1

Northwest Archaeological Assessments Andrew Hinshelwood, PhD, Consulting Archaeologist, Thunder Bay Ontario andrewhinshelwood@hotmail.ca www.andrewhinshelwood.com 807 252-1251 Archaeological Assessment Report Prepared by Andrew Hinshelwood Archaeological Licence P236 PIF P236-0115-2018 Stage 1 - 2 Original Report December 20, 2018 Stage 1 - 2 Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed 16 Lot Cottage Subdivision on Lake Superior, Municipality of Terrace Bay, District of Thunder Bay, Ontario. Prepared for: Quartek 89 – 91 St. Paul Street, Suite 100 St. Catharines, ON L2R 3M3 totoole@quartekgroup.com

2

Executive Summary A private developer (the proponent) has retained Quartek Group Inc. to address matters related to the planning and development of a proposed 16 lot cottage subdivision in the Municipality of Terrace Bay, District of Thunder Bay, Ontario (Maps 1 and 2). The subject property is approximately 36 hectares in size. Proposed lots will front onto Terrace Bay on Lake Superior, however the majority of the property will remain undeveloped as it is both steeply sloped and away from the lake (Map 3). The Stage 1 – 2 archaeological assessment of the proposed undertaking was completed as required as a condition of subdivision set by the Municipality of Terrace Bay under the terms of the Planning Act (R.S.O 1990, c. P.13). The delegated approval authority for this undertaking is the Municipality of Terrace Bay. Both stages of archaeological assessment were completed during the same field visit. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment report made one (1) recommendation, and called for Stage 2 property assessment at areas holding mixed archaeological potential. The Stage 2 assessment included detailed examination of the areas of archaeological potential, and hand excavation of test pits at a five metre interval for areas within 50m of features of archaeological potential (S&Gs Section 2.1.5 and 2.1.6). Assessment began with investigation of soils and landscape form to identify specific areas where test pitting at a five metre interval would be required. Stage 2 property assessment led to the identification of archaeological resources in two positive test pits. Consisting of several small quartz reduction flakes (debitage) the cultural affiliation of the material cannot be clearly evaluated on the basis of the material itself. At the end of Stage 1, including a background study and property inspection, the following recommendations are made: 1. Based on the results of the background study and property inspection, portions of the

project area hold high archaeological potential, and Stage 2 property assessment is recommended. The Stage 2 work should be completed in compliance with the direction set out in the S&Gs Section 2.1. As the high potential area exhibits complex combinations of archaeological potential based on local terrain, Stage 2 should follow the direction found in Section 2.1.6. The high potential area is identified in Map 6.

2. For the balance of the study area, the Stage 1 background study and property inspection

evaluated these areas holding low archaeological potential due to extensive disturbance or steeply sloping terrain. Based on these conditions, it is recommended that there are no further archaeological concerns for those portions of the study area beyond approxmiately 150 metres from Lake Superior, as shown on Map 6. No further archaeological assessment work is required.

At the end of Stage 2 property assessment, the following recommendation is made: 3. Based on the results of the Stage 2 archaeological assessment, one archaeological site has

been identified. It is recommended that additional archaeological assessment in the form of a Stage 3 site specific assessment is completed to determine the extent and complexity of the site, and whether additional mitigation will be required. A minimum of 30 one metre units will be required, excavated in conformance to the S&Gs, Section 3.

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 2 Project Personnel 4

Project Context 5 Development Context 5 Historic Context 5 Archaeological Context 6 Stage 1 Background Study 8 Archaeological Potential 8 Study area conditions 11 Stage 1 Results 16 Analysis 17 Conclusions 18 Stage 2 Property Assessment 19 Stage 2 Results 20 Analysis 21 Record of Finds 22 Conclusions 23 Recommendations 24 Advice on Compliance with Legislation 25 Bibliography 26

Maps 28 Figures 34

4

Project Personnel Personnel involved in this project included the licensee (Andrew Hinshelwood, P236). Heather Hopkins (NAA) acted as project manager and assisted in the preparation of this report.

5

Project Context A private developer (the proponent) has retained Quartek Group Inc. to address planning matters related to the planning and development of a proposed 16 lot cottage subdivision in the Municipality of Terrace Bay, District of Thunder Bay, Ontario (Maps 1 and 2). The property to be divided is approximately 36 hectares in size and includes about 900 metres of low slope shoreline. The proposed lots will be approximately 0.5 Ha in size with a 50 metre frontage onto Terrace Bay, Lake Superior. The subdivision will also include a boat launch and property access. Approximately 10 of the 36 hectares will be zoned RW (rural waterfront) and developed. The remainder of the property will be zoned RU (rural) and will be undeveloped, and is both steeply sloped and away from the lake (Map 3). Development Context In development, the potential for adverse impact to archaeological resources must be considered. Archaeological assessment of the proposed undertaking was completed in order to assess this impact and provide for their mitigation. The assessment was completed to address all archaeological conditions of approval for the proposed subdivision set by the Municipality of Terrace Bay under the terms of the Planning Act (R.S.O 1990, c. P.13). The approval authority for this undertaking is the Municipality of Terrace Bay. The objectives of the Stage 1 background study and property inspection are to evaluate the archaeological potential of the subject property and to make recommendations for additional archaeological assessment, as necessary. The objectives of a Stage 2 property assessment are to document all archaeological resources on the property, determine whether the property contains archaeological resources requiring further assessment, and to recommend appropriate Stage 3 assessment strategies for any archaeological sites identified. Permission to access the property to conduct the assessment was granted by the owner. Pays Plat First Nation – Pawgwasheeng (Pays Plat IR 51) is the nearest First Nation community to the subject property, 35 km to the west along Highway 17. Pic River First Nation – Biigtigong Nishnaabeg (Pic River IR 50) is located approximately 80 km east of the subject property. Both are signatories to the Robinson Superior 1850 Treaty. Historic Context The subject property is situated about six kilometres west of the Terrace Bay townsite, and about 600 metres west of the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Aguasabon Generating Station (GS) .

6

The Canadian Pacific Railway runs north of the subject property. The CPR line was built in the later part of the 19th century. The line is used primarily for long distance freight transport, and a major transfer yard is located at Schreiber. The construction of a provincial highway across northern Ontario began in the 1920s, with the eastern and western portions of the highway linked by the construction of the Nipigon River bridge in 19371. The completion of a single, continuous and mostly paved highway was not achieved until the 1960s. The highway north of the subject property runs roughly parallel to the CPR line, and it is expected that prior to highway completion, the area was serviced by local roads or trails. Additional transportation access would have been by boat on Lake Superior. Approximately 600 metres from the eastern boundary of the subject property is the Aguasabon GS. Operated by OPG the Aguasabon GS was under construction by 1946, and operating in 1948. This 45 megawatt generating station is powered by flow through the lower reaches of the Aguasabon River. Hayes Lake, to the north of the CPR line, was dammed and enlarged to ensure predictable flow. The overall drop in elevation from Hayes Lake to Lake Superior is about 100m. Archaeological Context The regional archaeological sequence is defined in relation to material culture. From existing archaeological reports, and the author’s own knowledge of the collections, it is understood that all pre-contact and post-contact cultures are present in the region. These include:

Late Palaeo (from 9,500 to 7,000 years before present) Archaic (7,500 to 2,000 years B.P.) Middle Woodland (2,500 to 1,000 years B.P.) Late Woodland (1,500 to 300 years B.P.) Contact (including fur trade, Treaty and colonisation) (post-300 years BP)

Late palaeo archaeological sites contain the earliest material evidence of post- glacial human occupation of the region. The antiquity of the sites, coupled with soil conditions not conducive to preservation, has resulted in sites that contain little more than worked stone artifacts and waste resulting from their manufacture. It is speculated that initial entry into the region was from the south by groups following trails of workable lithic material found in glacial till. During this time, post-glacial lake levels in the Superior basin were at a higher level (termed Lake Minong) due to a combination of increased inflow from glacial meltwater and limited outflow channels, affected by isostatic rebound and free ice in the lake basin. While pollen records show that for a time the interior of northwestern Ontario was a treeless tundra that would have supported herds of caribou, 1 Website: C. Bevers, The King’s Highway, The history of Ontario’s King’s Highways, at http://www.thekingshighway.ca/Highway17.htm, accessed June 12, 2015.

7

abundant meltwater also suggests that interior areas were generally less hospitable to occupation. As a result, human populations are believed to have been drawn to occupy shoreline areas, at least for much of the year. Consequently, archaeologists have focussed their efforts in locating late palaeo sites on relict shoreline features (cf. Hinshelwood 2004). The archaic period is a poorly known (Wright 1972), but temporally extensive cultural period during which, it is hypothesised, the inhabitants of the region gradually made a cultural transition from an economy based in larger scale caribou hunting of the late palaeo period, to the diverse local game procurement practices of more recent aboriginal culture. Artifacts of the archaic period trend to increased diversity, including ground stone and native Lake Superior drift copper tools. At the same time, the visual quality or refinement of flakes stone tool finishing shows a longer term overall decline. That is, lithic projectile points show less regularity in the final stages of knapping than, for example, late palaeo points. This is somewhat paralleled by a trend from the larger copper artifacts, noted earlier in the archaic, to smaller ones later in the temporal sequence. As the period defined is of such a long duration, it is unlikely that a single trend is being identified; however, the common understanding is that this marks a shift from large game procurement by larger social groupings, to more local pursuit of a wider range of small and large game by extended families or bands. While this is speculative, and should be treated as untested hypotheses, it is expected that during all cultural periods a wide range of subsistence resources, plant and animal, were being procured and used by local populations according to custom. The primary distinction between the late archaic and the middle woodland period (there is no early woodland period in the region), is the addition of ceramic vessels on archaeological sites. Apart from this addition, the stone and copper implements present are virtually indistinguishable from those of the archaic. Unlike copper and lithic artifacts, the earliest expression of ceramic technology shows as much of a refined capacity to produce artifacts of technological refinement, beauty and utility as those of later periods. The middle woodland, also referred to as Laurel after the principle ceramic type present (Wright 1967), shows what many archaeologists view as an influence from the Hopewell culture, centred in the upper Mississippi River. The key cultural traits received from Hopewell include the construction of large funerary structures – burial mounds – reflecting single or multiple episodes of internment. Laurel culture, based on the distribution of mounds, is centred on the Rainy River, but spread at its peak across northern Ontario and into Manitoba (Reid and Rajnovich 1991). The transition from middle to late woodland, in terms of material culture is notable in terms of the construction, shape and decorative motifs of the ceramics (Wright 1995), and for the diminished size of burial mounds. Ceramic styles change, and two prominent forms emerge – Blackduck and Selkirk – which reflect a difference in vessel shape, decorative motifs and methods of application and construction technique (MacNeish 1958). Also during the late woodland period, outside influences begin to be felt from southern Ontario, as some sites on the southern fringe of the region include Iroquoian or

8

Iroquoian-like ceramics (Dawson 1987; Conway 1977). Again, whether this presence is based on a few significant historical events (cf. Hinshelwood 1984), or reflect part of a larger ongoing trade (perhaps based on corn agriculture among the southern Iroquoian groups) is a hypothesis that has not been rigorously tested. Nevertheless, this is the material culture of the indigenous population that first contacted the European traders, missionaries and explorers wandering through the region for purposes of colonisation and profit. The contact period includes the fur trade, which began in the western Lake Superior area with DuLuht’s entry into the northwest circa 1680 (Heidenreich and Noel 1987), was built into a significant commercial enterprise (Burpee 1927; Rich 1958) and continues to the present, albeit in a markedly different form. It should be noted, that the principle focus for most of these activities would have been on, or associated with larger lakes and rivers. Stage 1 Background Study The region is reasonably well known archaeologically from regional archaeological survey conducted conducted since the 1960s. Of interest is J.V. Wright’s survey of the north shore of Lake Superior (Wright 1963), one of several coincident with the initial opening of the highway (cf. Hinshelwood 1987). Although he did not actively survey areas within the present subject property, he did record several sites in the region, including one on the shore of Terrace Bay, and one near the town site, and four near Pays Plat. There have been no previous archaeological assessments completed for the subject property, and no recommendations have been made regarding archaeological resources on the property. The property is located in northern Ontario. The terrain is predominantly bedrock with a thin veneer of till. The area shows a distinctly “shield” or “northern Ontario” topography. Topographic relief is low to moderate, with elevation ranging between approximately 183m (the average elevation of Lake Superior) and between 260 and 300m above sea level (asl) along the northern property boundary. There are no commemorative plaques in the study area (Perkins 1989). Archaeological Potential In Stage 1, archaeological potential was evaluated on the basis of the property, or sections of the property, being proximate to key factors (S&Gs Section 1.3.1). In addition, areas showing clear evidence of extensive and intensive ground disturbance, steeply sloping

9

terrain or other conditions that reduce potential were evaluated to determine if an evaluation of low potential should be made (S&Gs Section 1.3.2). Registered Archaeological Sites and Previous Assessment As part of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment, the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD), maintained by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS), was consulted. There are no registered archaeological sites on the subject property. The Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) identifies 31 archaeological sites within 25 km of the subject property (Table 1). Of these, five are within 5 km and two lie within one kilometer. As can be seen in Table 1, there is a significant range of site types, from isolated findspots to rock structures and pictographs. The two registered sites do note have colloquial names, and both were reported by J.V. Wright as part of their survey of the newly opened Highway 17 through the area. No detailed information is available regarding the sites. DeIt-4 lies slightly more than 300 metres from the subject property. The site is located on a small point of land extending south into Terrace Bay, and forming the north shore of a small embayment.2 It is likely that the occupation of the site was based on the sheltered nature of the small bay, and the vantage offered by the point. The second site, DeIs-1, is located about 700 metres from the subject property, and is located adjacent to the highway north of the Aguasabon GS. No information is available for either of the two sites. No archaeological reports have been prepared, and no assessment report recommendations have been made concerning the subject property.

2 The coordinates available through the OASD place the site in the water. The position of the site on the point is inferred.

10

Table 1: Registered archaeological sites within 25 km of the subject property (OASD).

Borden Number Site Name Time Period Affinity Site Type

Current Development Review Status

DfIv-6 Rossport Archaic, Woodland, Middle Aboriginal Othercamp/campsite

DfIv-5 DfIu-2 Rossport Woodland, Middle Aboriginal Othercamp/campsite DfIu-1 Rossport DeIv-4 Little Lake Harbour Post-Contact Euro-Canadian Othercamp/campsite DeIu-8 Gunilda Post-Contact Euro-Canadian wreck

DeIu-7 Bend Archaic, Late, Woodland, Middle Aboriginal

DeIu-6 Barr Island Rock Structure Other Otherrockart_

DeIu-5 Belanger-Stakiw Rock Structure

DeIu-4 Copper Island Rock Structure

DeIu-3 Cobinosh Island DeIu-1 Murray Bale

DeIt-6 Worthington Bay Red Ochre Mine

Post-Contact, Pre-Contact

Aboriginal, Euro-Canadian mining

DeIt-5 Worthington Bay Pictograph

DeIt-4 Other Otherfindspot_ DeIt-3 DeIt-2 Other Otherfindspot_ DeIt-1

DeIs-9

Home of the Whopper Rock Structure

DeIs-8 Victoria Bay Rock Structure

DeIs-7 Mountain Ash Rock Structure

DeIs-6 Trailside Rock Structure

DeIs-5 Narrow Mouth Bay Rock Structure

DeIs-4 LeBlanc Rock Structure

DeIs-3 MORTIMER IS. Woodland, Late OtherOneota

DeIs-10 Moberley Bay Rock Structure

DeIs-1 Terrace Bay

DeIr-4 Jackfish Bay Rock Structure

DeIr-3 East Moberley Rock Structure

DeIr-1 Other Otherfindspot_

DdIr-1 SUNDAY HARBOUR Woodland, Late Aboriginal, Iroquoian Othercamp/campsite

11

Study Area Conditions At Stage 1, the archaeological assessment included a review of the landscape conditions that would support an evaluation of archaeological potential for the subject property. Modern Watercourses The proposed work will take place within 300 metres of Terrace Bay on Lake Superior. The northern limit of the subject property are also slightly over 300 metres from Hayes Lake, although this lake is reported as having been flooded and enlarged to support water flow to Aguasabon GS. There are no other watercourses present on the property. During Stage 1 it was determined that Stage 2 was was required for all areas within 50m of the lake (S&Gs Section 2.1.5). Topography or Quaternary Geology Quaternary geology of the study area is summarised by Gartner (1980), a section of which is presented as Map 4. The terrain of the study area is classified as part of a larger glacial outwash formation. Soils in the area are generally sand, gravel, and water rounded cobbles and boulders. A steep bluff, running through the subject property, is also mapped. Apart from the bluff, relief is given as being a generally level, undulating plain. Relict Shorelines Evaluation of archaeological potential in the study area is enhanced by considering former shorelines formed by earlier levels in the Lake Superior basin. The association between former shorelines and archaeological resources is well known in the region. A number of important early sites (circa 9,000 years BP) associated with post-glacial lake levels are registered within the City of Thunder Bay (cf. Hinshelwood 2004). To the east of the city, sites at Pass Lake (Hinshelwood 1990) also show strong associations with relict shorelines. Recently, the Ministry of Transportation funded Stage 4 excavation of several archaeological sites at the MacKenzie River as part of the four-laning of Highway 11/173. Currently there are no registered early (i.e. late palaeo) sites, and limited research on former shorelines east of Pass Lake. This absence of sites from the database may either be a function of different patterns of land use during early pre-contact times, or of limited archaeological survey. Regardless, the clear association between archaeological sites and shoreline features means that shorelines or their corresponding elevations remain important in the determination of archaeological potential.

3 Final reports are not yet available for this work.

12

Shoreline features related to early post-glacial lakes occupying the Lake Superior basin are found stranded above the current lake level. This relates to fluctuation over time of lake depth since circa 9,500 years BP. Lake depth was influenced by the balance between the inflow of glacial meltwater and drainage through various outlets. Glacial retreat, differential uplift of the deglaciated landscape, sedimentation and erosion all contributed to the opening or availability of outlets. In the early post-glacial period, inflow exceeded outflow resulting in high water planes in the Lake Superior basin. By about 8,000 BP, the glacial mass had retreated to the point that meltwater could drain through the James and Hudson Bay Lowlands to the Atlantic Ocean. This allowed lake levels to stabilize, although they remained affected by isostatic rebound of the landscape and erosional downcutting of drainage channels. Differential uplift of the post-glacial landscape has distorted shorelines, making it difficult, but not impossible to trace former lake levels across the north shore of Lake Superior (Farrand 1960)4. Farrand (1960) has recorded a number of continuous and discontinuous shoreline features along the shore of Lake Superior. Near Terrace Bay, they report shoreline features, including relict beaches, sand or gravel deposits and wave cut benches representing the lake stands indicated in Table 2. Lake Minong is defined as the first post-glacial lake in the Lake Superior basin that was not bounded on the north by glacial ice. Accordingly, all shoreline features that appear to fully circle Lake Superior are termed ‘post-Minong’. Late palaeo archaeological sites near the City of Thunder Bay are associated with post-Minong shorelines or elevations at which shorelines would have been present (MacNeish 1952; Julig 1983; Dawson 1983; Hinshelwood 1987; 1990; 1994; 2004; Hinshelwood and Webber 1987). This infers that the occupations were primarily of active shorelines.

4 The transformation is not completely linear. Farrand (1960) provides more detailed curves in appendices to his report.

13

Table 2: Relict Shorelines Noted by Farrand (1960) Within or Near the Study Area. Lake level Date Elevation* Location+

Sault circa 2,000 BP 193.5 (2) Algoma circa 3,200 BP -- Nipissing circa 4,100 BP 216.5 (2) Nipissing / Houghton (indistinct) 212.4 (3) Houghton circa 8,500 BP -- Dorion circa 8,500 to 9,000 BP 244.5 (1) 248.1 (2) 249.9 (4) Post-Minong circa 8,500 to 9,000 BP 265.5 (1) 253.3 (1) 261.2 (3) 271.3 (3) 273.1 (3) 274.9 (3) 278.0 (3) 253.9 (4) 258.8 (4) Minong circa 9,200 BP 297.5 (1) 288.9 (3) 292.6 (3) 296.0 (3) 298.7 (3) 303.9 (3) Pre-Minong circa 9,500 BP 310.0 (3) Unknown 283.8 (3) * Elevations in metres above sea level (m asl). Elevations in bold are elevations present in the study area. Elevations in bold italics are features identified within or immediately adjacent to the subject property. + Location Notes

(1) 119. West of Terrace Bay; W or SW corner of Hays Lake, Ont. (2) 120. Terrace Bay, Ont.; along dirt road leading from highway to NW corner of Terrace Bay. (3) 121. Traverse along clearing under hydroelectric power lines , west from highway 17 above the centre of Terrace Bay. (4) 121. Along highway 17, E from centre of bay toward the village.

14

Archaic sites dating to the Houghton low stand (circa 8,500 years BP), are rare due to the reflooding of much of the Lake Superior basin during the later Nipissing stand (circa 4,100 years BP). However, it is important to note that deep excavations in Thunder Bay have occasionally recovered artifacts dating to the period. These artifacts, buried in sediments deposited in deeper lake water include copper and stone artifacts (Dawson 1966), and also bone reported at the time as ‘cow’, but now considered probably bison (Tanton 1931)5. More recently, Boyd, et al. (2012) reported on a buried forest also related to the readvance that is visible from the wharf at the Old Fort William historical theme park. Similar buried vegetation deposits have been reported in the vicinity of the turning basin and the paper mill, downstream. Farrand (1960) also provides a summary of a 1928 find, in which a copper gaff hook was recovered from a railway cut at Pic River, opposite Heron Bay station. The artifact was reportedly buried in five to seven metres of clay, at a position about 30 m above the present lake level, at a level Farrand observes is marked by Nipissing shoreline features in the area. The disturbance associated with the artifact’s recovery makes a clear understanding of its position in relation to the lacustrine sediments or Nipissing shoreline difficult to assess. It is important to note that both the Dorion and Houghton lake levels are usually poorly represented in the wider region. The absence of Houghton shorelines are not surprising, as Houghton represents a low water phase in the Lake Superior basin that was overrun elsewhere by the later, and usually higher Nipissing level. The Dorion shorelines represent a later stable phase of the post-Minong, although this level is marked by shorelines that are not generally well developed, where they are visible at all. Elevations within the range shown in Table 2 are located within the study area. We note that entry 120, reporting on geomorphological features along a “dirt road leading from highway 17 to NW corner of Terrace Bay” is the access road to the subjct property. The findspot reported by Wright in 1960 confirms that this road was in place prior to Farrand’s visit. Farrand notes the series of relict shorelines on the property as follows:

• Sault stand: a narrow sand terrace, sloping toward the lake at about 193.5m asl; • Nipissing stand: shingle deposit at base of steep 100’ (30m) scarp cut in sand and

gravel, about 0.3 miles (480m) from shore at 216.5m asl; • Dorion stand: very steep bluff cut into sand and gravel with well-developed sand

and gravel tread at base, about 248.1m asl. Therefore, the steep bluff noted on the subject property is derived from two separate erosional events, during the Dorion and Nipissing stands. The active shoreline at the time would have been below the scarps, making it unlikely that occupation at the water’s edge would have been occurring. Higher elevations within the property reach the elevations

5 Since the bone was originally considered cow, it was likely not curated and is now considered lost. It is not clear if the artifacts are retained in a museum collection.

15

attributed to Minong and Post-Minong stands, but these are all above the wave cut scarp, and beyond the area slated for development at this time. Historic Settlements or Transportation Routes Two railway lines run adjacent to the study area, The CPR railway line runs to the north of the subject property, above the steep scarp that defines the topography. The CPR line was completed in the 1870s, making it an early historic transportation route. The distance of the rail line from the northern boundary of the subject property is between 100 and 150 metres. The rail line does not contribute to an evaluation of archaeological potential on this basis (S&Gs Section 1.4.1, s. 1(d)). A post office is a measure of an established community. The post office at Schreiber was established in 1886, coincident, we assume with the construction of the railway and associated settlement.6 Terrace Bay, a more recent community that grew in tandem with the hydroelectric generating station and paper mill, had its first post office open in 1947.7 That the industrial development at Terrace Bay predates the community is suggested by the location description for the original post office: “Mileage 110.2 Heron Bay Sub Div, C.P.R.”. However, the steep scarp between the highway/ railway and lake suggests that limited use was made of the subject property by the railway, although shoreline use by local people and construction teams working on Aguasabon GS would have occurred. Later use of the property by cabin owners to the west is also likely to have occurred. These ephemeral activities are not considered to contribute to archaeological potential. Existing Disturbance Where extensive and intensive disturbance is noted, archaeological potential is considered to have been removed. The subject property does not exhibit extensive and intensive disturbance in available mapping or aerial imagery, and property inspection confirmed this. The property is a greenfield area, which has seen some minor disturbance from trails and recreational use, however these disturbances are limited in extent. It was noted that the trail running through the property, and currently serving as the base of the Casque Isles trail, has been mechanically cleared and grubbed in the past. As discussed below, this has resulted in a 10 to 20 metre area of linear disturbance along the crest of the Sault strand. In some places, overburden has been pushed over the crest of the slope, expanding the area disturbed. Archaeological Potential Archaeological potential for the subject property is considered to be high on the basis of both proximity to a registered archaeological site, to Terrace Bay, Lake Superior, and to several elevations where relict shoreline features are expected to occur. As noted, the 6 https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/postal-heritage-philately/post-offices-postmasters/Pages/item.aspx?IdNumber=14790& 7 https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/postal-heritage-philately/post-offices-postmasters/Pages/item.aspx?IdNumber=14795&

16

subject property lies within 300 metres of archaeological site DeIt-4. The site was identified in the early 1960s, and may consist of an isolated find or a very small number of artifacts. The site is associated with a small embayment to the southwest of the property, and has not been subject to detailed archaeological fieldwork or assessment since the initial report was made. Within the subject property, conditions reflecting potential are present within the first 100m of the lake shore. Beyond this, the land begins to show increased variability in terrain, and then rises steeply in the form of two wave cut scarps. These scarps have been described by Farrand (1960). The steeply sloping terrain associated with these features effectively removes archaeological potential. Above the scarp elevations associated with relict shorelines are also noted, but this part of the property is very small in size, and lies beyond the area where development will be permitted in the subdivision plan. Stage 1 Results Property inspection was conducted commensurate with Stage 2 property assessment between October 9 and 11, 2018. The inspection included a visual review of the landscape of the subject property focussing on areas evaluated previously as holding archaeological potential. Particular attention was paid to the sand beach, eroded banks at the shoreline, and various terraces present inland from the shore. The inspection was sufficient to confirm that only minor disturbance had occurred on the property, and to identify steep slopes and low, wet areas. The property inspection proceeded on foot and covered the entire subject property, save for those areas, such as the steeply sloped terrain, where direct observation was not necessary. Permission to enter the property was provided by the proponent. As part of the inspection, photographs were taken of site conditions in support of observations made (Map 5). Weather during the inspection was overcast with gusting winds and sporadic showers. Temperatures were low, between 2 and 7° Celsius. Weather and lighting conditions did not have an adverse effect on the property inspection. Observations The property inspection and assessment proceeded in a systematic manner across the subject property. Following a general reconnaissance of the entire property, it was established that the property from the base of the Nipissing scarf rises sharply to the top of the Dorion bluff. Throughout this area steep slopes (slope >20°) would have been prohibitive to occupation, and potential is low (Figure 1). Field examination and testing then proceed from the active beach zone inland to the property to a point determined to be beyond the Sault strandline. Property assessment

17

began with a close examination of the active beach zone, which can be described as three distinct areas. First, the western part of the beach is constituted of cobbles (Figures 2 to 4), with some small areas of sand at the water’s edge (Figure 2). The beach in this section ends at a step measuring about one metre in height. The eroded face reveals the soil to be a mix of sand and water rounded cobbles (Figure 5). The central portion of the beach is primarily sand, with a lower slope at the back of the beach (Figures 6, 7 and 8). This low step is grass covered where the forest canopy is open, and has been broached by trail users for beach access (Figure 9). The eastern part of the beach is also primarily cobbles (Figure 10), although at this end the cobbles are generally larger than the eastern end, and there is a higher amount of sand present, especially in active beach areas (Figure 11). At the back of the beach, the shoreline reflects a higher amount of sand, similar to the central portion (Figure 12). Analysis Based on the background study and property inspection the subject property was evaluated as holding archaeological potential. This was primarily due to the proximity of the property to water (Lake Superior), as well as the presence on the property of at least three reported relict beaches. These shoreline features are reasonably well developed at a macro scale, but Stage 2 testing will be required to determine whether parts of these features had been available for occupation in the past. Generally speaking, the property has been affected by the geological processes active in the Lake Superior basin throughout the post-glacial period. Thus, coastal processes dating back 9,500 years will have had an effect. For there to be visible evidence of this effect, the lake must have been stable for a significant time, and not over-run by later events. The earliest stand represented at the property is the Dorion stand (8,500 to 9,000 BP), represented by a steep, wave-cut bluff with an elevation of 248.1m asl at the base. The base of the bluff would have been in the active shore zone, and the areas below this elevation would not have been available for occupation until after this time. Therefore, during the late palaeo cultural period, occupation would have been above this bluff which comprises a relatively small part of the property above 295m asl. Subsequent decline in water levels from the Dorion stand would have allowed occupation, but the Nipissing re-advance at 4,100BP would have erased any occupation below 216.5m asl elevation. The Nipissing strand in the subject property is described as a steep wave-cut scarp of about 30m in height cut into sand and gravel. The eroded material was reworked by the lake water, removing fines and leaving a thick layer of shingle. Again, the contemporary occupation area available during the Nipissing stand would have been above the scarp, at an elevation of about 240m asl, the base of the Dorion bluff. Field observation within the subject property did not identify level terrace of any size at this elevation, and the two erosional faces seemed to run together.

18

The most recent of the relict shoreline represents the Sault stand and dates to 2000 BP. This beach was reported by Farrand (1960) at 193m asl. This places the main beach about ten metres above the present lake level. A clear and distinct ridge is visible on the property, and follows the alignment of the Casque Isles trail through the western part of the property. It is likely the associated shoreline feature forms the base for the trail. Inland from the beach and in the eastern part of the property, the ground surface is more irregular, with local depressions and wet areas. This suggests a high energy depositional environment. Given the elevations involved, the sand and gravel that is exposed in erosional faces at the eastern end of the property may have formed as part of an offshore bar or terrace, with the actual shoreline further back into the forested part of the property. Pockets of low and wet terrain, typical of a longshore trough is noted in places across the property and behind the active beach, while the likely Sault beach is located between 15 and 40 metres inland. Conclusions From the review of background information and a property inspection, the property clearly holds archaeological potential for the active beach area, and for areas of level, well drained soil inland. The Dorion and Nipissing shorelines are characterised by steep, wave-cut bluffs or scarps. Occupation that was contemporary to the active shore at these times would have been above the bluffs. For the Nipissing scarf, occupation would have been at the top of the Dorion bluff, as the two seem to be relatively continuous in the subject property. Occupations associated with the Dorion stand would be at the top of the bluff, which would place the area of interest largely outside of the subject property. Stage 2 testing will be required for a distance of approximately 100m inland from the present Lake Superior shore. This accounts for a 50m testing zone associated with the modern lake, and an additional 150m to test any areas of potential associated with the Sault stand shoreline features (S&Gs Section 2.1.5). Testing associated with the Sault stand should continue inland to the base of the Nipissing scarf, or where the terrain becomes irregular, low and generally wet. The interior where high potential is ascribed includes areas that are low and wet, as well as areas of relatively steep slopes. Therefore, testing should rely on professional judgement in the selection of areas for testing. Within the high potential area, some disturbance related to trail clearing and use is noted. Also, there are also localized areas of low potential where irregular or sloping terrain, or low and wet areas were noted at Stage 1. Overall, it is anticipated that about six hectares, or 16% holds mixed potential and will require assessment at Stage 2. The results of the property inspection and background study are represented in Map 6.

19

Stage 2 Property Assessment Stage 1 background study and property inspection recommends Stage 2 property assessment for specific locations within the subject property. Stage 2 fieldwork was directed by S&Gs Section 1.4.1, s. 1(c), modified by Section 2.1.5, s. 1 and s. 2. As the majority of the subject area identified held mixed or complex archaeological potential Stage 2 followed direction found in S&Gs Section 2.1.6. Professional judgement, based on extensive regional experience supported decisions to test, or to suspend testing of specific locations. Property assessment was conducted between October 9 and 11, 2018. Weather during the inspection was overcast with gusting winds and sporadic showers. Temperatures were low, between 2 and 7° Celsius. Weather and lighting conditions did not have an adverse effect on the property inspection, although it was somewhat unpleasant at times. Nevertheless, there was 100% visibility of field conditions and soils encountered in test pits. Permission to enter the property was provided by the proponent. As part of the inspection, photographs were taken of site conditions in support of observations made (Map 5). Stage 2 property assessment was completed in conformance with the S&Gs for areas of mixed potential. Testing areas of archaeological potential were identified in the field and hand excavated test pits were opened on a five metre grid, as conditions allowed. All soil was passed through 6 mm mesh screen, the contents of the screen examined and all artifacts recovered (Section 2.1 and Section 2.1.2). Provision was made to collect any archaeological resources identified, and to excavate additional test pits as set out in S&Gs Section 2.1.3. Test pits were approximately 30cm in diameter and excavated at least 5 cm into subsoil. Soil profiles were examined, and all excavated soil was passed through a 6mm mesh screen and examined for artifacts. Test pits were backfilled once examination was complete. No machinery was used in completing the Stage 2 assessment. Analysis of the results of the property assessment were used to support the recommendations made in this report. Stage 2 Testing Testing commenced inland from the beach. Generally, testing was initiated at a distance of about seven to ten metres in from the forested edge due to the density of vegetation and a relatively steep slope rising from the active beach to the interior terrace (Figure 13). Testing was completed parallel to the shore along five metre transects, as conditions allowed. Testing generally conformed to this interval, although local low areas (Figure 14), and areas of steeply sloping terrain (Figure 15) were not tested. There is limited local disturbance within the subject property. The Casque Isles trail follows a route parallel to the beach at a distance of between 5 and 30 metres inland, depending on terrain. The trail turns further inland at a point roughly parallel to the transition between the central, sand part of the beach and the eastern beach of larger cobbles (Map 6). On moving inland, the

20

trail climbs a short slope (Figure 16) onto what we presume to be the Sault beach. The upper part of the trail appears to follow the path of an earlier access road that was mechanically cleared. The trail runs generally along the crest of the break in slope, which as been enhanced by machine clearing. The area of disturbance is 10 to 20 metres wide and includes a cut area that has been levelled to form the roadbed (Figure 17), and a fill area where topsoil has been pushed over the crest of the slope (Figure 18). It is interesting to note that in some of the cleared areas, 20th century debris is visible on the surface. Figure 19 shows an area that has been cleared, with the topsoil pushed over the edge. On the surface are visible several sections of stove pipe. This may be the remains of a modern cabin or watchhouse built to support forest workers involved in the original logging work on the property. Further, the upper portion of the trail continues easterly to a locked gate that is, according to signage, owned and maintained by OPG. The trail is visible on aerial imagery intersecting a service road servicing the Aguasabon GS. Stage 2 Results Stage 2 property assessment was conducted commensurate with Stage 1 property inspection between October 9 and 11, 2018. Assessment conformed with direction in the S&Gs concerning areas where ploughing is not possible, and which exhibit mixed archaeological potential. Testing was completed for areas of level, well drained sand soil in areas proximate to both the current shore of Lake Superior, and the Sault stand shoreline where is could be discerned. Testing of the subject property was subject to several constraints. First, local variation in topography meant that many areas on the grid could not be tested. Areas that were low and wet, and irregular or steeply sloped accounted for a fairly large number of missed test pits. Second, dense cobble-rich soil areas could not be tested effectively, and these areas were generally delineated and avoided. Thirdly, inclement weather and short daylight periods constrained the Stage 2 fieldwork. While work completed was in conformance with the S&Gs, the early onset of winter weather made conformance more challenging than in the halcyon days of summer, for example. In all, a total of 173 test pits were excavated over three days, supplementing the Stage 1 property inspection. Of the test pits excavated, two produced archaeological resources. Testing was completed through the subject property, adhering to a five metre grid within 50 metres of the present lake and Sault strand, and a ten metre grid from 50 to 150m from the Sault strand where conditions allowed. Soils through the area tested varied slightly with location. Typically, soils were a mix of sand and water rounded cobbles under an organic layer of variable depth (Figure 20). In some units, cobble density of size interfered with complete excavation of test pits (Figure 21), although the loose soils removed from the tests was screened. For much of the subject property the terrain was irregular, with low, wet pockets and moderate to steeply sloping surfaces, as well as areas of level, well-drained sand soil.

21

Observations The property assessment proceeded in a systematic manner across the area of archaeological potential. Stage 2 testing began with a careful examination of the active beach. This provided two results, that the soils on the beach were variable, with sections of sand and of cobbles, and that there were no artifacts visible on the surface. The observations concerning soils were found to define in a general sense the soils present immediately inland. Shovel testing then proceeded along transects running parallel to the beach. The initial set of test pits were positioned on the basis of slope, as some areas immediately inland from the beach were steeply sloped for the first five to ten metres. Testing then continued along transects working back from the beach. The proximity of the Sault strand, as mapped and visible in the field, to the active beach meant that testing was not interrupted inland from the active shore, but continued to include this feature. It is important to note that the Sault strand foreshore is marked by a relatively steep slope (>20°), and testing was not completed in this area. Limitations to testing on the top of the Sault bench included areas intensively disturbed by clearing and road building, and areas of localized low potential within the irregular terrain. Analysis Based on the results of the Stage 2 testing, two positive test pits in close proximity were identified. Additional testing, following the direction in Section 2.1.3 did not recover additional archaeological resources. It is not clear from the results of Stage 2 whether the artifacts recovered were isolate finds, the site is small and diffuse, or the location of the test pits simply missed additional material. The positive tests were identified on the lower terrace adjacent to the active shoreline. The site is one to two metres above the level of the active beach, inland from the sandy section. In terms of the overall landscape of the bay, the site is situated near the centre of the long curving arc described by the beach, and close to the point where the Casque Isles trail turns inland away from the shore to climb onto the Sault strand. In addition to the small number of flakes recovered, two metal food cans were noted in the site area on the surface. The cans were rusted, but there were no indications that they were of an age that rendered them as holding cultural heritage value or interest. The artifacts recovered are quartz flakes, showing signs of having been worked in the production of stone tools. Quartz is not a common raw material for stone tools, but good qaulity material, such as this shows a capacity to work well to allow the worker to produce good quality finished products. It is not clear form the artifacts recovered whether the material is the result of primary working, or secondary working during functions such as sharpening a tool manufactured elsewhere. The material is not found in cobbles associated with the active beach, based on Stage 1 – 2 observations, but may be present in geological formations at higher elevations.

22

Record of Finds The Stage 2 property assessment focussed on areas evaluated as holding archaeological potential at Stage 1, and the examination of areas of mixed or complex archaeological potential for locations where Stage 2 testing would be required. Fieldwork followed the direction in the S&Gs, examining the areas identified as holding mixed or complex archaeological potential, identifying areas where testing would be required, and completing the testing in conformance with the S&Gs. Stage 2 fieldwork did result in the identification and recovery of archaeological materials or features, and a catalogue was prepared (Table 3). A total of four artifacts were recovered from two test pits adjacent to the sand beach area in the central part of the property. The artifacts are debitage, or flakes produced in the manufacture or maintenance of stone tools such as spear points. Two recent, but rusted metal food cans were also noted on the surface. They were not collected. Table 3: Catalogue Test Pit Artifact Type Count Material Comments WP 2226 Debitage Secondary flake 3 quartz Metal Surface Cans 2 metal food cans Not collected WP 2227 Debitage Primary flake 1 quartz Total all categories 6 Documentary records generated specifically for this project include: Table 4: Documentary Records Associated with P236-0065-2016

Documentation N Description Location Photographs 54 digital images digital storage GPS readings 30 property, context digital storage Catalogue 1 digital file (.docx) Table 3, this report Notes 1 page of notes digital storage Report 1 copy (.pdf) digital storage

23

Conclusions From the Stage 2 property assessment completed, a small archaeological site has been identified. The site collection includes four lithic artifacts of unknown precontact provenience, and two post contact artifacts dating to the mid to late 20th century. Stage 3 site specific assessment will be required for the small site. Stage 3 fieldwork will require the excavation of additional test units in conformance with S&Gs Section 3. Given that the positive test pits are within twenty metres of each other, we anticipate that the site size is well under 600 square metres. For compliance purposes, however, a minimum of 25 one metre test units, plus an additional five infill units for a total of 30 units will be required. The Stage 3 assessment will establish an estimate of the extent and complexity of the site. This will support an evaluation of the cultural heritage value or interest of the site, and whether mitigation will be required. Archaeological fieldwork activities were carried out in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.

24

Recommendations At the end of Stage 1, including a background study and property inspection, the following recommendations are made:

1. Based on the results of the background study and property inspection, portions of

the project area hold high archaeological potential, and Stage 2 property assessment is recommended. The Stage 2 work should be completed in compliance with the direction set out in the S&Gs Section 2.1. As the high potential area exhibits complex combinations of archaeological potential based on local terrain, Stage 2 should follow the direction found in Section 2.1.6. The high potential area is identified in Map 6.

2. For the balance of the study area, the Stage 1 background study and property

inspection evaluated these areas holding low archaeological potential due to extensive disturbance or steeply sloping terrain. Based on these conditions, it is recommended that there are no further archaeological concerns for those portions of the study area beyond approxmiately 150 metres from Lake Superior, as shown on Map 6. No further archaeological assessment work is required.

At the end of Stage 2 property assessment, the following recommendations are made: 3. Based on the results of the Stage 2 archaeological assessment, one archaeological

site has been identified. It is recommended that additional archaeological assessment in the form of a Stage 3 site specific assessment is completed to determine the extent and complexity of the site, and whether additional mitigation will be required. A minimum of 30 one metre units will be required, excavated in conformance to the S&Gs, Section 3.

25

Advice on Compliance with Legislation Advice on compliance with legislation is not part of the archaeological record. However, for the benefit of the proponent and approval authority in the land use planning and development process, the report must include the following standard statements: This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development. It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed 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. 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. 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. As the report recommends additional archaeological fieldwork after Stage 1, the following advice also applies: “Archaeological sites recommended for additional fieldwork or protection remain subject to Section 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed from them, except by a person holding an archaeological licence.”

26

Bibliography and Sources Burpee, L.J., ed. 1927. The Journals and Letters of Pierre Gaultier de la Verendrye and his Sons. The

Champlain Society, Toronto. Conway, T.A. 1977. Whitefish Island - A Remarkable Archaeological Site At Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Research Manuscript Series, Data Box 310. Dawson, K.C.A. 1966. Isolated Copper Artifacts from Northwestern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 9: 63-

67. Dawson, K.C.A. 1983. Cummins Site: A Late Palaeo-Indian (Plano) Site at Thunder Bay, Ontario. Ontario

Archaeology 39: 3-31. Dawson, K.C.A. 1987. The Martin Bird Site. Ontario Archaeology 47: 33-57. Ontario Archaeological

Society, Toronto. Dyke, A.S. 2004. An outline of North American Deglaciation with emphasis on central and northern

Canada. pp. 373 – 424 in Ehlers, J. and P.H. Gibbard, editors, Quaternary Glaciations Extent and Chronology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Dyke, A.S. & Prest, V.K. 1987a. The Late Wisconsinan and Holocene history of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.

Geographie physique et Quaternaire, 41, 237-263. Dyke, A.S. and Prest, V.K. 1987b. Palaeogeography of Northern North America, 11 400 to 8 400 years

ago. Geological Survey of Canada, Map 1703A, scale 1:12 500 000. Gartner J.F. 1980. Northern Ontario Engineering Geology Terrain Study. Data Base Map. Schreiber

Ontario Geological Survey Map 5092. Scale 1:100000 Hamilton, S.J. 2013. A World Apart? Ontario’s Canadian Shield. Ch. 5 in Munson, M.K. and S.M.

Jamieson, eds., Before Ontario: The archaeology of a province. McGill University Press, Montreal. Heidenreich, C.E. and F. Noel. 1987. France Secures the Interior, 1740 – 1755. Plate 40 in Harris, R.C. and

G. Matthews, eds., Historical Atlas of Canada, Volume 1. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Hinshelwood, A. 1984. The native occupation of the Boundary Waters Area to 1775. MA Thesis,

Department of Geography (Historical Geography), York University, Toronto. Hinshelwood, A. 2004. Archaic Reoccupation of Late Paleoindian Sites in Northwestern Ontario. In

Jackson, L.J. and A. Hinshelwood, eds. The Late Paleoindian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments. Mercury Series Paper 165, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec.

MacNeish, R.S. 1958. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Southeast Manitoba. National Museum of

Canada Bulletin no. 157, Ottawa. Perkins, M.E. 1987. Discover Your Heritage: A guide to provincial plaques in Ontario. Published by

Natural Heritage/Natural History Inc. for the Ontario Heritage Foundation and Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications, Toronto.

Reid, C.S. ‘Paddy’, and G. Rajnovich. 1991. Laurel: A Reevaluation of the Spatial, Social and Temporal

Paradigms. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 15: 193-234.

27

Rich, E.E. 1958. The History of the Hudson's Bay Company, 1670-1870, Vol. I: 1670-1763. Hudson’s Bay Record Society XXI, London.

Rich, E.E. 1959. The History of the Hudson's Bay Company, 1670-1870, Vol. II: 1763-1870. Hudson’s

Bay Record Society XXII, London. Wright, J.V. 1967. The Laurel Tradition and The Middle Woodland Period. National Museum of Canada

Bulletin 217. Wright, J.V. 1972. The Shield Archaic. National Museum of Canada, Publications in Archaeology 3. Wright, J.V. 1995. A History of the Native People of Canada, Volume I (10,000–1,000 B.C.). Mercury

Series Archaeology Paper 152. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau. Zoltai, S.C. 1965. Glacial Features of the Quetico-Nipigon Area, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth

Sciences 2: 247-269.

28

Maps

Map 1: Regional location of study area.

km86.8

Legend

Notes:

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry shall not be liable in any way for the use of, or reliance upon, this map or any information on this map. This map should not be used for: navigation, a plan of survey, routes, nor locations.

© Copyright for Ontario Parcel data is held by Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its licensors and may not be reproduced without permission.

Imagery Copyright Notices: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry; NASA Landsat Program; First Base Solutions Inc.; Aéro-Photo (1961) Inc.; DigitalGlobe Inc.; U.S. Geological Survey.

© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2015

Projection: Web Mercator

P236-0115-2018 Map 1

0

29

Map 2: Location of study area. The property is situated between Schreiber and Terrace Bay on the north shore of Lake Superior.

km5.4

Legend

Notes:

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry shall not be liable in any way for the use of, or reliance upon, this map or any information on this map. This map should not be used for: navigation, a plan of survey, routes, nor locations.

© Copyright for Ontario Parcel data is held by Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its licensors and may not be reproduced without permission.

Imagery Copyright Notices: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry; NASA Landsat Program; First Base Solutions Inc.; Aéro-Photo (1961) Inc.; DigitalGlobe Inc.; U.S. Geological Survey.

© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2015

Projection: Web Mercator

P236-0115-2018 Map 2

0

30

Map 3: Proposed subdivision. Note that the proposed development includes both a RW zone, which permits building, and a RU zone which will be undeveloped. The RU zone is an area of steeply sloping terrain.

N

drawn by

date

issue

scale

job number

designed by

drawing title

24"x

36" M

etric

- M

eter

s

project title

plotted by: JRichards on Sep 06, 2018 - 10:50am

P:\2

017

Pro

ject

s\17

331

Terr

ace

Bay

Cot

tage

Sub

divi

sion

\Dra

win

gs\P

lann

ing\

1733

1-C

P1.

dwg

dra

win

g ta

b: C

P1

drawing number

Do not scale drawings. Report any discrepancies to Quartek Group Inc.before proceeding.

Drawings must be sealed by the Architect and / or Engineer prior to theuse for any building permit applications and / or government approval.Seals must be signed by the Architect and / or Engineer beforedrawings are used for any construction.

All construction to be in accordance with the current Ontario BuildingCode and all applicable Ontario regulations.

All drawings and related documents remain the property of QuartekGroup Inc., all drawings are protected under copyright and undercontract.

init.dateissued forissue

seal

T 905 984 867689 - 91 St. Paul Street, Suite 100,St. Catharines, ON, L2R 3M3www.quartekgroup.com

Architects Project Managers Engineers Planners

Terrace Bay CottageSubdivision

CONCEPT LOT PLAN #3

RM TO

1 : 2000 31 Aug 2018

17331 B

17331-CP1

A REVIEW 29 AUG 2018 RMB CONCEPT REVISION 31 AUG 2018 JR

31

Map 4: Section of NOEGTS Map 5071 (Gartner 1980). Note the scarp mapped through the subject property. Also not that the trail across the property is mapped. Currently the Casque Isle tail, the trail may have formerly been a forest access or service road for Aguasabon GS.

32

Map 5: Location and direction of photographs included in the report.

33

Map 6: Areas of archaeological potential, and results of Stage 2 property assessment.

34

Figures

Figure 1: View south from the crest of the Dorion / Nipissing scarf. Note that Lake Superior is visible in the distance at a lower elevation.

Figure 2: View east showing conditions at the western end of the beach. Note cobbles and small patch of sand in distance.

Figure 3: View west showing conditions are western end of beach. Note cobbles and small patch of sand.

Figure 4: View east showing conditions at west end of beach. Cobbles.

35

Figure 5: View northwest showing eroded face at back of active beach.

Figure 6: View east showing central part of beach. Mostly sand.

Figure 7: View west showing central part of beach. Mostly sand, some cobbles at water’s edge.

Figure 8: View west, central part of beach. Note step at back of active beach.

Figure 9: View north showing ‘cut through’ from trail to beach.

Figure 10: View east showing east end of beach. Note cobbles.

36

Figure 11: View east, east end of beach. Note cobbles and sand at water’s edge.

Figure 12: View north showing sand at back of active beach, east end.

Figure 13: View east showing slope immediately inland from active beach.

Figure 14: View northeast showing low, wet pocket to rear of active beach.

Figure 15: View west of steeply sloped terrain, face of Sault strand.

Figure 16: View east showing Sault strand, east end of property.

37

Figure 17: View east showing cut bank created when trail was being built

Figure 18: View west showing soil pushed over the crest of the Sault strand.

Figure 19: View south showing recent debris associated with trail disturbance.

Figure 20: View of sample test pit. Soil is largely beach sand.

Figure 21: View of sample test pit. Sand with high cobble content.