GoldLight STAGE 1 & 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

GoldLight STAGE 1 & 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Ministry of Tourism, Ministère du Tourisme, Culture and Sport de la Culture et du Sport Culture Division Division de culture Culture Programs Unit Unité des programmes culturels Programs and Services Branch Direction des programmes et des services 400 University Avenue, 4 th floor 400, avenue University, 4 e étage Toronto, ON, M7A 2R9 Toronto, ON, M7A 2R9 Telephone: 416-314-2120 Téléphone: 416-314-2120 Facsimile: 416-314-7175 Télécopieur: 416-314-7175 Email : Andrea.Williams@ontario.ca Email : Andrea.Williams@ontario.ca June 19, 2012 Ms. Grace Pasceri SkyPower Limited 130 Adelaide St. W., 30 th Floor Toronto, ON M5H 3P5 RE: SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York OPA FIT Reference No. FIT-F9LD355-GOLDLIGHT, F-001558-SPV-130-505 MTCS File HD00702 PIFs # P027-147-2011 and P120-131-2012 Dear Ms. Pasceri: O. Reg. 359/09 under the Environmental Protection Act regarding archaeological assessments undertaken for the above project. Based on the information contained in the reports you have submitted for this project, the Ministry believes the archaeological assessment complies with the Ontario Heritage Act's licensing requirements, including the licence terms and conditions and the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Please note that the Ministry makes no reation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of the Report.* The reports recommend the following: Stage 1-2 Original Report, PIF # P027-147-2011, Report Dated April 27, 2012, Report Received by the Ministry May 3, 2012: The report recommends the following: Stage 2 archaeological assessment is recommended for those areas not assessed by SJAHCE. These areas are illustrated in Map 17a and b. Based on Section 2.2 of the Standards and Guidelines, a Stage 3 archaeological assessment is required.

Stage 3 assessment is required for both BbGt-29 and BbGt-30, as per the Standards and Guidelines. Recommend that Stage 3 archaeological assessment of the site be conducted as per onal historic research; controlled surface collection, and the following with respect to the number and placement of one metre test units: Place and excavate 1 m square test units in a 5 m grid across the site. Place and excavate additional test units, amounting to 20% of the grid unit total, focusing on areas of interest within the to complete the Stage 3 assessment of the site, BbGt-29. The number of units proposed is under discussion with the MTCS, and are subject to change. Place and excavate 1 m square test units in a 5 m grid across the site. Place and excavate additional test units, amounting to 20% of the grid unit total, focusing on areas of interest within the to complete the Stage 3 assessment of the site, BbGt-30. The number of units proposed is under discussion with the MTCS, and are subject to change. With respect to the isolated findspot, no further assessment is required. The Ministry is satisfied with these recommendations. Stage 1-2 Original Report, PIF # P120-131-2012, Report Dated May 8, 2012, Report Received by the Ministry May 10, 2012: The report recommends the following: Section 7.8.4, Standard 1 This standard is not applicable as no sites were identified. Section 7.8.4, Standard 2 The report makes recommendations only regarding archaeological matters. Section 7.8.4, Standard 3 The Stage 2 survey did not identify any archaeological sites requiring further assessment or mitigation of impacts and it is recommended that no further archaeological assessment of the subject property assessed by The Archaeologists Inc. be required. The Ministry is satisfied with these recommendations. This letter does not waive any requirements which you may have under the Ontario Heritage Act. A separate letter addressing archaeological licensing obligations under the Act will be sent to the archaeologist who completed the assessment and will be copied to you. This letter does not constitute approval of the renewable energy project. Approvals of the project may be required under other statutes and regulations. It is your responsibility to obtain any necessary approvals or licences. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or require additional information.

Sincerely, Andrea Williams A/ Archaeology Review Officer cc. Scarlett Janusas, Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education George Clark, The Archaeologists Inc. Keith Powers, The Archaeologists Inc. * In no way will the Ministry be liable for any harm, damages, costs, expenses, losses, claims or actions that may result: (a) if the Report(s) or its recommendations are discovered to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent; or (b) from the issuance of this letter. Further measures may need to be taken in the event that additional artifacts or archaeological sites are identified or the Report(s) is otherwise found to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent.

STAGE 1 AND 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT GOLD LIGHT SOLAR FARM PART LOT 8 AND 9, CONCESSION 5 GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF GEORGINA TOWN OF GEORGINA REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK FORMER YORK COUNTY ORIGINAL REPORT FIT-F9LD355-GOLDLIGHT F-001558-SPV-130-505 Prepared for SkyPower Limited and Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport SCARLETT JANUSAS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE CONSULTING AND EDUCATION 269 Cameron Lake Road Tobermory, Ontario N0H 2R0 phone and fax 519-596-8243 cell 519-374-1119 jscarlett@amtelecom.net License # P027, PIF #P027-147-2011 April 27, 2012

ii Table of Contents Project Personnel Acknowledgements Executive Summary v v vi 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 1 1.1 Development Context 1 1.2 Historical Context 2 1.2.1 Current Environment 2 1.2.2 Prehistory of Study Area 2 1.2.3 Native Historic Period 3 1.2.4 Historic Period 5 1.2.5 Plaques or Monuments 6 1.2.6 Determination of Archaeological Potential 6 1.2.7 Rationale for Fieldwork Strategy 7 1.3 Archaeological Context 7 1.3.1 Previously Known Archaeological Resources/Assessments 7 1.3.2 Current Environment Existing Features 7 1.3.3 Physiography, Bedrock and Topography 7 1.3.4 Prehistoric Shorelines 8 1.3.5 Soils 8 1.3.6 Drainage 8 1.3.7 Vegetation 8 1.3.8 Dates of Fieldwork 9 1.3.9 Unusual Physical Features Affecting Fieldwork 9 2.0 FIELD METHDOLOGY 10 2.1 Stage 1 (Background Research) 10 2.2 Stage 2 (Field Assessment) 10 3.0 RECORD OF FINDS 17 3.1 Summary of Finds 18 3.2 Inventory of Documentary Records Made in Field 20 4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 22 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 25 6.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION 28 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 29 Tables 1. Chain of Title 34 2. Artifacts by Group, BbGt-29 36 3. Ceramics by Material and Form/Function, BbGt-29 36 4. Ceramics by Material and Decoration, BbGt-29 36 5. Date Ranges, BbGt-29 37 6. Artifacts by Group, BbGt-30 37

iii 7. Ceramics by Material and Form/Function, BbGt-30 37 8. Ceramics by Material and Decoration, BbGt-30 38 9. Date Ranges, BbGt-30 39 Illustrations/Figures 1. General Setting of Study Area 41 2. Local Setting of Study Area 42 3. Project Location 43 4. Project Location and Natural Features 44 5. Original Project Area 45 6. 1860 Tremaine Map of York 46 7. 1878 Illustrated Historical Map Section 47 8. Archaeological Potential Mapping 48 9. Lake Algonquin Shoreline 49 10. Field Identification 50 11. Photograph Locations 51 12. Assessment Methodology 52 13. Record of Finds 53 14. Distribution of Scatter BbGt-29 54 15. Distribution of Scatter BbGt-30 55 16. Isolated Find 56 17. A Areas Requiring Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment 57 B Areas Requiring Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment 58 Images 1. Field A facing East 59 2. Field A, B and H facing North 59 3. Field D facing Northeast 60 4. Field E facing West 60 5. Field E facing Southeast 61 6. Field F facing Southwest 61 7. Field G facing East 62 8. Field H facing Northwest 62 9. Field I facing South 63 10. Agricultural Roadway facing South 63 11. Borrow Pit facing West 64 12. Field C and D facing North 64 13. Reative Artifacts from BbGt-29 65 14. Reative Artifacts from BbGt-29 66 15. Reative Artifacts from BbGt-30 67 16. Reative Artifacts from BbGt-30 68 17. Reative Artifacts from BbGt-30 69 18. Reative Artifacts from BbGt-30 70 19. Reative Artifacts from BbGt-30 71 20. Isolated Prehistoric Findspot 72 Appendices A. Site Catalogue, BbGt-29 73 B. Site Catalogue, BbGt-30 77 C. Isolated Find Locational Details 92 D. Locational Data for BbGt-29 92

E. Locational Data for BbGt-30 94 iv

v Project Personnel Project Manager Principal Archaeologist, Field Director, And Report Preparation Artifact Analysis Historic Research Field Assistants Scarlett Janusas (P027) Chelsea Robert (R403) Gina Martin Matthew Annis Kelly Bell Michelle Potts Chelsea Robert Acknowledgments Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education extend our thanks to Ms. Grace Pasceri, SkyPower Limited, for providing data, maps and arranging permission to access the study area. Thanks are also extended to Mr. Robert von Bitter, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, for providing registered site data.

vi Executive Summary The proponent, SkyPower Limited., retained the services of Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education (SJAHCE) to conduct a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological resource assessment on property proposed for a solar farm. Permission to access the property and to conduct all activities associated with the Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment, including recovery of artifacts, was provided through SkyPower Limited. This property is located on part of Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5, geographic township of Georgina, Town of Georgina, in the Regional Municipality of York. The property is located north of Old Homestead Road, approximately a kilometre east of the village of Vachell. The study property is approximately 40 hectares in size. The site is made up of agricultural fields, wetlands, and woodlots. The archaeological assessment was triggered by the Green Energy Act. Only a portion of the property was subject to a Stage 2 assessment by SJAHCE (~23.82 hectares). Stage 1 was conducted for the entire property. Poor field conditions halted the Stage 2 assessment. The proponent then retained another consultant, The Archaeologists Inc., to complete the fieldwork (P120-131-2012) for the remaining approximate 16.18 hectares. Consultation with Mr. Andy Schoenhofer of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport was conducted to ensure that this portion of the assessment report would be accepted for licence P027. Background research indicated that there are no registered archaeological sites within one kilometer of the study area. There are no previous archaeological assessments within 50 m of the study area. The study area lies in the Black River watershed. The Zephyr-Egypt Wetland Complex is located to the east of the study area. There are no watercourses, wetlands or other sources of water on the property. A small man made pond abuts the property at the south end. An unnamed creek runs south of the property approximately 120 m distant. This latter contributes to the archaeological potential of the study area. There is a prehistoric shoreline that cuts across the property (east-west) towards the northern third of the study area. This contributes to the archaeological potential of the study area. There are no placques or monuments located in the vicinity of the study area. Historic records indicate early occupation of the site and abutting area by three landowners. The 1860 Tremaine indicate three owners of the lots: J. Yates, Jason Cockburn and John Cockburn. 1878 mapping shows two owners, and two historic farm/homesteads located on the property the two correspond with two historic scatters located during the archaeological assessment. A third farmstead

vii is depicted on the 1878 map, but this farmstead is excluded from the project area. The majority of the soil on the property consists of Otonabee loam with a smooth to gently sloping topography. Additional soil types include Emily, an imperfectly drained loam, with few stones and a gently sloping topography; Sargent sandy loam, which has good drainage, a gently slope and is moderately stony and Granby, a sandy loam with poor drainage, and consists of gentle sloping stone free soil. The property exhibits high archaeological potential based on the presence of a nearby creek, a prehistoric shoreline, and the two historic homesteads which date to at least 1878. The adjacent roadway (Old Homestead Road) is considered an early historic roadway, which is another archaeological indicator. There is very little development disturbance of the property, with the exception of a small borrow pit located at the northern end of the property. The Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment of the study property was conducted under license P027 (Scarlett Janusas, PIF #P027-147-2011) during November of 2011. The Stage 2 archaeological assessment was conducted on November 15th, 16 th, and 26 th, 2011 under good to excellent assessment conditions with 90 to 100% open ground cover for ploughed areas. Based upon the background research of past and conditions, and the partial Stage 2 archaeological assessment, the following is recommended: Stage 2 archaeological assessment is recommended for those areas not assessed by SJAHCE. These areas are illustrated in Map 17a and b. The Stage 2 archaeological assessment must be conducted under the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists and include, but are not limited by, the following standards: Survey the entire remaining property (refer to Map 17a and b for geographic details) including lands immediately adjacent to built structures (both intact and ruins). Survey the property when weather and lighting conditions permit good visibility of land features. Using the Global Position System according the requirements set out in section 5 of the Standards and Guidelines, record the locations of a) all diagnostic artifacts b) sufficient artifacts to provide and estimate of the limits of the archaeological site, and c) all fixed reference landmarks. Map all field activities. Photo-document examples of all field conditions encountered.

viii Do not use heavy machinery. All aspects related to conducting a Stage 2 assessment on ploughed lands pertains to this recommendation. Based on Section 2.2 of the Standards and Guidelines, a Stage 3 archaeological assessment is required. Stage 3 assessment is required for both BbGt-29 and BbGt-30, as per the Standards and Guidelines. Recommend that Stage 3 archaeological assessment of the site be conducted as per the S & G s (MTC 2011b) for conducting Stage 3 assessments. These standards require additional historic research; controlled surface collection, and the following with respect to the number and placement of one metre test units: Place and excavate 1 m square test units in a 5 m grid across the site. Place and excavate additional test units, amounting to 20% of the grid unit total, focusing on areas of interest within the site extent. (MTC 2011a:51). It is anticipated that a total of 281 1 metre test units will be required to complete the Stage 3 assessment of the site, BbGt-29. The number of units proposed is under discussion with the MTCS, and are subject to change. Place and excavate 1 m square test units in a 5 m grid across the site. Place and excavate additional test units, amounting to 20% of the grid unit total, focusing on areas of interest within the site extent. (MTC 2011a:51). It is anticipated that a total of 450 1 metre test units will be required to complete the Stage 3 assessment of the site, BbGt-30. The number of units proposed is under discussion with the MTCS, and are subject to change. With respect to the isolated findspot, no further assessment is required. This archaeological assessment has been conducted under the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ministry of Tourism and Culture, 2011).

1 STAGE 1 AND 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT GOLD LIGHT SOLAR FARM PART LOTS 8 AND 9, CONCESSION 5 GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF GEORGINA TOWN OF GEORGINA REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK FORMER YORK COUNTY FIT-F9LD355-GoldLight F-001558-SPV-130-505 Original Report 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 1.1 Development Context The proponent retained the services of Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education (SJAHCE) to conduct a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological resource assessment on property for a proposed solar farm. This property is located on part of lot 8 and 9, Concession 5, geographic township of Georgina, now the Town of Georgina, in the Regional Municipality of York, formerly County of York (Figures 1-5). The study property lies north of Old Homestead Road, approximately a kilometre east of Park Road. The study property is approximately 40 hectares in size. The archaeological assessment was undertaken as part of Ontario Regulation 359/09 within the Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) process under part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Energy Act. The Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment of the study property was conducted under license P027, (Scarlett Janusas, PIF #P027-147-2011) during November 2011. Only a portion of the property was subject to a Stage 2 assessment by SJAHCE (~23.82 hectares). Stage 1 was conducted for the entire property. Poor field conditions halted the Stage 2 assessment. The proponent then retained another consultant, The Archaeologists Inc., to complete the fieldwork (P120-131-2012) for the remaining approximate 16.18 hectares. Consultation with Mr. Andy Schoenhofer of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport was conducted to ensure that this portion of the assessment report would be accepted for licence P027. The proponent provided permission for SJAHCE and its agents to enter the property and conduct all activities as required under the 2011 Standards and

2 Guidelines to conduct a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological resource assessment, including recovery of artifacts. This archaeological assessment has been conducted under the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists (Ministry of Tourism and Culture, 2011). 1.2 Historical Context 1.2.1 Current Environment The study property is currently being used as agricultural land, pasture, and scrub areas/woodlot. The property is bounded by fencing. There are no existing structures located on the property. The entire property was ploughed for assessment purposes, including the former pasture, scrub/woodlot areas. The latter was ploughed in 2012. 1.2.2 Prehistory of Study Area Following the retreat of the Wisconsin Glacier, the first inhabitants of Southern Ontario arrived around 11, 000 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age, The Paleo-Indians had a nomadic lifestyle, living in small bands and following herds of caribou across the tundra-like landscape. Their population was small and they did not stay in the same place for long, making evidence of their campsites scarce. However, some Paleo-Indian campsites have been found along shorelines of glacial waters. The study property is surrounded by prehistoric shorelines and drumlins from the extinct lake Algonquin. The Archaic Period is divided into three stages. The people of the early and middle Archaic periods (7000BC-2500BC) lived a similar lifestyle to those of the Paleo-Indian Period. The entirety of the Archaic period is marked by a changing environment as temperatures started to rise and a boreal forest spread across the province, driving caribou north with it. The hunters and gatherers exploited deer and rabbit as well as a carrying out a more intense utilization of fish. Stone technology became more advanced and their toolkit more diverse, marking the introduction of groundstone tools and the bow and arrow. The Late Archaic (2500BC-1000BC) sees the beginnings of extensive trade networks and engagement in burial ceremonies, as the populations of the bands begin to rise and territories begin to shrink. The Woodland Period is split into four major divisions: Early, Middle, Transitional and Late. The people of the Early and Middle Woodland were hunters and gatherers and probably maintained a lifestyle similar to their ancestors. They had small special purpose camps that exploited seasonal resources. The Early period (1000-400BC) also sees the beginning of ceramic manufacturing, and the

3 elaboration of burial practices. The Middle Woodland sees the appearance of distinct cultures separated geographically: the Saugeen and Western Basin. During the Transitional Period (900BC-600AD), the regionalization that had begun earlier continues and distinct cultures continue to become culturally bounded. The Princess Point culture, one of the first to practice agriculture gives rise to the later Ontario Iroquoian Tradition and the Riviere au Vase gives rise to the Western Basin Algonkian Traditions. This period also sees an increase in the trading of precious and ornate objects used in burial practices and a more sedentary lifestyle based around horticultural. During the Late Woodland or Iroquoian Period (900AD-1650AD) the shift to agriculture that began in the Transitional Woodland comes to fruition. Cornfields surround sedentary villages, surrounded by protective wooden walls called palisades. The regionalization begun in the Archaic now consists of an advanced political system of tribes and nations that form alliances and go to war with each other. Village size continues to grow, and bands become more and more distinct in the archaeological and historic record. The study property lies within the area that was occupied by the Huron and proto- Huron culture. The Huron were an Iroquoian speaking group in southern Ontario that had culturally evolved away from the Neutral-Erie during the Uren Stage around 1350 (Trigger 1987). They were matrilineal, with clan affiliation coming through the mother. Villages consisted of longhouses, surrounded by a wooden palisade and agricultural fields. They had an intricate political system, and distinct cultural practices and artifacts. They held a festival called the Feast of the Dead, which occurred whenever the village moved due to soil depletion. Games and feasting occurred over a period of days that centered around the reburial of the dead in a communal pit called an ossuary. Over the Iroquoian period villages became larger and tightly clustered and extensive cultural and geographical divisions occurring between the New York Iroquois, the Neutral- Erie and the Huron. Villages also became situated in more isolated and defensible positions away from main water-ways, (Trigger 1987) though different nations maintained extensive trade networks with each other. 1.2.3 Native Historic Period Native life changed dramatically with the arrival of the European explorers. The politics of the European continent followed the explorers and traders over to the New World. The competition for the fur trade between the French and the Dutch caused fur trade wars between the Iroquois and the Huron. The arrival of the European explorers, settlers and missionaries also brought disease, which wiped out large populations of native peoples. These epidemics in concert with the Indian fur wars resulting in a rapidly shifting cultural landscape and shrinking populations of these native groups.

4 The Huron Confederacy was the first great Iroquoian federation in the region and had extensive trade links. These trade links were what first garnered the attention of the French. This alliance remained between the French and the Huron even after the Huron s dispersal by the Iroquois in 1649. After this the Huron became known as the Wyandot, a cornerstone of the Algonkian tribes. The Huron had relatively good relations with their neighbours compared to the Iroquois, making them a lucrative trading partner for the French. The area of the St. Lawrence was a disputed territory between different tribes, creating a war zone that effectively cutting off the interior to trade for European traders. In 1609 after hearing the complaints of the Huron, Champlain sided with the Huron, and drove the Mohawk out of the St. Lawrence Valley opening up a direct trading route to the interior for the French. The Huron had access to good quality fur, both in their lands, and as middlemen to the northern Algonkian tribes. Though the Mohawk lost the St. Lawrence they had a monopoly on trade with the Dutch, though did not have the furs to sustain it. They needed access to hunt in Huron lands, but the Huron with the aid of the French were able to keep the Iroquois out of their lands. European politics were being the deciding factor in the dispute between the Huron and the Iroquois. In 1627 the English pulled the French out of New France and the Iroquois gained an advantage in the arms race between the two cultures, continuing to trade with the Dutch. With the return of the French, new supplies of ammunition and guns were traded to the Huron, creating an arms race between the Dutch and the French. The missionary efforts begun in 1615 also caused issues among the Huron, dividing communities into Christian and traditional factions, and controlling firearm privileges based on those who accepted baptism. Between 1635 and 1640 a series of devastating epidemics swept through Huron villages, killing over half the Huron, and many of their experienced leaders. The Iroquois continued on the offensive, first attacking the Huron s allies, meaning to isolate them. Violence continued to escalate with the arrival of the English, who attempted to break the Dutch trade monopoly by offering firearms. The Iroquois were now better armed than the French, and attacked. Over the next few years, beginning in 1642 the Iroquois attacked the French and the Huron, bring the French fur trade to a halt. While diplomacy was attempted over a period of two years, total war eventually occurred. In the winter of 1648 the Iroquois wiped out two villages, killing and capturing hundreds of Huron, causing the Huron resistance to collapse. The Huron Confederacy dispersed, with some groups becoming adopted by other tribes in the areas, and some fleeing into Quebec and Wisconsin. The Iroquois continued to adopt and attack the fleeing tribes, while forming a fragile peace with the French, which was eventually broken. (Sultzman 2000).

5 1.2.4 Historic Period The study property comprises part lot 8 & the west ½ of Lot 9, Concession 5, Township of Georgina, County of York. The County of York is bounded on the east by the County of Ontario, on the west by the County of Peel, on the north by Lake Simcoe and the County of the same name, and on the south by Lake Ontario (Campbell 1866). Before the county of York became the County of York the area traversed by a number of French explorers and traders. The shores of Lake Ontario and a number of river systems running through the county were trade routes that allowed access to trading posts further west. One of these routes, which ran up the Humber River provided direct access to Huron country, and was guarded by the French to protect trade with the interior from the English. Fort Toronto was built, but after New France came under the rule of the English in 1791, it was abandoned. Upper Canada s first Lieutenant Governor J.G. Simcoe made the place of this abandoned fort his capital for the new province. He named it York, after Frederick, the Duke of York. York was originally one of a number of counties belonging to the Nassau District, and later part of the Home District. It was not till 1866 that it took on its shape. The county was settled slowly at first because of the millions of acres (tens of thousands of hectares) had been granted to the United Empire Loyalists and the Clergy Reserve (Adam & Mulvany 1885). Smith s 1846 Canadian Gazetteer (1846:63) describes Georgina Township as such, Much of the land in this township is hilly and broken; some of it, however, is of excellent quality, and is heavily timbered. The banks of the lake in Georgina are generally rather high. A stream called Black River, runs through the east of the township, from south to north The Township of Georgina is bounded on the north by Lake Simcoe, to the west by west by North Gwillembury, to the south by Uxbridge and to the east by Brock. It was settled much later then the other townships in the area. Mr. Duncan McDonald laid it out in 1817 and the first patent was issued in 1819 to Capt. William Bourchier. The township compromises 34,996 acres (~14,162 hectares) and was named Georgina in honour of His Majesty George III. Captain Bourchier s younger brother James O Brien, who with his wife settled on Lot 1, Concession 7, founded day Sutton. The township was united with North Gwillembury until 1826, and again in 1870 for administrative purposes. There was no public transit till 1826, and the first school was built in Sutton in 1840 (Sullivan 1992) The northern part of the County of York lies in the Williams Treaty lands of 1923. These lands cover a large section of southern Ontario, totally 12,944,400 acres (~5,238,513 hectares). There were two distinct groups of native bands involved, including the Mississauga Indians of Rice Lake, Mud Lake, Scugog Lake and Alderville; and the Chippewa Indians of Christian Island, Georgiana Island and Rama. The lands in question were already being used by the government for

6 settlement or resource exploitation, but were part of a land claims issue that had been smouldering since 1787. This treaty was different in that unlike previous treaties in Ontario it did not retain hunting and fishing rights for the bands involved, nor guarantee possession of reserves. The Williams Treaties land overlaps with previous treaties and this has caused issues because they followed more traditional exchanges, which included hunting and fishing rights as well as reserves. The study property lies in the second parcel of lands sold, north of the first parcel and southwest of the third parcel.. Tremaine s map of the County of York, shows that both lots were occupied by 1860. Lot 8 was divided between three men, and, the study property lies on the properties occupied by J. Yates on the south and Thomas A. Odlam to the north. The west half of Lot 9 was occupied by John Cockburn and James Cockburn. In 1878 John Yates still occupies the south half of Lot 8, and there is a structure located towards the south side. In the 1871 census he is listed as Irish, born in Ontario and is 35 years of age. He belongs to the Church of England, and is a blacksmith. There is no one listed as occupying the south half of lot 8 in 1878. The west half of lot 9 is occupied by James Leith, a 50 year old Scottish farmer belonging to the Canadian Presbyterian Church. On his property are 2 structures. The first is located on the east half towards the south side of the property and the other on the west, towards the centre of the property. Map 6 illustrates the 1860 Tremaine map and Map 7 illustrates the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas map section. 1.2.5 Plaques or Monuments There are no placques or monuments located in the vicinity of the study area. 1.2.6 Determination of Archaeological Potential There are a number of variables that are evaluated when determining archaeological potential. These include: presence of previously identified archaeological sites, water sources (primary, secondary, features indicating past water sources, accessible or inaccessible shoreline), elevated topography, pockets of sandy soil in heavy soil or rocky ground, distinctive land formations, resource areas (food or medicinal plants, scarce raw materials, early Euro- Canadian industry), non-aboriginal settlement (monuments, cemeteries), areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement; early historic transportation routes; listed or designated heritage property;

7 and properties with archaeological potential as identified by local histories or informants. 1.2.7 Rationale for Fieldwork Strategy The study area exhibits archaeological potential based on the presence of a creek to the south of the property, a prehistoric shoreline crossing (east-west) the northern third of the property; archival records of two historic farm/homesteads on the property, and the relatively undeveloped nature of the property. In addition, the Town of Georgina is in the process of developing an archaeological master plan, and Map 8 illustrates an extract of that plan for the area. All areas were subject to Stage 2 archaeological assessment. 1.3 Archaeological Context 1.3.1 Previously Known Archaeological Resources/Assessments There are no registered archaeological sites within one kilometer of the study area (email July 2011 Robert von Bitter, Site Data Coordinator, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport 2011b). There are no archaeological assessments within 50 m of the study area. 1.3.2 Current Environment Existing Features The existing features include wire and post fencing surrounding the property, and hedgerows. There are no extant structures located on the subject lands. There is an agricultural roadway which runs approximatey north-south through the fields and provides access to the back fields. It is gated at the northern end of the agricultural fields. 1.3.3 Bedrock and Topography The study area lies on Trenton Black River bedrock. A limestone and minor dolostone formed during the Middle Ordovician. The study property lies within the physiographic region of the Simcoe Lowlands, specifically the Lake Simcoe Basin (Chapman & Putnam 1973). The Simcoe Lowlands lie between Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay and falls into two major divisions separated by the Simcoe Uplands: the Nottawasaga basin to the west and the Simcoe Basin to the east. Both of these basins were flooded by glacial Lake Algonquin and are bordered by shorecliffs, beaches, and bouldery terraces, and are floored by sand, silt and clay. The Lake Simcoe Basin to the south of Lake Simcoe is covered in a low, swampy, sandy plain. This area has two major streams as well as their tributaries, which include Zephyr Creek. These creeks are long swampy valleys a mile or so wide which may be considered as southern

8 extensions of the lowland. Breaking up this plain are several areas of drumlinzed till, which were the islands in Lake Algonquin (Chapman & Putnam 1973). The topography of the area is fairly level, with gentle slopes and a few raised areas of prehistoric shorelines and drumlins. 1.3.4 Prehistoric Shorelines The study area lies in a physiographic region that has a number of glacial Lake Algonquian formed drumlins (former islands) and prehistoric shores. A prehistoric shoreline runs just north of the middle of the property, east to west (Google Earth OGS). The topography rises to the south of this shoreline, and the majority of the property was probably above the surface of the waters of Lake Algonquin. The Algonquian water plane lies approximately 240m (790 ft.) above sea level (Goldthwait 1910) in this area, and the altitude of the property lies above is some areas, and below in others. Map 9 illustrates the approximate location of the prehistoric shoreline. 1.3.5 Soils The majority of the soil on the property consists of Otonabee (Ol) loam, which has good drainage, few stones and a smooth to gently sloping topography. Other soils on the property are Emily (El) an imperfectly drained loam, with few stones and a gently sloping topography; Sargent (Sg) sandy loam, which has good drainage, a gently slope and is moderately stony and Granby (Gsl) a sandy loam with poor drainage, and consists of gentle sloping stone free soil (Hoffman and Richards 1955: Soil Survey Map No. 19). 1.3.6 Drainage The study area lies in the Black River watershed. An unnamed creek lies within 120 m of the southern boundary of the study area. There are no other watersources located on the property. 1.3.7 Vegetation The study property lies in the region of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence forest. This is a transitional zone between the predominantly deciduous forest to the south and the boreal forest to the north. It contains a mixture of landscapes, and plant and animal species. In this region one will find coniferous trees such as eastern white pine, red pine, eastern hemlock and white cedar mixed with deciduous species, such as yellow birch, sugar and red maples, basswood and red oak. Other species found are white and black spruce, jack pine, aspen and white birch (MNR 2009).

9 There are some scrub areas on the property, which were probably former agricultural fields that have been left to regenerate naturally. These areas are located at the northern end of the study area (Field G). These areas were ploughed in 2012 for assessment purposes. 1.3.8 Dates of Fieldwork Field assessment was conducted on November 15 th, 16 th and 26 th, 2011. November 15 th was sunny with a high of 11 C, November 16 th was overcast with a high of 8 c, and November 26 th was overcast with a high of 13 C. As per the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sports Standards and Guidelines (2011a: Section 2.1, Standard 3) the field work was conducted under the appropriate lighting and weather conditions. 1.3.9 Unusual Physical Features Affecting Fieldwork There are no unusual physical features that affected the fieldwork.

10 2.0 FIELD METHODOLOGY 2.1 Stage 1 (Background Research) As part of the background research, an examination of the following was conducted: the Site Registration Database (maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) was examined for the presence of known archaeological sites in the project area and within a radius of one kilometer of the project area by contacting the data coordinator of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport; reports of previous archaeological fieldwork within a radius of 50 m around the property; topographic maps at 1:10 000 (recent and historical) or the most detailed map available; historic settlement maps such as the historic atlases; available archaeological management/master plans or archaeological potential mapping; commemorative plaques or monuments; and, any other avenues that assist in determining archaeological potential were examined. No property inspection was undertaken for Stage 1 archaeological assessment as the Stage 1 was conducted concurrently with the Stage 2 assessment. 2.2 Stage 2 (Field Assessment) The following table identifies the standard within the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sports Standards and Guidelines document (2011a) and how they were met with respect to Stage 2 Field Assessment. Only a portion of the property was subject to a Stage 2 assessment by SJAHCE (~23.82 hectares). Stage 1 was conducted for the entire property. Poor field conditions halted the Stage 2 assessment. The proponent then retained another consultant, The Archaeologists Inc., to complete the fieldwork (P120-131-2012) for the remaining approximate 16.18 hectares. Consultation with Mr. Andy Schoenhofer of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport was conducted to ensure that this portion of the assessment report would be accepted for licence P027. The following checklist applies only to those areas subject to Stage 2 archaeological assessment by SJAHCE.

11 Standard Section Property Survey 2.1, Standard 1 2.1, Standard 2a 2.1, Standard 3 2.1, Standard 4 Standard Survey the entire property, including lands immediately adjacent to built structures (both intact and ruins), excepting those areas identified by Section 2.1, Standard 2 Survey is not required where: a. lands are evaluated as having no or low potential based on the Stage 2 identification of physical features of no or low archaeological potential, including but not limited to: permanently wet areas, exposed bedrock, steep slopes (greater than 20 ) except in locations likely to contain pictographs or petroglyphs b. lands are evaluated as having no or low potential based on the Stage 2 identification of extensive and deep land alteration that has severely damaged the integrity of archaeological resources c. lands have been recommended to not require Stage 2 assessment by a Stage 1 report, where the ministry has accepted the Stage 1 report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports d) lands are designated for forest management activity without potential for impacts to archaeological sites, as determined through the Stage 1 forest management plans process (see section 1.4.3) e) lands are formally prohibited from alteration such as areas in an environmental easement, restrictive setback, or prohibitive zoning, where the constraint prohibits any form of soil disturbance. (Open space and other designations where allowable uses include land alterations must be surveyed.) f) it has been confirmed that the lands are being transferred to a public land-holding body, e.g., municipality, conservation authority, provincial agency. (This does not apply to lands for which a future transfer is contemplated but not yet confirmed.) Survey the property when weather and lighting conditions permit good visibility of land features Using the Global Positioning System (GPS) according to the requirements set out in section 5, record the locations of the following: all diagnostic artifacts, sufficient artifacts to provide an estimate of the limits of the archaeological site, and all fixed reference landmarks Action Entire property surveyed. Entire property surveyed. Borrow pit was examined visually in 2 m intervals. 2011: November 15 th (sunny, high of 11 C; November 16 th, overcase, high of 8 C, November 26 th, overcast, high of 13 C. using a GARMIN GPSmap 60CSx, with an accuracy of 5 m or less, recorded position of all diagnostic artifacts, sufficient artifacts to provide estimate of site boundaries, all fixed landmarks. NAD83 2.1, Map all field activities (e.g., extent and location No fixed landmarks, survey

12 Standard Section Standard 5 2.1, Standard 6 2.1, Standard 7 Pedestrian Survey 2.1.1, Standard 1 2.1.1., Standard 2 2.1.1, Standard 3 2.1.1, Standard 4 2.1.1, Standard 5 2.1.1, Standard 6 2.1.1, Standard 7 2.1.1, Standard 8 2.1.1, Standard 9 Standard of survey methods, survey intervals) in reference to fixed landmarks, survey stakes and development markers. Mapping must be accurate to 5 m or to the best scale available. Use any mapping system that achieves this accuracy. Photo-document examples of all field conditions encountered Do not use heavy machinery (e.g., gas-powered augers, backhoes) to remove soil, except when removing sterile or recent fill covering areas where it has been determined that there is the potential for deeply buried or sealed archaeological sites Actively or recently cultivated agricultural land must be subject to pedestrian survey. Land to be surveyed must be recently ploughed. Use of chisel ploughs is not acceptable. In heavy clay soils ensure furrows are disked after ploughing to break them up further. Land to be surveyed must be weathered by one heavy rainfall or several light rains to improve the visibility of archaeological resources. Provide direction to the contractor undertaking the ploughing to plough deep enough to provide total topsoil exposure, but not deeper than previous ploughing. At least 80% of the ploughed ground surface must be visible. If surface visibility is below 80% (e.g., due to crop stubble, weeds, young crop growth), ensure the land is re-ploughed and weathered before surveying. Space survey transects at maximum intervals of 5 m When archaeological resources are found, decrease survey transects to 1 m intervals over a minimum of a 20 m radius around the find to determine whether it is an isolated find or part of a larger scatter. Continue working outward at this interval until the full extent of the surface scatter has been defined. Collect all formal artifact types and diagnostic categories. For 19th century archaeological sites, also collect all refined ceramic sherds (or, for larger sites collect a sufficient sample to form the basis for accurate dating). Based on professional judgment, strike a balance between gathering enough artifacts to document the archaeological site and leaving enough in place to relocate the site if it is necessary to conduct Action stakes or development markers on study area lands predevelopment stage. Done No heavy machinery was used during the Stage 2 assessment Done All lands subject to survey that could be ploughed, were ploughed prior to assessment. No chisel ploughs were used. Weathered by at least one heavy rainfall. Done Between 90 to 100% of the ground surface was visible. Survey intervals were spaced at 5 m or less. Done two historic scatters and one isolated findspot. Done formal and diagnostic categories collected, refined ceramics collected, sufficient material collected. Sufficient artifacts left in field, at least 30 additional artifacts (ceramics, glass, metal) for BbGt-29, 20 left for BbGt-30,

13 Standard Section Test Pit Survey 2.1.2, Standard 1 2.1.2, Standard 2 2.1.2, Standard 3 2.1.2, Standard 4 2.1.2, Standard 5 2.1.2, Standard 6 2.1.2 Standard 7 2.1.2 Standard 8 2.1.2 Standard 9 Standard further assessment Test pit survey only on terrain where ploughing is not possible or viable, as in the following examples: wooded areas, pasture with high rock content abandoned farmland with heavy brush and weed growth, orchards and vineyards that cannot be strip ploughed (planted in rows 5 m apart or less), gardens, parkland or lawns, any of which will remain in use for several years after the survey properties where existing landscaping or infrastructure would be damaged. The presence of such obstacles must be documented in sufficient detail to demonstrate that ploughing or cultivation is not viable. Test pits were spaced at maximum intervals of 5 m (400 test pits per hectare) in areas less than 300 m from any feature of archaeological potential. Space test pits at maximum intervals of 10 m (100 test pits per hectare) in areas more than 300 m from any feature of archaeological potential Test pit to within 1 m of built structures (both intact and ruins), or until test pits show evidence of recent ground disturbance Ensure that test pits are at least 30 cm in diameter. Excavate each test pit, by hand, into the first 5 cm of subsoil and examine the pit for stratigraphy, cultural features, or evidence of fill. Screen soil through mesh no greater than 6 mm. Collect all artifacts according to their associated test pit Backfill all test pits unless instructed not to by the landowner. Action and isolated findspot recovered (single artifact). Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Map 10 identifies the fields and the following describes each field assessed. Fields B, C and G did not form part of this Stage 2 assessment by SJAHCE, but are being addressed under PIF#120-131-2012, The Archaeologists Inc. Field A is an area that was originally wholly included in the original project layout. The northern portion of the field still remains in the project area. Regardless of its current status in the project layout, assessment of the area was conducted and is reported on herein as part of the license obligations. Field A was ploughed and lies adjacent to Old Homestead Road. The topography of this field is generally level, although there is a rise in elevation in the southeast corner of the field. This field was subject to pedestrian transect survey conducted in 5 metre intervals. An historic scatter was located in this area (contaminated by

14 roadside garbage mixed in with the historic material as evidenced by black garbage bags and modern refuse). The scatter was subject to intensified assessment conducted in 1 metre intervals. Materials were bagged, tagged, and recorded using GPS with an accuracy of +/- 2 metres. Photographs 1 and 2 illustrate Field A conditions. Observation conditions were good with open ground cover of between 90 and 100%. Field B is a field that was very wet and could not be surveyed in the fall/winter of 2011 and early spring of 2012. It is level in topography and low lying. Photograph 2 shows the field B beyond Field A. This was not assessed by SJAHCE. Field C lies to the north of an existing barn and was ploughed for assessment purposes. The elevation rises to the north in a gentle, undulating manner. It was too wet to be assessed during the fall/winter of 2011 and early spring of 2012. This was not assessed by SJAHCE. Field D (Photograph 3) lies north of Field C and continues to rise in elevation from south to north, leveling at the northern end of the field. This field was ploughed for assessment purposes and observations conditions were between 90 100% open ground. A single, isolated prehistoric findspot was located on the south facing slope of Field D. Intensified survey was conducted as per the Standards in 1 m intervals around the findspot. No additional materials were recovered in association with the findspot. Field E (Photographs 4 and 5) is a ploughed field with a rolling hill topography, rising in elevation from south to north. Observations conditions were good with open ground cover of between 90 100%. Field F (Photograph 6) is a ploughed field with a rolling hill topography, rising is elevation from south to north, and leveling at the northern end of the field. Observation conditions were good with open ground cover of between 90 100%. Field G (Photograph 7) is the scrub/pasture area. This area was ploughed in the spring of 2012. SJAHCE did not conduct a Stage 2 assessment of this area due to poor field conditions. Field H (Photograph 8) is a ploughed field with an elevation that rises from south to north. Observation conditions were good with open ground cover of between 90 and 100%. Field I (Photograph 9) is a ploughed field with an elevation that rises from south to north. Observation conditions were good with open ground cover of between 90 and 100%. An historic scatter was located in Field I and subject to

15 intensification at 1 metre intervals as per the Standards. Materials were bagged, tagged, and recorded using GPS with an accuracy of +/- 2 metres. There is an agricultural roadway (Photograph 10) which passes through the fields on an approximate north-south orientation. There was one area of development disturbance located at the northern end of the property. This was a small borrow pit (Photograph 11), and it was visually assessed to determine if there were any artifacts in the exposed walls. None were noted. This area requires Stage 2 archaeological assessment. Of the areas assessed by SJAHCE n(~23.82 hectares), 100% of the property was subject to pedestrian transect methodology conducted in 5 metre intervals. Approximately 1.56 hectares (~6.5%) of the assessed areas was further subject to intensified pedestrian survey conducted in one metre intervals. Map 12 illustrates the assessment methodology for areas of Stage 2 archaeological assessment conducted by SJAHCE. Map 17a and b illustrate those areas that still require Stage 2 archaeological assessment. Section 2.2 of the Standards and Guidelines (MTC 2011a) sets out standards to determine the need for Stage 3 archaeological assessment. Standard Standard Action Section Section 2.2, Analysis, Determining Requirement for Stage 3 Assessment 2.2, Standard 1 Artifacts, groups of artifacts or archaeological sites meeting the following criteria require Stage 3 assessment 2.2., Standard 1a Pre-contact diagnostic artifacts or a concentration of artifacts (or both) Not applicable 2.2, Standard 1a, i Within a 10 x 10 m pedestrian survey area 2.2, Standard 1a, i, (1) At least one diagnostic artifact or fire cracked rock in addition to two or more non-diagnostic artifacts Not applicable 2.2, Standard 1a, i, (2) In areas east or north of the Niagara Escarpment, at least five non-diagnostic artifacts Not applicable 2.2, Standard 1a, i, (3) In areas west of the Niagara Escarpment, at least 10 non-diagnostic artifacts Not applicable 2.2, Standard 1a, ii Within a 10 x 10 m test pitting area 2.2, Standard 1a, ii, (1) At least one diagnostic artifact from combined test pit and test unit excavations Not applicable 2.2, Standard 1a, ii, (2) At least five non-diagnostic artifacts from combined test pit and test unit excavations. Not applicable 2.2, Standard 1b Single examples of artifacts of special interest 2.2, Standard 1b, i Aboriginal ceramics Not applicable 2.2, Standard 1b, ii Exotic or period specific cherts Not applicable 2.2, Standard 1b, iii An isolated Paleo-Indian or Early Archaic diagnostic artifact Not applicable 2.2, Standard 1c Post-contact archaeological sites containing at least Yes, BbGt-

16 Standard Standard Action Section 20 artifacts that date the period of use to before 29, BbGt-30 1900. 2.2, Standard 1d Twentieth century archaeological sites, where background documentation or archaeological Not applicable features indicate possible cultural heritage value or interest 2.2, Standard 1e The presence of human remains Not applicable

17 3.0 RECORD OF FINDS According to Standard 7.8.2 (MTC 2011a) the following is required and has been satisfied or found to be non-applicable. Standard Detail Action 7.8.2 Standard 1a A general description of the types of artifacts and features that were identified. BbG-29 is an earlier period historic site comprised of metal (probably a plough part), ceramics, and glass. There are no foundations apparent in the field. Appendix A s the catalogued for different types of artifacts from the site (ceramics, glass, metal). BbGt-30 was comprised of mid to late 19 th century materials, and some recent material associated with roadside dumping (black plastic garbage bags, and recent material). The material is widespread and L-shaped, but the distribution may be, in part, plough spread from the adjacent (east) elevated area. No foundations were seen in the field. The site was located in Field A. Appendix B s the catalogue for different types of artifacts (ceramics, glass, metal). The isolated findspot was a prehistoric flake. Location information is provided in Appendix C for the isolated findspot. The findspot is a prehistoric 7.8.2, Standard 1b 7.8.2, Standard 1c 7.8.2, Standard 1d A general description of the area within which artifacts and features were identified including the spatial extent of the area and any relative variations in artifact density A catalogue and description of all artifacts retained. A description of the artifacts and features left in the field, nature of material, frequency, other notable traits. primary flake manufactured from Onondaga chert. BbGt-29 is located adjacent to the agricultural roadway, on the east side. The historic scatter is 41 by 28 metres, including the outliers. The concentration appears to be smaller, measuring 25 by 13 metres. There were no foundations or other cultural features apparent during the Stage 2 assessment. BbGt-30 is approximately 103 by 80 m in extent, but is L-shaped. The majority of artifacts are concentrated in an area measuring 55 by 55 m. There is an area of elevation located along the eastern end of the site area, otherwise the site is on generally level topography. No evidence of any foundations were noted during the Stage 2 assessment. The isolated findspot is a single prehistoric flake, located on a south facing hill in Field D. Appendix A BbGt-29. The materials recovered include formal and diagnostic categories, and refined ceramics Appendix B- BbGt-30. The materials recovered include formal and diagnostic categories, and refined ceramics. Appendix C isolated findspot retained. BbGt-29: Artifacts not recovered include glass, small sized ceramic, non-diagnostic material and informal material. A count of the material left behind was approximately 20 artifacts.

18 Standard Detail Action BbGt-30: Artifacts not recovered include glass, small sized ceramics, non- diagnostic material, informal material. In addition, recent material stemming from roadside dumping was not recovered. A count of the material left behind was not made, but it is estimated to be approximately 30 artifacts. Isolated Findspot the single flake was collected. Nothing remains in the field. 7.8.2, Standard 2 7.8.2, Standard 3 7.8.2, Standard 3a 7.8.2, Standard 37.8.2, Standard 3b Provide an inventory of the documentary record generated in the field. Submit information detailing exact site locations on the property, separately from the project report. A table of GPS readings for locations of all archaeological sites Maps showing detailed site location information. Digital Photographs of field conditions and site. Field notes of field conditions and site. Daily Record Log of personnel, weather conditions, hours, field conditions. GPS Coordinates of corners of site BbGt-29: N 17T 635827 E 4905539N, S 635834E, 4905497N, E 635846E 4905520N, W 635819E 4905516N, Central 635830E 4905517 BbGt-30, and one central location are W 17T 636135E 4905107N, SE 636237E 4905128N, NE 636221E 4905203N, corner inside L 636199E 4905141, central 636222E 4905133N Isolated Findspot: 17T 635811E 4905412N This information is excluded for MTCS and provided in the supplementary documentation. Included for client. Excluded for MTCS and ed separately. Two historic sites, and one isolated findspot. Excluded for MTCS and ed separately. See table at back of report. See Illustration section (MTCS is provided this information as supplementary documentation) 3.1 Summary of Finds Two historic scatters were located during the Stage 2 archaeological assessment. The first site, BbGt-29, is a smaller historic scatter which is located some distance from Old Homestead Road, and off to the east side of the agricultural roadway. A check of the adjacent agricultural roadway did not reveal any foundations or other cultural features. The site measures approximately 41 by 29 metres in artifact distribution spread, but the main concentration appears to be 28 x 13 metres in size. The site is located at an elevation of 243 m, and is on generally level topography. This site also corresponds with the historic farmstead depicted on the 1878 historic atlas map (Map 6). Photograph 9 illustrates the site area. Photographs 13 and 14 illustrate reative samples of the site. BbGt-

19 29, based on the Stage 2 collected assemblage, has a date range of 1820 to 1870, early to mid/late 19 th century. The second site, BbGt-30, is located in Field A adjacent to Old Homestead Road. The general elevation range for the site is from 243 to 246 m asl, with the major elevation occurring at east end of the field/site. The site has been contaminated with recent roadside dumping, as evidenced by decomposing black garbage bags and modern refuse. The site measures approximately 101 m by 80 metres in artifact distribution spread, but the main concentration appears to be only 55 by 55 m in size. There were no foundations or other cultural features noted during the Stage 2 archaeological assessment. This site is located near the historically recorded (1878 historic atlas, Map 6) historic farmstead. It is probable that this site relates to the historic farmstead (no longer extant). Photograph 1 illustrates the site facing east. Photographs 15-19 illustrate reative samples of the site. BbGt-30, based on the Stage 2 collected assemblage, has a date range of 1840 1900. This suggests a long term occupation of the site area. There was also one isolated findspot located: a prehistoric flake. Despite intensified survey around the isolated findspot, no additional materials were located in association with it. Photograph 3 illustrates the area of the isolated findspot. Photograph 20 illustrates the prehistoric findspot. The primary flake is manufactured from Onondaga chert and is 24.1 mm in length, 18.2 mm in width, and 2.5 mm in thickness. No cultural affiliation or specific temporal period can be assigned to this flake. Artifact Documentation and Analysis Section 6 Standard 1 Cite the sources used when employing or referencing formal typologies established in the literature to describe category terms or type classifications. Action Burke 1982, Chiarenza and Slater 1998, Hanna 1973, Jones et al 1985, Jouppien 1980, Kenyon 2985, 1986, 1995, Majewski and O Brien 1987, Miller 1991, 2000, Nelson 1968, Newlands 1979, OMCR n.d., Wetherbee 1980, Morlan 1973 (prehistoric) Standard 2 - Not applicable to Stage 2 Standard 3 - Not applicable to Stage 2 Standard 4 for unstable artifacts Not applicable. (individuals or classes) with a high risk of deterioration and loss of interpretative integrity in storage, record their condition and document, as needed, any additional information that may be lost (e.g. analytically meaningful details that may be obscured or lost, measurements that may change). Standard 5 for large assemblages of unstable artifact classes (e.g. nails), measure 100 specimens per meaningful Not applicable.

20 context (i.e., a feature that is temporally discrete or associated with a specific structure or functional area) to provide necessary documentation to augment basic counts. Standard 6 - Include an artifact catalogue in the project report. Standard 6 In addition to the artifact catalogue, artifact documentation may be included as tables in the text of the report. Catalogues must be prepared as follows. Standard 6a each entry must have a catalogue number Standard 6b each entry must identify the quantity of a class of artifacts at a specific spatial location within the site (e.g. test unit, test pit, surface collection, stratum, feature, block excavation unit) Standard 6c artifact classes must be separately catalogued to at least the level of analysis required by Table 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 in the S & G s. Standard 6d the catalogue must correspond to the packed collection (i.e. list artifacts by box) Standard 7 Ensure that the project report includes the size of the packed collection and long term curation plans. Standard 8 Sampling is acceptable only when analyzing certain types of artifacts (Table 6.1 and Table 6.2). Done Appendix A (BbGt-29) and Appendix B (BbGt-30), Appendix C isolated findspot location information See tables at back of report for each site. Done Appendix A, Appendix B Done Appendix A, Appendix B Done Appendix A, Appendix B Box 1: BbGt-29 The contents of Box 1 are ed in Appendix A (catalogue). Box 2: BbGt-30. The contents of the box are ed in Appendix B (catalogue). The artifacts of BbGt-29 have been packed in one box (Box 1 labeled with BbGt-29) which measures 30 x 23 x 11 cms. The artifacts of BbGt-30 have been packed in one box (Box 1 labeled with BbGt-30) which measures 30 x 23 x 6.5 cms. The isolated findspot has been packed with the box for BbGt-30 and labeled on the outside as such. Long term storage and care of the artifacts will be conducted by SJAHCE at the offices of SJAHCE until such time as a suitable repository is located for these artifacts. Not applicable. 3.2 Inventory of Documentary Records Made In Field Documents made in the field include: GPS readings

21 Daily record log Photograph log Digital photographs Field notes.

22 4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS The following illustrates the standards and actions regarding analysis and conclusions. Standard Description Action 7.8.3 (Analysis and Conclusions) Standard 1 Summarize all findings from the Stage 2 survey, or state that no archaeological sites were identified. 7.8., Standard 2 For each archaeological site, provide the following analysis and conclusions: 7.8., Standard 2a 7.8., Standard 2b A preliminary determination, to the degree possible, of the age and cultural affiliation of any archaeological sites identified A comparison against the criteria in 2 Stage 2: Property Assessment to determine whether further assessment is necessary. Two sites, registered as BbGt-29 and BbGt-30. One isolated findspot, a prehistoric flake, was also located. BbGt-29 had a total of 78 artifacts from 69 findspots. There is an absence of faunal and structural material, and the site assemblage is ceramics and glass. The ceramic assemblage suggests a date of between 1820 to 1870 for this site. It is a Euro-Canadian historic scatter, probably linked with the original farmstead in this area. The exact nature of this site is unknown, but it may be a dump site, rather than the house/farmstead site. BbGt-30 had a total of 365 artifacts from 132 findspots. The ceramic The site is made up primarily of ceramics and glass, and there is only one machine cut nail. There are no other structural artifacts or faunal material. The ceramic assemblage suggests a date of between 1840 to 1900 for this site. It is a Euro-Canadian historic scatter, widespread, and may linked with the original historic farm/homestead in this area shown on the 1878 historic atlas. The exact nature of this site is unknown, especially given the widespread nature of the distribution pattern of artifact. Isolated Findspot prehistoric, further refined cultural affiliation not possible. Stage 3 assessment is required for both BbGt-29 and BbGt-30, as per the Standards and Guidelines. Recommend that Stage 3 archaeological assessment of the site be conducted as per the S & G s (MTC 2011b) for conducting Stage 3

23 Standard Description Action assessments. These standards require additional historic research; controlled surface collection and the following with respect to the number and placement of one metre test units. Place and excavate 1 m square test units in a 5 m grid across the site. Place and excavate additional test units, amounting to 20% of the grid unit total, focusing on areas of interest within the site extent. (MTC 2011a:51). It is anticipated that a total of 281 1 metre test units will be required to complete the Stage 3 assessment of the site, BbGt-29. Recommend that Stage 3 archaeological assessment of the site be conducted as per the S & G s (MTC 2011b) for conducting Stage 3 assessments. These standards require additional historic research; controlled surface collection and the following with respect to the number and placement of one metre test units. Place and excavate 1 m square test units in a 5 m grid across the site. Place and excavate additional test units, amounting to 20% of the grid unit total, focusing on areas of interest within the site extent. (MTC 2011a:51). It is anticipated that a total of 450 1 metre test units will be required to complete the Stage 3 assessment of the site, BbGt-30. The number of units proposed is under discussion with the MTCS, and are subject to change. Isolated Findspot no further assessment is required. 7.8., Standard 2c A preliminary determination regarding whether any archaeological sites identified in Stage 2 show evidence of a high level of cultural heritage value or interest and will thus require Stage 4 mitigation. A preliminary analysis of the material suggests that Stage 4 archaeological assessment may be necessary for both BbGt-29 and BbGt-30.

24 All areas of the property were subject to Stage 2 archaeological assessment. All areas were considered to exhibit archaeological potential. BbGt-29 had a total of 78 artifacts from 69 findspots. There is an absence of faunal and structural material, and the site assemblage is ceramics and glass. The ceramic assemblage suggests a date of 1830 to 1870 for this site. The site is located on level topography and adjacent to the agricultural roadway. This location is in keeping with the 1878 historical atlas depiction of a farmstead in the same locale (Map 6). The site is a Euro-Canadian historic scatter, probably linked with the original farmstead in this area. The exact nature of this site is unknown, but it may be a dump site, rather than the house/farmstead site. BbGt-30 had a total of 365 artifacts from 132 findspots. The site is made up primarily of ceramics and glass, and there is only one machine cut nail. There are no other structural artifacts or faunal material. The ceramic assemblage suggests a date of between 1840 to 1900 for this site. It is a Euro-Canadian historic scatter, widespread, and may linked with the original historic farm/homestead in this area shown on the 1878 historic atlas (Map 6). The exact nature of this site is unknown, especially given the widespread nature of the distribution pattern of artifacts. Adjacent roadside dumping of waste in black plastic garbage bags was noted on the site area, but these materials, very obviously related to recent dumping episodes, were not recovered and do not form part of the assemblage. The isolated findspot is prehistoric in nature, but it is not a diagnostic artifact and no further cultural/temporal information can be derived from this findspot.

25 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Only a portion of the property was subject to a Stage 2 assessment by SJAHCE (~23.82 hectares). Stage 1 was conducted for the entire property. Poor field conditions halted the Stage 2 assessment. The proponent then retained another consultant, The Archaeologists Inc., to complete the fieldwork (P120-131-2012) for the remaining approximate 16.18 hectares. Consultation with Mr. Andy Schoenhofer of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport was conducted to ensure that this portion of the assessment report would be accepted for licence P027. Standard Description Compliance 7.8.4 (General Recommendations) For each archaeological site, provide a statement of the following: 7.8.4, Standard 1a Borden No. or other identifying BbGt-29, BbGt-30 number 7.8.4, Standard 1b Whether or not it is of further cultural heritage or interest. Both sites are of further cultural heritage 7.8.4, Standard 1c Where it is of further cultural heritage or interest, appropriate Stage 3 assessment strategies 7.8.4, Standard 2 Make recommendations only regarding archaeological matters. 7.8.4, Standard 3 If the Stage 2 survey did not identify any archaeological sites requiring further assessment or mitigation of impacts, recommend that no further archaeological assessment of the property be required. 7.8.5 Recommendations for Partial Clearance 7.8.5 Standard 1 A recommendation for partial clearance may only be made if all of the following conditions have been met: 7.8.5, Standard 1a Stage 2 archaeological fieldwork has been completed within the entire project limits (Archaeological sites are that still require or interest. Stage 3 must be conducted as per the standards set out by the MTCS in the Standards and Guidelines document for consulting Archaeologists (MTC 2011a) Done. Stage 2 archaeological assessment is recommended for those areas illustrated in Maps 17a and b. Recommend a Stage 3 assessment for BbGt- 29 and BbGt-30. Not applicable. Not applicable.

26 Standard Description Compliance Stage 3, and possibly Stage 4, archaeological fieldwork)) 7.8.5, Standard 1b The recommendation forms part of Not applicable. a final report on the Stage 2 work. 7.8.5, Standard 1c The recommendation includes a Not applicable. request for the ministry to provide a letter confirming that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites for some specified part of the project area. 7.8.5, Standard 1d The Stage 2 report includes Not applicable. recommendations for further archaeological fieldwork for all sites that meet the criteria requiring Stage 3 archaeological field assessment. 7.8.5, Standard 1e Include the following documentation in the report package 7.8.5, Standard 1 e, i Development map showing the location and extent of all archaeological sites for which Stage 3 archaeological assessment is recommended, including a 20 m protective buffer zone for each site, and a 50 m monitoring zone for each site. Not applicable. 7.8.5, Standard 1e, ii Detailed avoidance strategy, and written confirmation from the proponent regarding the proponent s commitment to implementing the strategy and confirmation that ground alterations (e.g. servicing, landscaping) will avoid archaeological sites with outstanding concerns and their buffer areas 7.8.5, Standard 1e, iii Construction monitoring schedule, and written confirmation from the proponent that a licensed consultant archaeologist will monitor construction in areas within the 50 m monitoring buffer zone, and that the consultant archaeologist is empowered to stop construction if there is a concern for impact to an archaeological site Not applicable. Not applicable.

27 Standard Description Compliance 7.8.5, Standard 1e, iv Timeline for completing remaining 2012 for Stage 3 archaeological fieldwork. assessments Stage 2 archaeological assessment is recommended for those areas not assessed by SJAHCE. These areas are illustrated in Map 17a and b. Based on Section 2.2 of the Standards and Guidelines, a Stage 3 archaeological assessment is required. Stage 3 assessment is required for both BbGt-29 and BbGt-30, as per the Standards and Guidelines. Recommend that Stage 3 archaeological assessment of the site be conducted as per the S & G s (MTC 2011b) for conducting Stage 3 assessments. These standards require additional historic research; controlled surface collection, and the following with respect to the number and placement of one metre test units: Place and excavate 1 m square test units in a 5 m grid across the site. Place and excavate additional test units, amounting to 20% of the grid unit total, focusing on areas of interest within the site extent. (MTC 2011a:51). It is anticipated that a total of 281 1 metre test units will be required to complete the Stage 3 assessment of the site, BbGt-29. The number of units proposed is under discussion with the MTCS, and are subject to change. Place and excavate 1 m square test units in a 5 m grid across the site. Place and excavate additional test units, amounting to 20% of the grid unit total, focusing on areas of interest within the site extent. (MTC 2011a:51). It is anticipated that a total of 450 1 metre test units will be required to complete the Stage 3 assessment of the site, BbGt-30. The number of units proposed is under discussion with the MTCS, and are subject to change. With respect to the isolated findspot, no further assessment is required.

28 6.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION According to the 2011 Standards and Guidelines (Section 7.5.9) the following must be stated within this report: 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 Archaeological Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be an 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 sec. 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services. Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological 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 license.

29 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Adam, G.M & C.P. Mulvany 1885 History of Toronto and the County of York Ontario. C. Blackett Robinson, Toronto. Accessed Online at: http://openlibrary.org/books/ Burke, Charles 1982 From Potter to Spoilheap: Temporal Ranges and Popularity in Nineteenth Century Ceramics. MS on file, Canadian Parks Service, Ontario Regional Office, Cornwall. Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam 1973 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Chiarenza, Frank and James Alexander Slater 1998 The Milk Glass Book. A Schiffer Book. Coysh, A. William and Richard K. Henrywood 1989 A Dictionary of Blue and White Printed Pottery, 1780-1880, Volume II. Antique Collectors Club, Woodbridge, Suffolk. Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2011 Earthlight, SkyPower Limited, Draft Project Description Report. Prepared for SkyPower Limited. Goldthwait, J.W 1910 An Instrumental Survey of the Shorelines of the extinct lakes Algonquin and Nipissing in Southwestern Ontario, Memoir No. 10. Canada Department of Mines: Geological Survey Branch, Ottawa Government of Ontario 1990a The Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O. 1990. Ontario Regulation 9/06, made under the Ontario Heritage Act. Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Queen's Printer, Toronto. 1990b The Environmental Assessment Act. R.S.O. 1990, C. E18. 1990c The Planning Act. R.S.O. 1990. Guillett, Edwin C. 1957 The Valley of the Trent. The Champlain Society for the Government of Ontario, University of Toronto Press.

30 Hoffman, D.W & N.R Richards 1955 Ontario Soil Survey Report No. 19: Soils of York County. Ontario Agricultural College & Experimental Farms Service, Guelph Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan 1985 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the description of containers, tableware, flat glass, and closures. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History, National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada. Jouppien, Jon 1980 The Application of South s Mean Ceramic Formula to Ontario Historic Sites. In Arch Notes, May/June 1980. Kenyon, Ian 1985 A History of Ceramic Tableware in Ontario, 1780-1890. Arch Notes 85 (3,5,6). 1986 The Consulting Archaeologist and the Analysis of 19 th Century Ceramic Tableware. Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. Workshop. 1995 A History of Ceramic Tableware in Ontario, 1780-1890. KEWA, Newsletter of the London Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society. Lee, Robert C. 2004 The Canada Company and the Huron Tract, 1826-1853. Natural Heritage Books, Toronto. Majewski, T. and M.J. O Brien 1987 Use and Misuse of 19 th Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 11:97-209. Ed. By M. Schiffer, Academic Press, New York. Martin, Gina 2005 A Rocky Path for Ontario s Land Records. Heritage Gazette of the Trent Valley. Middleton, Jesse Edgar and Fred Landon 1927 Province of Ontario A History, 1615-1927. Dominion Publishing Co., Toronto. Miles & Co. 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York & the Township of West Gwillimbury & Town of Bradford in the County of Simcoe. Miles & Co, Toronto.

31 Miller, George L. 1991 A Revised Site of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 25 (1):1-25. 1991 Introduction to English Ceramics for Archaeologists. A Workshop Seminar sponsored by the Association of Professional Archaeologists, Toronto. 2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. In Northeast Historical Archaeology, Volume 29. Ministry of Tourism and Culture 2011a Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists. Ministry of Tourism and Culture. 2011b Archaeological Data Base Files. Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto (now Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). Morlan, Richard E. 1973 A Technological Approach to Lithic Artifacts from Yukon Territory. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 7, Mercury Series. Ottawa. Nelson, Lee H. 1968 Nail Chronology as an aid to dating old buildings. American Association for State and Local History Technical Leaflet 48, History News, Volume 24, No. 11. November. Newlands, David L. 1979 Early Ontario Potters. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto. Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation n.d. The ACO Guide to 19 th Century Sites. Historical Planning and Research Branch, London Office. Hand out at Ceramic Workshop. Rogers, Edward S. and Donald B. Smith 1994 Aboriginal Ontario Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Dundurn Press Limited, Toronto. Smith, W.H 1846 Smith s Canadian Gazetteer. H&W Rowsell, Toronto Sullivan, H 1992 Our History. Georgina Advocate. Accessed at: http://www.town.georgina.on.ca/history-town.aspx

32 Sultzman, Lee 2000 Huron History. Located online at: http://www.tolatsga.org/hur.html Surtrees, Robert J. 1986 Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Trigger, B.G 1987 The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660.Carleton Library Series 195. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal & Kingston Wetherbee, Jean 1980 A Look at White Ironstone. Wallace-Homestead, Des Moines, Iowa. Woodhead, E.I., C.Sullivan, and G. Gusset 1984 Lighting Devices in the National Reference Collection, Parks Canada. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History, National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa. On-Line and Other Sources Vital Statistics of Ontario, www.ancestry.ca County Land Records, Archives of Ontario, 134 Ian MacDonald Blvd., Toronto, Ontario. Ontario Cemetery Finding Aid, www.islandnet.com Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, Vol. XI, 1881-1890, John English, General Editor, University of Toronto, www.biographi.ca Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland, www.jefpat.org Society for Historical Archaeology www.sha.org Historic Bottle Identification. Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority www.lsrca.on.ca/pdf/maps/watershed_elc.pdf Campbell, J.R. 1866 The General Directory for the city of Toronto & gazetteer of the counties of York and Peel. Mitchell & Co., Toronto. http://www.ourroots.ca/ Natural Resources Canada

33 n.d. Toporama Topographic Maps. www.nrcan.gc.ca 2009 The Atlas of Canada Williams Treaties. Accessed online at: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/indiantreaties/historicalt reaties/3 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2009 About Ontario s Forests. Located online at: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/business/forests/2columnsubpage/stel02 _163390.html Pearce, Robert n.d The First 12,000 Years. Museum of Ontario Archaeology. http://diggingontario.uwo.ca/overviewen.htm Ontario Historical Plaques: www.ontarioplaques.com 1871 Census: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/1871-ontario/indexe.html?phpsessid=1dk7admfssc99v4tmsggob6t74

34 TABLES Table 1 Chain of Title Chain of Title Lot 8, Concession 5 Application Oct. 8, 1830 Abraham Odlum Lot 8, Concession 5, 200 acres Military Grant (~81 hec) Patent Jan. 30, 1834 Abraham Odlum Deed #8167 Mar. 1, 1835 Jacob Smith South 100 acres (~40 hec) Deed #8168 Oct. 5, 1850 Charles W. Lount (from Hiram Smith) Deed #1395 Aug. 5, 1851 Jonathan Yates South half, except 25 acres sold for taxes (~10 hec) Deed #2458 Jan. 11, 1854 John Yates East ¼ of South ½ 25 acres (~10 hec) Deed #1120 Dec. 6, 1877 Joseph Cockburn Deed #1483 Feb. 9, 1880 John Winfield and other land Deed #2941 Mar. 19, 1892 Jane Winfield Vesting June 24, 1893 William Statton Order (from High Court of #3130 Justice) Deed #4891 Nov. 20, 1912 Robert C. Statton Deed #5743 Feb. 1, 1921 Leslie James Cockburn

35 Lot 9, Concession 5 Application Jan. 12, 1848 Thomas Sherwood West ½ lot 9, Con. 5 100 acres (~40 hec) Assignment Sept. 20, 1850 Levi Crittenden Patent Oct. 24, 1856 Levi Crittenden Deed #??? Feb. 1, 1859 Deed #??? Dec. 14, 1863 Joseph Cockburn Isabella Leith West 50 acres of west half (~20 hec) East 50 acres of west half (~20 hec) Deed #1483 Feb. 9, 1880 Will #??? June 14 1878 John Winfield Donald McDougall Deed #2941 March 19, 1892 Deed #1854 May 15, 1883 Jane Winfield John Winfield Deed #2941 Mar. 18, 1892 Jane Winfield Vesting Order #3130 June 24, 1893 William Statton West ½ lot 9 Deed #4647 Feb. 9, 1910 Deed #4891 Nov. 20, 1912 Robert C. Statton Robert C. Statton W 50 acres of W ½ E 50 acres of W ½ (~20 hec) (~20 hec) Deed #5743 Feb. 1, 1921 Leslie J. Cockburn West ½ lot 9, Con. 5

36 Table 2 Artifacts by Group, BbGt-29 Group Domestic 69 Indefinite 3 Personal 2 Structural 4 TOTAL 78 Frequency Table 3 Ceramics by Material and Form/Function, BbGt-29 Material Form/Function Amount Buffware Crockery 4 Coarse Red Earthenware Crockery 2 Coarse Red Earthenware Indeterminate 1 Stoneware Crockery 2 Stoneware Inkwell 1 Vitrified White Earthenware Flatware 4 Vitrified White Earthenware Hollowware 16 Vitrified White Earthenware Indeterminate 1 Porcelain Hollowware 1 Refined White Earthenware Hollowware 23 Refined White Earthenware Indeterminate 13 White Ball Clay Pipe 1 Table 4 Ceramics by Material and Decoration, BbGt-29 Material Decoration Frequency Buffware Clear Glaze 3 Buffware Brown Glaze 1 Coarse Red Earthenware Grey 2 Coarse Red Earthenware Unglazed 1 Porcelain Transfer Brown 1 Refined White Earthenware Annular Banding Red 1 Refined White Earthenware Hand Painted Green 1 Refined White Earthenware Indeterminate Blue 1 Refined White Earthenware Restaurant Ware Red/Green 1 Refined White Earthenware Stamped (Cut Sponge) Red & Blue 2 Refined White Earthenware Transfer Blue 2 Refined White Earthenware Transfer Blue Willow 2 Refined White Earthenware Undecorated 26 Stoneware Clear 1 Stoneware Clear/Brown 1 Vitrified White Earthenware Indeterminate 1 Vitrified White Earthenware Moulded 1 Vitrified White Earthenware Moulded Wheat Pattern 8 Vitrified White Earthenware Undecorated 10 White Ball Clay Undecorated 1

37 Table 5 Date Ranges, BbGt-29 Material/Decoration Frequency Date Range Buffware 4 19 th C Coarse Red Earthenware 3 1796 1920 Refined White Earthenware Hand Painted Green 1 1820 1870 Restaurant Ware 1 1896 Refined White Earthenware Stamped Red & Blue 2 1845 1930 Refined White Earthenware Transfer Blue 2 1820 Refined White Earthenware Blue Willow 2 1820 Refined White Earthenware Undecorated 26 1820 Vitrified White Earthenware Wheat Pattern 8 1859 Vitrified White Earthenware Undecorated 10 1840 2+ part mould glass 1 Ca.1850 Table 6 Artifacts by Group, BbGt-30 Group Frequency Domestic 329 Indefinite 17 Personal 5 Structural 14 TOTAL 365 Table 7 Ceramics by Material and Form/Function, BbGt-30 Material Form/Function Amount Buffware Crockery 2 Coarse Red Earthenware Crockery 13 Coarse Red Earthenware Indefinite 10 Porcelain Hollowware 2 Porcelain Indefinite 1 Porcelain Toy Doll s Leg 1 Refined White Earthenware Flatware 20 Refined White Earthenware Hollowware 91 Refined White Earthenware Indefinite 103 Semi Porcelain Indefinite 1 Stoneware Crockery 5 Stoneware Buff Body Crockery 4 White Granite Flatware 14 White Granite Hollowware 30 White Granite Indefinite 4 White Ball Clay Pipe 4 Yellowware Hollowware 1 Yellowware Indefinite 3

38 Table 8 Ceramics by Material and Decoration, BbGt-30 Material Decoration Frequency Buffware Clear Glaze 2 Coarse Red Earthenware Brown Glaze 5 Coarse Red Earthenware Clear Glaze 9 Coarse Red Earthenware Unglazed 10 Coarse Red Earthenware Grey Glaze 1 Porcelain Decal Floral Polychrome 1 Porcelain Toy Doll s Leg Hand Painted 1 Porcelain Plain 2 Refined White Plain 125 Earthenware Refined White Dipt Annular Blue, Brown, Yellow or Beige 9 Earthenware Combination Refined White Blue Edge Not Scalloped 9 Earthenware Refined White Blue Edgeware Not Scalloped, Impressed 8 Earthenware Refined White Blue Edgeware Not Scalloped, Not Impressed 4 Earthenware Refined White Blue Edgeware Impressed 1 Earthenware Refined White Blue Edge Not Impressed 1 Earthenware Refined White Flow Blue 3 Earthenware Refined White Hand Painted Late Palette 5 Earthenware Refined White Hand Painted Green 7 Earthenware Refined White Blue Indefinite Decoration Style 3 Earthenware Refined White Moulded Edge 6 Earthenware Refined White Sponge Polychrome (red, green &/or purple) 2 Earthenware Refined White Sponge Blue 3 Earthenware Refined White Cut Sponge/Stamped Red 2 Earthenware Refined White Transfer Blue 10 Earthenware Refined White Transfer Green 5 Earthenware Refined White Transfer Brown 1 Earthenware Refined White Transfer Black 1 Earthenware Refined White Transfer Blue Willow 5 Earthenware Stoneware Clear Glaze 4 Stoneware Salt Glaze 1

39 Material Decoration Frequency Stoneware Buff Body Albany Glaze 2 Stoneware Buff Body Clear 1 Stoneware Buff Body Rockingham 1 White Granite Plain 32 White Granite Banded Rim Brown (Restaurant ware) 1 White Granite Decal Floral Polychrome 1 White Granite Wheat Pattern 4 White Granite Foliage Pattern 1 White Granite Moulded Edge 6 White Granite Paneled 1 White Granite Ribbed 2 White Ball Clay Pipe Plain 2 Stems White Ball Clay Pipe Plain 1 Bowl White Ball Clay Pipe Moulded 1 Bowl Yellowware Plain 4 Table 9 Date Ranges, BbGt-30 Material/ Decoration Frequency Date Range Buffware 2 19 th C Coarse Red Earthenware 23 1796 1920 Porcelain Decal 1 1890 Present White Granite Decal 1 1890 Present Refined White Earthenware Plain 125 1820 Present Refined White Earthenware Dipt Annular 9 1820 Present Refined White Earthenware Blue Edge: Impressed 1 1820 1857 Refined White Earthenware Blue Edge: Not scalloped 9 1841 1884 Refined White Earthenware Blue Edge: Not scalloped, 8 1841 1857 Impressed Refined White Earthenware Blue Edge: Not Scalloped, Not 4 1874 1884 Impressed Refined White Earthenware Flow Blue 3 1844 1900 Refined White Earthenware- Hand Painted Late Palette 5 1830 1870 Refined White Earthenware Hand Painted Green 7 1820 1870 Refined White Earthenware - Sponge Polychrome 2 1850 1880 Refined White Earthenware Sponge Blue 3 1840 1870 Refined White Earthenware Cut Sponge/Stamped 2 1840 1870 Refined White Earthenware Blue Transfer 10 1820 Present Refined White Earthenware Green Transfer 5 1828 Present Refined White Earthenware Black Transfer 1 1828 Present Refined White Earthenware Brown Transfer 1 1828

Material/ Decoration Frequency Date Range Present Refined White Earthenware Blue Willow 5 1820 Present Stoneware Salt Glazed 1 1796 1900 Stoneware Albany Slip 2 1805 1920 Stoneware Rockingham Glaze 1 1855 1890 White Granite Wheat Pattern 4 1859 Present White Granite Foliage Pattern 1 1850s 1860s White Granite (Restaurant Ware) 1 1896 White Granite Plain 32 1840 Present Yellowware Plain 4 1830 1920 Glass Container Solarized 4 1880 1910 Machine Cut Nail 1 1805 Present Glass Machine Made (Ghost Seam) 1 1881- Safety Glass 1 Ca.1915 2+ part mould glass 3 Ca. 1850 40

41 ILLUSTRATIONS/FIGURES Figure 1 General Location of Study Property

42 Figure 2 Local Setting of Study Property 1:40 000 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011.

45

46

Map 5 Original Project Area 45

Map 6 1860 Tremaine Map of York (original scale 1:107,000) 46

Map 7 1878 Illustrated Historical Map Section 47

Map 8 Archaeological Potential Mapping 48

Map 9 Lake Algonquin Shoreline (arrows indicate area covered by water) (GOOGLE EARTH) 49

Map 10 Field Identification 50

Map 11 Photograph Locations 51

Map 12 Assessment Methodology 52

53

Map 14 Distribution of Scatter BbGt-29 54

Map 15 Distribution of Scatter BbGt-30 55

Map 16 Isolated Findspot 56

Map 17a Areas Requiring Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment 57

Map 17b Areas Requiring Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment 58

59 IILLUSTRATIONS/PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1 - Field A facing East Photograph 2 Field A, B and H facing North

60 Photograph 3 Field D facing Northeast Photograph 4 Field E facing West

61 Photograph 5 Field E facing Southeast Photograph 6 Field F facing Southwest

62 Photograph 7 Field G facing East (ploughed in 2012) Photograph 8 Field H facing Northwest

63 Photograph 9 Field I facing South Photograph 10 Agricultural Roadway facing South

64 Photograph 11 Borrow Pit facing West Photograph 12 Field C and D facing North

Photograph 13 Reative Artifacts from BbGt-29 65

Photograph 14 Reative Sample from BbGt-29 66

Photograph 15 Reative Sample from BbGt-30 67

Photograph 16 Reative Sample from BbGt-30 68

Photograph 17 Reative Sample from BbGt-30 69

Photograph 18 Reative Sample from BbGt-30 70

Photograph 19 Reative Sample from BbGt-30 71

Photograph 20 Isolated Prehistoric Findspot 72

73 Appendix A Site Catalogue BbGt-29 WP WayPoint #, T - thickness Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze/ Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) 1 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-2 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a hand painted green n/a 1820-1870 3 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-4 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a indeterminate blue n/a base sherd 5 1 ceramic vitrified white Indeterminate n/a moulded - n/a n/a 1859- Wheat Pattern 6 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-7 1 Glass light aqua Flat n/a n/a n/a T:2.3 8 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a base sherd 1820-9 1 ceramic refined white Indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-10 1 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-11 1 ceramic vitrified white hollowware n/a moulded n/a n/a 1840-12 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-13 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a transfer - blue n/a 1820- Willow 14 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-15 1 ceramic coarse red crockery grey undecorated n/a n/a 1796-1920 16 1 ceramic porcelain hollowware n/a transfer brown n/a 17 3 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-18 1 ceramic white ball clay pipe n/a undecorated n/a n/a Bowl 1840- sherd 19 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- Dates Date Citations Jouppien 1980 OMCR Jouppien 1980 Sussman 1985 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 OMCR nd Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980

74 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze/ Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) Dates Date Citations 20 1 ceramic vitrified white hollowware n/a moulded - Wheat Pattern n/a n/a 1859- Sussman 1985 21 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- Jouppien 1980 22 1 ceramic vitrified white flatware n/a moulded - Wheat Pattern n/a n/a 1859- Sussman 1985 23 2 ceramic vitrified white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840- Jouppien 1980 24 1 ceramic buffware crockery clear undecorated n/a n/a Ca.19t OMCR nd h C 25 1 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a restaurant green & n/a 1896- Conroy 1998 ware - banded red 26 1 Glass aqua container n/a n/a n/a 27 1 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-28 1 ceramic buffware crockery clear n/a n/a n/a Ca.19t h C 29 1 ceramic vitrified white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a Late/ modern sparkles under glaze 30 1 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a stamped (cut red & blue n/a 1845- sponge) 1930 31 1 ceramic buffware crockery brown n/a n/a n/a Ca.19t h C 32 1 ceramic coarse red indeterminate unglazed n/a n/a n/a 1796-1920 33 1 ceramic vitrified white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-34 1 ceramic vitrified white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-35 1 Glass black container n/a n/a n/a 36 1 ceramic refined white 37 1 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a Maker's 1820- Mark crown incomplete Jouppien 1980 OMCR nd Miller 1991 OMCR nd Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 38 2 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- Jouppien

75 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze/ Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) 1980 39 2 ceramic vitrified white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-40 1 ceramic vitrified white hollowware n/a moulded - n/a n/a 1859- Wheat Pattern 41 1 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-42 1 Glass colourless flat n/a n/a n/a T:2.1 43 1 Glass colourless flat n/a n/a n/a T:2.4 44 1 ceramic buffware crockery clear n/a n/a n/a Ca.19t h C 45 1 ceramic vitrified white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a 1840-46 1 Glass opaque white knob(?) n/a n/a n/a 2+part ca.185 mould 0s - 47 1 ceramic stoneware crockery clear n/a n/a n/a 48 1 ceramic coarse red crockery grey n/a n/a n/a 1796-1920 49 1 Glass aqua container n/a paneled n/a mould blown 50 1 ceramic refined white 51 1 ceramic refined white 52 2 ceramic vitrified white 53 1 ceramic vitrified white 54 1 ceramic refined white 55 1 ceramic refined white 56 1 ceramic refined white 57 1 ceramic refined white 58 1 ceramic vitrified white Dates hollowware n/a transfer - Willow blue n/a 1820- hollowware n/a transfer blue n/a 1820- flatware n/a moulded - n/a n/a 1859- Wheat Pattern hollowware n/a moulded - n/a n/a 1859- Wheat Pattern hollowware n/a annular red n/a banding indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a Maker's 1820- Mark - incomplete hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a Maker's Mark - 1840- Date Citations Jouppien 1980 Sussman 1985 Jouppien 1980 OMCR nd Jouppien 1980 Jones & Sullivan 1985 Jouppien 1980 OMCR nd Jouppien 1980 Sussman 1985 Sussman 1985 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980

76 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze/ Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) {...LAND} 59 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-60 1 ceramic vitrified white flatware n/a moulded - n/a n/a 1859- Wheat Pattern 61 1 ceramic vitrified white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-62 1 ceramic stoneware inkwell clear/bro n/a n/a n/a wnish 63 1 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a transfer blue n/a 1820-64 1 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a indeterminate blue n/a 65 1 Glass colourless flat n/a n/a n/a T:1.6 66 1 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a stamped (cut sponge) red & blue n/a 1845-1930 67 3 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-68 1 Metal indeterminate farm implement n/a n/a n/a n/a 69 1 Rock groundstone possible celt n/a n/a n/a n/a one ground end - broke 70 SCRAT CH 78? Dates Date Citations Jouppien 1980 Sussman 1985 Jouppien 1980 Jouppien 1980 Miller 1991 Jouppien 1980

77 Appendix B Site Catalogue BbGt-30 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. 1 1 glass aqua Container n/a n/a n/a indeterminate Descriptive Notes (mm) 2 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-3 1 glass colourless Flat n/a n/a n/a T:2.1 4 1 glass olive green Container n/a n/a n/a indeterminate heat altered 5 1 metal nail Structural n/a n/a n/a machine cut 1805-6 1 ceramic coarse red indeterminate unglazed n/a n/a n/a 1796-1920 7 2 ceramic yellowware indeterminate n/a n/a n/a n/a 1830-1920 8 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a sponge blue n/a 1840-1870 9 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a dipt - annular blue n/a 1820-20thC 10 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-11 1 organic bone miscellaneous n/a n/a n/a n/a unmodified 12 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-13 1 ceramic stoneware Crockery clear undecorated n/a n/a Dates Date Citations Nelson 1968 Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003 14 1 ceramic coarse red Crockery clear undecorated n/a n/a 1796-1920 15 1 ceramic coarse red indeterminate unglazed n/a n/a n/a 1796-1920 16 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-17 1 ceramic yellowware indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1830-1920 18 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a transfer blue n/a 1820-19 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-20 1 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-

78 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour 21 2 metal scrap miscellaneous n/a n/a n/a n/a 22 4 ceramic refined white 23 1 ceramic refined white 24 1 ceramic refined white 25 1 ceramic refined white Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) Dates Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- indeterminate n/a sponge blue n/a 1840-1870 indeterminate n/a dipt - annular blue & n/a 1820- brown 20thC Hollowware n/a edge - unscalloped impressed blue n/a heat altered 1841-1857 26 1 ceramic coarse red Crockery brown n/a n/a n/a rim sherd 1796-1920 27 1 ceramic vitrified white Flatware n/a moulded edge n/a n/a 28 1 ceramic stoneware Crockery clear n/a n/a n/a 29 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-30 1 glass black Container n/a n/a n/a indeterminate 31 1 ceramic refined white 32 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a transfer blue n/a 1820- Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a handle sherd 1870s- - cup 1880s 33 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-34 1 ceramic vitrified white Flatware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-35 1 ceramic stoneware - Crockery Albany undecorated n/a n/a 1805- buff 1920 36 1 composit plastic - blue indeterminate n/a n/a n/a e 37 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a moulded n/a n/a handle sherd - cup 38 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- Date Citations Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003 Miller 1987 Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003 Ramsey 1939

79 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) 39 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a hand painted green n/a 1820-1870 40 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a transfer blue n/a 1820-41 1 glass aqua indeterminate n/a n/a n/a indeterminate heat altered 42 3 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-43 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a sponge blue n/a 1840-1870 44 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-45 1 ceramic stoneware Crockery clear undecorated n/a n/a 46 3 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-47 1 ceramic refined white Flatware n/a moulded edge n/a n/a 48 1 glass colourless Flat n/a n/a n/a n/a T:1.6 49 1 ceramic refined white 50 1 ceramic refined white 51 2 ceramic vitrified white 52 2 ceramic refined white 53 1 ceramic refined white 54 1 ceramic refined white 55 1 ceramic refined white 56 1 ceramic refined white 57 1 ceramic coarse red 58 1 ceramic vitrified white 59 2 ceramic refined white Dates Flatware n/a flow blue n/a n/a 1844-1900 Flatware n/a transfer & green n/a floral 1828- moulded Hollowware n/a moulded edge n/a n/a indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- indeterminate n/a transfer blue n/a 1820- indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- indeterminate n/a edge - blue n/a 1841- unscalloped 1857 impressed Hollowware n/a transfer black n/a 1820- Crockery clear undecorated n/a n/a 1796-1920 Flatware n/a undecorated n/a n/a heat altered; 1840- rim sherd indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- Date Citations OMCR nd Miller 1987

80 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. 60 1 glass opaque white indeterminate n/a n/a n/a indeterminate Descriptive Notes (mm) Dates Date Citations 61 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-62 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a sponge blue n/a 1840-1870 63 1 glass aqua Container n/a n/a n/a 2+ part mould ca.1850- Jones & Sullivan 1985 64 2 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a base sherds 1840-65 1 ceramic vitrified white Flatware n/a undecorated n/a n/a rim sherd 1840-66 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-67 1 glass green club sauce type n/a n/a n/a stopper 68 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a flow blue n/a n/a 1844-1900 69 1 ceramic refined white Flatware n/a edge - blue n/a 1841- Miller 1987 unscalloped impressed 1857 70 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a rim sherd 1820-71 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-72 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-73 1 ceramic coarse red indeterminate unglazed undecorated n/a n/a 1796-1920 74 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a transfer - Willow blue n/a 1820- OMCR nd 75 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a dipt - annular brown n/a 1820-20thC Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003 76 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a moulded edge n/a n/a 77 1 glass light aqua safety glass n/a n/a n/a ca.1915 Panati 1987 78 1 glass black Container n/a n/a n/a indeterminate 79 1 glass opaque white indeterminate n/a n/a n/a indeterminate

81 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) 80 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-81 2 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a base sherds 1840-82 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-83 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-84 1 ceramic coarse red Crockery brown undecorated n/a n/a 1796-1920 85 1 Glass green, olive Container n/a n/a n/a indeterminate 86 3 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-87 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-88 1 glass aqua Flat n/a n/a n/a n/a T:1.9 89 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a heat altered 1840-90 1 ceramic porcelain Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a heat altered 91 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-92 1 ceramic semiporcelain indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a Maker's mark: {N} 93 1 glass aqua indeterminate n/a n/a n/a mould blown Dates Date Citations 94 1 ceramic buffware Crockery clear n/a n/a n/a Ca.19th OMCR nd C 95 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a base sherd 1840-96 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a ribbed n/a n/a 1840-97 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-98 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a moulded edge n/a n/a 99 1 ceramic yellowware Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1830-1920 100 1 ceramic coarse red Crockery brown undecorated n/a n/a 1796-1920 101 1 ceramic coarse red indeterminate unglazed n/a n/a n/a 1796-

82 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) 1920 102 1 ceramic white ball clay Pipe n/a undecorated n/a n/a bowl frag 103 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a edge - unscalloped blue n/a 1841-1884 104 3 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-105 1 ceramic coarse red indeterminate unglazed n/a n/a n/a 1796-1920 106 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a transfer blue n/a 1820-107 1 glass colourless Flat n/a n/a n/a T:2.9 108 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-109 1 glass colourless indeterminate n/a n/a n/a indeterminate 110 1 glass light aqua Flat n/a n/a n/a n/a T:2.2 111 1 ceramic coarse red Crockery clear n/a n/a n/a 1796-1920 112 1 ceramic buffware Crockery clear n/a n/a n/a Ca.19th C 113 1 ceramic coarse red indeterminate unglazed n/a n/a n/a 1796-1920 114 1 ceramic refined white Flatware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-115 1 glass light aqua Container n/a n/a n/a indeterminate 116 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a stamped (cut sponge) red n/a 1845-1930 117 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a transfer green n/a 1828-118 1 glass opaque white Hollowware n/a n/a n/a indeterminate 119 1 ceramic coarse red 120 3 ceramic refined white 121 1 ceramic coarse red 122 1 ceramic refined white Dates indeterminate unglazed n/a n/a n/a 1796-1920 indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- Crockery brown undecorated n/a n/a 1796-1920 Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a heat altered 1820- Date Citations Miller 1987 OMCR nd Miller 1991

83 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour 123 1 ceramic refined white 124 1 ceramic coarse red 125 1 ceramic refined white 126 1 ceramic refined white 127 2 ceramic refined white Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) Dates indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a heat altered 1820- Crockery clear undecorated n/a n/a 1796-1920 indeterminate n/a hand painted late palette n/a 1830-1870 Hollowware n/a stamped (cut red n/a 1845- sponge) 1930 indeterminate n/a edge - blue n/a 1841- unscalloped 1857 impressed Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-128 1 ceramic refined white 129 1 metal scrap miscellaneous n/a n/a n/a n/a 130 4 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-131 1 ceramic stoneware Crockery salt glaze undecorated n/a n/a 1796-1900 132 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a hand painted green n/a 1820-1870 133 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a hand painted late palette n/a 1830-1870 134 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a edge - blue n/a 1841- unscalloped 1884 135 1 ceramic coarse red indeterminate unglazed n/a n/a n/a 1796-1920 136 3 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-137 1 ceramic vitrified white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-138 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a dipt blue n/a 1820-20thC 139 1 ceramic refined white 140 1 ceramic refined white 141 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- Flatware n/a edge - blue n/a 1841- unscalloped 1857 impressed Hollowware n/a hand painted green n/a 1820-1870 Date Citations OMCR nd Miller 1991 Miller 1987 OMCR nd OMCR nd Miller 1987 Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003 Miller 1987 OMCR nd

84 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) 142 1 ceramic white ball clay Pipe n/a moulded n/a n/a bowl sherd; vertical lines &? 143 1 glass aqua indeterminate n/a n/a n/a indeterminate heat altered 144 1 glass colourless indeterminate n/a n/a n/a Indeterminate heat altered 145 1 ceramic refined white 146 1 ceramic refined white Dates Hollowware n/a sponge red, green, purple n/a 1850-1880 Hollowware n/a dipt - annular blue n/a 1820-20thC Date Citations Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003 147 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-148 2 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-149 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a sponge red, green n/a 1850-1880 150 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a transfer - Willow blue n/a 1820- OMCR nd 151 4 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-152 1 ceramic refined white Flatware n/a edge - blue n/a 1841- Miller 1987 unscalloped 1884 153 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-154 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-155 2 ceramic vitrified white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-156 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-157 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a transfer blue n/a 1820-158 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a moulded - n/a n/a stippling 159 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a transfer green n/a 1828-160 1 ceramic vitrified white Flatware n/a restaurant ware brown n/a 1896 - Conroy 1998 161 3 ceramic refined white flatware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-

85 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) 162 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a indeterminate red, green n/a 163 1 glass light aqua Container n/a n/a n/a machine made ghost seam 1881-164 3 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-165 1 ceramic refined white Flatware n/a transfer - Willow blue n/a 1820-166 1 glass green, olive Container n/a n/a n/a indeterminate 167 2 ceramic vitrified white Flatware n/a moulded - Wheat Pattern n/a n/a 1859-168 1 ceramic refined white Flatware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-169 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a panelled n/a n/a 1840-170 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-171 1 other rock - miscellaneous n/a n/a n/a n/a covered in sedimentary layer of melted green glass 172 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-173 1 ceramic vitrified white Flatware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-174 1 glass aqua Container n/a n/a n/a indeterminate 175 1 ceramic stoneware - buff 176 1 ceramic refined white 177 1 ceramic vitrified white 178 3 ceramic refined white 179 1 ceramic refined white 180 1 ceramic vitrified white Crockery clear n/a n/a n/a Hollowware n/a banded -rim brown n/a Hollowware n/a moulded edge n/a n/a Dates Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- Flatware n/a undecorated n/a n/a heat altered 1820- Flatware n/a decal - floral polychrom n/a 1890- e Date Citations Jones & Sullivan 1985 OMCR nd Sussman 1985 Stelle 2001

86 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) 181 1 organic bone miscellaneous n/a n/a n/a n/a unmodified 182 2 ceramic refined white Flatware n/a edge - unscalloped blue n/a 1841-1884 183 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a edge - not blue n/a 1874- impressed 1884 184 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-185 1 ceramic coarse red Crockery clear undecorated n/a n/a base sherd 1796-1920 186 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-187 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-188 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a ribbed n/a n/a 1840-189 1 glass black indeterminate n/a n/a n/a indeterminate Dates Date Citations Miller 1987 Miller 1987 190 1 ceramic refined white Flatware n/a transfer blue n/a 1820-191 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-192 1 glass aqua Container n/a n/a n/a 2+ part mould vertical seam ca.1850- Jones & Sullivan 1985 193 1 glass solarized indeterminate n/a n/a n/a indeterminate ca1880-1910 Jones & Sullivan 1985 194 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-195 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a moulded edge n/a n/a 196 1 glass colourless Flat n/a n/a n/a n/a T:0.8 197 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a dipt - annular blue n/a 1820-20thC 198 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-199 1 glass colourless Flat n/a n/a n/a n/a T:1.5 Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003 200 2 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-201 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a edge - blue n/a 1841- Miller 1987

87 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour 202 2 ceramic refined white 203 1 ceramic refined white 204 1 ceramic refined white 205 1 ceramic refined white 206 1 ceramic refined white 207 1 ceramic refined white Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) Dates unscalloped 1857 impressed Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- Hollowware n/a hand painted green n/a 1820-1870 indeterminate n/a moulded edge n/a n/a Hollowware n/a dipt - annular blue n/a 1820-20thC indeterminate n/a edge - unscalloped impressed blue n/a 1841-1884 208 1 ceramic coarse red Crockery brown n/a n/a n/a 1796-1920 209 1 ceramic coarse red indeterminate unglazed n/a n/a n/a 1796-1920 210 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a transfer blue n/a 1820-211 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a heat altered 1820-212 1 glass solarized Container n/a n/a n/a 2+ part mould ca1880-1910 213 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a indeterminate blue n/a heat altered 214 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a moulded -sprigs n/a n/a 1850s (Foliage) 1860s 215 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a edge - unscalloped, not impressed blue n/a 1874-1884 Date Citations OMCR nd Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003 Miller 1987 Jones & Sullivan 1985 Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003 Miller 1987 216 1 glass colourless, Container n/a fluted n/a n/a frosted 217 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a hand painted late palette n/a heat altered 1830- OMCR nd 1870 218 1 ceramic coarse red crockery clear n/a n/a n/a 1796-

88 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) 1920 224 1 glass solarized Container n/a embossed n/a mould blown embossed w. {HIA) 225 1 glass opaque white Tableware n/a n/a n/a base sherd - donut shaped 226 2 glass light aqua Flat n/a n/a n/a T:1.3;1.7 227 1 glass black Container n/a n/a n/a indeterminate Dates 219 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a moulded - Wheat Pattern n/a n/a 1859-220 1 ceramic coarse red Crockery grey undecorated n/a n/a 1796-1920 221 1 ceramic vitrified white Flatware n/a undecorated n/a n/a rim sherd 1840-222 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-223 1 glass light aqua Flat n/a n/a n/a T:2.4 ca1880-1910 228 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-229 1 glass opaque white indeterminate n/a n/a n/a 230 1 ceramic refined white 231 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a Flatware n/a edge - unscalloped, not impressed blue n/a 1874-1884 Date Citations Sussman 1985 Jones & Sullivan 1985 Miller 1987 232 1 ceramic white ball clay Pipe n/a undecorated n/a n/a stem sherd 233 2 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a hand painted green n/a 1820- OMCR nd 1870 234 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a sponge blue n/a 1840-1870 235 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-236 3 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-237 1 ceramic white ball clay Pipe n/a undecorated n/a n/a stem sherd 238 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a transfer - Willow blue n/a 1820- OMCR nd 239 1 ceramic refined white hollowware n/a edge - blue n/a 1841- Miller 1987

89 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) unscalloped 1884 240 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-241 1 ceramic coarse red indeterminate unglazed undecorated n/a n/a 1796-1920 242 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a transfer - Willow blue n/a 1820-243 2 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-244 1 glass light green Container n/a n/a n/a 245 1 ceramic refined white 246 1 ceramic vitrified white 247 1 ceramic refined white 248 2 ceramic refined white 249 1 ceramic refined white 250 2 ceramic vitrified white 251 1 ceramic vitrified white 252 1 ceramic refined white 253 1 ceramic refined white 254 1 ceramic refined white 255 1 ceramic vitrified white 256 3 ceramic refined white 257 1 ceramic refined white Dates Flatware n/a transfer green n/a 1828- Flatware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840- indeterminate n/a edge - blue n/a 1841- unscalloped 1884 indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- indeterminate n/a indeterminate blue n/a Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840- Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a heat altered 1840- Hollowware n/a hand painted green n/a 1820-1870 Hollowware n/a dipt - annular blue n/a 1820-20thC Hollowware n/a transfer blue n/a 1820- Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a handle sherd 1870s- - cup 1880s indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- Hollowware n/a flow blue n/a n/a 1844-1900 Date Citations OMCR nd Miller 1987 OMCR nd Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003 Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003

90 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. 258 1 glass light green Container n/a n/a n/a indeterminate Descriptive Notes (mm) 259 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a hand painted late palette n/a 1830-1870 260 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a edge - impressed blue n/a 1820-1857 261 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a transfer green n/a 1828-262 1 ceramic vitrified white Flatware n/a undecorated n/a n/a rim sherd 1840-263 1 ceramic coarse red Crockery clear undecorated n/a n/a 264 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-265 1 ceramic porcelain toy doll's leg n/a hand painted n/a n/a 266 1 ceramic vitrified white Flatware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-267 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a rim sherd 1840-268 1 glass light aqua Container n/a n/a n/a indeterminate 269 2 glass light aqua Flat n/a n/a n/a T:2.0;1.5 270 1 glass light aqua Vial n/a n/a n/a 2+ part mould w. hand finish ca.1850-271 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a transfer blue n/a 1820-272 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a edge - blue n/a 1841- unscalloped 1884 273 2 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-274 1 ceramic porcelain indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 275 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-276 1 ceramic porcelain Hollowware n/a decal - floral polychrom n/a 1890- e 277 1 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1840-278 1 ceramic vitrified white Flatware n/a moulded edge - n/a n/a indeterminate 279 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a transfer brown n/a 1828- Dates Date Citations OMCR nd Miller 1987 Jones & Sullivan 1985 Miller 1987 Stelle 2001

91 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour 280 1 ceramic refined white 281 1 ceramic refined white 282 1 ceramic vitrified white 283 1 ceramic refined white 284 1 ceramic refined white Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) Dates indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- indeterminate n/a edge - blue n/a 1841- unscalloped 1884 Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a handle sherd 1870s- - cup 1880s Hollowware n/a hand painted late palette n/a 1830-1870 Flatware n/a edge - blue n/a 1874- unscalloped, not 1884 impressed Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-285 3 ceramic refined white 286 1 glass colourless Container n/a n/a n/a indeterminate Date Citations Miller 1987 Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003 OMCR nd Miller 1987 287 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a indeterminate blue n/a 288 1 ceramic stoneware - Crockery Rockingha undecorated n/a n/a 1855- buff m 1890 289 2 ceramic vitrified white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a rim sherd 1840-290 1 glass solarized Bottle n/a n/a n/a 2+ part mould ca.1850- Jones & Sullivan 1985 291 1 ceramic stoneware - Crockery Albany n/a n/a n/a 1805- Ramsey 1939 buff 1920 292 1 ceramic vitrified white indeterminate n/a moulded - Wheat n/a n/a 1859- Sussman 1985 Pattern 293 1 ceramic stoneware Crockery clear undecorated n/a n/a 294 1 glass light aqua Flat n/a n/a n/a n/a T:2.0 295 1 ceramic refined white 296 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820- Flatware n/a edge - blue n/a 1874- unscalloped, not 1884 impressed Miller 1987 297 1 ceramic refined white Hollowware n/a dipt - annular brown, yellow n/a 1820-20thC Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003 298 1 ceramic refined white indeterminate n/a undecorated n/a n/a 1820-

92 Cat # Freq Material Type & Colour Function- Functional Category Glaze /Surface Finish Decorative Tech Decorative Colour Manufacture Tech. Descriptive Notes (mm) Dates Date Citations 365 Appendix C Isolated Findspot Locational Data Isolated Findspot, WayPoint #864, 243m asl, 17T 0635814, 4905412 Appendix D Locational Information for BbGt-29 Findspot # Cat. No. (s) Waypoint # UTM Coordinates 17T 1 8 830 0635827, 4905537 2 9 831 0635824, 4905528 3 57, 58 832 0635824, 4905527 4 59, 60, 61 833 0635824, 4905527 5 66, 67 834 0635823, 4905522 6 62, 68 835 0635820, 4905519 7 63, 64, 65 836 0635820, 4905519 8 69 837 0635820, 4905519 9 52 838 0635821, 4905518 10 41, 42 839 0635823, 4905520 11 43, 44 840 0635833, 4905520 12 38, 39, 40 841 0635847, 4905519 13 28, 29 842 0635837, 4905514 14 27 843 0635837, 4905511 15 26 844 0635838, 4905510

93 Findspot # Cat. No. (s) Waypoint # UTM Coordinates 17T 16 17, 18 845 0635840, 4905511 17 70 846 0635839, 4905512 18 10 847 0635838, 4905511 19 11 848 0635838, 4905510 20 12 849 0635837, 4905507 21 25 850 0635832, 4905505 22 45, 46 851 0635832, 4905505 23 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 852 0635834, 4905504 24 13 853 0635834, 4905508 25 14, 15, 16 854 0635833, 4905507 26 23, 24 855 0635832, 4905507 27 21, 22 856 0635831, 4905507 28 1, 2, 3 857 0635831, 4905509 29 53, 54, 55, 56 858 0635827, 4905508 30 19, 20 859 0635828, 4905509 31 4, 5, 6, 7 860 0635830, 4905508 32 30, 31, 32 861 0635831, 4905510 33 34, 35 862 0635831, 4905509 34 33 863 0635831, 4905509 35 36, 37 864 0635836, 4905497

94 Appendix E Locational Data for BbGt-30 Findspot # Cat. No. (s) WayPoint # UTM Coordinates 17T 1 70 267 0636137, 4905106 2 SCRATCH 3 143 269 0636149, 4905098 4 18 270 0636156, 4905098 5 282 271 0636165, 4905102 6 192 272 0636158, 4905113 7 62 273 0636171, 4905117 8 247 274 0636175, 4905114 9 203 275 0636174, 4905107 10 60 276 0636174, 4905106 11 71 277 0636181, 4905108 12 118 278 0636180, 4905109 13 296, 297 279 0636183, 4905113 14 208, 209 280 0636183, 4905118 15 213 281 0636182, 4905120 16 117 282 0636176, 4905120 17 186 283 0636173, 4905117 18 240, 241 284 0636186, 4905114 19 298 285 0636189, 4905110 20 66 286 0636194, 4905108 21 69 287 0636193, 4905108 22 78, 79, 80 288 0636189, 4905111 23 172, 173 289 0636188, 4905119 24 20, 21 290 0636194, 4905118 25 128, 129 291 0636194, 4905117 26 105 292 0636196, 4905115

95 Findspot # Cat. No. (s) WayPoint # UTM Coordinates 17T 27 163, 164 293 0636196, 4905113 28 84 294 0636196, 4905112 29 14,15 295 0636195, 4905111 30 85 296 0636194, 4905111 31 86 297 0636198, 4905109 32 260, 261 298 0636201, 4905114 33 230, 231 299 0636202, 4905114 34 237, 239, 239 300 0636201, 4905116 35 87 301 0636200, 4905116 36 210, 211, 212 302 0636203, 4905121 37 41, 42, 43 303 0636207, 4905124 38 53, 54 304 0636200, 4905123 39 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127 305 0636207, 4905119 40 152, 153, 154 306 0636207, 4905118 41 11, 12, 13 307 0636205, 4905116 42 242, 243 308 0636205, 4905115 43 151 309 0636208, 4905113 44 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 310 0636208, 4905114 45 141, 142 311 0636208, 4905119 46 72, 73, 74, 75 312 0636209, 4905120 47 161, 162 313 0636211, 4905121 48 182, 183, 184, 185 314 0636211, 4905122 49 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 315 0636210, 4905125 50 55, 56 316 0636211, 4905127 51 232, 233, 234, 235 317 0636212, 4905122 52 253, 254, 255, 256 318 0636211, 4905122 53 26, 271, 272, 273 319 0636212, 4905119 54 46 320 0636214, 4905122

96 Findspot # Cat. No. (s) WayPoint # UTM Coordinates 17T 55 22, 23, 24, 25 321 0636216, 4905118 56 37, 38, 39, 40 322 0636215, 4905119 57 227, 228 323 0636215, 4905120 58 200, 201 324 0636217, 4905120 59 119, 120, 121 325 0636214, 4905123 60 189, 190, 191 326 0636216, 4905126 61 30 327 0636217, 4905130 62 197, 198, 199 328 0636219, 4905127 63 215, 216 329 0636220, 4905127 64 148, 149 330 0636218, 4905124 65 165 331 0636218, 4905125 66 8, 9, 10 332 0636218, 4905124 67 248, 249, 250, 251, 252 333 0636218, 4905120 68 283, 284, 285, 286 334 0636216, 4905117 69 144, 145, 146, 147 335 0636217, 4905117 70 178, 179, 180, 181 336 0636221, 4905117 71 44, 45 337 0636222, 4905119 72 204 338 0636223, 4905119 73 57, 58, 59 339 0636221, 4905119 74 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 340 0636224, 4905127 75 295 341 0636222, 4905125 76 205, 206 342 0636222, 4905124 77 SCRATCH 343 78 138 344 0636227, 4905122 79 106, 107 345 0636227, 4905123 80 135, 136, 137 346 0636226, 4905124 81 188 347 0636223, 4905131 82 36 348 0636222, 4905132

97 Findspot # Cat. No. (s) WayPoint # UTM Coordinates 17T 83 217 349 0636222, 4905132 84 280, 281 350 0636226, 4905132 85 113, 114 351 0636231, 4905127 86 139, 140 352 0636233, 4905121 87 111, 112 353 0636232, 4905126 88 218, 219 354 0636235, 4905128 89 229 355 0636234, 4905129 90 19 356 0636235, 4905130 91 94 357 0636236, 4905129 92 202 358 0636235, 4905129 93 16, 17 359 0636239, 4905135 94 SCRATCH 360 95 1 361 0636239, 4905144 96 207 362 0636233, 4905147 97 35 363 0636232, 4905155 98 76, 77 364 0636231, 4905157 99 95 365 0636229, 4905156 100 67, 68 366 0636232, 4905159 101 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 367 0636230, 4905160 102 98 368 0636231, 4905162 103 47, 48 369 0636234, 4905161 104 274, 275 370 0636233, 4905164 105 220, 221, 222, 223, 224 371 0636234, 4905166 106 169, 170, 171 372 0636233, 4905169 107 108, 109, 110 373 0636232, 4905171 108 291, 292, 293, 294 374 0636232, 4905169 109 214 375 0636230, 4905169 110 115, 116 376 0636231, 4905167

98 Findspot # Cat. No. (s) WayPoint # UTM Coordinates 17T 111 49, 50, 51, 52 377 0636231, 4905175 112 174, 175, 176, 177 378 0636230, 4905176 113 166, 167, 168 379 0636227, 4905171 114 287, 288, 289, 290 380 0636225, 4905179 115 257, 258 381 0636224, 4905181 116 31, 32, 33, 34 382 0636223, 4905183 117 155, 156, 157 383 0636228, 4905189 118 81, 82 384 0636223, 4905192 119 27, 28 385 0636225, 4905193 120 63, 64, 65 386 0636223, 4905198 121 277, 278, 279 387 0636224, 4905206 122 262 388 0636223, 4905200 123 193, 194, 195 389 0636217, 4905197 124 244, 245, 146 390 0636215, 4905196 125 158, 159, 160 391 0636217, 4905188 126 263, 264, 265 392 0636208, 4905177 127 225 393 0636212, 4905175 128 226 394 0636222, 4905166 129 83 395 0636219, 4905162 130 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 396 0636219, 4905161 131 29 397 0636218, 4905159 132 96, 97 398 0636224, 4905151 133 276 399 0636220, 4905141 134 187 400 0636224, 4905145 135 196 401 0636202, 4905140

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lot 8 and 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario FIT Reference # - F-01558-SPV-130-505 Prepared by Licensee: George Clark Archaeological Consulting Licence P120 Project Information Number P120-131-2012 THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS INC. Original Report May 8, 2012

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Archaeologists Inc. was contracted by SkyPower to conduct a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment for the Goldlight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 and 9, Concessions 5, in the Town of Georgina, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario. The proponent is seeking a Renewable energy Approval according to Ontario Regulation 359/09 issued under the Environmental Protection act, Sections 20, 21 and 22. The assessment was done in advance of a solar farm project. A Stage 1 background study of the subject property was conducted to provide information about the property s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land condition in order to evaluate and document in detail the property s archaeological potential and to recommend appropriate strategies for Stage 2 survey. A Stage 2 property assessment was conducted to document all archaeological resources on the property, to determine whether the property contains archaeological resources requiring further assessment, and to recommend next steps. The characteristics of the property dictated that the Stage 2 survey be conducted by a pedestrian and test pit survey. The Stage 1 background study found that the subject property exhibits potential for the recovery of archaeological resources of cultural heritage value and concluded that the property requires a Stage 2 assessment. The Stage 2 property assessment, which consisted of a systematic pedestrian and test pit survey, did not result in the identification of archaeological resources. The Stage 1 background study concluded that the property exhibits archaeological potential. The Stage 2 property assessment did not identify any archaeological resources within the subject property. The report recommends that no further archaeological assessment of the subject property is required. i

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary i Table of Contents ii Project Personnel iii 1.0 Project Context 1 1.1 Development Context 1.2 Historical Context 1.3 Archaeological Context 1 2 4 2.0 Field Methods 7 3.0 Record of Finds 9 4.0 Analysis and Conclusions 10 5.0 Recommendations 10 6.0 Advice on Compliance with Legislation 11 7.0 Bibliography and Sources 12 8.0 Images 13 9.0 Maps 17 ii

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario PROJECT PERSONNEL Project Director: Field Director: Field Archaeologists Report Preparation: Graphics Mr. T. Keith Powers (P052) Mr. Norbert Stanchly (R149) Mr. George Clark (P120) Mr. Misha Stecyk Mr. T. Keith Powers Mrs. Karen Powers Mr. Norbert Stanchly (R149) Mrs. Karen Powers Mr. T. Keith Powers iii

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario INTRODUCTION The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. O.18, requires anyone wishing to carry out archaeological fieldwork in Ontario to have a license from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC). All licensees are to file a report with the MTC containing details of the fieldwork that has been done for each project. Following standards and guidelines set out by the MTC is a condition of a licence to conduct archaeological fieldwork in Ontario. The Archaeologists Inc. confirms that this report meets ministry report requirements as set out in the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, and is filed in fulfillment of the terms and conditions an archaeological license. 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT (Section 7.5.5) This section of the report will provide the context for the archaeological fieldwork, including the development, historical and archaeological context. 1.1 Development Context (Section 7.5.6, Standards 1-3) Section 7.5.6, Standard 1 The Archaeologists Inc. was contracted to complete a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment for the GoldLight LP Solar Project, located within Part of Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5, in the Town of Georgina, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario. The subject property consists of two separate parcels of land that comprise part of a larger subject area that had undergone a partial assessment in 2011 by Scarlett Janusas Archaeological Heritage Consulting and Education (SJAHCE) under PIF P027-147-2011. Both parcels are located north of Old Homestead Road. The two parcels comprise an area of approximately 16.5 hectares in size. GoldLight LP proposes to develop a solar facility with a maximum name plate capacity of approximately 10 MW, located near Pefferlaw, in the Town of Georgina, Ontario. The renewable energy facility will be known as GoldLight LP and will be rated as a Class 3 solar facility. The characteristics of a Class 3 Solar Facility, as described in the regulation, are as follows: The location of solar photovoltaic collector panels and devices are at any location other than mounted on the roof or wall of a building. The name plate capacity of the solar facility is greater than 12 kilowatts. GoldLight LP has received a contract from the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) for the sale of electricity generated by this renewable facility through the Province s Feed-in- Tariff (FIT) program (enabled by the Green Energy and Green Economy Act). Approximately 30,000 to 100,000 PV panels of between 60-300 watts each will be installed for GoldLight LP. The panels will be aligned in rows approximately 4-10 metres apart and will be mounted on racking systems will be attached to a support structure. 1

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario The project is seeking a Renewable Energy Approval according to Ontario Regulation 359/09 issued under the Environmental Protection Act, Sections 20, 21 and 22. The project has been awarded Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) contract number F-01558-SPV-130-505. The portion of the project area subject to archaeological assessment by The Archaeologists Inc. is approximately 16.5 ha in size. The archaeological assessment was conducted in advance of the development as a condition of the above O. Reg. Section 7.5.6, Standard 2 There is no additional development-related information relevant to understanding the choice of fieldwork strategy or recommendations made in the report. Section 7.5.6, Standard 3 Permission to access the study area to conduct all required archaeological fieldwork activities, including the recovery of artifacts was given by the landowner and their reative. 1.2 Historical Context (Section 7.5.7, Standards 1-2) Section 7.5.7, Standard 1 In advance of the Stage 2 assessment, a Stage 1 background study of the subject property was conducted in order to document the property archaeological and land use history and condition. Several sources were referenced to determine if features or characteristics indicating archaeological potential for pre-contact and post-contact resources exist. Characteristics indicating archaeological potential include the near-by presence of previously identified archaeological sites, primary and secondary water sources, features indicating past water sources, accessible or inaccessible shoreline, pockets of welldrained sandy soil, distinctive land formations that might have been special or spiritual places, such as waterfalls, rock outcrops, caverns, mounds, and promontories and their bases, resource areas, (including food or medicinal plants, scarce raw materials, early Euro-Canadian industry), areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement, early historical transportation routes, property listed on a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or that is a federal, provincial or municipal historic landmark or site, and property that local histories or informants have identified with possible archaeological sites, historical events, activities, or occupations. Archaeological potential can be determined not to be for either the entire property or a part of it when the area under consideration has been subject to extensive and deep land alterations that have severely damaged the integrity of any archaeological resources. This is commonly referred to as disturbed or disturbance, and may include: quarrying, major landscaping involving grading below topsoil, building footprints, and sewage and infrastructure development. Archaeological potential is not removed where there is documented potential for deeply buried intact archaeological resources beneath land alterations, or where it cannot be clearly demonstrated through background research and property inspection that there has been complete and intensive disturbance of an area. 2

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario Where complete disturbance cannot be demonstrated in Stage 1, it will be necessary to undertake Stage 2 assessment. The background study determined that the following features or characteristics indicate archaeological potential for the subject property. The subject property is within 300 metres of a primary and secondary body of water. The subject property is within the Black River watershed. There is an unnamed tributary located approximately 125 metres southeast of the subject property. The presence of these would have been attractive areas for hunting or settlement for both precontact populations and European settlers. There are two known archaeological sites, BbGt-29 and BbGt-30, within 300 metres of the subject property. The subject property contains a past water source, i.e. an ancient shoreline associated with Lake Algonquian lies within the northern portion of the subject property. The subject property lies within the Lake Simcoe Basin in the Simcoe Lowlands physiographic region and is characterized as an area of low wet sand plains. The subject property has topographic features (e.g. knolls, drumlins) exhibiting potential. Soils consist of Otonabee loam, Emily loam, Granby loam, and Sargent sandy loam which exhibit variable drainage. The presence of sandy soils within the subject property adjacent to wet lowland areas would have attracted both precontact and historic settlement. The 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York depicts a structure within the subject property. The subject property is within 100 metres of an historic transportation routes, i.e. Old Homestead Road. Archaeological sites BbGt-29 and BbGt-30 were discovered in 2011 by Scarlett Janusas (SJAHCE 2012) during a Stage 2 pedestrian survey of lands immediately adjacent to the current subject property. Site BbGt-29 is a Euro-Canadian historic farmstead, and consists of a scatter of approximately 78 early to late 19 th century artifacts. It was interpreted to likely re the original farmstead in the area (SJAHCE 2012). Site BbGt-30 is a Euro-Canadian historic farmstead, and consists of a wide scatter of 365 early to late 19 th century artifacts. The nature of the site is unknown and may re the original historic farm/homestead depicted on the 1878 Atlas (SJAHCE 2012:19). The study area is located within part of Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5, in the former historical Township of Georgina, County of York. According to the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York, Lot 9 was owned by a Jas. Leith and the portions of Lot 8 within the subject property were owned by a Joseph Cockburn and Jonathan Yates. The Atlas depicts a single structure within the subject property. It should be noted, however, that not all features of interest were mapped systematically in the Ontario series of historical atlases, given that they were financed by subscription, and subscribers were given preference with regard to the level of detail provided on the maps. Moreover, not every feature of interest would have been within the scope of the atlases. 3

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario A detailed land use history of the Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, is provided in the archaeological assessment report entitled Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment, GoldLight Solar Farm, prepared by Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education (SJAHCE 2012). Her report (SJAHCE 2012:6) states the following: Tremaine s map of the County of York, shows that both lots were occupied by 1860. Lot 8 was divided between three men, and, the study property lies on the properties occupied by J. Yates on the south and Thomas A. Odlam to the north. The west half of Lot 9 was occupied by John Cockburn and James Cockburn. In 1878 John Yates still occupies the south half of Lot 8, and there is a structure located towards the south side. In the 1871 census he is listed as Irish, born in Ontario and is 35 years of age. He belongs to the Church of England, and is a blacksmith. There is no one listed as occupying the south half of lot 8 in 1878. The west half of lot 9 is occupied by James Leith, a 50 year old Scottish farmer belonging to the Canadian Presbyterian Church. On his property are 2 structures. The first is located on the east half towards the south side of the property and the other on the west, towards the centre of the property. In summary, the Stage 1 background study indicated the potential for the recovery of precontact Indigenous and post-contact Euro-Canadian archaeological resources within the subject property. As it cannot be clearly demonstrated through the background study that there has been complete and intensive disturbance of the area, archaeological potential is not removed. There are areas within the subject property that have the potential for the recovery of archaeological resources. Section 7.5.7, Standard 2 The lands are agricultural and the Stage 2 property assessment of the subject property will employ the strategy of pedestrian and test pit survey, following the standards listed in Section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. To our knowledge there is a single report, prepared by Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education (PIF P027-147-2011) in 2012, containing relevant background information and recommendations related to this development project. The report indicates that the lands subject to archaeological assessment immediately adjacent to those completed and reported on in this report, were ploughable lands and recommends that: Stage 2 archaeological assessment is recommended for those areas not assessed by SJAHCE. 1.3 Archaeological Context (Section 7.5.8, Standards 1-7) Section 7.5.8, Standard 1 In order that an inventory of archaeological resources could be compiled for the study area, three sources of information were consulted: the site forms for registered sites 4

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario housed at the Ministry of Tourism and Culture; published and unpublished documentary sources; and the files of The Archaeologists Inc. In Ontario, information concerning archaeological sites is stored in the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (O.A.S.D.), an inventory of the documented archaeological record in Ontario. Information on the known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the study area was obtained form the Ministry of Tourism and Culture site database. There are no known archaeological sites located within the study area limits and no sites were registered within a one kilometre radius of the subject property. Section 7.5.8, Standard 2 The study land is currently being used as agricultural land, pasture, and has existing scrub and woodlot areas. The subject property assessed by The Archaeologists Inc. consists of ploughed agricultural lands, hedgerows, a channelized ditch and a laneway or agricultural roadway (SJAHCE 2012). The property consists of undulating terrain. The northern portion of the property was formerly glacial strandline and consists of a very rocky-tilled substrate. The study area lies within the Lake Simcoe Basin of the Simcoe Lowlands physiographic region (Chapman and Putnam 1984:177-182). The lowlands bordering Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe may be termed the Simcoe lowlands. Together they cover an area of about 1,100 square miles. They fall naturally into two major divisions separated by the uplands of Simcoe County. To the west are the plains draining into Nottawasaga Bay mostly by way of the Nottawasaga River. This area is called the Nottawasaga basin. To the east is the lowland surrounding Lake Simcoe, referred to as the Lake Simcoe basin. These two basins are connected at Barrie by a flat-floored valley and by similar valleys among the upland plateaux farther north. Both the lowlands and transverse valleys were flooded by Lake Algonquin and are bordered by shorecliffs, beaches, and bouldery terraces. Thus they are floored by sand, silt, and clay. The study area is on Trenton-Black River bedrock which is a limestone and dolostone formation. There is an unnamed creek to the southeast of the subject property. A glacial Lake Algonquian shoreline bisects the northern portion of the property. The soils are characterized by mainly well drained Otonabee loam. Also within the property are Emily, Sargent and Granby loams. The latter two are sandy soils with good drainage (Hoffman and Richards 1955). Section 7.5.8, Standard 3 The Stage 2 archaeological fieldwork of the subject property was undertaken April 24 and 25, 2012. 5

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario Section 7.5.8, Standard 4 Previous archaeological fieldwork was conducted adjacent to the current subject property. A Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment was conducted in 2011 immediately southeast of the current subject property by Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education (SJAHCE 2012). The fieldwork was conducted in 2011 on a portion of the subject property measuring approximately 23.8 ha. Fieldwork involved a pedestrian survey of the lands. The fieldwork resulted in the identification of two historic archaeological sites, BbGt-29 and BbGt-30. An isolated flake was also identified. Site BbGt-29 is a Euro-Canadian historic farmstead, and consists of a scatter of approximately 78 early to late 19 th century artifacts. It was interpreted to likely re the original farmstead in the area (SJAHCE 2012). Site BbGt-30 is a Euro-Canadian historic farmstead, and consists of a wide scatter of 365 early to late 19 th century artifacts. The nature of the site is unknown and may re the original historic farm/homestead depicted on the 1878 Atlas (SJAHCE 2012:19). The report recommends that Sites BbGt-20 and BbGt-30 be subject to a Stage 3 site-specific assessment and that the isolated findspot is of no further archaeological concern. With the exception of this work, The Archaeologists Inc. is unaware of any previous archaeological fieldwork carried out immediately adjacent to the project area. Section 7.5.8, Standard 5 We are unaware of previous findings and recommendations relevant to the current stage of work, with the exception of the recommendations made by Scarlett Janusas in her Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment report which are discussed above. Section 7.5.8, Standard 6 There are no unusual physical features that may have affected fieldwork strategy decisions or the identification of artifacts or cultural features. Section 7.5.8, Standard 7 There is no additional archaeological information that may be relevant to understanding the choice of fieldwork techniques or the recommendations of this report. 6

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario 2.0 FIELD METHODS (Section 7.8.1, Standards 1-3) This section of the report addresses Section 7.8.1 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. It does not address Section 7.7.2 because no property inspection was done as a separate Stage 1. Section 7.8.1, Standard 1 All of the subject property was assessed and surveyed. Section 7.8.1, Standard 2 As relevant, we provide detailed and explicit descriptions addressing Standards 2a and 2b. Section 7.8.1, Standard 2a - The general standards for property survey under Section 2.1 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists were addressed as follows: Section 2.1, S1 All of those portions of the property exhibiting archaeological potential were surveyed including lands immediately adjacent to built structures, when. Section 2.1, S2a There are no lands identified as no or low potential due to physical features such as permanently wet areas, within our subject property, with the exception of a channelized ditch and its associated low and wet area. Section 2.1, S2b There are no areas of no or low potential due to extensive and deep land alterations within our subject property, with the exception of the channelized ditch. Section 2.1, S2c (lands recommended not to require Stage 2 assessment by a previous Stage 1 report where the ministry has accepted that Stage 1 into the register) - n/a Section 2.1, S2d (lands designated for forest management activity w/o potential for impacts to archaeological sites, as determined through Stage 1 forest management plans process) - n/a Section 2.1, S2e (lands formally prohibited from alterations) - n/a Section 2.1, S2f ( lands confirmed to be transferred to a public land holding body, etc) - n/a Section 2.1, S3 - The Stage 2 survey was conducted when weather and lighting conditions permitted excellent visibility of features. Section 2.1, S4 - No GPS recordings were taken as no artifacts were found during the Stage 2 assessment. There were also no fixed landmarks. Section 2.1, S5 - All field activities were mapped in reference to survey stakes and development markers as appropriate. See report section 9.0 Maps. Section 2.1, S6 - See report section 8.0 Images for photo documentation of examples of field conditions encountered. 7

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario Section 2.1, S7 No heavy machinery was used. Section 7.8.1, Standard 2b -The subject property was subject to a systematic pedestrian survey appropriate to the characteristics of the property. Section 2.1.1, S1 Actively or recently cultivated agricultural land was subject to pedestrian survey. Section 2.1.1, S2 Lands were recently ploughed. Section 2.1.1, S3 Ploughed lands were weathered by at least one heavy rainfall or several light rains to improve the visibility of archaeological resources. Section 2.1.1, S4 No direction was provided to the contractor undertaking the ploughing by The Archaeologists Inc., as we were contracted to complete the project after ploughing had been completed. Section 2.1.1, S5 At least 80% of the ploughed ground surface was visible. Section 2.1.1, S6 Survey transects were spaced at maximum intervals of 5 metres. Section 2.1.1, S7 - n/a Section 2.1, S8 n/a Section 2.1, S9 n/a Section 7.8.1, Standard 2b -The subject property was subject to a systematic test pit survey appropriate to the characteristics of the property. Section 2.1.2, S1 Test pit survey was only conducted on terrain where ploughing was not possible or viable. This included a narrow farm laneway measuring between 4-7 metres in width. Section 2.1.2, S2 A single north-south row of test pits were spaced at maximum 5 metre intervals in the laneway as it was within 300 metres of features of archaeological potential. Section 2.1.2, S3 n/a Section 2.1.2, S4 n/a Section 2.1.2, S5 All test pits were at least 30 cm in diameter. Section 2.1.2, S6 All test pits were excavated by hand into the first 5 cm of subsoil and examined for stratigraphy, cultural features or evidence of fill. Section 2.1.2, S7 Test pit soils were screened through 6mm mesh. Section 2.1.2, S8 n/a Section 2.1.2, S9 All test pits were backfilled. Section 7.8.1, Standard 3 Approximately 85% percent of property was pedestrian surveyed at five metre intervals. Standard survey intervals were maintained throughout the property. Approximate 10% was subject to test pit survey. This was the farm laneway area that varied in width between approximately 4 to 7 metres. We excavated a single north south row of test pits 8

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario within the laneway. The remaining 5% consisted of a channelized ditch that is considered both low and wet, and an area of deep disturbance. 3.0 RECORD OF FINDS (Section 7.8.2, Standards 1-3) This section documents all finds discovered as a result of the Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment of the subject property. Section 7.8.2, Standard 1 No archaeological resources or sites were identified in the Stage 2. Section 7.8.2, Standard 2 An inventory of the documentary record generated in the field is provided in Table 1. Document Type Field Notes Photographs Maps Table 1: Inventory of Documentary Record Description This report constitutes the field notes for this project 22 digital photographs Mapping within this report constitutes all of the maps generated in the field. Section 7.8.2, Standard 3 Information detailing exact site locations on the property is not submitted because no sites or archaeological resources were identified in the Stage 2 assessment. 9

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario 4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS (Section 7.8.3, Standards 1-2) Section 7.8.3, Standard 1 No archaeological sites were identified. Standard 2 is not addressed because no sites were identified. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS (Section 7.8.4, Standards 1-3) Section 7.8.4, Standard 1 This standard is not applicable as no sites were identified. Section 7.8.4, Standard 2 The report makes recommendations only regarding archaeological matters. Section 7.8.4, Standard 3 The Stage 2 survey did not identify any archaeological sites requiring further assessment or mitigation of impacts and it is recommended that no further archaeological assessment of the subject property assessed by The Archaeologists Inc. be required. 10

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario 6.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION (Section 7.5.9, Standards 1-2) Section 7.5.9, Standard 1a This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism and Culture 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 and Culture, 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. Section 7.5.9, Standard 1b 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 Archaeological Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Section 7.5.9, Standard 1c 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. Section 7.5.9, Standard 1d The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O, 1990 c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services. Section 7.5.9, Standard 2 Not applicable 11

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES (Section 7.5.10, Standards 1) Chapman, L.J. and F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Toronto: Government of Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources. Hoffman, D.W & N.R Richards 1955 Ontario Soil Survey Report No. 19: Soils of York County. Ontario Agricultural College & Experimental Farms Service, Guelph Miles & Co. 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York. Toronto Ministry of Tourism and Culture 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Scarlett Janusas Archaeological Heritage Consulting & Education 2012 Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment, Gold Light Solar Farm, Part of Lot 8 and 9, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Georgina, Town of Georgina, Regional Municipality of York. (PIF# P027-147-2011) 12

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario 8.0 IMAGES (Sections 7.5.11, 7.7.5, 7.8.6) Image 1: Field conditions for pedestrian survey. Image 2: Field conditions for pedestrian survey. 13

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario Image 3: Field conditions for pedestrian survey. Image 4: Shows channelized ditch. 14

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario Image 5: Shows agricultural laneway test pit surveyed. 15

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario 9.0 MAPS (Section 7.5.12, 7.7.6, 7.8.7) Map 1: General location of the subject property. 16

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario Map 2: The limits of the southern parcel of subject property as outlined in red. 17

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario Map 3: The limits of the northern parcel of subject property as outlined in red. 18

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario Map 4: The subject property overlaid on the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of County of York. 19

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario Map 5: The Stage 2 assessment of the southern parcel of the subject property. 20

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment for SkyPower GoldLight LP Solar Project, Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Town of Georgina, RM of York, Ontario Map 6: The Stage 2 assessment of the northern parcel of the subject property. 21