City of Kingston - Projects - Kingston Airport Expansion - Stage 2 ...

Page 1 of 2

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport

Archaeology Programs Unit Programs and Services Branch Culture Division 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Tel.: (416) 212-5107 Email: [email protected]

Unité des programmes d'archéologie Direction des programmes et des services Division de culture 401, rue Bay, bureau 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Tél. : (416) 212-5107 Email: [email protected]

Oct 7, 2016 Aaron Mior (P1077) Golder Associates Ltd. 1931 Robertson Ottawa ON K2H 5B7 RE:

Review and Entry into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports: Archaeological Assessment Report Entitled, "Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, Kingston Airport Expansion, Lots 2-3, Concession 1, Kingston Township, Frontenac County, Ontario", Dated Sep 29, 2016, Filed with MTCS Toronto Office on Sep 30, 2016, MTCS Project Information Form Number P1077-0019-2016, MTCS File Number 0004376

Dear Mr. Mior:

This office has reviewed the above-mentioned report, which has been submitted to this ministry as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18.1 This review has been carried out in order to determine whether the licensed professional consultant archaeologist has met the terms and conditions of their licence, that the licensee assessed the property and documented archaeological resources using a process that accords with the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists set by the ministry, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations are consistent with the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario.

The report documents the assessment/mitigation of the study area as depicted in Map 1 and Map 11 of the above titled report and recommends the following:

This Stage 2 investigation has provided the basis for the following recommendations (see Map 11, p.38): 1) As detailed in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report (Golder, 2016), due to the significant amount of fill documented in Operations 1 and 2, and the indication that construction/grading activities will not impact any former historical horizons pre-dating the original airport landscape, no additional archaeological investigations are required if construction/grading activities do not extend below 2 meters from the existing landscape. Archaeological monitoring during any soil disturbance activities should occur if mechanical excavation exceeds 2 meters depth in these areas; 2) As detailed in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report (Golder, 2016), since the property located immediately north of the existing runway in the "North Runway Extension" portion of Operation 3 is documented to have been previously landscaped with a significant amount of fill deposited, and that construction/grading activities in this area are not expected to impact any former historical horizons predating the original airport landscape, no additional archaeological investigations are required if

Page 2 of 2

construction/grading activities do not extend below 2 meters from the existing landscape. Archaeological monitoring during any soil disturbance activities should occur if mechanical excavation exceeds 2 meters depth; and, 3) Where test pits were hand excavated in Operation 3A to a depth of at least 0.5 meters and did not encounter natural in situ soils, no additional archaeological investigations are required in this area of Operation 3A if construction/grading activities do not extend beyond 0.5 meters below the existing landscape. Archaeological monitoring during any soil disturbance activities should occur if mechanical excavation exceeds 0.5 meters depth in this area to visually inspect the present/absence of natural in situ soils which may contain archaeological resources (see Map 11, p.38); 4) As the Stage 2 assessment determined there were no archaeologically significant resources within the portion of Operations 3A, 3B and 4, where natural in situ subsoil was observed, that the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport issue a letter concurring that no additional archaeological investigations are required for these areas as shown in Map 11 (p.38 ); and, 5) Should future construction and/or development activities which will impact any soils beyond the boundary of the study area identified in this report, further archaeological investigations may be required based on the archaeological potential of the general vicinity detailed in the Stage 1 report (Golder, 2016).

Based on the information contained in the report, the ministry is satisfied that the fieldwork and reporting for the archaeological assessment are consistent with the ministry's 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists and the terms and conditions for archaeological licences. This report has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. Please note that the ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of reports in the register.

Should you require any further information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely, Jenna Down Archaeology Review Officer

cc. Archaeology Licensing Officer David Snow,City of Kingston John Bolognone,City of Kingston

1

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.

September 29, 2016

REVISED REPORT

Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, Kingston Airport Expansion, Lots 2-3, Concession 1, Kingston Township, Frontenac County, Ontario PIF Number: P1077-0019-2016 Licensee: Aaron Mior (P1077)

REPORT

Submitted to: Mr. David Snow, Kingston Airport Manager 1114 Len Birchall Way Kingston, Ontario K7M 9A1

Report Number: 1649817 Distribution: 1 e-copy - City of Kingston 1 e-copy - Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport 1 copy - Golder Associates Ltd.

STAGE 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT KINGSTON AIRPORT EXPANSION

Executive Summary The Executive Summary highlights key points from the report only; for complete information and findings, as well as the limitations, the reader should examine the complete report. The City of Kingston retained Golder Associates Limited (Golder) to complete a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for the Kingston (Norman Rogers) Airport extension project. The subject property is located at 1114 Len Birchall Way, Kingston, Ontario, with the study area situated in part of Lots 2 and 3, Concession 1, Kingston Township, Frontenac County, Ontario. This airport expansion initiative includes lengthening of the main runway (# 01/19) to the north and south, in addition to infrastructure expansion of the passenger terminal building. For convenience, these areas were divided into four separate Operations in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report (Golder, 2016) and these divisions have been retained for the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment. Only the properties within Operations 3 and 4 were recommended for a Stage 2 archaeological test pit investigation in the Stage 1 report (Golder, 2016) and are reflected in this report as the Stage 2 Study Area (Map 1, Map 2 and Map 3, p.28-30 This Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was initiated by the City of Kingston as part of a Screening Level Environmental Review as a due diligence exercise. Permission to access the subject property was provided by David Snow, Kingston Airport Manager, with no limitations or restrictions. Post European contact settlement and occupation within the study area property is known to have occurred by at least the mid-nineteenth century and continued until the development of the original airport facility in 1929. During World War 2, a flying school was opened under the British Empire Training Plan at the Kingston airport (Mika, 1987) and on August 25, 1944, it was announced that the Royal Canadian Air Force (R.C.A.F.) would have control of the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm training station at Collins Bay. This initiative was devoted almost exclusively to the training of flying personnel for the Royal Navy, with the majority of trainees arriving from the United Kingdom (Anon, 1944). Following World War 2, the Kingston airport transitioned to a public facility and was renamed the Norman Rogers Airport, in honour of the former Kingston Member of Parliament who was killed in a plane crash in June 1940. A search for registered archaeological sites was completed using the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sports’ Past Portal database which identified two registered archaeological sites within the immediate vicinity of the Stage 2 study area perimeter (MTCS, 2016a). In addition to the two sites identified from the MTCS Past Portal database, a third site, denoted as UR-1, was identified during background research for this project. Based on the identified features for determining potential for archaeological material cultural resources within the subject property, the entire Stage 2 study area addressed in this report is deemed to possess archaeological potential (Map 7, p.34).

September 29, 2016 Report No. 1649817

i


The principal objectives of this Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment were to test the property within the study area for archaeological resources, to determine if additional archaeological investigations were required in order to comply with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sports’ Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists (2011), and to recommend appropriate assessment strategies for any archaeological sites identified within the subject property, if required. The Stage 2 assessment was completed on June 27 and 28, 2016, in clear conditions and sunny weather. The study area was assessed through a subsurface survey method that consisted of hand excavated shovel test pits placed at 5 meter intervals with backdirt screened though 6 millimeter mesh and backfilled upon completion. Every test pit was hand excavated into sterile subsoil at least 5 centimeters, with each individual test pit examined for stratigraphy, cultural features and evidence of fill or previous disturbances. No artifacts, structures or features of archaeological significance were identified within the study area during the Stage 2 investigation. Although natural in situ soils were not identified in the southern portion of Operation 3A, the current Airport Expansion Project Definition Report indicates that the existing soils in this area will not be significantly impacted and that “the northern linear extension would include vegetation clearing and placement of fill (up to 5 m in depth) for a distance of approximately 380 meters” (City of Kingston, 2013). If excavation, landscaping and/or project construction is expected to impact soils below the depth of the hand excavated test pits observed during the Stage 2 field investigation (0.5 meters), archaeological monitoring will be required in this area to visually inspect the present/absence of natural in situ soils which may contain archaeological heritage resources. This report is submitted to the Ministry 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 the licensed consultant archaeologist has met the terms and conditions of their archaeological license, and that the archaeological field work and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. This Stage 2 investigation has provided the basis for the following recommendations (see Map 11, p.38): 1)

As detailed in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report (Golder, 2016), due to the significant amount of fill documented in Operations 1 and 2, and the indication that construction/grading activities will not impact any former historical horizons pre-dating the original airport landscape, no additional archaeological investigations are required if construction/grading activities do not extend below 2 meters from the existing landscape. Archaeological monitoring during any soil disturbance activities should occur if mechanical excavation exceeds 2 meters depth in these areas;

2)

As detailed in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report (Golder, 2016), since the property located immediately north of the existing runway in the “North Runway Extension” portion of Operation 3 is documented to have been previously landscaped with a significant amount of fill deposited, and that construction/grading activities in this area are not expected to impact any former historical horizons pre-dating the original airport landscape, no additional archaeological investigations are required if construction/grading activities do not extend below 2 meters from the existing landscape. Archaeological monitoring during any soil disturbance activities should occur if mechanical excavation exceeds 2 meters depth; and,

3)

Where test pits were hand excavated in Operation 3A to a depth of at least 0.5 meters and did not encounter natural in situ soils, no additional archaeological investigations are required in this area of Operation 3A if construction/grading activities do not extend beyond 0.5 meters below the existing landscape. Archaeological


ii


monitoring during any soil disturbance activities should occur if mechanical excavation exceeds 0.5 meters depth in this area to visually inspect the present/absence of natural in situ soils which may contain archaeological resources (see Map 11, p.38); 4)

As the Stage 2 assessment determined there were no archaeologically significant resources within the portion of Operations 3A, 3B and 4, where natural in situ subsoil was observed, that the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport issue a letter concurring that no additional archaeological investigations are required for these areas as shown in Map 11 (p.38 ); and,

5)

Should future construction and/or development activities which will impact any soils beyond the boundary of the study area identified in this report, further archaeological investigations may be required based on the archaeological potential of the general vicinity detailed in the Stage 1 report (Golder, 2016).


iii


Project Personnel Client:

Mr. David Snow, Kingston Airport Manager

Project Director:

Hugh J. Daechsel, M.A. (P051)

Project Manager:

Aaron Mior, M.MA. (P1077)

Licensed Archaeologist:


Field Director:


Field Archaeologists:

Stephen Jarrett, M.A. (P385), JoAnne Bisson (A1099), Helen Moore, B.A. (R359) and Joel Bush, B.A.

Report Production:


GIS/Mapping:

Bojan Radojevic, B.A.

Administration:

Melissa Dumas, Melanie Duffy


iv


Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Development Context ........................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1

Regional Pre-European Contact Aboriginal History ........................................................................................... 2

2.2

European Contact and Initial Settlement in Frontenac County .......................................................................... 3

2.3

General Study Area History ............................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1

Previous Research and Archaeological Fieldwork ............................................................................................. 6

3.2

Known Archaeological Sites and Resources ..................................................................................................... 6

4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ................................................................................................................................. 8 4.1

Determination of Archaeological Potential ......................................................................................................... 8

4.2

Stage 1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 9

5.0 STAGE 2 FIELD METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 10 6.0 RECORD OF FINDS ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 7.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 14 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 15 9.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION ...................................................................................................... 16 10.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT ....................................................................... 17 11.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................................. 18 12.0 IMAGES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 20 13.0 MAPS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27

TABLES Table 1: Weather Conditions during Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment. ............................................................................ 11 Table 2: Inventory of Documentary Record ............................................................................................................................ 12


v


IMAGES Image 1: Sloping topography and gravel drive path in Operation 3A, looking south (D005). ................................................. 20 Image 2: Evidence of surface limestone in northern portion of Operation 3A, looking south (D012)...................................... 20 Image 3: Landscape consisting of vegetation, trees and gravel drive, looking north (D014). ................................................. 21 Image 4: Wood lot landscape in Operation 4, looking west (D018). ....................................................................................... 21 Image 5: Landscape consisting of tall grass and vegetation in north-central, looking west (D019). ....................................... 22 Image 6: Representative test pit showing evidence of fill material hand excavated in Operation 3A, looking north (D003). .. 22 Image 7: Representative test pit showing evidence of fill material hand excavated in Operation 3A, looking north (D004). .. 23 Image 8: Representative test pit showing evidence of previous disturbance and fill in Operation 3A, looking north (D006). . 23 Image 9: Representative test pit showing evidence of natural in situ soils, Operation 3A, looking north (D007).................... 24 Image 10: Representative test pit showing evidence of limestone bedrock hand, Operation 3A, looking north (D011) ......... 24 Image 11: Representative test pit hand excavated in Operation 3B, looking north (D015). ................................................... 25 Image 12: Representative test pit hand excavated in Operation 3B showing evidence of limestone, looking north (D016)... 25 Image 13: Representative test pit hand excavated in Operation 4, looking north (D017). ...................................................... 26

MAPS Map 1: Key Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Map 2: Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Map 3: Topographic Map ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 Map 4: Historic Maps ............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Map 5: Aerial Imagery ............................................................................................................................................................ 32 Map 6: Archaeological Potential Identified in Stage 1 Report................................................................................................. 33 Map 7: Archaeological Potential Within Stage 2 Study Area .................................................................................................. 34 Map 8: Stage 1 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 35 Map 9: Stage 2 Field Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 36 Map 10: Image Locations and Directions ............................................................................................................................... 37 Map 11: Stage 2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 38

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Previous Archaeological Assessments APPENDIX B Photographic Catalogue


vi



vii


1.0 1.1

PROJECT CONTEXT Objectives

This Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was completed to identify archaeological resources in the study area as well as to determine if additional archaeological investigations are required. The objectives of the Stage 2 assessment generally flow from principles outlined in the Ontario Heritage Act (Consolidated 2007) and the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sports’ Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists (2011). More specifically, this investigation was completed with the following objectives:



To document archaeological resources on the property;



To determine whether the property contains archaeological resources requiring further assessment; and,

 To recommend appropriate Stage 3 assessment strategies for archaeological sites identified, if necessary. 1.2 Development Context The City of Kingston retained Golder Associates Limited (Golder) to complete a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for the Kingston (Norman Rogers) Airport extension project. The subject property is located at 1114 Len Birchall Way, Kingston, Ontario, with the study area situated in part of Lots 2 and 3, Concession 1, Kingston Township, Frontenac County, Ontario. This airport expansion initiative includes lengthening of the main runway (# 01/19) to the north and south, in addition to infrastructure expansion of the passenger terminal building. For convenience, these areas were divided into four separate Operations in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment report (Golder, 2016) and these divisions have been retained for the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment. Operation 1 correlates to the airport terminal expansion encompassing an area of 0.23 hectares. Operation 2 corresponds to the southern runway expansion and consists of two separate parcels measuring 1.08 hectares combined. Operation 3 correlates to the northern runway expansion and comprises two separate parcels. For the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, the two parcels in Operation 3 have been sub-divided and are represented as Operation 3A (0.71 ha.) and Operation 3B (0.53 ha.). Operation 4 represents the proposed perimeter access road and fence extension encompassing the northern limits of the property measuring approximately 4-8 meters in width and extending approximately 1.04 kilometers in length (0.73 ha.). Only the properties within Operations 3 and 4 were recommended for a Stage 2 archaeological test pit investigation in the Stage 1 report (Golder, 2016) and are identified in this report as the Stage 2 Study Area (Map 1, Map 2 and Map 3, p.28 -30). This Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was initiated by the City of Kingston as part of a Screening Level Environmental Review as a due diligence exercise. Permission to access the subject property was provided by David Snow, Kingston Airport Manager, with no limitations or restrictions.


1


2.0 2.1

HISTORIC CONTEXT Regional Pre-European Contact Aboriginal History

The earliest evidence of human activity in the Great Lakes area dates to about 12,000 years Before Present (BP) and is identified as the Paleo-Indian Period (12,000–10,000 BP). Paleo-Indians moved into Ontario as the last of the glaciers retreated northward, and their sites have been located along former shorelines of vast glacial lakes such as Lake Algonquin in the area that is now southern Georgian Bay, and along the north shore of present day Lake Ontario. While there is considerable archaeological evidence dating to this period in south-western and south-central Ontario, limited evidence of occupation has been reported in eastern Ontario. Examples of Paleo-Indian find spots in eastern Ontario include fragments of a Plano (Late Paleo-Indian) point from the Thousand Islands area, two fluted points from the Rideau Lakes area, two lanceolate points from Lanark County, and two sites with Paleo-Indian components near the Yarker Training area along the Napanee River. A survey of Allen Point along the Rideau Canal system just north of Kingston Mills resulted in the identification of a late Paleo point, the first recorded find from this period in Kingston (Heritage Quest, 2000). While the artifact assemblage dating to the Paleo Period in the region is relatively small, these discoveries confirm the human occupation in the vicinity of the study area during this period. During the succeeding Archaic Period (10,000 BP - 3,000 BP), the environment of eastern Ontario approached modern conditions and additional land became accessible for occupation as the glacial lakes drained. While Archaic groups continued to employ hunter-gatherer subsistence strategies, they appear to have focussed on more localized food resources, abandoning the highly mobile lifestyle of their predecessors. Evidence of occupation dating to the Archaic Period is relatively common in the Kingston region. Archaic components have been identified on Brophey’s Point and around Button Bay (both on Wolfe Island), at Collins Bay within 1 kilometer of the study area, and along the river systems of the Napanee, Rideau, Gananoque, and Upper St. Lawrence. Additional registered Archaic sites include a find spot just west of Bath (BbGe-5) (Adams, 2009), the Salsbury Site near Camden East (BcGe-5) and the York Site near Bellrock (BcGe-8) (Adams, 2004). The Archaic Period is followed by the Woodland Period (3000 BP–400 BP) which is distinguished by the introduction of ceramics. Despite this innovation, Early Woodland people continued to live as hunters, gatherers and fishers in much the same way as Archaic groups had done. They also shared an elaborate burial ceremonialism practice which often included exotic artifacts incorporated in graves. It is also during this period that the ability to identify regional cultural traditions within the province is observed by cultural affinities, with “Point Peninsula” being the distinctive variant found in eastern and south-central Ontario. A greater number of known sites from this period have allowed archaeologists to develop a clearer picture of the traditional seasonal routes travelled to exploit a variety of resources within a home territory. Another significant development of the Woodland Period in southern Ontario was the appearance of domesticated plants around ca. 1400 BP. Along with this shift in subsistence, settlements located adjacent to corn fields began to take on greater permanency as sites with easily tillable farmland became more important. By the end of the Late Woodland Period, distinct regional populations occupied specific areas of Ontario.


2


A number of Woodland Period sites have been identified in Kingston and the surrounding area. Early Woodland material has been found along the Napanee River drainage basin and on Wolfe Island. Middle Woodland sites are located throughout the region including the Thousand Islands, the Cataraqui River (Belle Island), and the Gananoque River System (e.g., South Lake & Charleston Lake). Middle Woodland ceramics have been identified during archaeological excavations at Fort Frontenac, suggesting the potential location of a First Nations settlement prior to the arrival of the Europeans, while Middle Woodland artifacts have also been recovered from the Royal Military College in the area of the New Dorm 2 as well as along Valour Drive (CARF, 2009; Heritage Quest, 2003). Although there is considerable evidence for Late Woodland activity in the area, only one permanent occupation settlement specific to this period has been identified in the region. This was a proto-Huron or Middleport site (BbGd-10) identified by Nick Adams in his survey of the Arbor Ridge subdivision in the Little Cataraqui Creek valley (Adams, 2004). This discovery has confirmed that settlement patterns during the Late Woodland Period were not restricted to close proximity along large water bodies and that areas further inland were also occupied during this period. The Kingston Outer Station site was a fishing camp on the Cataraqui River utilized seasonally throughout the Late Woodland Period, with a small scatter of Late Woodland material also found at Lemoine Point (Daechsel, 1999), east of the study area. A cluster of St. Lawrence Iroquois villages dating ca. 900–600 BP also provides evidence of considerable activity in the region during this period. The end of the Late Woodland Period is marked by a transitional or “protohistoric” period (ca. 500–350 BP) when European influences began to infiltrate the area prior to permanent French settlement. This was a turbulent period which saw significant redistribution among the Aboriginal populations who had occupied the region in prehistoric times.

2.2

European Contact and Initial Settlement in Frontenac County

By the time Champlain arrived in A.D. 1612, the St. Lawrence Iroquois had disappeared, having been absorbed by other Iroquoian groups including the Huron and possibly Algonquin communities (Pendergast, 1999). The Huron had moved further inland from Lake Ontario and eventually settled between Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay. As a result, the study area appears to have become part of a no man’s land, visited but not settled by groups moving along the St. Lawrence and Lower Great Lakes. French fur traders, missionaries and explorers continued to travel through the area following the initial visit of Champlain. Fort Frontenac, established in 1673, was the first permanent European settlement in the region. The fort was constructed at the mouth of the Cataraqui River along the west shore and was rebuilt a number of times. A native village was established outside the fort and although some land was surveyed and settled by civilians, the French did not encourage the development of an extensive settlement in the Kingston area. A series of mission sites, however, were established along the shores of Lake Ontario, including one in the Napanee area and another at La Presentation near the present site of Ogdensburg, New York. Fort Frontenac remained the focus of French occupation in the region for approximately 85 years. In 1760, following the fall of Quebec City and the surrender of the French forces at Montreal, the British effectively took possession of the Kingston area.


3


This transition was formalized by the Treaty of Paris and the Royal Proclamation of 1763, in which France ceded all rights and possessions in North America to Great Britain. Between 1763 and 1776, some British traders travelled to the Cataraqui area but the British presence remained sporadic until Fort Frontenac was officially reoccupied in 1783. Following the American Revolutionary War, land from the Cataraqui River west to the Bay of Quinte was laid out in townships for United Empire Loyalists. Lieutenant John Frederick Holland undertook a survey of the Cataraqui (Kingston) area with a view to relocate the British Military base from Carleton Island. Town lots were laid out directly west of the old French Fort and wharves and warehouses were constructed. Kingston Township was surveyed between 1783 and 1784, with many of the waterfront lots granted in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Through much of the nineteenth century Kingston served as a major sea port and trans-shipment area where larger boats from the Great Lakes were unloaded to smaller barges and later in the mid-nineteenth century to overland railways, for shipment to Montreal and other surrounding areas. By 1841, Kingston was designated the capital of Upper Canada and continued to be identified as a center of political and strategic importance. Although Montreal was chosen as the new Capital in 1844, Kingston’s strategic location along Lake Ontario ensured it remained a major transportation hub. In 1846, Kingston was incorporated as a city reflecting the significant population growth and its importance as an expanding commercial center.

2.3

General Study Area History

In the 1850s, a small post office village was established north of Collins Bay. This village was originally identified as “Collinsby”, in honour of John Collins, the deputy surveyor who laid out the lands in the township and who was also a land owner on the bay. Eventually, the settlement became known as “Collins Bay” and by 1873 a hotel, store, Methodist church, school, grist mill and telegraph office had all been established within the village (ASI, 2010). Within the study area south of Collins Bay, encompassing part of Lots 2 and 3 in Concession 1, the landscape continued to be primarily rural with a focus on agriculture. Cartographic and census records for Kingston Township provide evidence of the settlement history for this area. The 1851 census records indicate John Grass owned 332 acres within Concession 1, Lots 2 and 3, where he cultivated a number of crops including wheat, barley and rye. In addition to agricultural production, there were also 3 acres of orchards on the property, with 50 acres “under wood or wild”. The 1861 census documents John Grass as a 39 year-old farmer married to his Scottish-born wife Margaret (age 38) living with their five children; Isabelle (age 9), Francis (age 6), Eleanor (age 5), George (age 3) and Albert (age 1). The family resided in a 1½ story stone house located in the southwest portion of the property north of Front Road (Map 4, p.31). By 1860, John Grass had ceded ownership of the western half of Lot 3 to Charles Grass. The 1861 census documents Charles as 31 year-old farmer married to his Scottish born wife Isabella (age 31). They resided in a 1½ story frame house located south of Front Street (Map 4, p.31), with their four children Ester (age 7), James (age 7), Welen (age 4) and George (age 2).


4


The western half of Lot 3 was occupied by Welen Abbott with the family residence located in the southeastern portion of the property, north of Front Road (Map 4, p.31). Similar to the Charles and John Grass to the west, Welen’s primary occupation was farming. The Abbott family included Welen’s wife Jane and their children Henry, Welen, Charles, Sydney, Lewis and Jane. By 1878, John Grass had severed the eastern 50 acres from Lot 2 (Map 4, p.31). The name “Mrs. Prettie” is written in the northern portion of the Lot, although her name does not appear in census records in 1871 or 1881. Meacham and Co.’s 1878 map of Kingston Township also shows John Grass had purchased the eastern portion of Lot 3, which represented part of the property formerly occupied by Welen Abbott. Charles Grass continued to reside and farm the western half of Lot 3, Concession 1. In the early twentieth century, the farm land comprising part of Lots 2 and 3, Concession 1, was demarcated for the new municipal airport. Construction began in the spring of 1929 and on June 4th of the same year the Kingston airport was opened by Major W. H. Craig (Mika, 1987). During World War 2, a flying school was opened under the British Empire Training Plan at the Kingston airport (Mika, 1987) and on August 25, 1944, it was announced that the Royal Canadian Air Force (R.C.A.F.) would have control of the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm training station at Collins Bay. This initiative was devoted almost exclusively to the training of flying personnel for the Royal Navy, with the majority of trainees arriving from the United Kingdom (Anon, 1944). Following World War 2, the Kingston airport transitioned to a public facility and was renamed the Norman Rogers Airport, in honour of the former Kingston Member of Parliament who was killed in a plane crash in June 1940. Aerial photographs dating to the mid-twentieth century provide an overview of the landscape within the subject property during this period (Map 5, p.32). The 1957 imagery shows a series of hangars and part of an early terminal facility within the eastern portion of the airport facility, with this area maintaining structures to the current period. The property comprising south of the existing runway appears to have been modified since at least 1957, with the significant amount of landscaping fill likely being deposited during the original airport construction period. Between 1957 and 1978, the runway had been expanded northward towards Operation 3, with clear cutting of trees in this area likely occurring during this period. The landscape within Operation 4 and the northern portion of Operation 3 appears to have remained relatively undisturbed, although a significant number of trees have been cleared from this area since 1957.


5


3.0 3.1

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT Previous Research and Archaeological Fieldwork

Although a number of archaeological assessments have been completed within the general vicinity of the study area, a search of the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Past Portal database only indicated one previous archaeological assessment completed within 50 meters of the Stage 2 study area (MTCS, 2016d). The only archaeological assessment completed within 50 meters of the Stage 2 study area is the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (Golder, 2016) completed as a prerequisite to this this project which includes the entire Stage 2 study area documented in this report. The Stage 1 report documented known archaeological resources within the vicinity of the study area, as well as the surrounding environment and topography. Based on the triggers for archaeological potential, the Stage 1 assessment identified Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) for the Stage 2 Study Area documented in this report (See Section 4.0 of this report for more information). Appendix A summarizes the previous archaeological investigations in the general area and provides the consultant, year of assessment, project name, assessment stage, township, concession, lot and PIF number (when known).

3.2

Known Archaeological Sites and Resources

The primary source of information regarding known archaeological sites within the province is the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sports’ archaeological site database (ASDB). This database contains archaeological sites registered according to the Borden system, which divides Canada into grid blocks based on latitude and longitude. A Borden Block is approximately 13 kilometers east to west and approximately 18.5 kilometers north to south. Each Borden Block is referenced by a four-letter designator and sites within a block are numbered sequentially as they are found. The study area under review is located in Borden Block BbGd. A search for registered archaeological sites was completed using the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sports’ Past Portal database which identified two registered archaeological sites within the immediate vicinity of the Stage 2 study area perimeter (MTCS, 2016a). In addition to the two sites identified from the MTCS Past Portal database, a third site, denoted as UR-1, was identified during background research for this project. The closest known archaeological resource to the subject property, denoted here as Unregistered Site 1 (UR-1), is located within the Collins Bay Marina property, which is approximately 130 meters north of Operation 4. Human remains, believed to have been disturbed during landscaping excavations for a new walkway at the Marina, were revealed in 2009. These remains have since been interpreted as representing a Euro-Canadian male internment believed to date to the 19th century (Anon, 2010). Located approximately 645 meters north of the Stage 2 study area, north of the Collins Bay shoreline, is the Collins Bay Burial site (BbGd-13). Originally discovered in 1949 during construction for residential housing, the site consisted of two skeletons interred about one metre below the surface. The remains have been identified as an adult female roughly 35 to 40 years of age and a child of about 5 or 6 years and are interpreted as dating to the Late Archaic Period and associated with the Glacial Kame Tradition (MTCS, 2016b; ASI, 2010). All bones, except for the skull of the woman, were stained with red ocher (Richie, 1955).


6


The Collins Bay Burial site was later investigated by Mr. William Richie in 1952, when two additional burials were discovered approximately 5 meters west of those identified during construction in 1949. One burial was identified as a cremation, with additional evidence of human remains discovered within a nearby previously disturbed context. These burials have also been interpreted as dating to the Late Archaic Period (ASI, 2010; Richie, 1955). Located approximately 998 metres northwest of the Stage 2 study area is the Collin’s Creek site (BbGd-1). This site, situated near the mouth of Collins Creek, was registered in 1987 by Hugh Daechsel. The artifact assemblage comprising faunal remains, Trent Valley chert flakes and ceramic sherds, suggests this occupation dates to the Middle and/or Late Woodland Period (ASI, 2010). The site was found to be “washing out of thin soil level” and additional cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) was identified for this area (MTCS, 2016c).


7


4.0 4.1

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL Determination of Archaeological Potential

A number of factors are employed when determining archaeological potential within a particular area. In addition to the proximity to known archaeological sites, factors for determining Aboriginal and historical archaeological potential include watershed area (primary and secondary watercourses, wetlands, etc.), distance from water, drainage patterns, identification of past water sources (beach ridges, river beds, relic creeks, ancient shorelines, etc.), elevated topography, identification of significant physiological and geological features (knolls, drumlins, eskers, plateaus, etc.), soil geomorphology, distinctive land formations (mounds, caverns, waterfalls, peninsulas, etc.), known burials sites and cemeteries, biological features (distribution of food and animal resources before colonization), features identifying early Euro-Canadian settlements (monuments, structures, etc.), historic transportation routes (historic roads, trails, portages, rail corridors, etc.) and properties designated and/or listed under the Ontario Heritage Act. Local knowledge from Aboriginal communities and heritage organizations, as well as consultation of available historical and archaeological literature and cartographic resources, aids in the identification of features possessing archaeological potential. These criteria are based on the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011) and were used to determine archaeological potential for the study area under investigation. The Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment addressed the potential for archaeological resources for the entire proposed development area associated with the Kingston Airport Expansion Project. As indicated in the Stage 1 report, the Master Plan of Archaeological Resources for the City of Kingston identified potential for archaeological resources within the southern portion of Operation 2 and a significant segment of Operation 4 (ASI, 2010), although based on the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011) additional areas have also been identified as possessing archaeological potential (Map 6, p.33). This includes all property within Operation 4 situated within 300 meters of the known human burial discovered on the Collins Bay Marina property in 2010 and all property within Operation 2 which is located within 100 metres of Front Road, which is identified as a historic transportation route and delineated on 19th century maps (Map 4, p.31). All lands within Operation 2 and the entirety of Operation 1 have also been deemed to possess archaeological potential due to their location within 300 metres of historically significant structures documented on 19th century mapping (Map 4, p.31), while the entire study area, except for the northern portion of Operation 2, is situated within 300 meters of natural water sources, also triggering archaeological potential. Based on the identified features for determining potential for archaeological material cultural resources within the subject property, the entire Stage 2 study area addressed in this report is deemed to possess archaeological potential (Map 7, p.34).


8


4.2

Stage 1 Recommendations

This Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was undertaken based on the research and analysis completed for the Stage 1 report (Golder, 2016), which made the following recommendations (Map 8, p.35): 1)

Due to the significant amount of fill documented in Operations 1 and 2, and the indication that construction/grading activities will not impact any former historical horizons pre-dating the original airport landscape, no additional archaeological investigations are required if construction/grading activities do not extend below 2 meters from the existing landscape. Archaeological monitoring during any soil disturbance activities should occur if mechanical excavation exceeds 2 meters depth;

2)

Since the property located immediately north of the existing runway in the “North Runway Extension” portion of Operation 3 is documented to have been previously landscaped with a significant amount of fill deposited, and that construction/grading activities in this area are not expected to impact any former historical horizons pre-dating the original airport landscape, no additional archaeological investigations are required if construction/grading activities do not extend below 2 meters from the existing landscape. Archaeological monitoring during any soil disturbance activities should occur if mechanical excavation exceeds 2 meters depth; and,

3)

All remaining undisturbed land within Operation 3, and all undisturbed land within Operation 4, should be archaeologically investigated with hand excavated test pits in five metre intervals to the depth of at least 5 centimeters into natural in situ subsoil.

At this time, the construction design plan does not indicate any construction/grading activities will exceed 2 meters below the existing landscape, and therefore this Stage 2 report only addresses the test pit investigation detailed in Recommendation 3. Should construction/grading activities exceed 2 meters in depth within the areas identified in Recommendations 1 and 2, and delineated in Map 8(p. 35) of this report, Stage 2 archaeological monitoring will be required and will be addressed in a separate report under a specific MTCS PIF number.


9


5.0

STAGE 2 FIELD METHODOLOGY

Only the properties within Operations 3 and 4, as detailed in Recommendation 3 above, were recommended for a Stage 2 archaeological test pit investigation in the Stage 1 report (Golder, 2016) and are reflected in this report as the Stage 2 Study Area (Map 2, p.29). The Operation designations detailed in the Stage 1 report (Golder, 2016) have been retained for this Stage 2 investigation. For the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, the two parcels in Operation 3 have been sub-divided and are represented as Operation 3A (0.71 ha.) and Operation 3B (0.53 ha.). Operation 4 represents the proposed perimeter access road and fence extension encompassing the northern limits of the property measuring approximately 4-8 meters in width and extending approximately 1.04 kilometers in length. There were no stranding structures, or evidence of former structures, within the Stage 2 Study Area addressed in this report. Operation 3A is located north of the existing runway with the southern and central portion of Operation 3A consisting of manicured grass and northwardly sloping topography (Image 1, p.20). The northern portion of Operation 3A extended beyond the existing chain link fence delineating the maintained airport property and consisted of waist high vegetation and small areas of exposed surface limestone (Image 2, p.20). Operation 3B consisted of tall grass and vegetation with isolated areas of trees (Image 3, p.21). A gravel drive path measuring approximately 7 meters in width extended from the northern limit of the existing runway through both Operations 3A and 3B (Image 1 and Image 3, p.21) and was identified as having been previously disturbed and therefore not tested during the Stage 2 field investigation. Operation 4 consisted of a corridor measuring between 4-8 meters with woodlot comprising the majority of the landscape (Image 4, p.21). The young age of the trees within the woodlot suggests it is a relatively new growth forest and does not represent the original landscape prior to European arrival in the seventeenth century. A small open area with tall grass and vegetation was located within the north-central segment of Operation 4 (Image 5, p.22). The Stage 2 archaeological investigation employed the hand excavation of test pits excavated at least 30 centimeters in diameter at 5 meter intervals, with the excavated soil screened through 6 millimeter mesh, and each test pit backfilled upon completion. In areas where evidence of previous disturbance or fill materials were identified, test pits were hand excavated at least 50 centimeters in depth, and where natural in situ soils were observed all test pits were hand excavated into subsoil at least 5 centimeters. Every individual excavated test pit was examined for stratigraphy, cultural features and evidence of fill or previous disturbances. The entire Stage 2 study area detailed in this report was tested using these methods, with the exception of the gravel drive path which extended through Operation 3 (Map 9, p.36). These field methods conform to the MTCS Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011). A field log was maintained for the duration of the investigation detailing pertinent information and digital photographs were taken of the tested areas, specific representative test pits and general landscape and topography. A detailed photographic catalogue is included as Appendix B, with the location and direction of photographs taken as part of the Stage 2 field assessment represented on Map 10 (p.37).


10


In order to ensure the entire Stage 2 test pit area was archaeologically investigated, the study area was uploaded to a Garmin GPSMAP62 handheld GPS unit to accurately locate the boundaries of the Stage 2 study area in the field. All photo locations and features of topographic or archaeological significance were also surveyed with the Garmin GPS MAP62 unit. The Garmin MAP62 GPS unit is a 12 channel SiRFstar III high-sensitivity GPS receiver (WAAS-enabled), which continuously tracks and uses up to 12 satellites to compute and update plotted positons. The accuracy of the unit is