Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment - brantford.ca Initiatives Shellard Lane Corridor Impr... · 505 Woodward Avenue, Unit 1 . Hamilton, Ontario . L8H 6N6 . Phone: (905) 312-0700, Fax:

APPENDIX I

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Distribution: City of Brantford – 1 Copy Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport – 1 Copy and 1 CD AMEC Environment & Infrastructure - 1 Copy

ORIGINAL REPORT: STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSEMENT:

ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO SHELLARD LANE (CITY LIMIT) TO APPROXIMATELY 50 METRES EAST OF COLBORNE STREET WEST, CITY OF BRANTFORD,

ONTARIO

Submitted to: City of Brantford

Vic Bohdanow, P.Eng., Project Manager Brantford City Hall

100 Wellington Square, P.O. Box 818, Brantford, Ontario, Canada

N3T 5R7 Phone: (519) 759-1350, Fax: (519) 754-0724

[email protected]

AND

THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF TOURISM, CULTURE AND SPORT

Submitted by:

AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, a Division of AMEC Americas Limited,

505 Woodward Avenue, Unit 1 Hamilton, Ontario

L8H 6N6 Phone: (905) 312-0700, Fax: (905) 312-0771

Archaeological Consulting License # P357 (Jenkins)

P.I.F. # P357-005-2012

AMEC Project # TP112023 13 August 2012

City of Brantford Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment: Road Improvements to Shellard Lane

Project Number TP112023 Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, a division of AMEC Americas Limited (AMEC), was retained by the City of Brantford (the CLIENT) to conduct a Stage 1 archaeological assessment for the proposed road improvements to Shellard Lane from east of Old Shellard Lane, commencing at the city limit boundary, to approximately 50 metres east of Colborne Street West. As this Stage 1 archaeological assessment is a part of a Schedule “C” Class Environmental Assessment and the road improvements are in the planning stages, there are no detailed designs available. Consequently, in order to ensure full coverage of land that may be impacted by the proposed undertaking, it was deemed prudent to extend the width of the 4.1-kilometre long study corridor outward on the north and south side of the road, approximately 75 metres in both directions from the centre line.

The Stage 1 background study and property inspection documents the archaeological and land use history of the study corridor and its current geography and topography in order to assess its archaeological potential. AMEC conducted the Stage 1 property inspection on 04 May, 2012. Since AMEC did not have permission to enter, the study corridor was thoroughly inspected from the current right-of-way to gain first-hand knowledge of the current conditions and to evaluate and map archaeological potential. The inspection was carried out under overcast and warm weather conditions which did not impede the inspection in any way.

The Stage 1 background study suggests that the study corridor has archaeological potential and warrants a Stage 2 property assessment due to three main factors. Firstly, some land within the study corridor is within 300 metres of historically mapped and current tributaries of D’Aubigny Creek. Secondly, there are 120 registered archaeological sites within a one-kilometre radius and nine of these have been found within the study corridor. And thirdly, the study corridor surrounds a historic transportation route (post-1858).

The Stage 1 property inspection indicated that approximately 49 percent of the study corridor consists of undeveloped land with archaeological potential. The Stage 1 background study and property inspection concludes that any development-related impact on these areas first requires a Stage 2 property assessment to be conducted.

In light of these results, the following recommendations are made, subject to the conditions outlined in Sections 5.0 and 6.0:

1) Should the proposed road improvements to Shellard Lane result in encroachment upon previously undisturbed lands determined by AMEC to have archaeological site


Project Number TP112023 Page ii

potential, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment should be conducted in accordance with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011), prior to any land disturbance.

2) Should the Stage 2 archaeological assessment result in the identification of a previously registered site, AMEC will evaluate the site under the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011) and will make further recommendations.

3) No additional archaeological assessment is required within the remainder of the study corridors, which do not exhibit archaeological site potential. These areas may be considered clear of further archaeological concern.


Project Number TP112023 Page iii

PROJECT PERSONNEL

Project Director: Tara Jenkins, M.A. (P357) Field Director: Tara Jenkins, M.A. Report Preparation: Tara Jenkins, M.A. Graphics: Chris Petrucci, B.A. (GIS) Report Reviewer: Shaun Austin, Ph.D. (P141)


Project Number TP112023 Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION

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

PAGE

1.1 Development Context ............................................................................ 1 1.2 Scope of Work ........................................................................................ 1

2.0 STAGE 1 BACKGROUND STUDY ..................................................................... 3 2.1 Archaeological Context ......................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Environmental Context ................................................................. 8 2.2 Historical Context .................................................................................. 9

2.2.1 Review of Historical Records ........................................................ 9

3.0 STAGE 1 PROPERTY INSPECTION ................................................................ 11 3.1.1 Methodology ............................................................................... 11

4.0 STAGE 1 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 13

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 14

6.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION ........................................... 15

7.0 ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................ 16

8.0 CLOSURE ......................................................................................................... 17

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 19

LIST OF TABLES Table 5: Sites within 1 km of the Study Corridors ............................................................ 3Table 1: 1858 Tremaine Map ........................................................................................ 10Table 2: 1875 Historical Atlas Map ................................................................................ 10 APPENDIX A: FIGURES Figure 1: Location of Study Corridor Figure 2: Aerial Photograph Showing Location of Study Corridor Figure 3: 1994 Topographic Map Showing Location of Study Corridor Figure 4: 1858 Tremaine Map of the County of Brant Showing Approximate Location of Study Corridor Figure 5: 1875 Illustrated Historical Atlas Map of the County of Brant Showing Approximate Location of Study Corridor Figure 6A: Results of the Stage 1 Assessment with Photograph Locations and Directions Figure 6B: Results of the Stage 1 Assessment with Photograph Locations and Directions APPENDIX B: PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX C: ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS APPENDIX D: LIMITATIONS


Project Number TP112023 Page 1

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT

1.1 Development Context

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, a division of AMEC Americas Limited (AMEC), was retained by the City of Brantford (the CLIENT) to conduct a Stage 1 archaeological assessment for the proposed improvements to Shellard Lane from east of Old Shellard Lane, commencing at the city limit, to approximately 50 metres east of Colborne Street West. As this Stage 1 archaeological assessment is a part of a Schedule “C” Class Environmental Assessment and the road improvements are in the planning stages, there are no detailed designs available. Consequently, in order to ensure full coverage of land that may be impacted by the proposed undertaking, it was deemed prudent to extend the width of the 4.1 kilometre long study corridor outward 75 metres in both directions from the centre line.

The Stage 1 archaeological assessment was conducted under an Ontario Professional Licence to Conduct Archaeological Fieldwork (No. P357) held by Tara Jenkins, archaeologist at AMEC. The project information was acknowledged by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport on 02 May, 2012 with the approval of PIF# P357-005-2012. Tara Jenkins conducted the Stage 1 property inspection on 04 May, 2012 entirely from public roadways, which required no permission to enter from landowners. All aspects of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment were carried out in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011).

This report presents the results of the Stage 1 background study and property inspection, and makes pertinent recommendations.

1.2 Scope of Work

A Stage 1 archaeological assessment is a systematic qualitative process executed in order to assess the archaeological potential of a property based on its historical use and its potential for early Euro-Canadian (early settler) and pre-contact Aboriginal occupation. The objectives of a Stage 1 background study are: 1) to provide information about the property’s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land condition; 2) to evaluate in detail the property’s archaeological potential which will support recommendations for Stage 2 property assessment for all or parts of the property if warranted; and, 3) to recommend appropriate strategies for Stage 2 property assessment if warranted.

The Stage 1 background study was conducted in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, 2011, set out by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and with the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.0.18.



The scope of work for the Stage 1 background study consisted of the following tasks:

• Contacting the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) to determine if recorded archaeological sites exist in the vicinity of the property, through a search of the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database maintained by that Ministry;

• A desktop review of the study area’s physical setting to determine its potential for both historic and pre-contact human occupation, including its topography, hydrology, soils, vegetation, and proximity to important resources and historic transportation routes;

• A visual assessment of the study corridor in order to gather first-hand and current evidence of the property’s physical setting, and to aid in delineating areas where archaeological potential may have been impacted or removed by previous land-use practices; and,

• A review of the potential for historic occupation as documented in historical atlases and other archival sources.



2.0 STAGE 1 BACKGROUND STUDY

As part of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment, AMEC contacted the MTCS to determine if archaeological sites have been registered in the vicinity of the property and recorded in the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database. Stage 1 background research also included a desktop review of a variety of factors relevant to the determination of archaeological potential for the study corridor, such as topography, drainage, soils, vegetation, and proximity to important resources and historically significant transportation routes. With regard to the specific potential for historic occupation, AMEC consulted historical atlases and other archival sources. Finally, AMEC performed a Stage 1 property inspection to document current land conditions and to verify areas of archaeological potential versus no potential (Sections 3.0 and 4.0).

2.1 Archaeological Context

AMEC conducted the requisite Stage 1 background research. First, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport was asked to search the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database in order to ascertain if previously registered archaeological sites have been identified in close proximity to the subject property.

In Ontario, information concerning archaeological sites is stored in the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) maintained by the MTCS. This database contains archaeological registered sites within the Borden system. Under the Borden system, Canada has been divided into grid blocks based on longitude and latitude. A Borden block is approximately 13 kilometres east to west, and approximately 18.5 kilometres north to south. Each Borden block is referred to by a four letter designation and sites located within the block are numbered sequentially as they are found. According to the OASD the subject property is located within the AgHb Borden Block. There are 120 archaeological sites registered sites within a one-kilometre radius.

Table 1: Sites within 1 km of the Study Corridors Borden Site Name Cultural Affiliation Site Type Researcher AgHb-95 Late Archaic? Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-96 Undetermined Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-187 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb-188 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb-189 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb-76 Aboriginal Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson

AgHb-137 Colborne St. Middle Woodland Campsite 1990, S. Austin; 1991, Ronald F. Williamson

AgHb-136 Hebrew Pre-contact Aboriginal Campsite 1991, S. Austin AgHb-138 Linear A Pre-contact Aboriginal Undetermined 1991, S. Austin AgHb-77 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-78 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-79 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-181 Middle Woodland Findspot 1992, Robert G. Mayer



Table 1: Sites within 1 km of the Study Corridors Borden Site Name Cultural Affiliation Site Type Researcher AgHb-172 Late Woodland Findspot 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb-175 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb-176 Pre-contact Aboriginal Campsite 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb-177 Euro-Canadian Scatter 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb-178 Middle Woodland Campsite 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb-179 Early Archaic Findspot 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb-180 Early Archaic Findspot 1992, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb-182 Early Archaic, Early Woodland Undetermined 1992, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb-171 Middle Archaic Findspot 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb-276 D’Aubigny Park Pre-contact Aboriginal Campsite 2005, Robert Pihl AgHb-170 Early Woodland Findspot 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb- 97 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 98 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson

AgHb-99 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson; 2004 Paul James Clifford O’Neil

AgHb-227 Crawford Knoll Lithic scatter 1995, Dana R. Poulton AgHb-101 Late Woodland Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-102 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-103 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-104 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-105 Late Archaic? Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson

AgHb-106 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson; 2004 Paul James Clifford O’Neil

AgHb-107 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic cluster 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 108 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 109 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-110 Early Iroquoian? Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-111 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-112 Pre-contact Aboriginal Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson

AgHb-113 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson; 1993 Scarlett E. Janusas

AgHb-114 Late Archaic and Iroquoian Scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson;

2003 Kristy Snarey AgHb- 115 Late Archaic? Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 116 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 117 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-118 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson

AgHb-119 Adult Life Style M6 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson;

1991 Robert G. Mayer

AgHb-120 Archaic Narrow Point Tradition? Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson

AgHb-121 Pre-contact Aboriginal Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-122 Pre-contact Aboriginal Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-123 Pre-contact Aboriginal Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-54 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Philip Woodley AgHb- 55 Late Archaic? Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 56 Pre-contact Aboriginal Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 57 Iroquoian? Findspot 1988, Philip Woodley



Table 1: Sites within 1 km of the Study Corridors Borden Site Name Cultural Affiliation Site Type Researcher AgHb- 59 Pre-contact Aboriginal Findspot 1988, Philip Woodley AgHb-60 Pre-contact Aboriginal Findspot 1988, Philip Woodley AgHb-61 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Philip Woodley

AgHb- 62 Late Archaic Undetermined 1988, Philip Woodley; 2003 Kristy Snarey

AgHb- 63 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Philip Woodley AgHb- 64 Pre-contact Aboriginal Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 65 Early Archaic Findspot 1988, Philip Woodley AbHb- 66 Euro-Canadian Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AbHb- 67 Late Archaic Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AbHb- 68 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AbHb- 69 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 70 Early Woodland? Undetermined 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 71 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 72 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb-73 Pre-contact Aboriginal Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 74 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 75 Early Archaic Nettling Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AbHb- 150 Euro-Canadian Undetermined 1990, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb- 152 Middle Archaic, Otter Creek Undetermined 1991, Robert G. Mayer;

1992, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb- 153 Middle Archaic, Brewerton Lithic scatter 1991, Robert G. Mayer;


AgHb- 154 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1991, Robert G. Mayer; 1992, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb- 156 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1991, Robert G. Mayer; 1992, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb- 157 Late Paleoindian, Early Archaic Undetermined 1991, Robert G. Mayer;


AgHb- 158 Location 2 Euro-Canadian, Middle Archaic Brewerton

Homestead, Campsite

1991, Robert G. Mayer; 1992 & 1997, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb- 159 Location 1 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1991, Robert G. Mayer; 1992 & 1997, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb- 160 Late Paleoindian, Early Archaic 1991, Robert G. Mayer;


AgHb- 161 Late Paleoindian Lithic scatter 1991, Robert G. Mayer; 1992, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb- 162 Euro-Canadian Homestead 1991, Robert G. Mayer; 1992, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb- 163 Middle and Late Archaic Brewerton, Lamoka

Campsite 1991, Robert G. Mayer; 1992, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb- 164 Middle Woodland Findspot 1991, Robert G. Mayer; 1992, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb- 165 Location 3 Late Woodland, Iroquoian Campsite




Table 1: Sites within 1 km of the Study Corridors Borden Site Name Cultural Affiliation Site Type Researcher

AgHb- 166 Location 4 Early Woodland Campsite 1991, Robert G. Mayer; 1992 & 1997, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb- 167 Location 5 Middle Archaic Brewerton Campsite


AgHb- 168 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1992 & 1997, Robert G. Mayer

AgHb-167 Location 7 Euro-Canadian, Early Archaic Undetermined


AgHb-183 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb- 184 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb- 185 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb- 186 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb- 146 Early Woodland Undetermined 1990, Robert G. Mayer AgHb- 147 Late Archaic Undetermined 1990, Robert G. Mayer AgHb- 263 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 2003, S. Austin AgHb- 100 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1998, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 173 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb- 174 Euro-Canadian Homestead 1992, Robert G. Mayer AgHb- 80 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 81 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 82 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 83 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 84 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 85 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 86 Late Archaic Findspot 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 87 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 88 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 89 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson

AgHb- 90 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson; 1993 Scarlet Janusas

AgHb- 91 Late Archaic Broadpoint Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson

AgHb- 92 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 93 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 94 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson

AgHb- 124 Euro-Canadian Homestead 1988, Ronald F. Williamson; 1993 Scarlet Janusas

AgHb- 125 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1988, Ronald F. Williamson AgHb- 145 Pre-contact Aboriginal Findspot 1990, Robert G. Mayer AgHb- 148 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1990, Robert G. Mayer AgHb- 149 Pre-contact Aboriginal Lithic scatter 1990, Robert G. Mayer

Nine sites are potentially located within the study corridor. AMEC’s GIS technician mapped the location of these sites. However, the locations are only estimated as the pre-development assessments which led to their discovery were conducted before the



introduction of Global Positioning technology. The nine sites possibly located in the Shellard Lane study corridor are as follows:

1. AgHb-175: This site was discovered on the southeast side of Shellard Lane. The site was located on a knoll in a ploughed field and near a small creek. The site was identified as a small pre-contact Aboriginal lithic campsite (21 flakes). The researcher, Robert G. Mayer (1992) did not recommend further work. Current aerial photography shows that the site area remains undeveloped.

2. AgHb-176: This site was discovered on the southeast side of Shellard Lane. The site was located in a ploughed field on the north side of a creek. The site was identified as a small pre-contact Aboriginal lithic campsite (41 flakes, 2 scrapers). The researcher, Robert G. Mayer (1992) did not recommend further work. Current aerial photography shows that the site area remains undeveloped.

3. AgHb-177: This site was discovered on the southeast side of Shellard Lane. The site was discovered in a ploughed field on the north side of a creek. The site was identified as a Euro-Canadian scatter (20m x 10m area of domestic refuse). The recommendation made by Robert G. Mayer (1992) for the site is not known at this time. Current aerial photography shows that the site area remains undeveloped.

4. AgHb-65: This Borden number represents an isolated find of an Early Archaic bifurcate base projectile point. The researcher, Philip Woodley (1988) recommended no further work and the findspot may have been destroyed by development. However, current aerial photography places the findspot in an undeveloped agricultural field.

5. AgHb-66: This Borden number represents an isolated find of a Euro-Canadian gunflint. The researcher Ronald F. Williamson (1988) recommended no further work and the findspot may have been destroyed by development. However, current aerial photography places the findspot in an undeveloped agricultural field.

6. AgHb-124: This site was discovered in 1988 in a relatively flat area near a drainage ditch. The site is recorded as a Euro-Canadian surface scatter (20m x 20m area) on a property between Shellard Lane and the CP rail line to the north. The site was revisited in 1993 by researcher, Scarlett E. Janusas. The site has been recommended for further archaeological work (controlled stripping). Current aerial photography shows the site area as developed.

7. AgHb-185: This site was discovered north of Shellard Lane. The site was identified as a small pre-contact Aboriginal lithic campsite (40 flakes, 1 Meadowood projectile point). The site may be Early Woodland. The researcher, Robert G. Mayer (1992) did not recommend further work. Current aerial photography shows the site area as developed.



8. AgHb-145: A lithic biface was discovered on the south side of Shellard Lane, east of Conklin and one metre west of an extant woodlot. The findspot was discovered in a ploughed field half-way down the slope of a knoll. The recommendation(s) made by researcher, Robert G. Mayer (1990) is not known. Current aerial photography shows that the site area may remain undeveloped.

9. AgHb-183: This site was discovered on the north side of Shellard Lane. The site was identified as a small pre-contact Aboriginal lithic campsite (11 flakes, 16m x 80m area). The researcher, Robert G. Mayer (1992) did not recommend further work. Current aerial photography shows the site area as developed.

In summary, despite the recommendations proposed by researchers in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, AMEC recommends that the lots where these sites are estimated to be still extant require a Stage 2 reassessment. If any of the abovementioned sites are located within the study corridor and will be impacted by road improvements, they will require further Stage 3 archaeological assessment (MTCS 2011:40).

During this Stage 1 background study, the document entitled Review of the Archaeological Master Plan Heritage Component of the Official Plan Review Program (ASI, 2006) was consulted. This report documents that Brantford’s cultural history began approximately 10,000 years ago. Throughout history, the Grand River provided a rich environment. The study corridor is within 420 metres of the Grand River. The 1997 Master Plan states that there are approximately 174 pre-contact and post-contact sites registered at MTCS and an additional 124 sites known by collectors (ASI, 2006). The Map of Archaeological Potential provided in the report review (ASI, 2006:8) illustrates that the north and south side of Shellard Lane exhibits archaeological potential, specifically in a 300 metre radius around the mapped waterways. The map depicts three registered sites less than 0.5 kilometres from the study corridor. In addition, the map illustrates an area marked as no archaeological potential which appears to be in the location of a residential neighbourhood. The City of Branford Transportation Master Plan Update (2007) states that Shellard Lane is to be widened to four lanes to accommodate for the huge residential growth in the area that occurred between 1995 − 2005.

2.1.1 Environmental Context

The study corridor is situated within the Norfolk Sand Plain physiographic region of southern Ontario (Chapman and Putnam 1984:153-156). This region is wedged shaped with a broad curved base along the shore of Lake Erie that tapers northwards to a point at Brantford on the Grand River. Brantford dominates the northern part of this region. The sands and silts of this region were deposited as a delta in glacial Lakes Whittlesey and Warren. The drainage of this region is through small rivers that flow directly into



Lake Erie. Historically, one of the favourable attributes of the Norfolk sand plain was the abundance of well water.

It is crucial to consider the proximity of water sources in any evaluation of archaeological potential because the availability of water is arguably the single most important determinant of human land use, past and present. The Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011) lists proximity to water as one of the prime indicators of potential for the presence of archaeological sites. Distance from potable water has been one of the most commonly used variables for predictive modeling of site location. Water, both potable and non-potable, also facilitated the transportation of people and goods and served to focus animal and vegetable resources. According to the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, land within 300 metres of an extant or formerly mapped river or creek, or within 300 metres of the pre-development shoreline of Lake Ontario, have potential for the presence of pre-contact Aboriginal and early Euro-Canadian archaeological sites.

The D’Aubigny watershed is located in the southern part of the City of Brantford. The study corridor is crossed twice by unnamed tributaries of D’Aubigny Creek. In addition, researchers note in the OASD document that many sites in the area are in close proximity to unnamed creeks. The topographical map and the historic maps illustrate that the study corridor is intersected at least seven times by significant watercourses (Figures 3-5: Appendix A).

In summary, all undeveloped portions of the Shellard Land study corridor meet the conditions for archaeological potential in the proximity to water model. Therefore, there is potential for encountering pre-contact and early Euro-Canadian archaeological sites.

2.2 Historical Context

Historical records and mapping were examined for any evidence of Euro-Canadian use of the study corridor.

2.2.1 Review of Historical Records

This linear east-west study corridor divides Concession CT (or no concession), RIW, and Grand River Track (RT), in the Township of Brantford West, County of Brant, Ontario (Tremaine 1858- Figure 5: Appendix A). However, by 1875 the historical atlas shows that the Concessions had changed and added RT and KT divisions, likely a result of land being subdivided and leased or sold.

Figure 4 (Appendix A), overlays the approximate location of the study corridor onto the 1858 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Brant. Table 1 illustrates that there are no illustrated historical structures within the Shellard Lane study corridor. The map also



correlates Shellard Lane to surrounding historic lot divisions and not to an historic transportation route.

Table 2: 1858 Tremaine Map Concession Lot Owner/Resident(s) Illustrated Feature(s)

CT 0 Henry Shellard, Tomas Mairs No illustrated structures 0 Thomas Grantham No illustrated structures

RIW 13 H. Phelps No illustrated structures

Grand River Tract 5 Mairs No illustrated structures

Figure 5 (Appendix A) overlays the approximate location of the study corridor onto the 1875 historical atlas map. Table 2 provides a summary of features directly adjacent to, or within, the Shellard Lane study corridor. This historical map also shows that by 1875 Shellard Lane had been established as an historic transportation route.

Table 3: 1875 Historical Atlas Map Concession Lot Owner/Resident(s) Illustrated Feature(s)

CT 0 F. Watt Homestead and orchard 0 H. Shellard Homestead and orchard 0 T. Grantham No illustrated structures

RIW 13 Daniel S. Foulds No illustrated structures 12 M. Armstrong Homestead and orchard

MT

5 A. Kennard Homestead and orchard 5 Knight No illustrated structures 5 S. Pilling Homestead 5 T. Scholland Homestead and orchard 5 J. Sterling No illustrated structures 5 H. Davis No illustrated structures

KT 3 E. Frauer No illustrated structures

Although no structures are shown historically in the study corridor on every lot, it must be remembered that these maps were sold by subscription and that only those individuals who had purchased a subscription would have had their structures depicted.

In summary, the study corridor has Euro-Canadian archaeological site potential, although homesteads along this corridor were likely not constructed until after 1858.



3.0 STAGE 1 PROPERTY INSPECTION

3.1.1 Methodology

The Stage 1 property inspection was conducted under the direction of Tara Jenkins (P357), AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, on 04 May, 2012, to confirm archaeological site potential and to determine the degree to which development and landscape alteration have affected that potential. It is assumed that the impact of the proposed road improvements will not extend beyond 75 metres on either side of the centre line (Figure 1-3: Appendix A). The weather during the inspection was sunny and cool and did not impede the inspection in any way. The study corridor was inspected from the existing right-of-way (ROW) since AMEC had not obtained permission to enter.

The property inspection was conducted east-bound then west-bound commencing approximately 50 metres north of Colborne Street West and continued along Shellard Lane until the Brantford City Limits. Photographs were systematically taken to demonstrate conditions within the ROW and surrounding area (Photographic Plates 1 to 46: Appendix B). Figures 6A and 6B (Appendix A) illustrate the results of the Stage 1 property inspection.

Currently, Shellard Lane is predominantly a rural roadway and generally consists of two lanes. The route is paved and the narrow shoulders consist of soft gravel. In segments along the study corridor the shoulders are very narrow, thus posing a safety risk for taking photographs at particular locations (see Photograph Plate 26: Appendix B). Adjacent to the soft shoulders, some segments of the ROW have been ditched or serviced (e.g. Photographic Plates 12, 23, 28: Appendix B). Overall, the current ROW the land has been disturbed by typical road construction.

In addition to the disturbed ROW, approximately 50 percent of the land surrounding the current ROW is disturbed by the development of laneways and residences on the rural lots, and the servicing, grading and landscaping associated with recent residential and commercial development (e.g. Photographic Plates 2, 6, 8, 11, 27, 38, and 46: Appendix B). Archaeological potential has been removed from these areas.

Approximately, one percent of study corridor contains land that is permanently low lying and wet or steeply sloped (Photographic Plates 41, 35, 13, 29, and 44: Appendix B). The low lying and wet land is predominantly surrounding the visibly extant water courses.

The remainder of land within the study corridor (approximately 49%), consists of generally rolling agricultural fields, woodlots, or maintained lawn surrounding residences (e.g. Photographic Plates 12, 15, 18, 24, and 25: Appendix B). Some of the agricultural fields were ploughed at the time of the Stage 1 property inspection. Some of the extant



structures along the rural section of Shellard Lane may have been illustrated on the 1875 historical atlas map (e.g. Photographic Plate 31 (Appendix B) is in the illustrated location of H. Shellard’s homestead).

In summary, approximately 49 percent of the land within the Shellard Lane study corridor exhibits archaeological potential. A Stage 2 archaeological assessment is required to determine the natural integrity of the land and to search for archaeological resources. Fifty percent has been disturbed, compromising the natural integrity of the soil and removing archaeological potential. And the remaining one percent does not exhibit terrain indicative of containing archaeological sites (low lying and wet or steeply sloped).



4.0 STAGE 1 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Stage 1 background study suggests that the study corridor has archaeological potential and warrants Stage 2 property assessment due to two main factors. Firstly, some land within the study corridor is within 300 metres of historically mapped and current tributaries of D’Aubigny Creek. Secondly, there are 120 registered archaeological sites within a one-kilometre radius and 9 of which were located within the study corridor. And thirdly, the study corridor surrounds a historic transportation route (post-1858).

The Stage 1 property inspection indicated that approximately 49 percent of the study corridor consists of undeveloped land with archaeological potential. It is concluded by the Stage 1 background study and property inspections that any development-related impact on these areas first requires a Stage 2 property assessment to be conducted (see Appendix A: Figure 6A and 6B).



5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, a division of AMEC Americas Limited (AMEC), was retained by the City of Brampton to conduct a Stage 1 archaeological assessment for the proposed improvements to Shellard Lane from the city limits to 50 metres east of Colborne Street West. This Stage 1 archaeological assessment is a part of the Schedule “C” Class Environmental Assessment.

The Stage 1 background study indicates that the study corridor has archaeological potential based on the proximity to water model, the presence a historic roadway, and the previous registration of 120 archaeological sites within a one-kilometre radius, nine of which may still be located within the study corridor. The Stage 1 property inspection indicates that approximately 49 percent of the study corridor consists of undeveloped land with archaeological potential. It is concluded that any development-related impact to these areas first requires a Stage 2 property assessment to be conducted.

In light of these results, the following recommendation is made:

1) Should the proposed road improvements to Shellard Lane result in encroachment upon previously undisturbed lands determined by AMEC to have archaeological site potential, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment should be conducted in accordance with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011), prior to any land disturbance.

2) Should the Stage 2 archaeological assessment result in the identification of a previously registered site, AMEC will evaluate the site under the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011) and will make further recommendations.

3) No additional archaeological assessment is required within the remainder of the study corridors, which do not exhibit archaeological site potential. These areas may be considered clear of further archaeological concern.

The above recommendations are subject to Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport approval, and i t is an of fence to alter any of the study area without Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport concurrence.

No grading or other activities that may result in the destruction or disturbance to the study area is permitted until notice of Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport approval has been received.



6.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION

a) This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part IV 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.

b) 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 a 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.

c) 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.

d) 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 corner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services.

Documentation related to the archaeological assessment of this project will be curated by AMEC until such a time that arrangements for their ultimate transfer to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, or other public institution, can be made to the satisfaction of the project owner, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport and any other legitimate interest groups.



7.0 ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS

This report was prepared and reviewed by the undersigned, employees of AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, a division of AMEC Americas Limited. AMEC is one of North America’s leading engineering firms, with more than 50 years of experience in the earth and environmental consulting industry. The qualifications of the assessors involved in the preparation of this report are provided in Appendix C.



8.0 CLOSURE

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Brantford and is intended to provide a Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the study corridor slated for road improvements.

Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of the third party. Should additional parties require reliance on this report, written authorization from AMEC will be required. With respect to third parties, AMEC has no liability or responsibility for losses of any kind whatsoever, including direct or consequential financial effects on transactions or property values, or requirements for follow-up actions and costs.

The report is based on data and information collected during the Stage 1 background study and property inspection conducted by AMEC. It is based solely on the conditions of the property encountered at the time of the Stage 1 visual property inspection on 04 May, 2012, supplemented by a review of historical information and data obtained by AMEC as described in this report. Except as otherwise maybe specified, AMEC disclaims any obligation to update this report for events taking place, or with respect to information that becomes available to AMEC after the time during which AMEC conducted the archaeological assessment.

In evaluating the study corridors, AMEC has relied in good faith on information provided by other individuals noted in this report. AMEC has assumed that the information provided is factual and accurate. In addition, the findings in this report are based, to a large degree, upon information provided by the current owner/occupant. AMEC accepts no responsibility for any deficiency, misstatement or inaccuracy contained in this report as a result of omissions, misinterpretations or fraudulent acts of persons interviewed or contacted.

AMEC makes no other representations whatsoever, including those concerning the legal significance of its findings, or as to other legal matters touched on in this report, including, but not limited to, ownership of any property, or the application of any law to the facts set forth herein. With respect to regulatory compliance issues, regulatory statutes are subject to interpretation and change. Such interpretations and regulatory changes should be reviewed with legal counsel.

This report is also subject to the further Standard Limitations contained in Appendix D.



We trust that the information presented in this report meets your current requirements. Should you have any questions, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Respectfully Submitted,

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, a Division of AMEC Americas Limited Prepared by Reviewed by Tara Jenkins, M.A. Shaun Austin, Ph.D. Archaeologist (P357) Senior Archaeologist (P141)



9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archaeological Services Inc. 2006 Heritage Component of the Official Plan Review Program, City of Brantford,

Ontario. Chapman, L.J. and D. F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Second Edition. Ontario Geological

Survey, Special Volume 2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto University Press, Toronto.

EarthTech 2007 City of Brantford- Transportation Master Plan Update: Final Report. Ministry of Tourism and Culture 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, Ontario Ministry of

Tourism and Culture, Toronto.

G.R. & G.M Tremaine 1858 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Brant, Canada West. Toronto, Ontario.

Internet sources:

Page & Smith 1875 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Brant, Ont.

http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/primarysource.htm. Retrieved May 04, 2012.


Project Number TP112023 Appendix A

APPENDIX A

FIGURES

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

24

553000

553000

554000

554000

555000

555000

556000

556000

557000

557000

558000

558000

559000

559000

560000

560000

561000

561000

562000

562000

563000

563000

564000

564000

4769

000

4769

000

4770

000

4770

000

4771

000

4771

000

4772

000

4772

000

4773

000

4773

000

4774

000

4774

000

4775

000

4775

000

4776

000

4776

000

4777

000

4777

000

4778

000

4778

000

4779

000

4779

000

4780

000

4780

000

²0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Meters

Figure 1Location of Study Corridor

STAGE 1ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Shellard Lane,Brantford, Ontario

SOUTHDUMFRIES

ANCASTER

BRANTFORD

BURFORD

NANTICOKE

I.R.

DELHI

ÃÆ

401

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

6

ÃÆ

5

ÃÆ

24

Source: NTS Canvec Data - Tile 040P01

Conditions encountered in the field may be different from theinterpreted information presented on this figure.

Project # TP112023Date: May 2012Client: City of Brantford

Drawn by: CPChecked by: SARevision No.: 1

11 M

ay 20

12 F

:\GIS_

Work\

TP11

2023

_She

llards

_Arch

aeo\M

aps\F

igure_

1_Lo

catio

n.mxd

1:60,000

UTM NAD 83Zone 17N

AMEC Environment and Infrastructurea Division of AMEC Americas Limited505 Woodward Ave.Hamilton, ON L8H 6N6

LegendStudy CorridorBuilt-up AreasBuildingsAirportVegetationWater BodiesWetlands/ MarshesExpressway / HighwayToll HighwayFreewayRoads

555000

555000

556000

556000

557000

557000

558000

558000

559000

559000

4773

000

4773

000

4774

000

4774

000

4775

000

4775

000

4776

000

4776

000

²0 250 500 750 1,000

Meters

Figure 2Aerial Photograph showingLocation of Study Corridor



SO UT HDU MF RI E S AN CA S TE R

BR AN T FO RD

BU RF O RD

NA NT I CO K E

I. R .

DE LH I

ÃÆ

401

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

6ÃÆ

19

ÃÆ

5

ÃÆ

24

Source: Bing Maps, 2012




11 M

ay 20

12 F

:\GIS

_Wor

k\TP1

1202

3_Sh

ellar

ds_A

rchae

o\Map

s\Figu

re_2_

aeria

l.mxd

1:24,000

UTM NAD 83Zone 17N


LegendStudy Corridor

553000

553000

554000

554000

555000

555000

556000

556000

557000

557000

558000

558000

559000

559000

560000

560000

561000

561000

562000

562000

4770

000

4770

000

4771

000

4771

000

4772

000

4772

000

4773

000

4773

000

4774

000

4774

000

4775

000

4775

000

4776

000

4776

000

4777

000

4777

000

4778

000

4778

000

4779

000

4779

000

²0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Meters

Figure 31994 Topographic Map showing

Location of Study Corridor



SO U T HDU M F R IE S

AN C A S T ER

BR A N T F O R D

BU R F O R D

NA N T I C O K E

I .R .

DE L H I

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

401

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

6

ÃÆ

5

ÃÆ

24

ÃÆ

24

Source: CanTopo Map Series, 1994




11 M

ay 20

12 F

:\GIS

_Work

\TP11

2023

_She

llards

_Arch

aeo\M

aps\F

igure_

3_top

o.mxd

1:50,000

UTM NAD 83Zone 17N



555000

555000

556000

556000

557000

557000

558000

558000

559000

559000

560000

560000

561000

561000

4772

000

4772

000

4773

000

4773

000

4774

000

4774

000

4775

000

4775

000

4776

000

4776

000

4777

000

4777

000

4778

000

4778

000

²0 390 780 1,170 1,560

Meters

Figure 41858 Tremaine Map of the County

of Brant showing Approximate Location of Study Corridor




AN C A S T ER

BR A N T F O R D

BU R F O R D

NA N T I C O K E

I .R .

DE L H I

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

401

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

5

ÃÆ

6

ÃÆ

24

Source: Tremaine, 1858




16 M

ay 20

12 F

:\GIS

_Work

\TP11

2023

_She

llards

_Arch

aeo\M

aps\F

igure_

4_his

torica

l.mxd

1:37,000

UTM NAD 83Zone 17N



*Best available image quality is shown

555000

555000

556000

556000

557000

557000

558000

558000

559000

559000

4772

000

4772

000

4773

000

4773

000

4774

000

4774

000

4775

000

4775

000

4776

000

4776

000

²0 250 500 750 1,000

Meters

Figure 51875 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the

County of Brant showing Approximate Location of Study Corridor




AN C A S T ER

BR A N T F O R D

BU R F O R D

NA N T I C O K E

I .R .

DE L H I

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

401

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

5

ÃÆ

6

ÃÆ

24

Source: Page & Smith, 1875




16 M

ay 20

12 F

:\GIS

_Work

\TP11

2023

_She

llards

_Arch

aeo\M

aps\F

igure_

5_his

torica

l.mxd

1:25,000

UTM NAD 83Zone 17N



*Best available image quality is shown

23

22

4443

252421 20

1819

1716

2726

28

1514

29 30

323145

1312

1146

555500

555500

556000

556000

556500

556500

4773

000

4773

000

4773

500

4773

500

4774

000

4774

000

²0 90 180 270 360

Meters

Figure 6 AResults of Stage 1 Archaeological

Assessment with Photograph Locations and Directions



SO UT HDU MF RI E S

AN CA S TE R

BR AN T FO RD

BU RF O RD

NA NT I CO K E

I. R .

DE LH I

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

401

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

5

ÃÆ

6

ÃÆ

24





16 M

ay 20

12 F

:\GIS

_Work

\TP11

2023

_She

llards

_Arch

aeo\M

aps\F

igure

_6A.

mxd

1:8,500

UTM NAD 83Zone 17N


LegendStudy CorridorPhotograph Locations and Directions

Areas of Archaeological PotentialAgricultural Fields, Fallow Fields, Woodlots

Areas of No Archaeological PotentialDisturbed - Developed/ Landscaped,Graded, Utility ServicesSteeply Sloped AreasLow Lying and Wet Areas

#

1312

1146

3433

3635 37

98

10

38

39

40

7

7

4

65

41

3

42

1

2

557000

557000

557500

557500

558000

558000

4774

500

4774

500

4775

000

4775

000

4775

500

4775

500

²0 90 180 270 360

Meters

Figure 6 BResults of Stage 1 Archaeological

Assessment with Photograph Locations and Directions



SO UT HDU MF RI E S

AN CA S TE R

BR AN T FO RD

BU RF O RD

NA NT I CO K E

I. R .

DE LH I

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

401

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

403

ÃÆ

5

ÃÆ

6

ÃÆ

24





16 M

ay 20

12 F

:\GIS

_Work

\TP11

2023

_She

llards

_Arch

aeo\M

aps\F

igure

_6B.

mxd

1:8,500

UTM NAD 83Zone 17N


LegendStudy CorridorPhotograph Locations and Directions

Areas of Archaeological PotentialAgricultural Fields, Fallow Fields, Woodlots

Areas of No Archaeological PotentialDisturbed - Developed/ Landscaped,Graded, Utility ServicesSteeply Sloped AreasLow Lying and Wet Areas

#


Project Number TP112023 Appendix B

APPENDIX B

PHOTOGRAPHS

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT

LOCATION Shellard Lane, Brantford, Ontario

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

Facing west, along Shellard Lane, disturbed from recent development

TP112003


PLATE

PLATE 2

Description

Facing east towards Shellard Lane and Colborne Street West, view of disturbed intersection

1

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing west, along Shellard Lane, view if study corridor

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 3

Description

Facing west, view of fill within the Shellard lane right-of-way

PLATE 4

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing west, view of developed study corridor

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 5

Description

Facing east, view of pond and undeveloped land

PLATE 6

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing east, intersection of Conklin Rd and Shellard Lane, recent commercial and residential development

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 7

Description

Facing west, woodlot on north side of Shellard Lane

PLATE 8

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing northeast, view of land undergoing residential developed- stripped and fill piles

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 9

Description

Facing west, view of study corridor and fill piles on lot

PLATE 10

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing west, view of undeveloped ploughed agricultural field

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 11

Description

Facing east at recent residential development

PLATE 12

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing north, at location of a homestead no longer extant

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 13

Description

Facing north, view of low lying and permanently wet

PLATE 14

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing north, at channelized creek

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 15

Description

Facing west, view of study corridor

PLATE 16

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing west, towards woodlot along Shellard Lane

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 17

Description

Facing west, view of rolling topography

PLATE 18

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing northeast, view of stream

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 19

Description

Facing east, view of study corridor

PLATE 20

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing east, along Shellard Lane

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 21

Description

Facing west, view of woodlot (public trail)

PLATE 22

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing west, at study corridor

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 23

Description

Facing east, view of rural landscape- rolling topography

PLATE 24

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing west at small woodlot

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 25

Description

Facing east, view of study corridor, note Shellard Lane bisected the hill during construction

PLATE 26

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing east, view of study corridor, note some servicing adjacent to Shellard Lane

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 27

Description

Facing south, view of historic homestead and grassed lawn

PLATE 28

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing west, view of rural study corridor

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 29

Description

Facing south, view of low lying and wet area within an agricultural landscape

PLATE 30

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing west, at study corridor

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 31

Description

Facing south, at historic house situated along Shellard Lane

PLATE 32

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing east, at study corridor

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 33

Description

Facing west at area currently undergoing development- disturbed

PLATE 34

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT



PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 35

Description

Facing southwest, view of low lying and wet area

PLATE 36

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing east towards small woodlot

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 37

Description

Facing east, at the intersection of Conkin Rd. and Shellard Lane

PLATE 38

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing east towards disturbed study corridor

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 39

Description

Facing east, at disturbed study corridor

PLATE 40

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing east, disturbed study corridor

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 41

Description

Facing east, steeply sloped

PLATE 42

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing east, along study corridor- no shoulders

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 43

Description

Facing northeast, low lying and wet area

PLATE 44

Description

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT


Facing east, view of fill pile and graded land for development

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES

TP112003


PLATE 45

Description


PLATE 46

Description


Project Number TP112023 Appendix C

APPENDIX C

ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS


Project Number TP112023

ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS

Dr. Shaun Austin, Ph.D. – Senior Archaeologist

Dr. Austin is the Group Leader of AMEC’s archaeology group and is based in the AMEC Hamilton Office. He has been working in Canadian Archaeology since 1976 and has over 23 years of archaeological consulting experience in Southern Ontario. He is a dedicated cultural heritage consultant with repeated success guiding archaeological projects through to completion to the satisfaction of the development proponent, the cultural heritage community and all other stakeholder groups. Dr. Austin currently holds a professional archaeology license (License P141) issued by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture and is a member of the Association of Professional Archaeologists.

Tara Jenkins, M.A., Archaeologist, - Ms. Jenkins has over 11 years experience working in cultural resource management (CRM). She has obtained her M.A. from McMaster University and holds a professional archaeology license (License P357) issued by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Ms. Jenkins has been accountable for managing CRM activities as part of an archaeological team. She has acquired valuable hands-on archaeological expertise in the field conducting Stage 1 to 4 archaeological assessments, ultimately holding the position of field director. Ms. Jenkins has over seven years experience in laboratory analysis, analyzing both early Euro-Canadian and pre-contact Aboriginal artifacts. In addition, she has published archaeological and archival based articles and chapters in peer-reviewed and other recognized archaeological journals and books. Ms. Jenkins has taught at the university level in lecture and seminar environments, as well as preparing and presenting presentations for academic conferences. Furthermore, Ms. Jenkins has been an active participant in the involved engagement with a stakeholder group during archaeological investigations, such as with First Nations. Ms. Jenkins’s education and work experience has provided her with an extensive knowledge base, consisting of theoretical and practical experience in cultural resource management specific to southern Ontario.


Project Number TP112023 Appendix D

APPENDIX D

LIMITATIONS


Project Number TP112023

LIMITATIONS 1. The work performed in the preparation of this report and the conclusions presented are

subject to the following:

(a) The Standard Terms and Conditions which form a part of our Professional Services Contract;

(b) The Scope of Services;

(c) Time and Budgetary limitations as described in our Contract; and,

(d) The Limitations stated herein.

2. No other warranties or representations, either expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services provided under the terms of our Contract, or the conclusions presented.

3. The conclusions presented in this report were based, in part, on visual observations of the Study Area. Our conclusions cannot and are not extended to include those portions of the Study Area which were not reasonably available, in AMEC’s opinion, for direct observation.

4. The potential for archaeological resources, and any actual archaeological resources encountered, at the Study Area were assessed, within the limitations set out above, having due regard for applicable heritage regulations as of the date of the inspection.

5. Services including test-pitting were performed. AMEC’s work, including test-pitting, was conducted in a professional manner and in accordance with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s guidelines. It is possible that unforeseen and undiscovered archaeological resources may be present at the Study Area between areas test-pitted.

6. The utilization of AMEC’s services during the implementation of any further archaeological work recommended will allow AMEC to observe compliance with the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. AMEC’s involvement will also allow for changes to be made as necessary to suit field conditions as they are encountered.

7. This report is for the sole use of the parties to whom it is addressed unless expressly stated otherwise in the report or contract. Any use which any third party makes of the report, in whole or in part, or any reliance thereon, or decisions made based on any information of conclusions in the report, is the sole responsibility of such third party. AMEC accepts no responsibility whatsoever for damages or loss of any nature or kind suffered by any such third party as a result of actions taken or not taken or decisions made in reliance on the report or anything set out therein.

8. This report is not to be given over to any third-party other than a governmental entity, for any purpose whatsoever without the written permission of AMEC, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

Documents

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment - brantford.ca Initiatives Shellard Lane Corridor Impr... · 505 Woodward Avenue, Unit 1 . Hamilton, Ontario . L8H 6N6 . Phone: (905) 312-0700, Fax: