior to any

vegetation removal.

7.2 Species at Risk

The MNRF generally recommends that future work proposed outside of the proposed

development envelopes, or work taking place more than a year from the submission of

this report should be subjected to review. The purpose of this review should be to ensure

that no changes to existing policies outlined in this report or changes to existing habitat

on the property have occurred which would contradict the conclusions outlined within

this report. This recommendation is made on the basis that potential SAR habitat may


vary among years in response to changes of site conditions and species listed within the

ESA are subject to change as additional information becomes available.

7.3 Sediment and Erosion Controls

It is imperative that this project include a detailed management strategy that identifies an

erosion and sediment control plan for all construction activities occurring in or around the

existing watercourses. Such controls will be required to ensure that the watercourses are

not impacted by accidental sedimentation impacts to fish habitat, and alleviate the risk of

sediment entering the tributary of Sophia Creek. All sediment controls will need to be

maintained until vegetation has been re-established to sufficiently stabilize disturbed

soils.

All dewatering activities (if required) should include a water quality management plan to

ensure that sediment-laden water does not enter the watercourse. If dewatering volumes

exceed 50,000 litres per day a Ministry of Environment Permit To Take Water will be

obtained.

7.4 Site Restoration

All areas disturbed during construction must be restored immediately following the

completion of earthworks. Site restoration should include revegetation efforts of all

excavated and erodable soils using a layer of topsoil and type of soil guard (i.e.,

geotextile) combined with tree and shrub plantings to restore and establish the site to its

original condition or better.

7.5 Operations

All equipment maintenance activities required during construction must be conducted

away from any watercourse to protect the channel from any accidental spillage of

deleterious substances that may harm the aquatic environment. We recommend the

equipment maintenance areas be located 30 m away from the work area and appropriate

spill response materials should be kept on site in the event of an accidental spill.


8.0 REFERENCES

City of Barrie (City). 2011. City of Barrie Official Plan Office Consolidation March

2011.

Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Nature,

Ontario Field Ornithologists and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (BSC).

2006. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Website.

http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp

DFO 2010. Pathways of Effects: Placement of material or structures in water.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/pathways-sequences/structures-eng.html

Environment Canada. Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (S.C. 1994, c. 22)

LSRCA. 2012. Barrie Creeks, Lovers Creek and Hewitt's Creek Subwatershed Plan

Ministry of Affairs and Housing (MMAH). 2005. Provincial Policy Statement

Ministry of Affairs and Housing (MMAH). 2007. Endangered Species Act

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010. Natural Heritage Reference

Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. pp. 233

http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/pathways-sequences/structures-eng.html

Table 1 Vegetation Species Observed 14-317 Duckworth Road Widening

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Right-of-Way S RANK G RANK SARO STATUS

Aceraceae Acer negundo Manitoba Maple X S5 G5

Aceraceae Acer saccharum Sugar Maple X S5 G5

Apiaceae Daucus carota Wild Carrot X SNA GNR

Betulaceae Betula papyrifera Paper Birch X S5 G5

Cupressaceae Juniperus communis Ground Juniper X S5 G5

Cupressaceae Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar X S5 G5

Fabaceae Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust X SNA G5

Fagaceae Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak X S5 G5

Oleaceae Fraxinus americana White Ash X S4 G5

Pinaceae Picea glauca White Spruce X S5 G5

Pinaceae Picea pungens Blue Spruce X SNA G5

Pinaceae Pinus banksiana Jack Pine X S5 G5

Pinaceae Pinus resinosa Red Pine X S5 G5

Rosaceae Amelanchier sp. Serviceberry sp. X

Rosaceae Malus baccata Siberian Crabapple X SNA GNR

Rosaceae Prunus padus European Bird Cherry X SNA GNR

Salicaceae Salix euxina Crack Willow X SNA GNR

Tiliaceae Tilia americana American Basswood X S5 G5

Page 1 of 1

Table 2 – Species at Risk Habitat Assessment 14-317 Duckworth Expansion City of Barrie

Page 1 of 3

Latin Name Common Name

Provincial Status

G-rank S-Rank Habitat Preference1 Habitat Present On-Site

Caprimulgus vociferus

Whip-poor-will

Threatened G5 S4B

Dry, open, deciduous woodlands of small to medium-sized trees; oak or beech with lots of clearings and shaded leaf litter; wooded edges, forest clearings with little herbaceous growth; pine plantations; associated with >100 ha forests; may require 500 to 1000 ha to maintain population

No suitable habitat present.

Chaetura pelagica

Chimney Swift

Threatened G5 S4B, S4N

Commonly found in urban areas near buildings; nests in hollow trees, crevices of rock cliffs, chimneys; highly gregarious; feeds over open water

No suitable nesting habitat within study area. Suitable habitat exists on adjacent structures, but no structure removal is required at this time.

Chordeiles minor

Common Nighthawk

Special Concern

G5 S4B

Occupy natural sites including open areas with little to no ground vegetation, logged or burned-over areas, forest clearings, rock barrens, peat bogs, lakeshores, mine tailings. Occasionally found over open cultivated fields, urban parks, gravel roads, and railways.


Contopus virens Eastern Wood- Pewee

Special Concern

G5 S4B Found in the mid-canopy layer of forest clearings and edges of deciduous and mixed forests.


Dolichonyx Oryzivorus

Bobolink Threatened G5 S4B

Large, open expansive grasslands with dense ground cover; hayfields, meadows or fallow fields; marshes; requires tracts of grassland >50 ha.


Falco Peregrine Special G4 S3B Rock cliffs, crags, especially situated No suitable habitat


Page 2 of 3


Provincial Status


peregrinus Falcon Concern near water, tall buildings in urban centres.

present.

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow

Threatened G5 S4B

Farmlands or rural areas; cliffs, caves, rock niches; buildings or other man-made structures for nesting; open country near bodies of water.

Potentially suitable habitat on structures within general area.

Juglans cinerea Butternut Endangered G4 S3?

Shade intolerant and prefer rich, moist, well-drained soils and gravel sites where limestone is present. Butternut is often found in open areas such as shallow valleys, edges of streams and rivers, fence lines or fields.

None documented on site.

Lampropeltis triangulum

Milksnake Special Concern

G5 S3 Milksnake can be found in a range of habitats including rocky outcrops, fields and forest edges.


Melanerpes carolinus

Red-Headed Woodpecker

Special Concern

G5 S4B

Open, deciduous forest with little understory; fields or pasture lands with scattered large trees; wooded swamps; orchards, small woodlots or forest edges; groves of dead or dying trees; feeds on insects and stores nuts or acorns for winter; loss of habitat is limiting factor; requires cavity trees with at least 40 cm dbh; require about 4 ha for a territory


Riparia riparia Bank Swallow

Threatened G5 S4B

Nest in burrows in natural and human-made settings where there are vertical faces in silt and sand deposits. Many nests are on banks of rivers and lakes, but they are also found in active sand



Page 3 of 3


Provincial Status


and gravel pits or former ones where the banks remain suitable.

Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark

Threatened G5 S4B

Open, grassy meadows, farmland, pastures, hayfields or grasslands with elevated singing perches; cultivated land and weedy areas with trees; old orchards with adjacent, open grassy areas >10 ha in size


1 Ministry of Natural Resources – Fish and Wildlife Branch. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide.


APPENDICES

Appendix A: Municipal Background Information

Appendix B: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Information

Appendix C: Provincial Background Information

Appendix D: Agency Consultation


APPENDIX A

Municipal Background Information

City of Barrie Schedule A - Land Use

City of Barrie - Schedule E Road Widening Plan

City of Barrie Schedule H - Natural Heritage Resources


APPENDIX B

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Region Information

LSRCA Regulation Mapping


APPENDIX C

Provincial Background Information

Square Summary (17PK01) #species (1st atlas) #species (2nd atlas) #hours #pc done

poss prob conf total poss prob conf total 1st 2nd road offrd

24 28 34 86 18 40 52 110 92 87 20 2

Region summary (#13: Simcoe County)

#squares #sq with data #species

#pc done target #pc 1st 2nd 1st 2nd

68 63 65 181 190 2075 850

Target number of point counts in this square: 21 road side, 4 off road (2 in deciduous forest, 1 in coniferous forest, 1 in mixed forest). Please try to ensure that each off-road station is located such that the entire 100m radius circle is within the prescribed habitat.

SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Canada Goose NY 58 95

Trumpeter Swan † 0 43

Wood Duck S FY 76 78

Gadwall ‡ 6 4

American Wigeon 6 12

American Black Duck FY 44 47

Mallard FY NY 93 95

Blue-winged Teal DD H 79 53

Northern Shoveler 11 10

Northern Pintail 14 7

Green-winged Teal 0 18

Redhead † 3 1

Ring-necked Duck 4 21

Lesser Scaup ‡ 1 1

Hooded Merganser 25 30

Common Merganser P 36 46

Red-breast Merganser 9 20

Gray Partridge ‡ 0 1

Ring-necked Pheasant 15 10

Ruffed Grouse FY H 92 81

Wild Turkey FY 0 81

Common Loon 28 52

Pied-billed Grebe 22 32

SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Black-crown N.-Heron † § 12 9

Yellow-crn N.-Heron † 0 0

Turkey Vulture T P 77 84

Osprey FY 42 53

Northern Harrier 76 66

Sharp-shinned Hawk S 50 60

Cooper's Hawk NY 17 47

Northern Goshawk 15 27

Red-should Hawk † 17 44

Broad-winged Hawk H 58 66

Red-tailed Hawk NU H 92 81

American Kestrel T 85 76

Merlin ‡ T 1 21

Peregrine Falcon † T 0 1

Yellow Rail † 3 3

King Rail † 3 3

Virginia Rail A 36 47

Sora T 31 43

Common Moorhen 17 12

American Coot 15 12

Coot/Moorhen 0 0

Sandhill Crane ‡ 0 21

Killdeer FY D 96 96

SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Herring Gull § 49 38

Caspian Tern † 1 3

Black Tern † § 30 21

Common Tern § A 34 23

Forster's Tern † § 0 1

Mourning Dove NY NY 95 95

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 6 18

Black/Yell-billed Cuckoo 0 18

Black-billed Cuckoo A H 58 75

Eastern Screech-Owl FY 12 49

Great Horned Owl S 74 55

Barred Owl FY H 20 49

Long-eared Owl ‡ 3 4

Short-eared Owl † 1 4

North Saw-whet Owl 9 12

Common Nighthawk S T 63 40

Whip-poor-will T 60 38

Chimney Swift T T 63 32

Ruby-thr Hummingbird A T 88 95

Belted Kingfisher T AE 95 92

Red-headed Woodpecker † H CF 65 29

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker S FY 80 95

Downy Woodpecker T FY 95 96

Double-crest Cormorant § 11 27

American Bittern H 50 44

Least Bittern † 12 23

Great Blue Heron § H NY 77 63

Great Egret † 0 1

Green Heron § H FY 84 70

Rock Dove NE AE 87 84

Spotted Sandpiper P FY 95 78

Upland Sandpiper 60 38

Common Snipe D 79 61

American Woodcock H S 79 72

Ring-billed Gull § H 6 33

Hairy Woodpecker S FY 95 93

Northern Flicker AE T 98 95

Pileated Woodpecker V S 80 93

Olive-sided Flycatcher 22 20

Eastern Wood-Pewee S T 96 96

Alder Flycatcher T 47 76

Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas - Summary Sheet for Square 17PK01 (page 2 of 3)

SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Willow Flycatcher T 42 55

Least Flycatcher T T 88 89

Eastern Phoebe NY NY 95 96

Gr Crested Flycatcher NY T 98 96

Eastern Kingbird CF NY 98 95

Loggerhead Shrike † 15 3

Yellow-throated Vireo ‡ S 30 26

Blue-headed Vireo S 9 38

Warbling Vireo T CF 92 93

Philadelphia Vireo ‡ 1 4

Red-eyed Vireo A AE 93 96

Blue Jay FY CF 96 96

American Crow NY CF 98 96

Common Raven P 7 55

Horned Lark S D 68 47

Purple Martin P H 61 27

Tree Swallow NU AE 98 96

North Rgh-wing Swallow FY H 68 56

Bank Swallow § FY AE 88 58

Cliff Swallow § FY P 82 63

SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Sedge Wren 19 20

Marsh Wren 42 33

Golden-crown Kinglet 7 21

Ruby-crown Kinglet 6 7

Blue-gr Gnatcatcher ‡ 14 24

Eastern Bluebird S 57 73

Veery S T 95 96

Swainson's Thrush 14 20

Hermit Thrush 39 69

Wood Thrush S T 90 92

American Robin CF CF 98 96

Gray Catbird P NY 98 96

Northern Mockingbird 6 18

Brown Thrasher T P 96 92

European Starling CF NY 98 96

Cedar Waxwing FY AE 98 96

Blue-winged Warbler 4 24

Golden-winged Warbler 30 43

Blue/Gold-wing Warbler ‡ 0 15

Brewster's Warbler † 0 3

SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Pine Warbler T NY 26 80

Kirtland's Warbler † 1 0

Prairie Warbler † 6 9

Bay-breasted Warbler ‡ 1 3

Cerulean Warbler † 12 16

Black-white Warbler T 84 93

American Redstart S AE 85 90

Ovenbird T DD 98 96

North Waterthrush T 61 86

Mourning Warbler A 63 81

Common Yellowthroat DD 92 95

Canada Warbler 46 56

Eastern Towhee S S 53 73

Chipping Sparrow A CF 96 96

Clay-colored Sparrow 14 36

Field Sparrow T T 84 87

Vesper Sparrow CF T 84 70

Savannah Sparrow FY CF 88 81

Grasshopper Sparrow 38 41

Song Sparrow NY CF 98 96

Barn Swallow NY FY 96 95

Black-capped Chickadee NY NY 96 96

Tufted Titmouse † 1 0

Red-breast Nuthatch P 52 90

White-breast Nuthatch S NE 87 93

Brown Creeper P 55 60

Carolina Wren ‡ 1 6

House Wren CF 87 95

Winter Wren S T 68 95

Nashville Warbler 74 84

Northern Parula T 12 21

Yellow Warbler T CF 98 92

Chestn-sided Warbler T T 68 95

Magnolia Warbler 20 58

Black-thr Blue Warbler 22 63

Yellow-rumped Warbler S T 41 78

Black-thr Green Warbler S S 34 90

Blackburnian Warbler S S 28 58

Swamp Sparrow CF 84 86

White-throat Sparrow P FY 95 87

Dark-eyed Junco 25 21

Scarlet Tanager N T 79 86

Northern Cardinal FY NY 66 84

Rose-breast Grosbeak V T 95 93

Indigo Bunting V A 90 93

Bobolink AE T 87 83

Red-wing Blackbird AE CF 96 96


SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Eastern Meadowlark T T 88 83

Western Meadowlark ‡ 6 1

Yellow-h Blackbird † 1 0

Rusty Blackbird ‡ 1 1

Brewer's Blackbird ‡ 3 7

Common Grackle CF CF 96 96

Brown-head Cowbird V NE 98 95

Orchard Oriole ‡ 0 1

Baltimore Oriole CF NY 96 96

Purple Finch S S 66 73

House Finch AE 3 72

Red Crossbill ‡ H 7 1

White-winged Crossbill ‡ 1 3

Pine Siskin AE 17 18

American Goldfinch NY NY 98 96

Evening Grosbeak 15 15

House Sparrow AE FY 88 75

This list includes all species found during the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (1st atlas: 1981-1985, 2nd atlas: 2001-2005) in the region #13 (Simcoe County). Underlined species are those that you should try to add to this square. They have not yet been reported during the 2nd atlas, but were found during the 1st atlas in this square or have been reported in more than 50% of the squares in this region during the 2nd atlas so far. In the species table, "BE 2nd" and "BE 1st" are the codes for the highest breeding evidence for that species in square 17PK01 during the 2nd and 1st atlas respectively. The % columns give the percentage of squares in that region where that species was reported during the 2nd and 1st atlas (this gives an idea of the expected chance of finding that species in region #13). Rare/Colonial Species Report Forms should be completed for species marked: § (Colonial), ‡ (regionally rare), or † (provincially rare). Current as of 26/01/2015. An up-to-date version of this sheet is available from http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/summaryform.jsp?squareID=17PK01

Legend

Special Concern

Threatened

Endangered


APPENDIX D

Agency Consultation

85 Bayfield Street, Suite 400, Barrie, Ontario L4M 3A7 telephone: (705) 721-8451 • fax: (705) 721-8926 • [email protected] • www.azimuthenvironmental.com

March 13, 2015 AEC 14-317 Ministry of Natural Resources Midhurst District 2284 Nursery Road Midhurst, Ontario L0L 1X0 Attention: Suzanne Robinson, Species at Risk Biologist Re: Preliminary Species at Risk Information Request for Duckworth Road

Widening, City of Barrie, County of Simcoe Dear Ms. Robinson: Azimuth Environmental Consulting (Azimuth) has been retained to complete a scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) including a Species at Risk Inventory for a proposed road widening for Duckworth Rd between Bell Farms Road and St. Vincent Street. We are undertaking an assessment of Species at Risk that could potentially be utilizing the road right-of-way to complete their life functions. Please see attached mapping for definition of the Study Area and property location. The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (square #17PK01) has been queried to determine the avian SAR birds recorded within the 100km2 data square that contains the property. The following species were listed in the data summary: Peregrine Falcon, Common Nighthawk, Red-headed Woodpecker, Chimney Swift, Whip-poor-will, Eastern Wood-Pewee, Bank Swallow, Barn Swallow, Wood Thrush, Eastern Meadowlark and Bobolink. To date, Azimuth has completed a search for Butternut with no individuals recorded. The purpose of this letter is to request additional information regarding information on additional Species at Risk and sensitive areas associated with the study area, aside from


those identified above, and to request any background information that may be relevant to our study. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions regarding this project please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours truly, AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Melissa Fuller, H.B.Sc Terrestrial Ecologist Attach: Property mapping

OBBA Data Square #17PK01

14-317 Duckworth Expansion Study Area

Square Summary (17PK01) #species (1st atlas) #species (2nd atlas) #hours #pc done

poss prob conf total poss prob conf total 1st 2nd road offrd

24 28 34 86 18 40 52 110 92 87 20 2

Region summary (#13: Simcoe County)

#squares #sq with data #species

#pc done target #pc 1st 2nd 1st 2nd

68 63 65 181 190 2075 850

Target number of point counts in this square: 21 road side, 4 off road (2 in deciduous forest, 1 in coniferous forest, 1 in mixed forest). Please try to ensure that each off-road station is located such that the entire 100m radius circle is within the prescribed habitat.

SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Canada Goose NY 58 95

Trumpeter Swan † 0 43

Wood Duck S FY 76 78

Gadwall ‡ 6 4

American Wigeon 6 12

American Black Duck FY 44 47

Mallard FY NY 93 95

Blue-winged Teal DD H 79 53

Northern Shoveler 11 10

Northern Pintail 14 7

Green-winged Teal 0 18

Redhead † 3 1

Ring-necked Duck 4 21

Lesser Scaup ‡ 1 1

Hooded Merganser 25 30

Common Merganser P 36 46

Red-breast Merganser 9 20

Gray Partridge ‡ 0 1

Ring-necked Pheasant 15 10

Ruffed Grouse FY H 92 81

Wild Turkey FY 0 81

Common Loon 28 52

Pied-billed Grebe 22 32

SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Black-crown N.-Heron † § 12 9

Yellow-crn N.-Heron † 0 0

Turkey Vulture T P 77 84

Osprey FY 42 53

Northern Harrier 76 66

Sharp-shinned Hawk S 50 60

Cooper's Hawk NY 17 47

Northern Goshawk 15 27

Red-should Hawk † 17 44

Broad-winged Hawk H 58 66

Red-tailed Hawk NU H 92 81

American Kestrel T 85 76

Merlin ‡ T 1 21

Peregrine Falcon † T 0 1

Yellow Rail † 3 3

King Rail † 3 3

Virginia Rail A 36 47

Sora T 31 43

Common Moorhen 17 12

American Coot 15 12

Coot/Moorhen 0 0

Sandhill Crane ‡ 0 21

Killdeer FY D 96 96

SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Herring Gull § 49 38

Caspian Tern † 1 3

Black Tern † § 30 21

Common Tern § A 34 23

Forster's Tern † § 0 1

Mourning Dove NY NY 95 95

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 6 18

Black/Yell-billed Cuckoo 0 18

Black-billed Cuckoo A H 58 75

Eastern Screech-Owl FY 12 49

Great Horned Owl S 74 55

Barred Owl FY H 20 49

Long-eared Owl ‡ 3 4

Short-eared Owl † 1 4

North Saw-whet Owl 9 12

Common Nighthawk S T 63 40

Whip-poor-will T 60 38

Chimney Swift T T 63 32

Ruby-thr Hummingbird A T 88 95

Belted Kingfisher T AE 95 92

Red-headed Woodpecker † H CF 65 29

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker S FY 80 95

Downy Woodpecker T FY 95 96

Double-crest Cormorant § 11 27

American Bittern H 50 44

Least Bittern † 12 23

Great Blue Heron § H NY 77 63

Great Egret † 0 1

Green Heron § H FY 84 70

Rock Dove NE AE 87 84

Spotted Sandpiper P FY 95 78

Upland Sandpiper 60 38

Common Snipe D 79 61

American Woodcock H S 79 72

Ring-billed Gull § H 6 33

Hairy Woodpecker S FY 95 93

Northern Flicker AE T 98 95

Pileated Woodpecker V S 80 93

Olive-sided Flycatcher 22 20

Eastern Wood-Pewee S T 96 96

Alder Flycatcher T 47 76


SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Willow Flycatcher T 42 55

Least Flycatcher T T 88 89

Eastern Phoebe NY NY 95 96

Gr Crested Flycatcher NY T 98 96

Eastern Kingbird CF NY 98 95

Loggerhead Shrike † 15 3

Yellow-throated Vireo ‡ S 30 26

Blue-headed Vireo S 9 38

Warbling Vireo T CF 92 93

Philadelphia Vireo ‡ 1 4

Red-eyed Vireo A AE 93 96

Blue Jay FY CF 96 96

American Crow NY CF 98 96

Common Raven P 7 55

Horned Lark S D 68 47

Purple Martin P H 61 27

Tree Swallow NU AE 98 96

North Rgh-wing Swallow FY H 68 56

Bank Swallow § FY AE 88 58

Cliff Swallow § FY P 82 63

SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Sedge Wren 19 20

Marsh Wren 42 33

Golden-crown Kinglet 7 21

Ruby-crown Kinglet 6 7

Blue-gr Gnatcatcher ‡ 14 24

Eastern Bluebird S 57 73

Veery S T 95 96

Swainson's Thrush 14 20

Hermit Thrush 39 69

Wood Thrush S T 90 92

American Robin CF CF 98 96

Gray Catbird P NY 98 96

Northern Mockingbird 6 18

Brown Thrasher T P 96 92

European Starling CF NY 98 96

Cedar Waxwing FY AE 98 96

Blue-winged Warbler 4 24

Golden-winged Warbler 30 43

Blue/Gold-wing Warbler ‡ 0 15

Brewster's Warbler † 0 3

SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Pine Warbler T NY 26 80

Kirtland's Warbler † 1 0

Prairie Warbler † 6 9

Bay-breasted Warbler ‡ 1 3

Cerulean Warbler † 12 16

Black-white Warbler T 84 93

American Redstart S AE 85 90

Ovenbird T DD 98 96

North Waterthrush T 61 86

Mourning Warbler A 63 81

Common Yellowthroat DD 92 95

Canada Warbler 46 56

Eastern Towhee S S 53 73

Chipping Sparrow A CF 96 96

Clay-colored Sparrow 14 36

Field Sparrow T T 84 87

Vesper Sparrow CF T 84 70

Savannah Sparrow FY CF 88 81

Grasshopper Sparrow 38 41

Song Sparrow NY CF 98 96

Barn Swallow NY FY 96 95

Black-capped Chickadee NY NY 96 96

Tufted Titmouse † 1 0

Red-breast Nuthatch P 52 90

White-breast Nuthatch S NE 87 93

Brown Creeper P 55 60

Carolina Wren ‡ 1 6

House Wren CF 87 95

Winter Wren S T 68 95

Nashville Warbler 74 84

Northern Parula T 12 21

Yellow Warbler T CF 98 92

Chestn-sided Warbler T T 68 95

Magnolia Warbler 20 58

Black-thr Blue Warbler 22 63

Yellow-rumped Warbler S T 41 78

Black-thr Green Warbler S S 34 90

Blackburnian Warbler S S 28 58

Swamp Sparrow CF 84 86

White-throat Sparrow P FY 95 87

Dark-eyed Junco 25 21

Scarlet Tanager N T 79 86

Northern Cardinal FY NY 66 84

Rose-breast Grosbeak V T 95 93

Indigo Bunting V A 90 93

Bobolink AE T 87 83

Red-wing Blackbird AE CF 96 96


SPECIES Code %

1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Eastern Meadowlark T T 88 83

Western Meadowlark ‡ 6 1

Yellow-h Blackbird † 1 0

Rusty Blackbird ‡ 1 1

Brewer's Blackbird ‡ 3 7

Common Grackle CF CF 96 96

Brown-head Cowbird V NE 98 95

Orchard Oriole ‡ 0 1

Baltimore Oriole CF NY 96 96

Purple Finch S S 66 73

House Finch AE 3 72

Red Crossbill ‡ H 7 1

White-winged Crossbill ‡ 1 3

Pine Siskin AE 17 18

American Goldfinch NY NY 98 96

Evening Grosbeak 15 15

House Sparrow AE FY 88 75

This list includes all species found during the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (1st atlas: 1981-1985, 2nd atlas: 2001-2005) in the region #13 (Simcoe County). Underlined species are those that you should try to add to this square. They have not yet been reported during the 2nd atlas, but were found during the 1st atlas in this square or have been reported in more than 50% of the squares in this region during the 2nd atlas so far. In the species table, "BE 2nd" and "BE 1st" are the codes for the highest breeding evidence for that species in square 17PK01 during the 2nd and 1st atlas respectively. The % columns give the percentage of squares in that region where that species was reported during the 2nd and 1st atlas (this gives an idea of the expected chance of finding that species in region #13). Rare/Colonial Species Report Forms should be completed for species marked: § (Colonial), ‡ (regionally rare), or † (provincially rare). Current as of 26/01/2015. An up-to-date version of this sheet is available from http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/summaryform.jsp?squareID=17PK01

Legend

Special Concern

Threatened

Endangered

Appendix F: Traffic Noise Impact Statement

1

May 5, 2015

“BY E-MAIL ONLY”

C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd.

115 Sandford Fleming Drive, Suite 200

Collingwood, Ontario

L9Y 5A6

Attention: Mr. Michael Cullip, P. Eng.

Dear Mr. Cullip:

Re: Traffic Noise Impact Statement

Duckworth Street Class EA

Bell Farm Road to St. Vincent Street

City of Barrie

We have completed our review of the potential noise impacts of future traffic along the above-

captioned route due to the proposed improvements as shown on the concept plans, Options 1 - 3,

attached, and as per traffic data and operational details, all as provided to us by your office. The

purpose of this review is to determine whether or not a full noise impact assessment is warranted.

Summary Statement

After having reviewed the attached design options and the provided traffic data and

operational details, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements will not result in

increased traffic noise. Accordingly, a full noise impact assessment is not required for

this project.

Background and Study Area

This review addresses concerns regarding the potential for increased traffic noise resulting from

future traffic on Duckworth Street due to the proposed road improvements.

The proposed improvements are shown on the concept plans attached.

The Study Area generally includes the lands abutting Duckworth Street between Bell Farm

Road and St. Vincent Street. The Study Area is primarily low-rise residential in nature with

small pockets of higher density residential and some commercial uses.

R. BOUWMEESTER & ASSOCIATESLand Development Engineering

165 Browning Trail

Barrie, Ontario, Canada L4N 5E7

tel/fax (705) 726-3392

[email protected]

Development Management Shadow Impact StudiesDevelopment Engineering Acoustic Impact Studies

2

Noise Criteria

It is noted that there are no provincial noise criteria that apply to the (re-)construction of

municipal roads. This is unlike the (re-)construction of provincial highways and freeways, and it

is unlike new residential development along existing or planned future roads. As a result, this

review is based on the MTO Environmental Guide for Noise (Oct 2006 – v1.1 rev July 2008).

As required by the above Noise Guide, this review assesses the noise impact of the proposed

improvements by comparing future noise levels based on traffic volume projections under the

“do nothing” and “proposed” scenarios. Future levels are assessed at a point at least 10 years

following completion as required by the Guide, and normal growth is not considered to

contribute to the noise impact – only growth attributed to the improvement.

Assessment of Potential Traffic Noise Impact

Traffic noise levels are influenced by not only the amount of traffic, but also by a number of

factors including traffic speed, percent trucks, road grades, source-receiver heights above grade,

source-receiver separation distance, changes in terrain type (e.g. asphalt vs. vegetation), and the

removal/addition of intervening structures.

It is noted that separation distance is defined as the distance between centreline of travelled road

and receptor. Assuming an even directional split in traffic, average noise levels are assumed to

originate from evenly spaced traffic moving along centreline. This approach applies to roads

with up to four lanes of through traffic. For roads with more than four through lanes, separate

analyses must be carried out for each direction of travel (in sets of up to four lanes each).

In cases where the separation distance increases, sound levels will reduce; in cases where the

distance decreases, sound levels will increase. In this case, where in certain locations the lanes

are equally shifted due to the insertion of a centre turn lane, higher noise levels from traffic on

the near side of centreline will be generally offset by lower levels from the far side.

We understand that the proposed improvements will not result in increased capacity (i.e. the “do

nothing” and “proposed” traffic volumes are equal – i.e. limited only by the carrying capacity)

and we further understand that there will be no shift in centreline, no change in speed limit, no

change in percentage of commercial vehicles, no change in vertical alignment, and no more than

four through lanes in any location.

Given the above, we do not expect a noise level increase due to the proposed road improvements.

Noise Controls During Construction

Insofar as construction noise is concerned, we recommend the following as per the Noise Guide:

a) Identify noise-sensitive areas.

b) Identify and obey municipal noise control by-law. If the by-law causes hardship or timing

issues for the contractor, then the contractor may apply directly to the municipality for an

exemption to the by-law.

3

c) Include general noise control measures (not sound level criteria) in the construction

contract. In response to noise complaints from the public, check for compliance with the

noise control measures stipulated in the contract. If public complaints continue even if the

required noise control measures are in effect, then enforce the sound level limits as per

MOE construction noise guideline NPC-115.

In summary, it is our opinion that traffic noise levels will not increase due to the proposed

improvements, noise mitigation measures are not required for any of the alternatives proposed,

and no further noise analysis is required for this project.

Yours very truly,

R. BOUWMEESTER & ASSOCIATES

Ralph Bouwmeester, P. Eng.

Principal

Attachments:

Concept Plans for Options 1 to 3 (by C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd.)

ST. V

INCEN

T ST

.

CODRINGTON ST.

MOUNTBATTEN RD.

NAPIER ST.

PENETANG ST.

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

STRABANE AVE.

QUEEN ST.

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

ST. V

INCEN

T ST

.

CODRINGTON ST.

MOUNTBATTEN RD.

NAPIER ST.

PENETANG ST.

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

STRABANE AVE.

QUEEN ST.

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

ST. V

INCEN

T ST

.

CODRINGTON ST.

MOUNTBATTEN RD.

NAPIER ST.

PENETANG ST.

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

STRABANE AVE.

QUEEN ST.

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

OP

TIO

N 1

1:2

50

OP

TIO

N 2

1:2

50

OP

TIO

N 3

1:2

50

OP

TIO

N 1

1:2

50

OP

TIO

N 2

1:2

50

OP

TIO

N 3

1:2

50

MELROSE AVE.

STEEL ST.WELLINGTON ST. E

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

HOWARD C

RES.

DAVIES CRES.

HIGHVIE

W RD.

OP

TIO

N 1

1:2

50

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

OP

TIO

N 2

1:2

50

OP

TIO

N 3

1:2

50

MELROSE AVE.


DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

HOWARD C

RES.

DAVIES CRES.

HIGHVIE

W RD.

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

MELROSE AVE.


DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

HOWARD C

RES.

DAVIES CRES.

HIGHVIE

W RD.

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

OP

TIO

N 1

1:2

50

OP

TIO

N 2

1:2

50

OP

TIO

N 3

1:2

50

GROVE ST. E

ROSE ST.BERNICK DR.

BELL FARM RD. RING RD.

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

OP

TIO

N 1

1:2

50

GROVE ST. E

ROSE ST.BERNICK DR.


DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

OP

TIO

N 2

1:2

50

GROVE ST. E

ROSE ST.BERNICK DR.


DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

DU

CK

WO

RTH

ST.

OP

TIO

N 3

1:2

50

OP

TIO

N 1

1:2

50

OP

TIO

N 2

1:2

50

OP

TIO

N 3

1:2

50

Appendix G: Archaeological Report (Stage 1)

ARCHEOWORKS INC. Friday, May 22, 2015

ARCHEOWORKS INC. 1/1 16715-12 YONGE STREET, SUITE 1029, NEWMARKET, ONTARIO Tel: 416-676-5597 | Fax: 647-436-1938

C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. 41 King Street, Unit 4 Barrie, Ontario L4N 6B5 Tel: (705) 733-9037 Fax: (705) 733-1520 Attn: David Perks RE: Archaeological Assessment Report for MTCS Project Information Form Number P1016-0055-2015 (Stage 1). Archeoworks Inc. Project Number 044-BA1317-14.

Please find attached a digital copy of the following document: 1. Project report: Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment: Proposed Improvements on Duckworth

Street, between Bell Farm Road and St. Vincent Street, Lots A-B, 1-4, Concession 1, Lots 22-23, Concession 3, Lots 23-34, Concession 4, and the Road Allowances between Concessions 1, 3, and 4, in the Geographic Township of Vespra, historical County of Simcoe, now in the City of Barrie, County of Simcoe, Ontario. Original Report. Dated May 22nd, 2015.

Sincerely,

Ragavan Nithiyanantham, MA, CAHP E: [email protected]

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment: Proposed Improvements on Duckworth Street

Between Bell Farm Road and St. Vincent Street Lots A-B, 1-4, Concession 1; Lots 22-23, Concession 3 and

Lots 23-34, Concession 4 and the Road Allowance between Concessions 1, 3, and 4

In the Geographic Township of Vespra Historical County of Simcoe

Now in the City of Barrie County of Simcoe

Ontario

Project #: 044-BA1317-14 Licensee (#): Alvina Tam (P1016)

PIF#: P1016-0055-2015

Original Report

May 22nd, 2015

Presented to: C.C. Tatham Associates

115 Sandford Fleming Drive, Suite 200 Collingwood, Ontario

L9Y 5A6 T: 705.444.2565 F: 705.444.2327

Prepared by: Archeoworks Inc.

16715-12 Yonge Street, Suite 1029 Newmarket, Ontario

L3X 1X4 T: 416.676.5597 F: 416.676.5810

AR

CH

EOW

OR

KS

INC

.

STAGE 1 AA: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ON DUCKWORTH STREET BETWEEN BELL FARM ROAD AND ST. VINCENT STREET CITY OF BARRIE, COUNTY OF SIMCOE, ONTARIO

ARCHEOWORKS INC. i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Archeoworks Inc. was retained by C.C. Tatham Associates to conduct a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (AA) as part of the proposed improvements on Duckworth Street between Bell Farm Road and St. Vincent Street, herein referred to as the “study corridor”, as recommended within the City of Barrie’s Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan (MMATMP). The study corridor is located within parts of Lots A to B, 1 to 4, Concession 1; Lots 22-23, Concession 3; Lots 23-34, Concession 4; and the road allowance between Concessions 1, 3 and 4, in the Geographic Township of Vespra, historical County of Simcoe, now in the City of Barrie, County of Simcoe, Ontario. The Stage 1 AA identified elevated potential for the recovery of Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian archaeological remains within portions of the study corridor due to its close proximity (within 300 metres) to several historic transportation routes. The study corridor is situated in a mainly urban setting within the City of Barrie, with residential and commercial developments alongside Duckworth Street. A property inspection has revealed that the entirety of the study corridor exhibited disturbed conditions. Disturbances such as paved roadways, sidewalks, and driveways; embankments; grading; ditching; and utilities were observed throughout the entirety of the study corridor. It was determined that archaeological potential has been entirely removed from the study corridor. The following recommendations are presented:

1. With archaeological potential having been entirely removed, the study corridor may be considered free of further archaeological concern.

2. Should construction activities and/or future development associated with this development extend beyond the assessed limits of the study corridor; further archaeological investigation will be required to assess the archaeological potential of these lands.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ I

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. II

PROJECT PERSONNEL ............................................................................................................ III

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT ........................................................................................................... 1

1.1 OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 HISTORICAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ........................................................................................................ 12 1.5 CONFIRMATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ........................................................................... 16

2.0 PROPERTY INSPECTION .................................................................................................. 16

2.1 CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED FEATURES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ........................ 17 2.2 IDENTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF ADDITIONAL FEATURES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ........ 17 2.3 IDENTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF FEATURES THAT WILL AFFECT ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES .......... 17 2.4 IDENTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF STRUCTURES AND BUILT FEATURES THAT WILL AFFECT

ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................. 17

3.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 17

3.1 IDENTIFIED DEEP AND EXTENSIVE DISTURBANCES ............................................................................ 17 3.2 IDENTIFIED AREAS OF ELEVATED ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL .......................................................... 18 3.3 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 18

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 18

5.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION ................................................................. 19

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES ........................................................................................ 20

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 25

APPENDIX A: MAPS .................................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH ............................................................. 37 APPENDIX C: IMAGES ................................................................................................................. 38 APPENDIX D: INVENTORY OF DOCUMENTARY AND MATERIAL RECORD ................................... 41 APPENDIX E: CHANGES SINCE PIF SUBMISSION ......................................................................... 42

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Registered Archaeological Site within One Kilometre of the Study Corridor.............. 13 Table 2: History of Occupation in Southern Ontario ................................................................. 14


ARCHEOWORKS INC. iii

PROJECT PERSONNEL Project Director ............................................................................ Alvina Tam - MTCS licence P1016 Field Directors ................................................................... Kassandra Aldridge - MTCS licence R439

Kaye Boucher - MTCS licence P1004 Report Preparation ...................................................................... Alvina Tam - MTCS licence P1016 Report Review ............................................................ Nimal Nithiyanantham – MTCS licence P390

Jessica Marr - MTCS licence P334 Historical Research.................................................................. Lee Templeton – MTCS licence R454 Graphics ..................................................................... Nimal Nithiyanantham – MTCS licence P390

Lee Templeton – MTCS licence R454


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 1

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT

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

To provide information about the property’s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land condition;

To evaluate in detail the property’s archaeological potential, which will support recommendations for Stage 2 survey for all or parts of the property; and

To recommend appropriate strategies for Stage 2 survey.

1.2 Development Context Archeoworks Inc. was retained by C.C. Tatham Associates to conduct a Stage 1 AA as part of the proposed improvements on Duckworth Street between Bell Farm Road and St. Vincent Street, herein referred to as the “study corridor”, as recommended within the City of Barrie’s Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan (MMATMP). These infrastructure improvements will evaluate the accommodation of bicycle lanes along its entirety, intersection improvements, sidewalk continuity, as well as sanitary and road surface improvements, the replacement and upsizing of a new trunk watermain and a review of the storm water conveyance system. The study corridor is located within parts of Lots A to B, 1 to 4, Concession 1; Lots 22-23, Concession 3; Lots 23-34, Concession 4; and the road allowance between Concessions 1, 3 and 4, in the Geographic Township of Vespra, historical County of Simcoe, now in the City of Barrie, County of Simcoe, Ontario (see Appendix A – Map 1). This study is being undertaken as a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) under ‘Schedule C” at the time of project initiation. Currently, an archaeological master plan is not available for the City of Barrie. As outlined by the 2010 Conducting Archaeology within the Traditional Territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation: Process and Standards for Approval Authorities, Development Proponents and Consultant Archaeologists (Saugeen Obijway Nation), engagement with Aboriginal communities was undertaken. Documentation of the engagement process is included within the attached Aboriginal Engagement Document. This Stage 1 AA was conducted through the EA process under the project direction of Ms. Alvina Tam, under the archaeological consultant licence number P1016, in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act (2009). Permission to investigate the study corridor was granted by C.C. Tatham Associates on November 19th, 2014.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 2

1.3 Historical Context The 2011 S&G, published by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport (MTCS) considers areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement, including places of early military pioneer or pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, and farmstead complexes), early wharf or dock complexes, and pioneer churches and early cemeteries, as having archaeological potential. There may be commemorative markers of their history, such as local, provincial, or federal monuments or heritage parks. Early historical transportation routes (trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes), properties listed in a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or a federal, provincial, or municipal historic landmark or site, and properties that local histories or informants have identified with possible archaeological sites, historical events, activities, or occupations are also considered to have archaeological potential. To establish the archaeological and historical significance of the study corridor, Archeoworks Inc. conducted a comprehensive review of the Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian settlement history, the designated and listed heritage properties and commemorative markers, and consulted with available historical mapping. Furthermore, an examination of the registered archaeological sites, previous archaeological assessments within close proximity to its limits, and review of the physiography of the overall area and its correlation to locating archaeological remains was performed. The results of this background research are documented below and summarized in Appendix B – Summary of Background Research. 1.3.1 Pre-Contact Period

1.3.1.1 The Paleoindian Period (ca. 11,500 to 7,500 B.C.) The region in which the study corridor is situated was first inhabited after the final retreat of the North American Laurentide ice sheet 15,000 years ago (or 13,000 B.C.) (Stewart, 2013, p.24). Massive amounts of glacial meltwater expanded against the retreating ice boundary in the north, flooding the Huron and Georgian Bay and occupying much of the Simcoe lowlands (Stewart, 2013, p.25). Eventually, the water within these basins coalesced, forming glacial Lake Algonquin, covering “parts or all of Lake Huron, Lake Superior, and Erie basins, which included Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching” (Frim, 2002, p.xi; Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.15). The lessening ice load created isostatic rebound, causing abandoned shorelines to tilt northward towards the ice centre and water to accumulate along the southern shorelines. This formed the main glacial strandline of Lake Algonquin, which extended around the southern shore of Lake Simcoe (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.15). The strandline is marked by a number of erosional and depositional features including high bluffs, off-shore bars, and limestone scarps where wave erosion cut into the bedrock (Storck, 1982, p.9). The continuing retreat of the glaciers between 10,500 and 10,000 B.P. (ca. 8500-8000 B.C.) and glacial uplift uncovered a series of lower outlets near North Bay, Ontario and water flooded the


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 3

Ottawa River (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.17). The level of Lake Algonquin rapidly fell to form a series of short-lived post-Algonquin lakes located in the Georgian Bay and Lake Huron Basins which “exposed about half the present lake floor areas as dry land” (Larson and Schaetzl, 2001, p.532; Jackson et al, 2000, p.419). These low-water lakes exposed as much as 12,000 to 14,000 kilometres of lake plain along the Ontario side of modern Lake Huron (Jackson, 2004, p.38). Streams and stream valleys extended throughout the flat newly-exposed lake plain, opening large tracts of land available for flora and fauna to colonize (Karrow, 2004, p.8; Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.17). Along this shoreline and the beaches of Lake Algonquin, there is definitive evidence of human occupations corresponding to the Late Paleoindian Period of Southern Ontario (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.15). As the average climatic temperature warmed, small groups of Paleoindians entered Southern Ontario (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.22; Stewart, 2013, p.28). Generally, Paleoindians are thought to have been small groups of nomadic hunter-gathers who depended on naturally available foodstuff such as game or wild plants (Ellis and Deller, 1990, p.38). For much of the year, Paleoindians “hunted in small family groups; these would periodically gather into a larger grouping or bands during a favourable period in their hunting cycle, such as the annual caribou migration” (Wright, 1994, p.25). Plentiful aquatic resources and open vegetation allowed for easy hunting of both caribou and mastodons in low and wet habitats found within exposed lake beds (Jackson et al, 2000, p.435). Paleoindian sites are extraordinarily rare and consist of “stone tools clustered in an area of less than 200-300 metres” (Ellis, 2013, p.35). These sites appear to have been campsites used during travel episodes and can be found on well-drained soils in elevated situations, which would have provided a more comfortable location in which to camp and view the surrounding territory (Ellis and Deller, 1990, p.50). Traditionally, Paleoindian sites have been located primarily along abandoned glacial lake strandlines or beaches. However, this view is biased as these are the only areas in which archaeologists have searched for sites, due to current understanding of the region’s geological history (Ellis and Deller, 1990, p.50; Ellis, 2013, p.37). In areas where attention has been paid to non-strandline areas and to older strandlines, sites are much less concentrated and are more ephemeral (Ellis and Deller, 1990, p.51). Artifact assemblages from this period are characterized by fluted and lanceolate stone points, scrapers, and small projectile points produced from specific chert types (Ellis and Deller, 1990). Distinctive dart heads were used to kill game, and knives for butchering and other tasks (Wright, 1994, p.24). These items were created and transported over great distances while following migratory animals within a massive territory.

1.3.1.2 The Archaic Period (ca. 7,800 to 500 B.C.) As the climate steadily warmed, mixed deciduous and coniferous forests began to permeate throughout Southern Ontario (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.30). The “Archaic peoples are the direct descendants of Paleoindian ancestors” having adapted to meet new environmental and social conditions (Ellis, 2013, p.41; Wright, 1994, p.25). The Archaic period is divided chronologically and cultural groups are divided geographically and sequentially. Archaic


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 4

Aboriginals lived in “hunter-gatherer bands whose social and economic organization was probably characterized by openness and flexibility” (Ellis et al., 1990, p.123). This fluidity creates ‘traditions’ and ‘phases’ which encompass large groups of Archaic Aboriginals (Ellis et al, 1990, p.123). Few Archaic sites have faunal and floral preservation; hence lithic scatters are often the most common Archaic Aboriginal site type (Ellis et al., 1990, p. 123). House structures have “left no trace” due to the high acidic content of Ontario soils (Wright, 1994, p.27). Burial, grave goods and ritual items appear, although very rarely. By the Late Archaic, multiple individuals were buried together suggesting semi-permanent communities were in existence (Ellis, 2013, p.46). Ceremonial and decorative items also appear on Archaic Aboriginal sites through widespread trade networks, such as conch shells from the Atlantic coast and galena from New York (Ellis, 2013, p.41). Through trade with the northern Archaic Aboriginals situated around Lake Superior, native copper was initially utilized to make hooks and knives but gradually became used for decorative and ritual items (Ellis, 2013, p.42). During the Archaic period, stone points were reformed from the fluted and lanceolate points to stone points with notched bases to be attached to a wooden shaft (Ellis, 2013, p.41). The artifact assemblages from this period are characterized by a reliance on a wide range of raw lithic materials in order to make stone artifacts, the presence of stone tools shaped by grinding and polishing, and an increase in the use of polished stone axes and adzes as wood-working tools (Ellis et al, 1990, p. 65; Wright, 1994, p.26). Ground-stone tools were also produced from hard stones and reformed into tools and throwing weapons (Ellis, 2013, p.41). The bow and arrow was first used during the Archaic period (Ellis, 2013, p.42). Throughout the Archaic period, water levels fluctuated with the most dramatic elevation increase occurring during the Nipissing Phase. As isostatic uplift continued, drainage through the North Bay outlet was closed off, thus elevating water in the Huron Basin to levels higher than modern heights (Jackson et al, 2000, p.419). This high water phase is known as the “Nipissing Phase, occurring approximately 5000 B.P. (3000 B.C.), which inundated large areas probably previously occupied by humans” (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p. 21). It is generally believed that during the Nipissing Phase, water levels achieved the same height as those of Lake Algonquin, thus creating one contiguous lake in the Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and Lake Huron basins (Jackson et al, 2000, p.419). However, isostatic uplift in the north “meant that most of the Lake Simcoe area of south central Ontario flooded by Algonquin was not reoccupied by Nipissing waters” (Jackson et al, 2000, p.420). Gradually, the high water of the Nipissing phase retreated to current lake levels.

1.3.1.3 The Early Woodland Period (ca. 800 B.C. to 0 B.C.) The Woodland period is divided into subsequent stages of development. Early Woodland cultures evolved out of the Late Archaic period (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p. 89; Spence et al., 1990, p.168). The Early Woodland period is divided into two complexes: the Meadowood complex and the Middlesex complex. The Middlesex complex appears to be restricted to Eastern Ontario, particularly along the St. Lawrence River while Meadowood materials depict a


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 5

broad extent of occupation in southwestern Ontario (Spence et al., 1990, p.134, 141). The distinguishing characteristic of the Early Woodland period is the introduction of pottery (ceramics). The earliest forms were coil-formed, “thick, friable and often under fired, and must have been only limited to utility usage” (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.89; Williamson, 2014, p.48). Cache Blades, a formal chipped stone technology, and side-notched Meadowood point type, were commonly employed tools that were often recycled into a number of other tool forms such as end scrapers (Spence et al, 1990, p.128; Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.93). These tools were primarily formed from Onondaga chert (Spence et al., 1990, p.128). Meadowood sites have produced a number of distinctive material cultures that function in both domestic and ritual spheres (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.90; Spence et al., 1990, p. 128). This allows correlations to be made between habitations and mortuary sites which creates a well-rounded view of the Meadowood culture (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.90; Spence et al., 1990, p. 128). However, the settlement-subsistence system is poorly understood as only a “few settlement types have been adequately investigated, and not all of these are from the same physiographic regions” (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.93; Spence et al., 1990, p. 136). Generally, Meadowood sites are in association with the Point Peninsula and Saugeen complexes, which were “then eventually changed or were absorbed into the Point Peninsula complex” (Wright, 1994, pp. 29-30).

1.3.1.4 The Middle Woodland Period (ca. 200 B.C. to A.D. 900) During the Middle Woodland Period, three primary cultural complexes developed in Southern Ontario. The Couture complex was located in the southwestern most part of Ontario (Spence et al, 1990, p.143). The Point Peninsula complex was “distributed throughout south-central and eastern Southern Ontario, the southern margins of the Canadian Shield, the St. Lawrence River down river to Quebec City, most of southeastern Quebec, along the Richelieu River into Lake Champlain” (Spence et al., 1990, p.157; Wright, 1999, p.633). The Saugeen complex occupied “southwestern Southern Ontario from the Bruce Peninsula on Georgian Bay to the north shore of Lake Erie to the west of Toronto” (Wright, 1999, p.629; Wright, 1994, p.30). The Saugeen and Point Peninsula cultures appear to have shared Southern Ontario but the borders between these three cultural complexes are not well defined, and many academics believe that the Niagara Escarpment formed a frontier between the Saugeen complex and the Point Peninsula complex (Spence et al., 1990, p.143; Wright, 1999, p.629; Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.98). Consequently, the dynamics of hunter-gatherer societies shifted territorial boundaries resulting in regional clusters throughout southwestern Southern Ontario that have been variously assigned to Saugeen, Point Peninsula, or independent complexes (Spence et al., 1990, p.148; Wright, 1999, p.649). Middle Woodland pottery share a preference for stamped, scallop-edge or tooth-like decoration, but each cultural complex had distinct pottery forms, such as globular pots, finishes, and zones of decoration (Williamson, 2014, p.49; Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.97; Spence et al, 1990, p.143). Major changes in settlement-subsistence systems occurred during the Middle Woodland period, particularly the introduction of large ‘house’ structures and substantial middens associated with these structures (Spence et al., 1990, p.167; Ferris and


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 6

Spence, 1995, p.99). The larger sites likely indicate a prolonged period of macroband settlement and a more consistent return to the same site, rather than an increase in band size (Spence et al., 1990, p.168). Environmental constraints in different parts of Southern Ontario all produced a common implication of increased sedentism caused by the intensified exploitation of local resources (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.100). Burial offerings became more ornate and encompassed many material mediums, including antler, whetstones, copper, and pan pipes (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.99). Burials during this time were set away from occupation sites and remains were buried at time of death; secondary burials were not common (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.101). Small numbers of burial mounds are present, particularly around Rice Lake, and both exotic and utilitarian items were left as grave goods (Williamson, 2014, p.51; Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.102).

1.3.1.5 The Late Woodland Period (ca. 900 B.C. to A.D. 1600) During the Late Woodland Period, three sub-stages and their respective complexes have been assigned. These sub-stages are divided spatially and chronologically, and gradually progress into the historic Contact Period groups of the Late Ontario Iroquois Stage (Fox, 1990; Williamson, 1990; Dodd et al., 1990; Warrick, 2000). Although several migration theories have been suggested explaining the Iroquoian origins, an “available date from southern Ontario strongly suggests continuity (in situ) from the Middle-Late Woodland Transitional Princess Point complex and Late Woodland cultural groups” (Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.105; Smith, 1990, p.283). During the Late Ontario Iroquoian stage, the Iroquoian-speaking linguistic groups developed. Prior to European Contact, neighbouring Iroquois-speaking communities united to form several confederacies known as the Huron (Huron-Wendat), Neutral (called Attiewandaron by the Wendat), Petun (Tionnontaté or Khionontateronon) in Ontario, and the Five Nations of the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) of upper New York State (Birch, 2010, p.31; Warrick, 2013, p.71). These groups are located primarily in south and central Ontario. Each group was distinct but shared a similar pattern of life already established by the 16th century (Trigger, 1994, p.42). The geographic distribution of pre-contact Ontario Iroquoian sites describes two major groups east and west of the Niagara Escarpment: the ancestral Huron-Wendat to the east, and the ancestral Attiewandaron to the west (Warrick, 2000, p.446). Pre-contact Huron-Wendat villages are “widely distributed throughout south-central Ontario, between the Trent River, the Niagara Escarpment, and Lake Ontario” and concentrations occur throughout Simcoe County (Ramsden, 1990, pp. 361, 363). Village size began to enlarge as horticulture took on a more central importance in subsistence patterns, particularly the farming of maize, squash, and beans, supplemented by fishing, hunting, and gathering. House structures were initially oval and gradually became longhouses. Villages were later fortified (Williamson, 1990; Dodd et al., 1990). Settlement patterns were complex. Traditional village sites were chosen for their proximity to sources of “water, arable soils, available firewood, [and] a young secondary forest, [as well as] a defendable position” (Heidenreich, 1978, p.375). Longhouse sizes depended on the size of the extended family that inhabited it; however, archaeological evidence suggests that the average longhouse was 25 feet by 100 feet, with heights about the same as widths


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 7

(Heidenreich, 1978, p.366). Villages consisted of up to 100 longhouses clustered closely together, and only the largest villages on the frontier were fortified (Heidenreich, 1978, p.377). Increasing attention to non-village settlements identified “temporary hunting and fishing camps, cabin sites associated with the tending of corn fields, and small hamlets, either temporary or long-term, that appear to be ‘satellites’ of major villages” (Ramsden, 1990, p.373). ‘Slash-and-burn’ farming was used to quickly and efficiently clear trees and brushwood for flour and flint corn fields (Heidenreich, 1978, p.380). These were consistently cultivated until no longer productive, at which point the village was abandoned, an event that took place about every eight to 12 years (Heidenreich, 1978, p.381). Consequently, as horticulture became the primary mode of subsistence, pre-contact native groups gradually relocated from the northern shores of Lake Ontario to further inland, likely as a result of depleting resources and growing aggression between native communities. 1.3.2 European Contact Period (ca. A.D. 1600 to 1650) At the time of European Contact, Huron-Wendat villages were located north of Lake Simcoe, but their territorial hunting grounds, known as Wendake, stretched roughly between the Canadian Shield near Kingston, Lake Ontario and the Niagara Escarpment (Warrick, 2008, p.12). The western boundary is often contested, with a number of sites between the Niagara Escarpment and the Humber River occupied by a mixed Neutral-Wendat population (Warrick, 2008, p.15). It is speculated that four nations: the Attignawantan, Tahontaenrat, Attigneenongnahac, and Arendahronon, amalgamated to form a single Huron-Wendat Confederacy in defense against the continual aggression of the Haudenosaunee (Warrick, 2008, p.11; Trigger, 1994, p.41). At the time of Samuel de Champlain’s visit to the Huron-Wendat territory and prior to the great epidemics of 1630, the Huron-Wendat population was reported to number approximately 30,000 individuals (Heidenreich, 1978, p.36). Detailed ethnohistorical records left by explorers, Jesuit missionaries, and fur traders provide a history of Euro-Canadian involvement in Huron-Wendat territory. By 1609, Samuel de Champlain had encountered the Arendahronon of the Huron-Wendat. Desiring greater quantities of furs, the French concluded a trading relationship with the Huron-Wendat (Trigger, 1994, p.68; Heidenreich, 1978, p.386). Consequently, the Huron-Wendat became the middlemen for trade goods between the French and their Algonquin, Nippissing, Tionnontaté, and Attiewandaron neighbours. By mid-1620, the Huron-Wendat had exhausted all available pelts in their own hunting territories and opted to trade European goods for tobacco and furs from their neighbours (Trigger, 1994, pp.49-50). The Huron-Wendat would travel along the Nine-Mile Portage Route beginning at Kempenfeldt Bay to Willow Creek, then into the Nottawasaga River to where it empties into the Georgian Bay to seek trade with the Attiewandaron and Tionnontaté (Jury and Jury, 1956, p.2). The portage portion of the trail from Kempenfeldt Bay to Willow Creek traversed the western and central portion of the Township of Vespra.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 8

During the 1630s, Jesuit missionaries attempted to convert the entire Huron-Wendat Confederacy to Christianity as the initial phase of a missionary endeavour to convert all native people in Southern Ontario (Trigger, 1994, p.51). However, the Jesuits’ presence in the region had become precarious after a series of major epidemics of European diseases killed nearly two-thirds of the Huron-Wendat population, lowering the total population to approximately 10,000 individuals (Warrick 2008, p.245; Heidenreich, 1978, p.369). These epidemics affected children and elderly the worst. The death of their elders deprived the Huron-Wendat of their experienced political, military, and spiritual leaders, leaving them more susceptible to Christian missions and conversion (Trigger, 1994, p.52; Heidenreich, 1978, p.371). By 1645, having grown dependent on European goods and with their territory no longer yielding enough animal pelts, the Haudenosaunee became increasingly aggressive towards the Huron-Wendat Confederacy (Trigger, 1994, p.53). Armed with Dutch guns and ammunition, the Haudenosaunee engaged in warfare with the Huron-Wendat Confederacy and brutally attacked and destroyed several Huron-Wendat villages throughout Southern Ontario (Trigger, 1994, p.53). After the massacres of 1649-50, the Huron-Wendat Confederacy widely dispersed across the Great Lakes region (Schmalz, 1991, p.17). “For the next forty years, the Haudenosaunee used present-day Ontario to secure furs with the Dutch, then with the English” (Smith, 2013, p.19). 1.3.3 Post Contact Period (ca. A.D. 1650 – 1800) Although their homeland was located south of the Great Lakes, the Haudenosaunee controlled most of Southern Ontario in the 1660s, occupying at “least half a dozen villages along the north shore of Lake Ontario and into the interior” (Schmalz, 1991, p.17; Williamson, 2013, p.60). The Haudenosaunee established “settlements at strategic locations along the trade routes inland from the north shore of Lake Ontario. Their settlements were on canoe-and-portage routes that linked Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay and the upper Great Lakes” (Williamson, 2013, p.60). The Haudenosaunee used this acquired territory within Southern Ontario to hunt game and obtain furs for trade exclusively with the Dutch and English (Coyne, 1895, p.20). The Anishinaabeg, an Algonquin-speaking linguistic and cultural group, wanted control of the land between Lake Huron and Lake Ontario in order to further their role in the fur trade and began to challenge the Haudenosaunee dominance in the region (Johnston, 2004, pp.9-10; Gibson, 2006, p.36). Before contact with the Europeans, the Ojibwa territorial homeland was situated inland from the north shore of Lake Huron (MNCFN, ND, p.3). The English referred to those Algonquin-speaking linguistic and cultural groups that settled in the area bounded by Lakes Ontario, Lake Erie, and Lake Huron as Chippewas or Ojibwas (Smith, 2002, p.107). In 1640, the Jesuit fathers had recorded the name “oumisagai, or Mississaugas, as the name of an Algonquin band near the Mississagi River on the northwestern shore of Lake Huron. The French, and later English, applied this same designation to all Algonquian [-speaking groups] settling on the north shore of Lake Ontario” (Smith, 2002, p. 107; Smith, 2013, pp.19-20). After a major smallpox epidemic in 1662, the capture of New Netherland by the English in 1664, and a series of successful attacks against the Haudenosaunee by the Ojibwa from 1653 to 1662,


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 9

the Haudenosaunee dominance in Southern Ontario began to fail (Warrick, 2008, p.242; Schmalz, 1991, p.20). Prior to 1680, the Ojibwa had begun to settle just north of the evacuated Huron-Wendat territory and with the English entering the fur-trading market, the Ojibwa began to expand further into Southern Ontario (Gibson, 2006, p. 36; Schmalz, 1991, p.18). By the 1690s, Haudenosaunee settlements along the northern shores of Lake Ontario were abandoned (Williamson, 2013, p.60). By 1701, following a series of successful battles on the Bruce Peninsula, at the mouth of the Humber River and along Burlington Bay, the Haudenosaunee were defeated and expelled from Ontario (Gibson, 2006, p. 37; Schmalz, 1991, p.27; Coyne, 1895, p.28). After these battles, the Ojibwa replaced the Haudenosaunee in Southern Ontario (Schmalz, 1991, p.29). In 1701, representatives of several bands within the Ojibwa Nation and the Haudenosaunee assembled in Montreal to participate in Great Peace negotiations, sponsored by the French (Johnston, 2004, p.10; Trigger, 2004, p.58). The Mississaugas were granted sole possession of the territory to the north of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, while the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations as the British referred them with the inclusion of the Tuscarora group, retained territory along the Grand River (Hathaway, 1930, p.433; Tooker, 1978, p.428). From 1701 to the fall of New France in 1759, the Ojibwa experienced a “golden age” of trade, holding no conclusive alliance with either the British or the French while maintaining their middle-man position between native groups to the north and in southwestern Ontario (Schmalz, 1991, p.35). The Ojibwa subsistence primarily focused on hunting, fishing and gathering with little focus on agriculture (McMillian and Yellowhorn, 2004, p.110). The Ojibwa and Mississauga utilized housing known as a wigwam, a temporary and moveable structure that was easy to construct and disassemble allowing them to travel swiftly throughout their territory with little archaeological material left behind (McMillian and Yellowhorn, 2004, p.111). As the Seven Years’ War between the French and British continued in North America, both the Ojibwa bands and the French were weakened by famine, lack of supplies, and disease (Schmalz, 1991, p.53). In 1763, the Royal Proclamation declared the Seven Years’ War over, giving the British control of New France and initially created a western boundary for British colonization. The British did not earn the respect of the Ojibwa bands, as the British did not honour fair trade nor the Ojibwa occupancy of the land as the French had. Consequently, the Pontiac Uprising, also known as the Beaver Wars, began that same year (Schmalz, 1991, p.70; Johnston, 2004, pp.13-14). After numerous attacks on the British, the Pontiac Uprising was over in 1766, when a peace agreement was concluded with Sir William Johnson, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, which depended mostly on the integrity of the British (Schmalz, 1991, p.81). The fur-trade continued throughout Southern Ontario until the beginning of British colonization. 1.3.4 Euro-Canadian Settlement Period (A.D. 1800 to Present) By 1793, Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe arrived at Kempenfeldt Bay to locate a military route leading north to Georgian Bay should the Americans provoke war (Jury and Jury, 1956, pp.10-11). Simcoe travelled on to the entrance of Penetanguishene Bay and sought to establish a fort in the easily defensible natural harbour (Pencen Museum, 2013). This site would


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 10

also act as a depot for inter-lake commerce (Belden, 1881, p.4). In 1798, William Claus, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, bargained on behalf of the British Government for a tract of land adjacent to the harbour of Penetanguishene, and purchased the tip of the peninsula for cloth, blankets and kettles valued at £101 of Quebec currency. Settlement around Fort Penetanguishene continued slowly until the War of 1812 (Surtees, 1994, p.109; Hunter, 1909a, p.12). The North West Company, a fur trade company, complained to the British Crown about the increasing hostility of American customs officers in Lake Ontario, Niagara River, Lake Erie and Detroit River trade routes. The North West Company requested a new route inland be constructed from Lake Simcoe to Penetanguishene, in order to avoid the American customs officers. In 1811, William Claus came to an agreement with the Lake Simcoe Ojibwa but before the British could pay the £4000 in goods, the War of 1812 broke out and the transaction was not concluded until 1815. This treaty became known as the Lake Simcoe Purchase and contained part of the Township of Vespra (Surtees, 1994, p.111; N.A., 1891, p. lviii). After the War of 1812, a second wave of settlers arrived in Upper Canada. Between 1815 and 1824 the non-Aboriginal population doubled as a result of heavy immigration from Britain (Surtees, 1994, p. 112). In 1818, William Claus assembled an Ojibwa council and “asked for over a million hectares to the west and south of Lake Simcoe” (Surtees, 1994, p. 115; Hunter, 1909a, p.14). At this council, William Claus advised that settlement would take several years and the Aboriginals residing in the area would still be able to occupy the area while receiving annual clothing and the usual presents distributed by the King (Surtees, 1994, p. 116). The government agreed to pay an annuity of £1200 currency in goods (Surtees, 1994, p.116; Hunter, 1909a, p. 15). This tract included 1,592,000 acres of land containing the majority of the County of Simcoe, and was known as the Lake Simcoe-Nottawasaga Treaty (Hunter, 1909a, p.15; Surtees, 1994, p.103; N.A., 1891, p. xxiv). The Township of Vespra was surveyed by several individuals beginning in 1811 and completed by 1835. In 1811, Samuel S. Wilmot was instructed to survey a road leading from Kempenfeldt Bay to Penetanguishene Harbour and lay lots on either side of the road for settlement purposes. In 1820, James G. Chewett partially surveyed Vespra and in 1835, John Goessman continued the work. Consequently, the survey of the township was inconsistent, with some half lots receiving more acres and others falling short (Anderson and Anderson, 1987, pp.25-26, p.41). The Township of Vespra contained 67,720 acres and settlement in the township did not occur until after the War of 1812. By 1819, a series of settlements were established along Penetanguishene Road (Belden, 1881, p.7). Most of the township’s development is tied to the establishment of Barrie as a military port during the War of 1812 and the township did not progress until the 1830s (Belden, 1881, p.8). In 1847, a stage coach service was introduced utilizing Penetanguishene Road to allow passengers to commute from Holland’s Landing to Penetanguishene Harbour (Anderson and Anderson, 1987, p.55). By 1850, the Township of Vespra had doubled its population to 1,254 individuals; however cultivated land did not


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 11

increase proportionately (Smith, 1851, p. 56). In 1859, Vespra became a separate municipality from the Townships of Flos and Sunnidale, and a new town hall was built in Midhurst (Anderson and Anderson, 1987, pp.111-112). As settlement continued, small villages developed to accommodate the needs of the settlers and travellers using Penetanguishene Road, such as Craighurst, Dalston, and Crown Hill. These villages are located one kilometre east of the study corridor. The Town of Barrie, located on the shore of Kempenfeldt Bay, was primarily settled after the War of 1812. Sir George Head arrived at the head of Kempenfeldt Bay and erected a log house on the site of Barrie for himself and other French-Canadians who were part of the small detachment stationed with him (Hunter, 1909b, p.203). In 1818, the British Government established “two store-houses, one at Willow Creek end of the Nine-Mile portage, the other at Barrie” (Hunter, 1909b, p.204). At Barrie, a log structure was constructed and functioned as a depot for military supplies in transit to the Lake Huron and Georgian Bay areas and a temporary shelter for early pioneers (Hunter, 1909b, p.204; Belden, 1881, p.7). The following year, Penetanguishene Road was cut through from Kempenfeldt Bay to Georgian Bay by the British Government (Belden, 1881, p.7). In 1830, the storehouse at Kempenfeldt Bay was abandoned by the British Government, but a small community had formed in its wake. The town was named Barrie in honor of Sir Robert Barrie, a British naval officer who commanded a squadron at Kingston during the War of 1812. In 1833, town lots were surveyed, small wood shanties were constructed, and over the following three years, the community grew. By 1837, 28 families resided in Barrie and were principally English, Irish and Scottish. By 1846, all of the town lots within the old survey were owned by private landowners, while only a few lots within the new survey were occupied. By 1851, 800 individuals lived in the town, which contained a tannery, brewery, a newspaper office, Upper Canadian Bank, County Offices, four churches, and a Grammar school (Hunter, 1909b, p.204; Belden, 1881, p.8; Brock, 2014; Smith, 1846, p.9; Smith, 1851, p.54). In 1853, the Ontario, Simcoe, and Huron railway was constructed to Allandale, south of Barrie, and was extended to Barrie in 1865. The railway connected Barrie to Toronto and allowed for the transportation of people, agricultural goods, and natural timber resources. After a series of devastating fires, the town of Barrie continued to steadily grow throughout the remainder of the 19th century (Belden, 1881, p.8; Tourism Barrie, 2014; Downtown Barrie, 2014). 1.3.5 Past Land Use To assess the study corridor’s potential for the recovery of historic pre-1900 remains, the 1881 Simcoe Supplement in Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Dominion of Canada was reviewed (see Map 2). The study corridor encompasses parts of Lots A-B, 1-4, Concession 1; Lots 22-23, Concession 3 and Lots 23-34, Concession 4 and the road allowance between Concessions 1, 3 and 4, in the Geographic Township of Vespra, historical County of Simcoe, now in the City of Barrie.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 12

A review of the 1881 Simcoe Supplement revealed the study corridor is located within unassigned town lots of Barrie. It should be kept in mind, however, that not all historic features would have been depicted in the Township of Vespra as the Simcoe Supplement in the Illustrated Atlas required a paid subscription from the residents in the County of Simcoe (Benson, N.D., p.4).

In addition, the study corridor encompasses a historic settlement road, present- day Duckworth Street, and encompasses part of Penetang Street/Napier Street, Steel Street, and Grove Street, which were originally laid out during the survey of the City of Barrie in the Township of Vespra. In Southern Ontario, the 2011 S&G considers lands within 100 metres of early historic transportation routes (e.g., trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes) to be of elevated archaeological potential. Therefore, based on close proximity to historic transportation routes, there is elevated potential for the location of Euro-Canadian archaeological resources (pre-1900) within the study corridor for lands which lie within 300 metres of these features. 1.3.6 Present Land Use The primary present land use of the study corridor can be categorized as transportation.

1.4 Archaeological Context 1.4.1 Designated and Listed Cultural Heritage Resources Consultation of the Ontario Heritage Properties Database which records heritage resources that have been designated for their provincial cultural value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act (O.Reg. 10/06), confirmed the absence of provincially designated heritage resources within and near (within 300 metres) of the study corridor 1. An inventory of municipal designated and listed heritage resources could not be located online. In an attempt to obtain an inventory of all municipally designated and listed heritage resources within and near (within 300 metres) to the study corridor, the Director of Culture at the City of Barrie was contacted. No response was granted by report completion.

1.4.2 Heritage Conservation Districts A Heritage Conservation District (HCD) includes areas that have been protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. An HCD can be found in both urban and rural environments and may include residential, commercial, and industrial areas, rural landscapes or entire villages or hamlets with features or land patterns that contribute to a cohesive sense of time or place and contribute to an understanding and appreciation of the cultural identity of a local community, region, province, or nation. An HCD may comprise an area with a group or complex of buildings, or a large area with many buildings and properties and often extends beyond its built heritage, structures, streets, landscape and other physical and spatial elements, to include important

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


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 13

vistas and views between and towards buildings and spaces within the district (MTCS, 2006, p.5). An HCD area contains valuable cultural heritage and must be taken into consideration during municipal planning to ensure that they are conserved. An inventory of HCDs within the City of Barrie could not be located online. In an attempt to determine if the study corridor is located within or near (within 300 metres) an HCD, the Director of Culture at the City of Barrie was contacted. No response was granted by report completion. 1.4.3 Commemorative Plaques or Monuments According to Section 1.3.1 of the 2011 S&G, lands within 300 metres of Euro-Canadian settlements where commemorative markers of their history, such as local, provincial, or federal monuments, cairns or plaques, or heritage parks, are considered to have elevated archaeological potential. To determine if any historical plaques are present, Ontario Historical Plaques inventory, which contains a catalogue of all federal Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada plaques, all the provincial Ontario Heritage Trust plaques, all the plaques from the various historical societies and all other published plaques located in Ontario, confirmed no historical plaques are located within and near (within 300 metres of) the study corridor (Ontario Historical Plaques, 2014). Therefore, based on the absence of a historical plaque within and near (within 300 metres of) the study corridor, this feature does not aid to further elevate potential for the location of Euro-Canadian archaeological resources (pre-1900) within the study corridor. 1.4.4 Registered Archaeological Sites In order provide a summary of registered or known archaeological sites within a minimum one kilometre distance from the study corridor limits, as per Section 1.1, Standard 1 and Section 7.5.8, Standard 1 of the 2011 S&G, the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) maintained by the MTCS was consulted (MTCS, 2015). Every archaeological site is registered according to the Borden System, which is a numbering system used throughout Canada to track archaeological sites and their artifacts. The study corridor is located within Borden block BcGw. According to the MTCS (2014), one archaeological site has been registered within a one kilometre radius of the study corridor (see Table 1). It does not fall in close proximity (within 300 metres) of the study corridor limits. Table 1: Registered Archaeological Site within One Kilometre of the Study Corridor

Borden # Name Cultural Affiliation Type

BcGw-2 Bell Undetermined Campsite

Having noted the presence of this site in relation to the study corridor, it is useful to place it in the proper context by reviewing the cultural history of occupation in Southern Ontario provided in Table 2 (Ferris, 2013, p.13). This data provides an understanding of the potential cultural activity that may have occurred within the study corridor.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 14

Table 2: History of Occupation in Southern Ontario

Period Archaeological Culture Date Range Attributes

PALEO-INDIAN

Early Gainey, Barnes, Crowfield ≥11500-8500 BC Big game hunters. Fluted projectile points

Late Holcombe, Hi-Lo, Lanceolate 8500-7500 BC Small nomadic hunter-gatherer bands. Lanceolate projectile points

ARCHAIC

Early Side-notched, corner notched, bifurcate-base

7800-6000 BC Small nomadic hunter-gatherer bands; first notched and stemmed points, and ground stone celts.

Middle Otter Creek, Brewerton 6000-2000 BC Transition to territorial settlements

Late Narrow, Broad and Small Points Normanskill, Lamoka, Genesee, Adder Orchard etc.

2500-500 BC More numerous territorial hunter-gatherer bands; increasing use of exotic materials and artistic items for grave offerings; regional trade networks

WOODLAND

Early Meadowood, Middlesex 800BC-0BC Introduction of pottery, burial ceremonialism; panregional trade networks

Middle Point Peninsula, Saugeen, Couture: Jack’s Reef Corner Notched

200 BC-AD 900 Cultural and ideological influences from Ohio Valley complex societies; incipient horticulture

Late Algonquian, Iroquoian, Western Basin

AD 900-1250 Transition to village life and agriculture

Algonquian, Iroquoian, Western Basin

AD 1250-1400 Establishment of large palisaded villages

Algonquian, Iroquoian AD 1400-1600 Tribal differentiation and warfare

HISTORIC

Early Huron, Neutral, Petun, Odawa, Ojibwa, Five Nations Iroquois

AD 1600 – 1650 Tribal displacements

Late Six Nations Iroquois, Ojibwa, Mississauga

AD 1650 – 1800s Migrations and resettlement

Euro-Canadian AD 1780 - present European immigrant settlements

1.4.5 Previous Archaeological Assessments In order to further establish the archaeological context of the study corridor, a review of previous archaeological fieldwork carried out within the limits of, or immediately adjacent (i.e., within 50 metres) to the study corridor, as documented by all available reports was undertaken. According to the OASD, there has been no documentation for other archaeological fieldwork previously conducted within and directly adjacent (i.e. within 50 metres) to the study. 1.4.6 Physical Features An investigation of the study corridor’s physical features was conducted to aid in the development of an argument for archaeological potential based on the environmental conditions of the study corridor. Environmental factors such as close proximity to water, soil type, and nature of the terrain, for example, can be used as predictors to determine where human occupation may have occurred in the past.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 15

The study corridor is located within the Simcoe Uplands physiographic region of Southern Ontario. The Simcoe Uplands is characterized by broad and rolling till plains, and are separated by steep-sided and flat-floored valleys (Chapman and Putnam, 1984, p.181). These till plains and valleys are “encircled by numerous shorelines, indicating they were islands in Lake Algonquin” (Chapman and Putnam, 1984, p.181). The till is comprised primarily of Pre-cambrian rock instead of limestone, providing a gritty loam texture that becomes sandier toward the north. Heavier, more calcareous till occurs near Lake Simcoe and Midland. The original forests of the land included hardwoods, mainly sugar maple and beech with white pine. Other common trees include yellow birch, basswood and hemlock. The agriculture can be classified as mixed farming based on a variety of products such as milk, cream, beef, veal, hogs, eggs, and poultry. Over the years, the region generally saw a “moving away” from agriculture, as fewer farms existed within the area, however, those that did remain saw a great increase in size and improvement. Although the uplands did not develop any market centres, it is connected by good highways to Barrie and Orillia, the major urban centres of the Lake Simcoe Basin, and in proximity to small ports by the Georgian Bay shore (Chapman and Putnam, 1984, pp. 182-184). The study corridor encompasses two native soil types: Tioga loamy sand and Vasey sandy loam. Tioga loamy sand is Podzol that is characterized as grey calcareous outwash sand with good drainage. Its topography is smooth, gently to irregular steeply sloping and is stonefree to moderately stony. Vasey sandy loam is a Brown Podzolic and Grey-Brown Podzolic that is characterized as light grey, calcareous and non-calcareous, sandy loam till with good drainage. Its topography is smooth, moderately to steeply sloping and moderately to very stony (Ontario Agricultural College, 1959). In terms of archaeological potential, potable water is a highly important resource necessary for any extended human occupation or settlement. As water sources have remained relatively stable in Southern Ontario since post-glacial times, proximity to water can be regarded as a useful index for the evaluation of archaeological site potential. Indeed, distance from water has been one of the most commonly used variables for predictive modeling of site location. In Southern Ontario, the 2011 S&G considers lands in proximity to a water source to be of elevated archaeological potential. Hydrological features such as lakes, rivers, creeks, swamps, and marshes would have helped supply plant and food resources to the surrounding area, and consequently support high potential for locating archaeological resources within 300 metres of their limits. A watershed is an area drained by a river and its tributaries. As surface water collects and joins a collective water body, it picks up nutrients, sediment and pollutants, which may altogether, affect ecological processes along the way. The study corridor is situated within the Nottawasaga Valley conservation authority, and is situated between two major bodies of water. Little Lake is within one kilometre to the north and Kempenfeldt Bay is within 700 metres to the south of the study corridor. Although these primary water sources are situated beyond 300 metres proximity, they would have helped supply plant and food resources to their surrounding areas.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 16

1.4.7 Current Land Conditions The study corridor is situated in a mainly urban setting within the City of Barrie and comprises Duckworth Street and its associated right-of-way (ROW) in both directions from Bell Farm Road to St. Vincent Street. Residential and commercial developments flank both sides of the study corridor. The topography within the study corridor is slightly valleyed, measuring approximately 272 metres above sea level at its northern and southern limits, and declining within the middle to approximately 261 metres above sea level. A detailed review of aerial photographs taken in 1954 and 1978 (see Maps 3 and 4) and satellite imagery taken from 2014 (see Map 5), reveals that the study corridor has undergone extensive changes during this period of time. In 1954, the southern one-third of the corridor lay within the then northern limits of the City of Barrie, while the remaining two-thirds were situated within a largely rural/agricultural landscape. By 1978, the study corridor became entirely developed, fully encompassed by the urban growth of the City of Barrie, and situated primarily within a residential neighbourhood with some commercial development within the northern portion. An image from 2014 reveals that the study corridor remains relatively unchanged, with the exception of a new condominium development at its northwestern limit. 1.4.8 Date(s) of Fieldwork A property inspection of the study corridor was undertaken on April 27th, 2015, to systematically review the archaeological potential of the study corridor. The weather and ground conditions were conducive to identifying features and assessing the land’s archaeological potential.

1.5 Confirmation of Archaeological Potential Based on the information gathered from background research documented in the preceding sections, potential for the recovery of archaeological resources within the study corridor limits has been established. Features contributing to archaeological potential are summarized in Appendix B.

2.0 PROPERTY INSPECTION

This property inspection was conducted in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 1.2 of the 2011 S&G, published by the MTCS. The weather at the time of inspection permitted good visibility of the study corridor. The inspection was carried out systematically every 50 metres, reviewing the entire extent of the study corridor to identify the presence or absence of archaeological potential. Photographic images of the study corridor are presented within Appendix C. Location and orientation information associated with all photographs taken in the field is provided within Maps 6-11. A


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 17

2.1 Confirmation of Previously Identified Features of Archaeological Potential Background research identified historical roadways as having archaeological potential. Namely a historic settlement road, present- day Duckworth Street, and encompassing part of Penetang Street/Napier Street, Steel Street, and Grove Street, which were originally laid out during the survey of the City of Barrie in the Township of Vespra. These roadways were found to be intact and situated as depicted on historic and current mapping.

2.2 Identification and Documentation of Additional Features of Archaeological Potential During the property survey no additional features of archaeological potential were identified.

2.3 Identification and Documentation of Features that will affect Assessment Strategies During the property survey, features that would affect assessment strategies were identified. These features included recent land disturbances, such as paved roadways, sidewalks, and driveways; embankments; grading; ditching; and utilities.

2.4 Identification and Documentation of Structures and Built Features that will affect Assessment Strategies During the property survey no structures or built features were identified that will affect assessment strategies. The detailed results of this property inspection are described in Section 3.0. An inventory of the documented record generated in the field can be found within Appendix D.

3.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.1 Identified Deep and Extensive Disturbances The study corridor was evaluated for extensive disturbances that have removed archaeological potential. Disturbances may include but are not limited to: grading below topsoil, quarrying, building footprints or sewage and infrastructure development. Section 1.3.2 of the 2011 S&G’s counts infrastructure development among those “features indicating that archaeological potential has been removed.”


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 18

The paved roadways, sidewalks and driveways; embankments; grading; ditching; and utilities exhibit disturbed conditions. These land and infrastructure developments, the construction of which often entail soil-grading operations and the installation of utilities essential to service the areas (i.e., hydro, cable, sewer, water, etc.), would have caused extensive and deep disturbance to any archaeological resources that may have been present in the ground, thus resulting in the removal of archaeological potential within their footprints (see Maps 6-11; Appendix C - Images 1-12). It is apparent that the entirety of the study corridor exhibits disturbed conditions. As per Section 1.4.1, Standard 1.f. and Section 1.4.2, Standard 1 of the 2011 S&G, areas that exhibit disturbed conditions are recommended to be exempt from a Stage 2 AA. Therefore, no further archaeological concerns exist within the study corridor.

3.2 Identified Areas of Elevated Archaeological Potential Portions of the study corridor that exhibit neither extensively disturbed conditions nor contain physical features or no or low archaeological potential are considered to have archaeological potential. No areas retaining archaeological potential were identified within the study corridor.

3.3 Conclusion As the entire study corridor has had all archaeological potential removed, there are no further archaeological concerns within the study corridor.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are presented:

1. With archaeological potential having been entirely removed, the study corridor may be considered free of further archaeological concern.

2. Should construction activities and/or future development associated with this development extend beyond the assessed limits of the study corridor; further archaeological investigation will be required to assess the archaeological potential of these lands.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 19

5.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 20

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Anderson, A. and Anderson B.T. (Ed). (1987). A History of Vespra Township: Pioneers and Settlements, Communities, Historic Places, People and Events. Belleville, Ontario: Mika Publishing Company. Belden, H. & Co. (1881). Simcoe Supplement in Illustrated Atlas of the Dominion of Canada. Toronto Benson, L.R. (N.D.). Historical Atlases of Ontario: A Preliminary Check-List. Archives of Ontario. Birch, J. (2010). Coalescence and Conflict in Iroquoian Ontario. [Online]. Available at: http://uga.academia.edu/JenniferBirch/Papers/183903/Coalescence_and_Conflict_in_Iroquoian_Ontario [Accessed 02 February 2015]. Brock, T.L. (2014). Barrie, Sir Robert. [Online]. Available at: http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/barrie_robert_7E.html [Accessed 02 February 2015]. Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. (1984). The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd edition. Ontario Geographic Society, Toronto, Special Volume 2. Coyne, J.H. (1895). The Country of the Neutrals (as far as comprised in the County of Elgin) From Champlain to Talbot. [Online]. Available at: https://archive.org/stream/cihm_03619#page/n7/mode/2up [Accessed 02 February 2015]. Dodd, C.F., Poulton, D. R., Lennox, P.A., Smith, D.G., and Warrick, G.A. (1990). The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage. In Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 321-359. Downtown Barrie. (2014). History and Heritage. [Online]. Available at: http://downtownbarrie.ca/history/ [Accessed 02 February 2015]. Ellis, C.J. and Deller, D.B. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In C.J. Ellis, and N. Ferris, (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 37-64. Ellis, C.J., Kenyon, I.T., and Spence, M.W. (1990). The Archaic. In C.J. Ellis, and N. Ferris, (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 65-124. Ellis, C. J. (2013). Before Pottery: Paleoindian and Archaic Hunter-Gathers. In Munson, M.K. and Jamieson, S.M (Eds.) Before Archaeology: The Archaeology of a Province. Montreal & Kingston, Ontario: McGill Queen’s University Press.

http://uga.academia.edu/JenniferBirch/Papers/183903/Coalescence_and_Conflict_in_Iroquoian_Ontario

http://uga.academia.edu/JenniferBirch/Papers/183903/Coalescence_and_Conflict_in_Iroquoian_Ontario

http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/barrie_robert_7E.html

https://archive.org/stream/cihm_03619#page/n7/mode/2up

http://downtownbarrie.ca/history/


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 21

Energy, Mines and Resources Canada. (1986). National Topographic Survey of Canada, Series A 751, Map 31 D/05. 6th ed. Ottawa. Ferris, N. (2013). Seeing Ontario’s Past Archaeologically. In Munson, M.K. and Jamieson, S.M (Eds.) Before Archaeology: The Archaeology of a Province. Montreal & Kingston, Ontario: McGill Queen’s University Press, p.3-20. Ferris, N. and Spence, M.W. (1995). The Woodland Traditions in Southern Ontario. Revista de Arquologia Americana (9), 83-138. Fox, W. A. (1990). The Middle Woodland to Late Woodland Transition. In C.J. Ellis, and N. Ferris, (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 171-188. Frim, M. (2002). Secrets of the Lakes. Toronto, Ontario: Lynx Images Inc. Gibson, M. M. (2006). In the Footsteps of the Mississaugas. Mississauga, Ontario: Mississauga Heritage Foundation. Government of Ontario (2009). Ontario Heritage Act. [Online]. Available at: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o18_e.htm [Accessed 10 December 2013]. Hathaway, E, the Late (1930). The River Credit and the Mississaugas. In Ontario Historical Society Papers and Records Vol. xxvi. Toronto: Ontario Historical Society. Heidenreich, C.E. (1978). Huron. In B.G. Trigger (Ed.). Volume 15: Northeast. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, pp.368-388. Hunter, J. A. (1909a). A History of Simcoe County: Volume I, Its Public Affairs. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=589890 [Accessed 30 January 2015]. Hunter, J. A. (1909b). A History of Simcoe County: Volume II, Its Pioneers. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ourroots.ca/e/toc.aspx?id=2856 [Accessed 30 January 2015]. Hunting Survey Corporation Limited (1954). Digital Aerial Photographs, Southern Ontario. [Online]. Available at http://maps.library.utoronto.ca/data/on/AP_1954/index.html [Accessed 19 January 2015]. Jackson, L. J., Ellis, C., Morgan, A.V., McAndrews, J.H. (2000). Glacial Lake Levels in Eastern Great Lakes Palaeo-Indians. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 15(5). [Online]. Available at: http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca/mcandrews/PDFs/049%5B1%5D.pdf [Accessed 02 February 2015].

http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=589890

http://www.ourroots.ca/e/toc.aspx?id=2856

http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca/mcandrews/PDFs/049%5B1%5D.pdf


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 22

Jackson, L.J. (2004).Changing Our Views of Late Palaeo-Indian in Southern Ontario. In L.J. Lawrence and A. Hinshelwood, (Ed.). The Late Palaeo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments. Gatineau, Quebec: The Canadian Museum of Civilization, pp. 25-56. Johnston, D. (2004). Connecting People to Place: Great Lakes Aboriginal History in Cultural Context. [Online]. Available at: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipper wash/transcripts/pdf/P1_Tab_1.pdf [Accessed 30 January 2015]. Jury, W. and Jury, E.M. (1956). The Nine Mile Portage from Kempenfelt Bay to the Nottawasaga River. [Online]. Available at: http://www.barrie.ca/Living/ParksTrails/Trails/Documents/Nine%20Mile%20Portage%20-%20Museum%20Bulletin%20No.11%20-%20Jury%201956.pdf [Accessed 02 February 2015]. Karrow, P.F. and Warner, B.G. (1990). The Geological and Biological Environment for Human Occupation in Southern Ontario. In C.J. Ellis, and N. Ferris (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 5-35. Larson, G. and Schaetzl, R. (2001). Origin and Evolution of the Great Lakes. J. Great Lakes Res. 27(4), 518-546. McMillan, A. D. and Yellowhorn, E. (2004). First People in Canada. Vancouver, B.C.: Douglas & McIntyre. Mississauga of the New Credit First Nation (MNCFN). (N.D.). The History of the Mississauga of the New Credit First Nation. Ottawa, Ontario: Praxis Research Associates. Ontario Agricultural College (1959). Soil Map of Simcoe County – South Sheet, Soil Survey Report No. 29. Guelph: Soil Research Institute Ontario Historical Plaques. (2014). Plaque Map. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ontarioplaques.com/Menu_Map.html [Accessed 19 January 2015]. Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. (2006). Heritage Conservation Districts: A Guide to District Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. [Online]. Available at: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_HCD_English.pdf [Accessed 19 January 2015]. Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. (2011). Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Toronto: Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (2014). Sites within a One Kilometre Radius of the Project Area, provided from the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database, 12 January 2015.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/transcripts/pdf/P1_Tab_1.pdf

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/transcripts/pdf/P1_Tab_1.pdf

http://www.barrie.ca/Living/ParksTrails/Trails/Documents/Nine%20Mile%20Portage%20-%20Museum%20Bulletin%20No.11%20-%20Jury%201956.pdf

http://www.barrie.ca/Living/ParksTrails/Trails/Documents/Nine%20Mile%20Portage%20-%20Museum%20Bulletin%20No.11%20-%20Jury%201956.pdf

http://www.ontarioplaques.com/Menu_Map.html

http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_HCD_English.pdf


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 23

No Author. (1891). Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680-1890 – in Two Volumes: Vol. 1. Ottawa: Brown Chamberlin Pencen Museum. (2013). A Short History of Penetangishene. [Online]. Available at: http://www.pencenmuseum.com/general-information/history/ [Accessed 30 January 2015]. Ramsden, P.G. (1990). The Hurons: Archaeology and Culture History. In Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 361-384. Saugeen Objiway Nation (2010). Conducting Archaeology within the Traditional Territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation: Process and Standards for Approval Authorities, Development Proponents and Consultant Archaeologist. Wiarton, Ontario: Environmental Office. Schmalz, P.S. (1991). The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Smith, W.H. (1846). Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer; Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of Upper Province. [Online]. Available at: https://archive.org/stream/smithscanadianga00smit#page/n8/mode/1up [Accessed 02 February 2015]. Smith, W.H. (1851). Canada: Past, Present and Future, being a Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West. [Online]. Available at: http://archive.org/stream/canadapast00smituoft#page/n7/mode/2up [Accessed 30 January 2015]. Smith, D.B. (2013). Sacred Feathers: The Reverend Peter Jones (Kahkewaquonaby) and the Mississauga Indians. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Smith, D.G. (2002). Their Century and a Half on the Credit: The Mississaugas in Mississauga. In Mississauga: The First 10,000 Years. Toronto, Ontario: The Mississauga Heritage Foundation Inc., 123-138. Spence, M.W., Pihl, R.H., and Murphy, C.R. (1990). Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 125-169. Stewart, A.M. (2013). Water and Land. In Munson, M.K. and Jamieson, S.M (Eds.) Before Archaeology: The Archaeology of a Province. Montreal & Kingston, Ontario: McGill Queen’s University Press Storck, P.L. (1982). Palaeo-Indian Settlement Patterns Associated with the Strandlines of Glacial Lake Algonquin in South-Central Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 6:1-32.

http://www.pencenmuseum.com/general-information/history/

http://archive.org/stream/canadapast00smituoft#page/n7/mode/2up


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 24

Surtees, R.J. (1994). Land Cessions, 1763-1830. In E.S. Rogers, (Ed.). Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited, pp. 92-121. Tooker, E. (1978). The League of the Iroquois: Its History, Politics, and Ritual. In B.G. Trigger (Ed.). Volume 15: Northeast. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, pp.418-441. Tourism Barrie. (2014). History of Barrie. [Online]. Available at: http://www.tourismbarrie.com/information/about_barrie/History.aspx [Accessed 02 February 2015].

Trigger, Bruce G. (1994).The Original Iroquoians: Huron, Petun and Neutral. In Edward S. Rogers (Eds.). Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited, pp. 41-63. Warrick, G.A. (2000). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. In Journal of World Prehistory, Vol.14, No.4, pp. 415-466. Warrick, G. (2008). A Population History of the Huron-Petun, A.D. 500-1650. New York: Cambridge University Press. Warrick, G. (2013). The Aboriginal Population of Ontario in Late Prehistory. In Munson, M.K. and Jamieson, S.M (Eds.) Before Archaeology: The Archaeology of a Province. Montreal & Kingston, Ontario: McGill Queen’s University Press. Williamson, R. F. (1990). The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 291-320. Williamson, R.F. (2013). The Woodland Period, 900 BCE to 1700 CE. In Munson, M.K. and Jamieson, S.M (Eds.) Before Archaeology: The Archaeology of a Province. Montreal & Kingston, Ontario: McGill Queen’s University Press Wright, J.V. (1994).Before European Contact. In Edward S. Rogers (Eds.). Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited, pp 21-40 Wright, J.V. (1999). A History of the Native People of Canada: Volume II (1,000B.C. – A.D. 500). Hull, Quebec: Museum of Civilization.

http://www.tourismbarrie.com/information/about_barrie/History.aspx


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 25

APPENDICES


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 26

APPENDIX A: MAPS

MAP 1 National Topographical System Map (Natural Resources Canada, 1998) identifying the Stage 1 AA study corridor.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 27

MAP 2 Simcoe Supplement in the Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Dominion of Canada (H. Belden, 1881) identifying the Stage 1 AA study corridor


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 28

MAP 3 Stage 1 AA study corridor within a 1954 aerial photograph (Hunting Survey Corporation Ltd., 1954)


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 29

MAP 4 Stage 1 AA study corridor within a 1978 aerial photograph (Archives of Ontario, 1978)


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 30

MAP 5 Stage 1 AA study corridor within a 2014 satellite image (Google Earth, 2014)


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 31

MAP 6 Stage 1 AA results of the study corridor with photo locations indicated.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 32



ARCHEOWORKS INC. 33



ARCHEOWORKS INC. 34



ARCHEOWORKS INC. 35



ARCHEOWORKS INC. 36



ARCHEOWORKS INC. 37

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Feature of Archaeological Potential Yes No Unknown Comment

1 Known archaeological sites within 300 m? X If Yes, potential confirmed

Physical Features Yes No Unknown Comment

2 Is there water on or near the property? X If Yes, potential confirmed

2a Presence of primary water source within 300 metres of the study corridor (lakes, rivers, streams, creeks)

X If Yes, potential confirmed

2b Presence of secondary water source within 300 metres of the study corridor (intermittent creeks and streams, springs, marshes, swamps)


2c Features indicating past presence of water source within 300 metres (former shorelines, relic water channels, beach ridges)


2d Accessible or inaccessible shoreline (high bluffs, swamp or marsh fields by the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh)


3 Elevated topography (knolls, drumlins, eskers, plateaus, etc.) X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed

4 Pockets of well-drained sandy soil, especially near areas of heavy soil or rocky ground

X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed

5 Distinctive land formations (mounds, caverns, waterfalls, peninsulas, etc.) X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed

Cultural Features Yes No Unknown Comment

6 Is there a known burial site or cemetery that is registered with the Cemeteries Regulation Unit on or directly adjacent to the property?


7 Associated with food or scarce resource harvest areas (traditional fishing locations, food extraction areas, raw material outcrops, etc.)


8 Indications of early Euro-Canadian settlement (monuments, cemeteries, structures, etc.) within 300 metres


9 Associated with historic transportation route (historic road, trail, portage, rail corridor, etc.) within 100 metres of the property


Property-specific Information Yes No Unknown Comment

10 Contains property designated under the Ontario Heritage Act X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed

11 Local knowledge (aboriginal communities, heritage organizations, municipal heritage committees, etc.)


12 Recent ground disturbance, not including agricultural cultivation (post-1960, extensive and deep land alterations)

X If Yes, low archaeological potential is determined


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 38

APPENDIX C: IMAGES

IMAGE 1: View of disturbances associated with paved roadway, driveways and sidewalk, utilities and grading.

IMAGE 2: View of disturbances associated with paved roadway, utilities and grading.

IMAGE 3: View of disturbances associated with paved roadway, driveways and sidewalk, utilities and grading.

IMAGE 4: View of disturbances associated with paved roadways and sidewalk, utilities and grading.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 39

IMAGE 5: View of disturbances associated with paved roadway and sidewalk, utilities and grading.

IMAGE 6: View of disturbances associated with paved roadway and sidewalk, ditch, and grading.


IMAGE 8: View of disturbances associated with paved roadway and sidewalk, utilities, and grading.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 40


IMAGE 10: View of disturbances associated with paved roadway and sidewalk, utilities, embankment and grading.

IMAGE 11: View of disturbances associated with paved roadway, utilities, embankment and grading.

IMAGE 12: View of disturbances associated with paved roadway and sidewalk, utilities, embankment and grading.


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 41

APPENDIX D: INVENTORY OF DOCUMENTARY AND MATERIAL RECORD

Project Information:

Project Number: 044-BA1317-14

Licensee: Alvina Tam (P1016)

MTCS PIF: P1016-0055-2015

Document/ Material Location Comments

1. Research/ Analysis/ Reporting Material

Digital files stored in: /2014/044-BA1317-14 - Duckworth Street Class EA - Barrie/Stage 1

Archeoworks Inc., 16715-12 Yonge Street, Suite 1029, Newmarket, ON, Canada, L3X 1X4

Stored on Archeoworks network servers

2. Written Field Notes/ Annotated Field Maps/ Images

Field Notes: One (1) Page Field Map: Four (4) Maps Digital Images: 51 digital photos

Archeoworks Inc., 16715-12 Yonge Street, Suite 1029, Newmarket, ON, Canada, L3X 1X4

Stored on Archeoworks network servers

Under Section 6 of Regulation 881 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Archeoworks Inc. will, “keep in safekeeping all objects of archaeological significance that are found under the authority of the licence and all field records that are made in the course of the work authorized by the licence, except where the objects and records are donated to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario or are directed to be deposited in a public institution under subsection 66 (1) of the Act.”


ARCHEOWORKS INC. 42

APPENDIX E: CHANGES SINCE PIF SUBMISSION

Study Corridor

The study corridor changed slightly following the PIF submission as more accurate mapping was provided by the client.

Appendix H: Construction Costs

Construction CostsDesign Alternative 2

Road Section:

ROW 21.8 m HL1 40 mm Gran A 150 mm Bike Lane width 1.5 mProposed Aspalt Width 10 m HL3 0 mm Gran B 600 mm No. of Bike Lane 2Existing Asphalt Width 10 m HL4/HL8 100 mm

Unit Average WITHOUT BIKE LANE(S) Unit Average Unit Price Price per metre Formula Assumptions Unit Price Price per metre Formula

REMOVALS (From Scratch) Reconstruction New Construction REMOVALS (From Scratch) Reconstruction New ConstructionEarth Excavation cu. m. $21.98 $197.81 (D7+2)*((L6+L7)/1000)*1*D13 $197.81 Earth Excavation cu. m. $21.98 $148.36 (D7-P6*2+2)*((L6+L7)/1000)*T13 $148.36

$197.81 $197.81 $148.36 $148.36

REMOVALS (Existing 2-Lane Urban Road) REMOVALS (Existing 2-Lane Urban Road)Remove Existing Asphal sq.m. $6.03 $60.30 D8*1*D18 Remove Existing Asphal sq.m. $6.03 $60.30Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter m. $9.21 $18.42 1*2*D19 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter m. $9.21 $18.42Remove Ex Storm MH each $619.85 $6.20 1/100*D20 1 storm MH every 100 metres Remove Ex Storm MH each $619.85 $6.20Remove Ex Catch basin each $449.38 $14.98 2/60*D21 2 catchbasins every 60 metres Remove Ex Catch basin each $449.38 $14.98Remove Ex Storm Sewer m. $73.92 $62.83 1*D22*85% 85% of section has storm sewer Remove Ex Storm Sewer m. $73.92 $62.83Remove Existing Concrete Sidewalk sq. m. $11.70 $35.10 1.5*1*2*D23 1.5 metre wide sidewalk, both sides of the road Remove Existing Concrete Sidewalk sq. m. $11.70 $35.10Tree Removal each $370.00 $49.33 2*D24/15 1 tree every 15m both sides Tree Removal each $370.00 $49.33Stripping of Topsoi sq. m. $3.48 $27.18 (D6-D8-1-3)*1*D25 150 mm stripped Stripping of Topsoi sq. m. $3.48 $27.18

$274.34 $274.34

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTIONGranular A - 150 mm sq. m. $8.19 $98.28 (D7+1*2)*D30 $98.28 Granular A - 150 mm sq. m. $8.19 $73.71 (D7-P6*2+1*2)*T30 $73.71Granular B - 600 mm sq. m. $25.14 $301.68 (D7+1*2)*D31 $301.68 Granular B - 600 mm sq. m. $25.14 $226.26 (D7-P6*2+1*2)*T31 $226.26Concrete Curb and Gutter m. $46.15 $92.30 1*2*D32 $92.30 Concrete Curb and Gutter m. $46.15 $92.30 $92.30100 mm Diameter PE Subdrain m. $24.75 $49.50 1*2*D33 $49.50 100 mm Diameter PE Subdrain m. $24.75 $49.50 $49.50HL1 Asphalt - 40 mm sq. m. $8.41 $84.09 D7*1*D34 $84.09 HL1 Asphalt - 40 mm sq. m. $8.41 $58.86 (D7-P6*2)*1*T34 $58.86HL 4 or HL 8 Hot Mix or Recycled - 100 mm sq. m. $17.00 $170.02 D7*1*D35 $170.02 HL 4 or HL 8 Hot Mix or Recycled - 100 mm sq. m. $17.00 $119.02 (D7-P6*2)*1*T35 $119.02Tack Coat sq. m. $0.29 $2.92 D7*1*D36 $2.92 Tack Coat sq. m. $0.29 $2.04 (D7-P6*2)*1*T36 $2.04Concrete Sidewalk sq. m. $50.33 $201.32 2*2*1*D37 $201.32 2.0 metre wide sidewalk, both sides of the road Concrete Sidewalk sq. m. $50.33 $201.32 $201.32Fine Grading, Topsoil & Sod sq. m. $8.66 $58.89 (D6-D7-1-4)*1*D38 $58.89 Width of blvd = ROW-asphalt width- curb width - sidewalk both side Fine Grading, Topsoil & Sod sq. m. $8.66 $84.88 (D6-D7-1-4+P6*2)*1*T38 $84.88Mechanical Water Quality Device each $40,250.00 $30.96 D39/13000*D7 $30.96 1 device for every 13000sq. m. of asphal Mechanical Water Quality Device each $40,250.00 $21.67 $21.67600mm Diameter Storm Sewer m. $451.42 $451.42 1*D41 $451.42 100% of section requires storm sewe 600mm Diameter Storm Sewer m. $451.42 $451.42 1*D41 $451.42 100% of section requires storm sewe1200mm Diameter Precast Maintenance Hole each $4,950.78 $49.51 1/100*D42 $49.51 1 mh every 100 metres 1200mm Diameter Precast Maintenance Hole each $4,950.78 $49.51 1/100*D42 $49.51 1 mh every 100 metresPrecast Catch Basin -Single each $2,463.43 $82.11 2/60*D43 $82.11 2 catchbasins every 60 metres Precast Catch Basin -Single each $2,463.43 $82.11 2/60*D43 $82.11 2 catchbasins every 60 metres250mm Diameter Catch Basin Lead, Flexible m. $341.44 $56.91 2/60*D44*D7/2 $56.91 2 every 60 metres x road width / 2, reconstruction (diff btn ex and prop asphalt width 250mm Diameter Catch Basin Lead, Flexible m. $341.44 $39.83 2/60*T44*(D7-P6*2)/2 $39.83 2 every 60 metres x road width / 2, reconstruction (diff btn ex and prop asphalt widthAdjust Existing MH and CB to finished grade each $368.06 $15.06 3/73.333*D45 $15.06 73.333 metres (1 mh and 2 CB's for reconstruction Adjust Existing MH and CB to finished grade each $368.06 $15.06 3/73.333*D45 $15.06 73.333 metres (1 mh and 2 CB's for reconstructionTrees each $483.63 $64.48 2*D45/15 $64.48 1 tree every 15 m both sides Trees each $483.63 $64.48 $64.48

$1,809.46 $1,809.46 $1,631.98 $1,631.98

MISCELLANEOUS Reconstruction New Construction MISCELLANEOUS Reconstruction New ConstructionBonds L. S. Bonds L. S.Bonds as a percentage of net tender amoun 1.80% $41.07 $36.13 Bonds as a percentage of net tender amoun 1.80% $36.98 $32.05Insurance L. S. Insurance L. S.Insurance as a percentage of net tender amoun 1.00% $22.82 $20.07 Insurance as a percentage of net tender amoun 1.00% $20.55 $17.80Garbage and Recyclable Collection L. S. Garbage and Recyclable Collection L. S.Garbage and Recyclable Collection as a % of ne 0.10% $2.28 $2.01 Garbage and Recyclable Collection as a % of ne 0.10% $2.05 $1.78Traffic Control and Signing L. S. Traffic Control and Signing L. S.Traffic Control and Signing as a % of ne 1.24% $28.29 $24.89 Traffic Control and Signing as a % of ne 1.24% $25.48 $22.08Field Office L. S. Field Office L. S.Field Office as a percentage of net tender amoun 0.12% $2.74 $2.41 Field Office as a percentage of net tender amoun 0.12% $2.47 $2.14Schedule of Work L. S. 0.10% $2.28 $2.01 0.1% of net cost Schedule of Work L. S. 0.10% $2.05 $1.78Street Lights each $1,662.38 $59.37 $59.37 spacing 56m, on both sides, Street Lights Street Lights each 1662.38 $59.37 $59.37

(Pole,Luminaire Arm Bracket, Luminaire c/w PhotocellStreet Light Duct Work m. $33.50 $33.50 $33.50 $25 @2006, inflated 5%, $33.50 @2012 Street Light Duct Work m. 33.50 $33.50 $33.50Asphalt Driveway Removal and Restoration sq. m. $25.94 $68.48 $68.48 45 ft (13.72m) lot, 20 ft (6.1m) driveway 44%of blvd is dwy Asphalt Driveway Removal and Restoration sq. m. 25.94 $102.72 $102.72

depth of dwy = (blvd width - sidewalk) * both sides of road$260.83 $248.87

$285.18 $273.22

$2,542.44 $2,256.14Reconstruction per metre $2,339.86 $2,053.56

Reconstruction per metre

690 m Length$1,754,286.00 Cost of Bike Lane $202.58 $202.58

$263,142.90 15% Design$350,857.20 20% Contingency

$2,368,286.10 Total

$3,432.30 Total reconstruction costs per metre (including design and contingency costs)

St. Vincent Street to Wellington Street

Average Cost of Miscellaneous Items for 18m asphalt road on a 29.0m ROWAverage Cost of Miscellaneous Items for 10.25m asphalt road on a 25.0m ROW

New construction per metre


Average Cost of Removals for 18m asphalt road on a 29.0m ROW Average Cost of Removals for 10.25m asphalt road on a 25.0m ROW

Average Cost of Removals for 11.0m 2-lane asphalt road Average Cost of Removals for 11.0m 2-lane asphalt road

Average Cost of Construction for 18m asphalt road on a 29.0m ROW Average Cost of Construction for 10.25m asphalt road on a 25.0m ROW


Road Section:

ROW 20.12 m HL1 40 mm Gran A 150 mm Bike Lane width 1.2 mProposed Aspalt Width 9 m HL3 0 mm Gran B 600 mm No. of Bike Lane 2Existing Asphalt Width 10 m HL4/HL8 100 mm



$181.33 $181.33 $141.76 $141.76


$268.49 $268.49


$1,735.75 $1,735.75 $1,593.77 $1,593.77




$276.12 $264.41





$2,274,916.90 Total










Road Section:

ROW 21.8 m HL1 40 mm Gran A 150 mm Bike Lane width 1.2 mProposed Aspalt Width 12.8 m HL3 0 mm Gran B 600 mm No. of Bike Lane 2Existing Asphalt Width 10 m HL4/HL8 100 mm



$243.97 $243.97 $204.40 $204.40


$274.34 $274.34


$1,975.10 $1,975.10 $1,833.12 $1,833.12




$289.54 $277.58





$2,574,180.65 Total










Road Section:

ROW 29.8 m HL1 40 mm Gran A 150 mm Bike Lane width 1.5 mProposed Aspalt Width 18 m HL3 0 mm Gran B 600 mm No. of Bike Lane 2Existing Asphalt Width 13.25 m HL4/HL8 100 mm



$329.69 $329.69 $280.23 $280.23


$310.49 $310.49


$2,352.02 $2,352.02 $2,174.54 $2,174.54




$316.16 $302.62



300 m Length$985,202.20 Cost of Bike Lane $202.58 $202.58


$1,330,022.98 Total

$4,433.41 Total reconstruction cost per metre (including design and contingency costs)

Wellington Street to Davies Crescent








Road Section:

ROW 26.1 m HL1 40 mm Gran A 150 mm Bike Lane width 1.2 mProposed Aspalt Width 15.6 m HL3 0 mm Gran B 600 mm No. of Bike Lane 2Existing Asphalt Width 13.25 m HL4/HL8 100 mm



$290.12 $290.12 $250.56 $250.56


$297.60 $297.60


$2,177.99 $2,177.99 $2,036.01 $2,036.01




$301.41 $288.44





$1,234,298.53 Total










Road Section:




$260.45 $260.45 $220.89 $220.89


$297.60 $297.60


$2,071.51 $2,071.51 $1,929.52 $1,929.52




$295.48 $282.50





$1,176,750.37 Total










Road Section:

ROW 34 m HL1 40 mm Gran A 150 mm Bike Lane width 1.5 mProposed Aspalt Width 22.2 m HL3 0 mm Gran B 600 mm No. of Bike Lane 2Existing Asphalt Width 17.5 m HL4/HL8 100 mm



$398.92 $398.92 $349.47 $349.47


$335.94 $335.94


$2,636.86 $2,636.86 $2,459.39 $2,459.39




$332.71 $318.06





$2,881,507.19 Total


Davies Crescent to Bell Farm Road








Road Section:




$359.36 $359.36 $319.79 $319.79


$324.79 $324.79


$2,467.17 $2,467.17 $2,325.18 $2,325.18




$318.23 $304.07





$2,701,402.22 Total










Road Section:



REMOVALS (From Scratch) Reconstruction New Construction REMOVALS (From Scratch) Reconstruction New ConstructionEarth Excavation cu. m. $21.98 $375.84 (D7+2)*((L6+L7)/1000)*1*D13 $375.84 Earth Excavation cu. m. $21.98 $336.28 (D7-P6*2+2)*((L6+L7)/1000 $336.28

$375.84 $375.84 $336.28 $336.28

REMOVALS (Existing 2-Lane Urban Road) REMOVALS (Existing 2-Lane Urban Road)Remove Existing Asphal sq.m. $6.03 $105.53 D8*1*D18 Remove Existing Asphal sq.m. $6.03 $105.53Remove Concrete Curb and Gutte m. $9.21 $18.42 1*2*D19 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutte m. $9.21 $18.42Remove Ex Storm MH each $619.85 $6.20 1/100*D20 1 storm MH every 100 metres Remove Ex Storm MH each $619.85 $6.20Remove Ex Catch basin each $449.38 $14.98 2/60*D21 2 catchbasins every 60 metres Remove Ex Catch basin each $449.38 $14.98Remove Ex Storm Sewe m. $73.92 $62.83 1*D22*85% 85% of section has storm sewe Remove Ex Storm Sewe m. $73.92 $62.83Remove Existing Concrete Sidewal sq. m. $11.70 $35.10 1.5*1*2*D23 1.5 metre wide sidewalk, both sides of the roa Remove Existing Concrete Sidewal sq. m. $11.70 $35.10Tree Removal each $370.00 $49.33 2*D24/15 1 tree every 15m both sides Tree Removal each $370.00 $49.33Stripping of Topsoi sq. m. $3.48 $28.92 (D6-D8-1-3)*1*D25 150 mm stripped Stripping of Topsoi sq. m. $3.48 $28.92

$321.31 $321.31

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTIONGranular A - 150 mm sq. m. $8.19 $186.73 (D7+1*2)*D30 $186.73 Granular A - 150 mm sq. m. $8.19 $167.08 (D7-P6*2+1*2)*T30 $167.08Granular B - 600 mm sq. m. $25.14 $573.19 (D7+1*2)*D31 $573.19 Granular B - 600 mm sq. m. $25.14 $512.86 (D7-P6*2+1*2)*T31 $512.86Concrete Curb and Gutter m. $46.15 $92.30 1*2*D32 $92.30 Concrete Curb and Gutter m. $46.15 $92.30 $92.30100 mm Diameter PE Subdrain m. $24.75 $49.50 1*2*D33 $49.50 100 mm Diameter PE Subdrain m. $24.75 $49.50 $49.50HL1 Asphalt - 40 mm sq. m. $8.41 $174.90 D7*1*D34 $174.90 HL1 Asphalt - 40 mm sq. m. $8.41 $154.72 (D7-P6*2)*1*T34 $154.72HL 4 or HL 8 Hot Mix or Recycled - 100 mm sq. m. $17.00 $353.65 D7*1*D35 $353.65 HL 4 or HL 8 Hot Mix or Recycled - 100 mm sq. m. $17.00 $312.84 (D7-P6*2)*1*T35 $312.84Tack Coat sq. m. $0.29 $6.07 D7*1*D36 $6.07 Tack Coat sq. m. $0.29 $5.37 (D7-P6*2)*1*T36 $5.37Concrete Sidewalk sq. m. $50.33 $201.32 2*2*1*D37 $201.32 2.0 metre wide sidewalk, both sides of the roa Concrete Sidewalk sq. m. $50.33 $201.32 $201.32Fine Grading, Topsoil & Sod sq. m. $8.66 $34.64 (D6-D7-1-4)*1*D38 $34.64 Width of blvd = ROW-asphalt width- curb width - sidewalk both side Fine Grading, Topsoil & Sod sq. m. $8.66 $55.43 (D6-D7-1-4+P6*2)*1*T38 $55.43Mechanical Water Quality Device each $40,250.00 $64.40 D39/13000*D7 $64.40 1 device for every 13000sq. m. of aspha Mechanical Water Quality Device each $40,250.00 $56.97 $56.97600mm Diameter Storm Sewe m. $451.42 $451.42 1*D41 $451.42 100% of section requires storm sewe 600mm Diameter Storm Sewe m. $451.42 $451.42 1*D41 $451.42 100% of section requires storm sewe1200mm Diameter Precast Maintenance Hol each $4,950.78 $49.51 1/100*D42 $49.51 1 mh every 100 metres 1200mm Diameter Precast Maintenance Hol each $4,950.78 $49.51 1/100*D42 $49.51 1 mh every 100 metresPrecast Catch Basin -Single each $2,463.43 $82.11 2/60*D43 $82.11 2 catchbasins every 60 metres Precast Catch Basin -Single each $2,463.43 $82.11 2/60*D43 $82.11 2 catchbasins every 60 metres250mm Diameter Catch Basin Lead, Flexibl m. $341.44 $118.37 2/60*D44*D7/2 $118.37 2 every 60 metres x road width / 2, reconstruction (diff btn ex and prop asphalt widt 250mm Diameter Catch Basin Lead, Flexibl m. $341.44 $104.71 2/60*T44*(D7-P6*2)/2 $104.71 2 every 60 metres x road width / 2, reconstruction (diff btn ex and prop asphalt widtAdjust Existing MH and CB to finished grade each $368.06 $15.06 3/73.333*D45 $15.06 73.333 metres (1 mh and 2 CB's for reconstruction Adjust Existing MH and CB to finished grade each $368.06 $15.06 3/73.333*D45 $15.06 73.333 metres (1 mh and 2 CB's for reconstructionTrees each $483.63 $64.48 2*D45/15 $64.48 1 tree every 15 m both sides Trees each $483.63 $64.48 $64.48

$2,517.66 $2,517.66 $2,375.68 $2,375.68

MISCELLANEOUS Reconstruction New Construction MISCELLANEOUS Reconstruction New ConstructionBonds L. S. Bonds L. S.Bonds as a percentage of net tender amoun 1.80% $57.87 $52.08 Bonds as a percentage of net tender amoun 1.80% $54.60 $48.82Insurance L. S. Insurance L. S.Insurance as a percentage of net tender amoun 1.00% $32.15 $28.94 Insurance as a percentage of net tender amoun 1.00% $30.33 $27.12Garbage and Recyclable Collectio L. S. Garbage and Recyclable Collectio L. S.Garbage and Recyclable Collection as a % of ne 0.10% $3.21 $2.89 Garbage and Recyclable Collection as a % of ne 0.10% $3.03 $2.71Traffic Control and Signing L. S. Traffic Control and Signing L. S.Traffic Control and Signing as a % of ne 1.24% $39.86 $35.88 Traffic Control and Signing as a % of ne 1.24% $37.61 $33.63Field Office L. S. Field Office L. S.Field Office as a percentage of net tender amoun 0.12% $3.86 $3.47 Field Office as a percentage of net tender amoun 0.12% $3.64 $3.25Schedule of Work L. S. 0.10% $3.21 $2.89 0.1% of net cost Schedule of Work L. S. 0.10% $3.03 $2.71Street Lights each $1,662.38 $59.37 $59.37 spacing 56m, on both sides, Street Lights Street Lights each 1662.38 $59.37 $59.37

(Pole,Luminaire Arm Bracket, Luminaire c/w PhotocelStreet Light Duct Work m. $33.50 $33.50 $33.50 $25 @2006, inflated 5%, $33.50 @2012 Street Light Duct Work m. 33.50 $33.50 $33.50Asphalt Driveway Removal and Restoratio sq. m. $25.94 $68.48 $68.48 45 ft (13.72m) lot, 20 ft (6.1m) driveway 44%of blvd is dwy Asphalt Driveway Removal and Restoratio sq. m. 25.94 $95.87 $95.87

depth of dwy = (blvd width - sidewalk) * both sides of roa$301.52 $287.51

$321.00 $306.99





$2,753,288.65 Total

$4,747.05 Total reconstruction cost per metre (including design and contingency costs


verage Cost of Miscellaneous Items for 18m asphalt road on a 29.0m ROWAverage Cost of Miscellaneous Items for 10.25m asphalt road on a 25.0m ROW






Construction Costs - Preferred Alternative

Road Section:

ROW 20.1 m HL1 40 mm Gran A 150 mm Bike Lane width 1.2 mProposed Aspalt Width 9.4 m HL3 0 mm Gran B 600 mm No. of Bike Lane 2Existing Asphalt Width 10 m HL4/HL8 100 mm



$187.92 $187.92 $148.36 $148.36


$268.42 $268.42


$1,759.24 $1,708.91 $1,617.26 $1,566.93




$277.43 $263.53





$2,304,094.27 Total










Road Section:




$260.45 $260.45 $220.89 $220.89


$297.60 $297.60


$2,071.51 $2,071.51 $1,929.52 $1,929.52




$295.48 $282.50





$1,176,750.37 Total










Road Section:



REMOVALS (From Scratch) Reconstruction New Construction REMOVALS (From Scratch) Reconstruction New ConstructionEarth Excavation cu. m. $21.98 $375.84 (D7+2)*((L6+L7)/1000)*1*D13 $375.84 Earth Excavation cu. m. $21.98 $336.28 (D7-P6*2+2)*((L6+L7)/1000 $336.28

$375.84 $375.84 $336.28 $336.28


$321.31 $321.31


$2,517.66 $2,517.66 $2,375.68 $2,375.68




$321.00 $306.99





$2,753,288.65 Total









Land Acquisition ‐ Preferred Alternative

Property Area (m2) Property Type

Land Value ($/m2)

Acquisition Cost


Land Value ($/m2)

Acquisition Cost


Land Value ($/m2)

Acquisition Cost

10 residential $270 $2,700 12.5 residential $270 $3,375 4.5 residential $270 $1,2157.4 residential $270 $1,998 123.9 residential $270 $33,453 114.2 residential $270 $30,8344.5 residential $270 $1,215 4.5 residential $270 $1,215 205.3 residential $270 $55,4314.5 residential $270 $1,215 243.3 residential $270 $65,6914.5 residential $270 $1,215 Total Cost $38,043 73.5 residential $270 $19,8454.5 residential $270 $1,215 Total Area (m2) 140.9 111.1 residential $270 $29,99719.1 residential $270 $5,157 152.2 residential $270 $41,09412.5 residential $270 $3,375 146.9 commercial $375 $55,08812.5 residential $270 $3,3754.5 residential $270 $1,215 $244,1074.5 residential $270 $1,215 904.18.2 residential $270 $2,2144.5 residential $270 $1,215 $55,0884.5 residential $270 $1,215 146.973.9 residential $270 $19,95313.8 residential $270 $3,726 $299,195

1051Total Cost $52,218Total Area (m2) 193.4

Total Cost ‐ CombinedTotal Area ‐ Combined (m2)

Wellington Street to Davies Crescent St. Vincent Street to Wellington Street

Total Cost ‐ ResidentialTotal Area ‐ Residential (m2)

Total Cost ‐ CommercialTotal Area ‐ Commercial (m2)
