APPENDIX 3

CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT: BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

ST. DAVID’S ROAD RECONSTRUCTION MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITIES OF ST. CATHARINES AND THOROLD REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA, ONTARIO

Prepared for:

R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd. 1 St. Paul Street, Suite 702 St. Catharines, ON L2R 7L2

ASI File: 18CH-089

March 2019 (Updated December 2020)

CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT: BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

ST. DAVID’S ROAD RECONSTRUCTION MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITIES OF ST. CATHARINES AND THOROLD REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA, ONTARIO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ASI was contracted by R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd. to conduct a Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment as part of the St. David’s Road Reconstruction in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. This project involves the proposed reconstruction of St. David’s Road/Townline Road West between Collier Road/Burleigh Hill Drive and Front Street North in the Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, Regional Municipality of Niagara.

The results of background historical research and a review of secondary source material revealed a study area with a residential land use history consisting primarily of residences constructed in the mid-1900s. A portion of the 2nd Welland Canal is also adjacent to the study area. A field review was conducted for the entire study area to confirm the location of previously identified cultural heritage resources and to document additional potential cultural heritage resources.

Background research, data collection, and field review was conducted for the study area and it was determined that three potential cultural heritage resources are located within or adjacent to the study area. It is not anticipated that the proposed work will have a direct impact on any of the cultural heritage resources identified in this report. Based on the results of the assessment, the following recommendations have been developed in order to avoid impacts on these resources:

1. Construction activities and staging should be suitably planned and undertaken to avoid impacts to potential cultural heritage resources.

2. To ensure the properties at 92 Pine Street North and 95 Pine Street North are not adversely impacted during construction, baseline vibration monitoring should be undertaken during detailed design. Should this advance monitoring assessment conclude that the structures at 92 Pine Street North and 95 Pine Street North will be subject to vibrations, a vibration monitoring plan should be prepared and implemented as part of the detailed design phase of the project to lessen vibration impacts related to construction.

3. Should future work require an expansion of the study area then a qualified heritage consultant should be contacted in order to confirm the impacts of the proposed work on potential heritage resources.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page ii

PROJECT PERSONNEL

Senior Project Manager: Annie Veilleux, MA CAHP Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist | Manager Cultural Heritage Division

Project Manager: James Neilson, MES CAHP Cultural Heritage Specialist | Project Manager, Cultural Heritage Division

Project Coordinator: Sarah Jagelewski, Hon. BA Lead Archaeologist | Manager, Environmental Assessment Division

Report Preparation: Kirstyn Allam, Hon. BA, Dip. Advanced Museum Studies Cultural Heritage Assistant, Cultural Heritage Division

James Neilson

Graphics Preparation: Jonas Fernandez, MSc Lead Archaeologist |Assistant Manager, Fleet and Geomatics Specialist - Operations Division

Field Review: James Neilson

Report Reviewer: Lindsay Graves, MA CAHP Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist/ Senior Project Manager, Cultural Heritage Division

John Sleath, MA Associate Archaeologist | Project Manager, Cultural Heritage Division

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i PROJECT PERSONNEL ...... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT CONTEXT ...... 2 2.1 Legislation and Policy Context ...... 2 2.2 Municipal Heritage Policies ...... 6 2.2.1 City of St. Catharines Official Plan ...... 6 2.2.2 City of Thorold Official Plan ...... 9 2.3 Regional Heritage Policies ...... 13 2.4 Data Collection and Methodology ...... 14 3.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT ...... 16 3.1 Background Historical Summary ...... 17 3.1.1 Physiography ...... 17 3.1.2 Indigenous Land Use and Settlement ...... 17 3.1.3 Historical Euro-Canadian Land Use: Township Survey and Settlement ...... 21 3.1.4 Review of Historical Mapping ...... 23 3.2 Existing Conditions ...... 28 3.2.1 Review of Existing Heritage Inventories ...... 28 3.2.2 St. David’s Road Reconstruction Study Area– Field Review ...... 30 3.2.3 St. David’s Road Reconstruction – Known and Potential Cultural Heritage Resources ...... 31 4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES ...... 31 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 33 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 34 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 35 8.0 IDENTIFIED CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY ...... 41 9.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE MAPPING ...... 43 10.0 PROPOSED WORK ...... 44

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of the study area ...... 1 Figure 2: The study area overlaid on the 1862 Tremaine’s Map ...... 25 Figure 3: The study area overlaid on the 1876 Illustrated Historical Atlas ...... 26 Figure 4: The study area overlaid on the 1906 Niagara NTS map ...... 26 Figure 5: The study area overlaid on the 1938 Niagara NTS map ...... 27 Figure 6: The study area overlaid on the 1954 aerial photograph ...... 27 Figure 7: The study area overlaid on the 1973 St. Catharines NTS map ...... 28 Figure 8: Map of existing and potential cultural heritage resources with plate locations...... 43 Figure 9: Proposed road improvements (R.V. Anderson Associates Limited 2020, annotated by ASI 2020) ...... 44 Figure 10: Proposed road improvements (R.V. Anderson Associates Limited 2020, annotated by ASI 2020) ...... 45

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Nineteenth-century property owner(s) and historical features(s) within or adjacent to the study area ...... 24 Table 2: Summary of known and potential cultural heritage resources (CHR) in the study area ...... 31 Table 3: Potential Impacts of the Proposed Undertaking...... 32 Table 4: Inventory of known and potential cultural heritage resources (CHR) in the study area ...... 41

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

ASI was contracted by R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd. to conduct a Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment as part of the St. David’s Road Reconstruction in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. This project involves the proposed reconstruction of St. David’s Road/Townline Road West between Collier Road/Burleigh Hill Drive and Front Street North in the Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, Regional Municipality of Niagara (Figure 1).

The purpose of this report is to present an inventory of existing and potential cultural heritage resources, identify existing conditions of the St. David’s Road Reconstruction study area, identify impacts to cultural heritage resources, and propose appropriate mitigation measures. This research was conducted by James Neilson, Cultural Heritage Specialist, under the senior project management of Annie Veilleux, Senior Heritage Specialist and Manager of the Cultural Heritage Division, both of ASI.

Figure 1: Location of the study area Base Map: ©OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA)

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 2

2.0 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT CONTEXT

2.1 Legislation and Policy Context

This cultural heritage assessment considers cultural heritage resources in the context of improvements to specified areas, pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act. This assessment addresses above ground cultural heritage resources over 40 years old. Use of a 40-year-old threshold is a guiding principle when conducting a preliminary identification of cultural heritage resources (Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport 2016). While identification of a resource that is 40 years old or older does not confer outright heritage significance, this threshold provides a means to collect information about resources that may retain heritage value. Similarly, if a resource is slightly younger than 40 years old, this does not preclude the resource from retaining heritage value.

For the purposes of this assessment, the term cultural heritage resources is used to describe both cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage resources. A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection of individual built heritage resources and other related features that together form farm complexes, roadscapes and nucleated settlements. Built heritage resources are typically individual buildings or structures that may be associated with a variety of human activities, such as historical settlement and patterns of architectural development.

The analysis throughout the study process addresses cultural heritage resources under various pieces of legislation and their supporting guidelines. Under the Environmental Assessment Act (1990) environment is defined in Subsection 1(c) to include:

• cultural conditions that influence the life of man or a community, and; • any building, structure, machine, or other device or thing made by man.

The Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Cultural Industries (MHSTCI) is charged under Section 2 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the responsibility to determine policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario and has published two guidelines to assist in assessing cultural heritage resources as part of an environmental assessment: Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1992), and Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (1980). Accordingly, both guidelines have been utilized in this assessment process.

The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (Section 1.0) states the following:

When speaking of man-made heritage we are concerned with the works of man and the effects of his activities in the environment rather than with movable human artifacts or those environments that are natural and completely undisturbed by man.

In addition, environment may be interpreted to include the combination and interrelationships of human artifacts with all other aspects of the physical environment, as well as with the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of the people and communities in Ontario. The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments distinguish between two basic ways of visually experiencing this heritage in the environment, namely as cultural heritage landscapes and as cultural features.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 3

Within this document, cultural heritage landscapes are defined as the following (Section 1.0):

The use and physical appearance of the land as we see it now is a result of man’s activities over time in modifying pristine landscapes for his own purposes. A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection of individual man-made features into a whole. Urban cultural landscapes are sometimes given special names such as townscapes or streetscapes that describe various scales of perception from the general scene to the particular view. Cultural landscapes in the countryside are viewed in or adjacent to natural undisturbed landscapes, or waterscapes, and include such land uses as agriculture, mining, forestry, recreation, and transportation. Like urban cultural landscapes, they too may be perceived at various scales: as a large area of homogeneous character; or as an intermediate sized area of homogeneous character or a collection of settings such as a group of farms; or as a discrete example of specific landscape character such as a single farm, or an individual village or hamlet.

A cultural feature is defined as the following (Section 1.0):

…an individual part of a cultural landscape that may be focused upon as part of a broader scene, or viewed independently. The term refers to any man-made or modified object in or on the land or underwater, such as buildings of various types, street furniture, engineering works, plantings and landscaping, archaeological sites, or a collection of such objects seen as a group because of close physical or social relationships.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture, and Sport has also published Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (2014; Standards and Guidelines hereafter). These Standards and Guidelines apply to properties the Government of Ontario owns or controls that have cultural heritage value or interest. They are mandatory for Ministries and prescribed public bodies and have the authority of a Management Board or Cabinet directive. Prescribed public bodies include:

• Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario • Hydro One Inc. • Liquor Control Board of Ontario • McMichael Canadian Art Collection • Metrolinx • The Niagara Parks Commission • Ontario Heritage Trust • Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation • Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation • Ontario Power Generation Inc. • Royal Botanical Gardens • Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority • St. Lawrence Parks Commission

The Standards and Guidelines provide a series of definitions considered during the course of the assessment:

A provincial heritage property is defined as the following (14):

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 4

Provincial heritage property means real property, including buildings and structures on the property, that has cultural heritage value or interest and that is owned by the Crown in right of Ontario or by a prescribed public body; or that is occupied by a ministry or a prescribed public body if the terms of the occupancy agreement are such that the ministry or public body is entitled to make the alterations to the property that may be required under these heritage standards and guidelines.

A provincial heritage property of provincial significance is defined as the following (14):

Provincial heritage property that has been evaluated using the criteria found in Ontario Heritage Act O. Reg. 10/06 and has been found to have cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance.

A built heritage resource is defined as the following (13):

…one or more significant buildings (including fixtures or equipment located in or forming part of a building), structures, earthworks, monuments, installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history and identified as being important to a community. For the purposes of these Standards and Guidelines, “structures” does not include roadways in the provincial highway network and in-use electrical or telecommunications transmission towers.

A cultural heritage landscape is defined as the following (13):

…a defined geographical area that human activity has modified and that has cultural heritage value. Such an area involves one or more groupings of individual heritage features, such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites, and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form distinct from that of its constituent elements or parts. Heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trails, and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value are some examples.

Additionally, the Planning Act (1990) and related Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), which was updated in 2014, make several provisions relating to heritage conservation. One of the general purposes of the Planning Act is to integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions. To inform all those involved in Planning Activities of the scope of these matters of provincial interest, Section 2 of the Planning Act provides an extensive listing. These matters of provincial interest shall be regarded when certain authorities, including the council of a municipality, carry out their responsibilities under the Act. One of these provincial interests is directly concerned with:

2.(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest

Part 4.7 of the PPS states that:

The official plan is the most important vehicle for implementation of this Provincial Policy Statement. Comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning is best achieved through official plans.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 5

Official plans shall identify provincial interests and set out appropriate land use designations and policies. To determine the significance of some natural heritage features and other resources, evaluation may be required.

Official plans should also coordinate cross-boundary matters to complement the actions of other planning authorities and promote mutually beneficial solutions. Official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas.

In order to protect provincial interests, planning authorities shall keep their official plans up-to-date with this Provincial Policy Statement. The policies of this Provincial Policy Statement continue to apply after adoption and approval of an official plan.

Those policies of relevance for the conservation of heritage features are contained in Section 2- Wise Use and Management of Resources, wherein Subsection 2.6 - Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources, makes the following provisions:

2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.

Several definitions that have specific meanings for use in a policy context accompany the policy statement. These definitions include built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.

A built heritage resource is defined as: “a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Aboriginal community” (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2014).

A cultural heritage landscape is defined as “a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association” (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2014). Examples may include, but are not limited to farmscapes, historical settlements, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value.

In addition, significance is also more generally defined. It is assigned a specific meaning according to the subject matter or policy context, such as wetlands or ecologically important areas. With regard to cultural heritage and archaeology resources, resources of significance are those that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2014).

Criteria for determining significance for the resources are recommended by the Province, but municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may also be used. While some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2014).

Accordingly, the foregoing guidelines and relevant policy statement were used to guide the scope and methodology of the cultural heritage assessment.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 6

2.2 Municipal Heritage Policies

2.2.1 City of St. Catharines Official Plan

As the north side of the study area is located within the City of St. Catharines, policies in Section 3 of The Garden City Plan: City of St. Catharines Official Plan (City of St. Catharines 2018) regarding cultural heritage resources were reviewed as part of this assessment. Policies relevant to the proposed work include:

3.1. General Policies 1. The City shall identify cultural heritage resources through a continuing process of inventory, survey, and evaluation. 2. The City shall foster awareness and appreciation of the city’s cultural heritage and encourage public and private stewardship. 3. The City shall support the continuing use, reuse, care, and conservation of cultural heritage resources and properties. 4. All development/redevelopment shall have regard for identified cultural heritage resources and shall wherever feasible, incorporate these resources into any development plan. 5. The City may require a cultural heritage impact assessment where a proposed development/redevelopment or site alteration of lands, or on adjacent lands, has the potential to adversely affect cultural heritage resources. The City shall develop guidelines for the preparation of cultural impact assessments. 6. Development/redevelopment and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to protected heritage property pursuant to Part IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act, where the proposed development or site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches may be required in order to conserve the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property affected. 7. All new development/redevelopment in established areas of cultural heritage value or interest shall also be subject to the City’s Urban Design Guidelines to ensure development is in keeping with the overall character of these areas.

3.2. Heritage Designation 1. The City, in consultation with the St. Catharines Heritage Committee, may designate individual properties, pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, if they meet one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest: a) The property has design value or physical value because it, i) is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii) displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii) demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. b) The property has historical value or associative value because it, i) has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to the community, ii) yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of the community or culture, or

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 7

iii) demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to the community. c) The property has contextual value because it, i) is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii) is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to tis surroundings, or iii) is a landmark.

2. In reviewing proposals to alter individual property or structures designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City will be guided by the general principles contained in Section 3 of this Plan, in addition to the reason for designation.

To date, the City has four designated Heritage Conservation Districts – the Queen Street District, the Yates Street District, the Port Dalhousie District, and the Power Glen District. Heritage Districts are designated on Schedule B ‘Heritage Districts” of this Plan..

7. In reviewing proposals for the construction, demolition, or removal of buildings and structures or the alteration of existing buildings, the City shall be guided by the applicable heritage district plan and the following general principles where there is potential to impact any cultural heritage resources: a) Heritage buildings, associated landscape features and archaeological sites including their surroundings shall be protected from any adverse effects of change; f) Public works and landscaping within a designated district should ensure that existing roads and streetscapes are maintained or enhanced and that proposed changes respect and are complementary to the identified heritage character of the district; g) The City shall have regard for cultural heritage resources in undertaking public works. When necessary, the City will require measures to mitigate any negative impacts on significant cultural heritage resources; h) The City shall encourage local utility providers to place equipment and devices in locations which do not detract from the visual character of cultural resources and which do not have a negative impact on the architectural integrity of those resources, where feasible; i) Required road rights-of-way indicated elsewhere in the Official Plan, will be required in designated districts but every effort shall be made to ensure that existing pavement widths, especially where they are major contributors to the character of the streetscapes, will be retained; j) The City shall have regard for cultural heritage resources especially in terms of the character of landscapes and streetscapes, tree lines, bridges and the prevailing pattern of settlement in considering the construction of new roads and road improvements including realignment and road widening. When necessary, the City will require measures to mitigate any negative impacts on significant cultural heritage resources.

3.3. Heritage Register Through a continuing process of inventory and evaluation the City shall maintain, pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, a Register of Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest.

The Register shall contain those lands that have been designated under Part IV and Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, as well as properties considered to be eligible for future designation. The Heritage Committee will be consulted before a non-designated property is added too, or removed from the Register in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 8

The City may consider designation, under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, of non- designated properties on the Register after consultation with the Heritage Committee and the affected landowner(s).

The owner(s) of a non-designated property on the Register must give the City minimum notice prior to the demolition of any structures on the property as set out in the Ontario Heritage Act. The owner(s) of a property designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act must obtain the consent of City Council to allow any erection, demolition, removal or alteration of any buildings or structures on the property, as set out in the Ontario Heritage Act.

3.5. Cultural Heritage Landscapes 1. A Cultural Heritage Landscape is a defined geographical area characterized by human settlement activities that have resulted in changes and modifications to the environment, which is now considered to be of cultural heritage value or interest. Cultural Heritage Landscapes may include but are not limited to designated heritage conservation districts, urban streetscapes and mainstreets, industrial complexes, neighbourhoods, and designed landscapes such as parks, cemeteries, gardens and rural landscapes. 2. The City shall prepare an inventory of Cultural Heritage Landscapes which may be included in the Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, or may be considered for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act, and shall be protected in the carrying out of any undertaking subject to the Environmental Assessment Act or the Planning Act.

3.6. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments 1. A cultural heritage impact assessment may be required by the City and submitted prior to or at the time of any application submission pursuant to the Planning Act where the proposed development, site alteration, or redevelopment of lands (private and public) has the potential to adversely affect cultural heritage resources through displacement or disruption, and including: • destruction, removal or restoration of any, or part of any, heritage attributes or feature; • alteration, including restoration, renovation, repair or disturbance; • shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the exposure or visibility of a natural feature or plantings; • isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; • direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas from, within, or to a built or natural heritage feature; • a change in land use allowing new development or site alteration to fill in formerly open spaces; • soil disturbance including a change in grade, alteration of the drainage pattern, or excavation.

2. Cultural heritage impact assessments may be required in the following instances: a) Properties designated under any part of the Ontario Heritage Act or properties adjacent to properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; b) Properties that are included in the City’s Register of Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest or adjacent to properties included in the City’s Register of Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest;

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 9

c) A registered or known archaeological site or areas of archaeological potential; d) Properties that comprise or are contained within cultural heritage landscapes that are included in the Registry of Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest; e) Infrastructure improvements and other projects subject to a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment where cultural heritage resources may be impacted by the undertaking

3. The City shall develop guidelines for the preparation of cultural heritage impact assessments.

4. Where cultural heritage resources are to be affected, the City may impose conditions of approval on any planning application to ensure their continued protection.

3.7. Implementation

The City may encourage the conservation and enhancement of cultural heritage resources through the following methods: a) Participation in the programs of senior levels of government intended for the protection and restoration of cultural heritage resources; b) The consideration of funding programs to aid in the protection and restoration of heritage resources; c) Support the engagement of the arts community and others in the promotion and development of cultural heritage programs and activities; d) Creation of partnerships with heritage foundations and other groups and organizations; e) The use of preferred or beneficial zoning in exchange for the preservation of on-site buildings, landscapes, or streetscapes of cultural heritage value or interest, as provided for in Part F, Section 16.8 of the Plan. f) The consideration of the preservation and enhancement of cultural heritage resources as a condition of planning approvals.

2.2.2 City of Thorold Official Plan

As the south side of the study area is located within the City of Thorold, policies in Section D3 of Official Plan of the City of Thorold (City of Thorold 2016a) regarding cultural heritage resources were reviewed as part of this assessment. Policies relevant to the proposed work include:

D3.2 General Policies

D3.2.1 Heritage Impact Assessment

Council may require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to support an application for development if the affected lands are the site of an identified cultural heritage resource as identified on Schedule E to this Official Plan. Then intent of the HIA is to determine what impacts the development will have on the resource and whether the application for development will conform to the goals, objectives and policies of this Plan.

The HIA shall be in the form of a report undertaken by a qualified professional with expertise in heritage studies, and contain a description of:

a) The proposed development;

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 10

b) The cultural heritage resource(s) to be affected by the development; c) The effects upon the cultural heritage resource(s) by the proposed development; d) The measures necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of the development upon the cultural heritage resource(s); and, e) How the proposed development will relate, in terms of height, bulk, massing and presence with identified heritage buildings on the property and in the area.

Prior to considering a development that requires the preparation of a HIA, Council shall be satisfied that the development will conform to the goals and objectives of this section and will be compatible, in terms of height, massing, bulk and scale with adjacent development.

D3.2.1.1 Public Works

Public authorities have the ability to make decisions affecting the public realm that can have a positive impact on cultural heritage resources. On this basis, the carrying out of any public work by any Public Authority shall have regard to the retention and protection of identified cultural heritage resources in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Plan.

D3.2.1.2 Mitigation of Impacts on Cultural Heritage Resources

Council may impose as a condition of any development approval the retention and conservation of cultural heritage resources identified in a HIA, or the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, to minimize the impact of the development on the cultural heritage resource.

D3.2.1.3 Restoration and/or Rehabilitation of Identified Cultural Heritage Resources

It is the intent of this Plan to encourage the restoration or rehabilitation of identified cultural heritage resources. Council may also encourage the restoration and retention of heritage properties through the use of bonusing and density transfers and other means as permitted by the Planning Act. Council may also restore, rehabilitate, enhance and maintain municipally owned cultural heritage resources, through appropriate heritage stewardship practices.

D3.2.2 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Resources

D3.2.2.1 Built Heritage Register

In accordance with Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the City must maintain a register of all designated properties, but Council may also include land and buildings that have not been designated but that Council believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest.

D3.2.2.2 Cultural Heritage Landscape Register

In accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, the City must also prepare an inventory of cultural heritage landscapes. Landscapes such as existing rural and agricultural areas, historic hamlets, and heritage roads will be identified in the inventory. A cultural heritage landscape is a defined geographical area of heritage significance that has been modified by human activities. Such as area is valued by a community and is of significance to the understanding of the history of a people or place. The City, when evaluating potential cultural heritage landscapes, may refer to the Guidelines

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 11

for Identifying, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Thorold, Ontario, prepared by Heritage Thorold Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committees (LACAC).

D3.2.2.3 Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act

The City of Thorold has approximately 45 sites of cultural heritage significance in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. These sites are identified on Schedule E to this Official Plan and where new sites are added, such sites will be recognized in this Plan at the time of an Official Plan Review and Update.

Council will continue to designate cultural heritage resources, such as individual properties and conservation districts pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act and the policies of this section. Prior to the passage of any by-law to designate a building or property, Council shall be satisfied that:

a) The building or property has historical or associative value because it:

i) is strongly associated with a person, theme, event, belief, activity, organization or institution that played an integral role in the development of the City and/or is well- known locally, nationally or internationally; ii) yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of the community or of local culture, or iii) is the work of, or reflects the work or ideas of a recognized architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to the community.

b) The building or property has architectural value because it:

i) is a distinctive, rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method used in a certain period of history, ii) displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii) demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

c) The building or property has contextual value because it:

i) is the location of, or is associated in a significant way, with a significant local, national or international event, ii) is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to is surroundings, iii) is considered to be an easily recognizable landmark in the City, or iv) contributes to the character of the community.

d) When considering a neighbourhood, the neighbourhood contains a collection of buildings and properties described in Sections a), b), and c) above, and which collectively contribute to the character of the City.

D3.2.2.4 Official Plan Policy and Zoning By-law Provisions to Identify Heritage Conservation Districts

Council may, by Amendment to this Plan or incorporation into a Secondary Plan, include policies that are intended to provide guidance on how buildings and properties can be developed/redeveloped in an area where a concentration of significant cultural heritage resources

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 12

in an area exists. The intent of the policies would be to conserve and enhance the cultural heritage of an area or district, in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Plan. These policies shall:

a) Describe the historical development context of the area; b) Review the existence and significance of cultural heritage resources in the area; c) Identify the conservation priorities for identified and defined cultural heritage resources; d) Establish how cultural heritage resources should be considered through a redevelopment process; and, e) Identify and describe the architectural design and streetscape guidelines that will guide development in a defined area.

In the establishment of this policy, it is acknowledged that over 20 buildings and sites have been recognized under the Ontario Heritage Act in Downtown Thorold. On this basis, the Downtown should be a priority area for the establishment of site-specific policy intent on defining and fostering a Heritage Conservation District.

The policies may be implemented in the Implementing Zoning By-law through the creation of a heritage overlay zone or an area-specific heritage area zone, as appropriate.

D3.2.2.5 Retention/Relocation of Heritage Buildings

Council encourages the retention of buildings of cultural heritage value or interest in their original locations whenever possible. All options for on-site retention shall be considered before approval is given for relation to another site. These options include integration within new development areas, adaptive re-use of the building in its original location (e.g. use as a community centre within a residential subdivision), and relocation of the building on the development site.

D3.2.2.6 Adjacent Lands

Development and site alteration may be permitted on lands adjacent to a protected heritage property as shown on Schedule E where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. Where development of site alteration related to a Planning Act approval is proposed on lands proximate to a protected heritage property, Council shall require a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to fulfill the following:

a) To assess the nature of site alteration or development and confirm that development will not adversely impact the heritage impact the heritage attributes of the protected property; and, b) To confirm of provide recommendations to ensure that the vista and viewshed to or from the protected properties will be protected.

Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches shall be required in order to conserve heritage attributes of the protected heritage property affected by the adjacent development or site alteration.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 13

2.3 Regional Heritage Policies

As the study area is located within the Regional Municipality of Niagara, policies in Section 10C of the Imagine Niagara Official Plan (Regional Municipality of Niagara 2014) regarding cultural heritage resources were reviewed as part of this assessment. Policies relevant to the proposed work include:

10.C Creative Places

10.C.1 Objectives

10.C.1.1 To support the identification and conservation of significant built heritage resources, significant cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources and areas of archaeological potential.

10.C.1.2 To recognize the aesthetic, cultural, and economic value of open space, parks and recreation opportunities that meet the leisure needs and desires of present and future residents and visitors.

10.C.1.3 To recognize the vital role that community infrastructure plays in nurturing Niagara’s cultural potential, improving quality of life, and the health and well-being of residents and visitors.

10.C.1.4 To recognize the importance of quality design and its role in reinvigorating and enhancing Niagara and Niagara’s economy.

10.C.1.5 To conserve significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes within the unique community context of every site.

10.C.2 Policies 10.C.2.1 Built Heritage Resources, Cultural Heritage Landscapes and Archaeological Resources

10.C.2.1.1 Significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved using the provisions of the Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Funeral, Burial and Cremations Act and the Municipal Act. Policy

10.C.2.1.2 The Region shares an interest in the protection and conservation of significant built heritage resources and encourages local municipalities to develop policies to protect and conserve locally significant built heritage resources and to utilize its authority under the Ontario Heritage Act to designate individual properties, cultural heritage landscapes and heritage conservation districts that are of cultural heritage value or interest.

10.C.2.1.3 Municipalities are encouraged to establish a Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC) to advise and assist Council on matters related to Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Local Councils may expand the role of this committee to advise and assist Local Councils on other matters of cultural heritage conservation.

10.C.2.1.4 Public works projects and plans undertaken or reviewed by the Region, where in the vicinity of significant built and/ or cultural heritage landscapes will be designed in a sensitive manner and will provide appropriate mitigation measures in both design and

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 14

location to conserve, enhance and complement the existing significant built and/ or cultural heritage resources.

10.C.2.1.5 Where development, site alteration and/ or a public works project is proposed on or adjacent to a significant built heritage resource(s) or cultural heritage landscapes, a heritage impact assessment will be required. The findings of the assessment shall include recommendations for design alternatives and satisfactory measures to mitigate any negative impacts on identified significant heritage resources.

10.C.2.1.6 The Region encourages local municipalities to establish Cultural Heritage Landscapes policies in their official plans and identify Significant Cultural Heritage Landscapes for designation. The purpose of this designation is to conserve groupings of features (buildings, structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements) with heritage attributes that, together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts.

10.C.2.1.7 The local municipalities shall adopt official plan policies to conserve significant cultural heritage resources and ensure that development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected properties will conserve the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property.

10.C.2.1.8 The Region will assist local municipalities with the preparation of Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plans for Significant Cultural Heritage Landscapes that cross municipal boundaries or are of Regional interest.

10.C.2.1.9 The Region, in collaboration with local municipalities, will prepare and maintain a Regional Implementation Guideline for Significant Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation.

2.4 Data Collection and Methodology

In the course of the cultural heritage assessment, all potentially affected cultural heritage resources are subject to inventory. Short form names are usually applied to each resource type, (e.g. barn, residence). Generally, when conducting a preliminary identification of cultural heritage resources, three stages of research and data collection are undertaken to appropriately establish the potential for and existence of cultural heritage resources in a geographic area.

Background historical research, which includes consultation of primary and secondary source research and historical mapping, is undertaken to identify early settlement patterns and broad agents or themes of change in a study area. This stage in the data collection process enables the researcher to determine the presence of sensitive heritage areas that correspond to nineteenth and twentieth-century settlement and development patterns. To augment data collected during this stage of the research process, federal, provincial, and municipal databases and/or agencies are consulted to obtain information about specific properties that have been previously identified and/or designated as retaining cultural heritage value. Typically, resources identified during these stages of the research process are reflective of particular architectural styles, associated with an important person, place, or event, and contribute to the contextual facets of a particular place, neighbourhood, or intersection.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 15

A field review is then undertaken to confirm the location and condition of previously identified cultural heritage resources. The field review is also used to identify potential cultural heritage resources that have not been previously identified on federal, provincial, or municipal databases.

Several investigative criteria are utilised during the field review to appropriately identify new cultural heritage resources. These investigative criteria are derived from provincial guidelines, definitions, and past experience. During the environmental assessment, a built structure or landscape is identified as a cultural heritage resource if it is considered to be 40 years or older, and if the resource satisfies at least one of the following criteria:

Design/Physical Value: • It is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • It displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. • It demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. • The site and/or structure retains original stylistic features and has not been irreversibly altered to destroy its integrity. • It demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period.

Historical/Associative Value: • It has a direct association with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to: the City of St. Catharines; the City of Thorold; the Province of Ontario; or Canada. • It yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of the history of: the City of St. Catharines; the City of Thorold; the Province of Ontario; or Canada. • It demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to: the City of St. Catharines; the City of Thorold; the Province of Ontario; or Canada. • It represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history. • It demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. • It has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historical, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use. • It has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province.

Contextual Value: • It is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area. • It is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. • It is a landmark. • It illustrates a significant phase in the development of the community or a major change or turning point in the community’s history. • The landscape contains a structure other than a building (fencing, culvert, public art, statue, etc.) that is associated with the history or daily life of that area or region. • There is evidence of previous historical and/or existing agricultural practices (e.g. terracing, deforestation, complex water canalization, apple orchards, vineyards, etc.) • It is of aesthetic, visual or contextual important to the province.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 16

If a resource meets one of these criteria it will be identified as a potential cultural heritage resource and is subject to further research where appropriate and when feasible. Typically, detailed archival research, permission to enter lands containing heritage resources, and consultation is required to determine the specific heritage significance of the identified cultural heritage resource.

When identifying cultural heritage landscapes, the following categories are typically utilized for the purposes of the classification during the field review:

Farm complexes: comprise two or more buildings, one of which must be a farmhouse or barn, and may include a tree-lined drive, tree windbreaks, fences, domestic gardens and small orchards.

Roadscapes: generally two-lanes in width with absence of shoulders or narrow shoulders only, ditches, tree lines, bridges, culverts and other associated features.

Waterscapes: waterway features that contribute to the overall character of the cultural heritage landscape, usually in relation to their influence on historical development and settlement patterns.

Railscapes: active or inactive railway lines or railway rights of way and associated features.

Historical settlements: groupings of two or more structures with a commonly applied name.

Streetscapes: generally consist of a paved road found in a more urban setting, and may include a series of houses that would have been built in the same time period.

Historical agricultural landscapes: generally comprise a historically rooted settlement and farming pattern that reflects a recognizable arrangement of fields within a lot and may have associated agricultural outbuildings, structures, and vegetative elements such as tree rows.

Cemeteries: land used for the burial of human remains.

Results of the desktop data collection and field review are contained in Section 3.0, while Sections 4.0 and 5.0 contain conclusions and recommendations with respect to potential impacts of the undertaking on the identified cultural heritage resource. A cultural heritage resource inventory is provided in Section 7.0, while location mapping is in Section 8.0.

3.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

This section provides a brief summary of historical research of the study area and a summary of existing and potential cultural heritage resources identified municipally, provincially and/or federally or as part of field work conducted for this report.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 17

3.1 Background Historical Summary

A review of available primary and secondary source material was undertaken to produce a contextual overview of the study area, including a general description of physiography, as well as Indigenous and Euro-Canadian land use and settlement.

3.1.1 Physiography

The study area is within the Niagara Escarpment, one of the most prominent features in southern Ontario, which extends from the Niagara River to the northern tip of the Bruce Peninsula, continuing through the Manitoulin Islands (Chapman and Putman 1984:114-122). Vertical cliffs along the brow mostly outline the edge of the dolostone of the Lockport and Amabel Formations, which the slopes below are carved in red shale. Flanked by landscapes of glacial origin, the rock-hewn topography stands in striking contrast, and its steep-sided valleys are strongly suggestive of non-glacial regions. From Queenston, on the Niagara River, westward to Ancaster, the escarpment is a simple topographic break separating the two levels of the Niagara Peninsula. The Niagara Escarpment is a designated UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve.

3.1.2 Indigenous Land Use and Settlement

Southern Ontario has been occupied by human populations since the retreat of the Laurentide glacier approximately 13,000 years before present (BP) (Ferris 2013). Populations at this time would have been highly mobile, inhabiting a boreal-parkland similar to the modern sub-arctic. By approximately 10,000 BP, the environment had progressively warmed (Edwards and Fritz 1988) and populations now occupied less extensive territories (Ellis and Deller 1990).

Between approximately 10,000-5,500 BP, the Great Lakes basins experienced low-water levels, and many sites which would have been located on those former shorelines are now submerged. This period produces the earliest evidence of heavy wood working tools, an indication of greater investment of labour in felling trees for fuel, to build shelter, and watercraft production. These activities suggest prolonged seasonal residency at occupation sites. Polished stone and native copper implements were being produced by approximately 8,000 BP; the latter was acquired from the north shore of Lake Superior, evidence of extensive exchange networks throughout the Great Lakes region. The earliest evidence for cemeteries dates to approximately 4,500-3,000 BP and is indicative of increased social organization, investment of labour into social infrastructure, and the establishment of socially prescribed territories (Ellis et al. 1990; Ellis et al. 2009; Brown 1995:13).

Between 3,000-2,500 BP, populations continued to practice residential mobility and to harvest seasonally available resources, including spawning fish. The Woodland period begins around 2,500 BP and exchange and interaction networks broaden at this time (Spence et al. 1990:136, 138) and by approximately 2,000 BP, evidence exists for macro-band camps, focusing on the seasonal harvesting of resources (Spence et al. 1990:155, 164). By 1,500 BP there is macro botanical evidence for maize in southern Ontario, and it is thought that maize only supplemented people’s diet. There is earlier phytolithic evidence for maize in central New York State by 2,300 BP - it is likely that once similar analyses are conducted on Ontario ceramic vessels of the same period, the same evidence will be found (Birch and Williamson 2013:13–15). Bands likely retreated to interior camps during the winter. It is generally

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 18 understood that these populations were Algonquian-speakers during these millennia of settlement and land use.

From the beginning of the Late Woodland period at approximately 1,000 BP, lifeways became more similar to that described in early historical documents. Between approximately 1000-1300 Common Era (CE), the communal site is replaced by the village focused on horticulture. Seasonal disintegration of the community for the exploitation of a wider territory and more varied resource base was still practised (Williamson 1990:317). By 1300-1450 CE, this episodic community disintegration was no longer practised and populations now communally occupied sites throughout the year (Dodd et al. 1990:343). From 1450-1649 CE this process continued with the coalescence of these small villages into larger communities (Birch and Williamson 2013). Through this process, the socio-political organization of the First Nations, as described historically by the French and English explorers who first visited southern Ontario, was developed. By 1600 CE, the communities within Simcoe County had formed the Confederation of Nations encountered by the first European explorers and missionaries. In the 1640s, the traditional enmity between the Haudenosaunee1 and the Huron-Wendat (and their Algonquian allies such as the Nippissing and Odawa) led to the dispersal of the Huron-Wendat.

Samuel de Champlain in 1615 reported that a group of Iroquoian-speaking people situated between the Haudenosaunee and the Huron-Wendat were at peace and remained “la nation neutre”. In subsequent years, the French visited and traded among the Neutral, but the first documented visit was not until 1626, when the Recollet missionary Joseph de la Roche Daillon recorded his visit to the villages of the Attiwandaron, whose name in the Huron-Wendat language meant “those who speak a slightly different tongue” (the Neutral apparently referred to the Huron-Wendat by the same term). Like the Huron- Wendat, Petun, and Haudenosaunee, the Neutral people were settled village agriculturalists. Several discrete settlement clusters have been identified in the lower Grand River, Fairchild-Big Creek, Upper Twenty Mile Creek, Spencer-Bronte Creek drainages, Milton, Grimsby, Eastern Niagara Escarpment and Onondaga Escarpment areas, which are attributed to Iroquoian populations. These settlement clusters are believed by some scholars to have been inhabited by populations of the Neutral Nation or pre- (or ancestral) Neutral Nation (Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990).

Between 1647 and 1651, the Neutral were decimated by epidemics and ultimately dispersed by the Haudenosaunee, who subsequently settled along strategic trade routes on the north shore of Lake Ontario for a brief period during the mid seventeenth-century. Compared to settlements of the Haudenosaunee, the “Iroquois du Nord” occupation of the landscape was less intensive. Only seven villages are identified by the early historic cartographers on the north shore, and they are documented as considerably smaller than those in New York State. The populations were agriculturalists, growing maize, pumpkins, and squash. These settlements also played the important alternate role of serving as stopovers and bases for Haudenosaunee travelling to the north shore for the annual beaver hunt (Konrad 1974).

Shortly after dispersal of the Wendat and their Algonquian allies, Ojibwa began to expand into southern Ontario and Michigan from a “homeland” along the east shore of Georgian Bay, west along the north shore of Lake Huron, and along the northeast shore of Lake Superior and onto the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (Rogers 1978:760–762). This history was constructed by Rogers using both Anishinaabek oral tradition and the European documentary record, and notes that it included Chippewa, Ojibwa,

1 The Haudenosaunee are also known as the New York Iroquois or Five Nations Iroquois and after 1722 Six Nations Iroquois. They were a confederation of five distinct but related Iroquoian–speaking groups – the Seneca, Onondaga, Cayuga, Oneida, and Mohawk. Each lived in individual territories in what is now known as the Finger Lakes district of Upper New York. In 1722 the Tuscarora joined the confederacy.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 19

Mississauga, and Saulteaux or “Southeastern Ojibwa” groups. Ojibwa, likely Odawa, were first encountered by Samuel de Champlain in 1615 along the eastern shores of Georgian Bay. Etienne Brule later encountered other groups and by 1641, Jesuits had journeyed to Sault Sainte Marie (Thwaites 1896:11:279) and opened the Mission of Saint Peter in 1648 for the occupants of Manitoulin Island and the northeast shore of Lake Huron. The Jesuits reported that these Algonquian peoples lived “solely by hunting and fishing and roam as far as the “Northern sea” to trade for “ Furs and Beavers, which are found there in abundance” (Thwaites 1896-1901, 33:67), and “all of these Tribes are nomads, and have no fixed residence, except at certain seasons of the year, when fish are plentiful, and this compels them to remain on the spot” (Thwaites 1896-1901, 33:153). Algonquian-speaking groups were historically documented wintering with the Huron-Wendat, some who abandoned their country on the shores of the St. Lawrence because of attacks from the Haudenosaunee (Thwaites 1896-1901, 27:37).

Other Algonquian groups were recorded along the northern and eastern shores and islands of Lake Huron and Georgian Bay - the “Ouasouarini” [Chippewa], the “Outchougai” [Outchougai], the “Atchiligouan” [Achiligouan] near the mouth of the French River and north of Manitoulin Island the “Amikouai, or the nation of the Beaver” [Amikwa; Algonquian] and the “Oumisagai” [Missisauga; Chippewa] (Thwaites 1896-1901, 18:229, 231). At the end of the summer 1670, Father Louys André began his mission work among the Mississagué, who were located on the banks of a river that empties into Lake Huron approximately 30 leagues from the Sault (Thwaites 1896-1901, 55:133-155).

After the Huron had been dispersed, the Haudenosaunee began to exert pressure on Ojibwa within their homeland to the north. While their numbers had been reduced through warfare, starvation, and European diseases, the coalescence of various Anishinaabek groups led to enhanced social and political strength (Thwaites 1896-1901, 52:133) and Sault Sainte Marie was a focal point for people who inhabited adjacent areas both to the east and to the northwest as well as for the Saulteaux, who considered it their home (Thwaites 1896-1901, 54:129-131). The Haudenosaunee established a series of settlements at strategic locations along the trade routes inland from the north shore of Lake Ontario. From east to west, these villages consisted of Ganneious, on Napanee Bay, an arm of the Bay of Quinte; Quinte, near the isthmus of the Quinte Peninsula; Ganaraske, at the mouth of the Ganaraska River; Quintio, at the mouth of the Trent River on the north shore of Rice Lake; Ganatsekwyagon (or Ganestiquiagon), near the mouth of the Rouge River; Teyaiagon, near the mouth of the Humber River; and Quinaouatoua, on the portage between the western end of Lake Ontario and the Grand River (Konrad 1981:135). Their locations near the mouths of the Humber and Rouge Rivers, two branches of the Toronto Carrying Place, strategically linked these settlements with the upper Great Lakes through Lake Simcoe. The inhabitants of these villages were agriculturalists, growing maize, pumpkins and squash, but their central roles were that of portage starting points and trading centres for Iroquois travel to the upper Great Lakes for the annual beaver hunt (Konrad 1974; Williamson et al. 2008:50–52). Ganatsekwyagon, Teyaiagon, and Quinaouatoua were primarily Seneca; Ganaraske, Quinte and Quintio were likely Cayuga, and Ganneious was Oneida, but judging from accounts of Teyaiagon, all of the villages might have contained peoples from a number of the Iroquois constituencies (ASI 2013).

During the 1690s, some Ojibwa began moving south into extreme southern Ontario and soon replaced, the Haudenosaunee by force. By the first decade of the eighteenth century, the Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg (Mississauga Nishnaabeg) had settled at the mouth of the Humber, near Fort Frontenac at the east end of Lake Ontario and the Niagara region and within decades were well established throughout southern Ontario. In 1736, the French estimated there were 60 men at Lake Saint Clair and 150 among small settlements at Quinte, the head of Lake Ontario, the Humber River, and Matchedash (Rogers 1978:761). This history is based almost entirely on oral tradition provided by Anishinaabek elders such as George Copway (Kahgegagahbowh), a Mississauga born in 1818 near Rice Lake who followed a traditional

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 20 lifestyle until his family converted to Christianity (MacLeod 1992:197; Smith 2000). According to Copway, the objectives of campaigns against the Haudenosaunee were to create a safe trade route between the French and the Ojibwa, to regain the land abandoned by the Huron-Wendat. While various editions of Copway’s book have these battles occurring in the mid-seventeenth century, common to all is a statement that the battles occurred around 40 years after the dispersal of the Huron-Wendat (Copway 1850:88; Copway 1851:91; Copway 1858:91). Various scholars agree with this timeline ranging from 1687, in conjunction with Denonville’s attack on Seneca villages (Johnson 1986:48; Schmalz 1991:21– 22) to around the mid- to late-1690s leading up to the Great Peace of 1701 (Schmalz 1977:7; Bowman 1975:20; Smith 1975:215; Tanner 1987:33; Von Gernet 2002:7–8).

Robert Paudash’s 1904 account of Mississauga origins also relies on oral history, in this case from his father, who died at the age of 75 in 1893 and was the last hereditary chief of the Mississauga at Rice Lake. His account in turn came from his father Cheneebeesh, who died in 1869 at the age of 104 and was the last sachem or Head Chief of all the Mississaugas. He also relates a story of origin on the north shore of Lake Huron (Paudash 1905:7–8) and later, after the dispersal of the Huron-Wendat, carrying out coordinated attacks against the Haudenosaunee. Francis Assikinack, an Ojibwa of Manitoulin Island born in 1824, provides similar details on battles with the Haudenosaunee (Assikinack 1858:308–309).

Peace was achieved between the Haudenosaunee and the Anishinaabek Nations in August of 1701 when representatives of more than twenty Anishinaabek Nations assembled in Montreal to participate in peace negotiations (Johnston 2004:10). During these negotiations captives were exchanged and the Iroquois and Anishinaabek agreed to live together in peace. Peace between these nations was confirmed again at council held at Lake Superior when the Iroquois delivered a wampum belt to the Anishinaabek Nations.

From the beginning of the eighteenth century to the assertion of British sovereignty in 1763, there is no interruption to Anishinaabek control and use of southern Ontario. While hunting in the territory was shared, and subject to the permission of the various nations for access to their lands, its occupation was by Anishinaabek until the assertion of British sovereignty, the British thereafter negotiating treaties with them. Eventually, with British sovereignty, tribal designations changed (Smith 1975:221–222; Surtees 1985:20–21). According to Rogers (1978), by the twentieth century, the Department of Indian Affairs had divided the “Anishinaubag” into three different tribes, despite the fact that by the early eighteenth century, this large Algonquian-speaking group, who shared the same cultural background, “stretched over a thousand miles from the St. Lawrence River to the Lake of the Woods.” With British land purchases and treaties, the bands at Beausoleil Island, Cape Croker, Christian Island, Georgina and Snake Islands, Rama, Sarnia, Saugeen, the Thames, and Walpole, became known as “Chippewa” while the bands at Alderville, New Credit, Mud Lake, Rice Lake, and Scugog, became known as “Mississauga.” The northern groups on Lakes Huron and Superior, who signed the Robinson Treaty in 1850, appeared and remained as “Ojibbewas” in historical documents.

In 1763, following the fall of Quebec, New France was transferred to British control at the Treaty of Paris. The British government began to pursue major land purchases throughout Ontario in the early nineteenth century, and entered into negotiations with various Nations for additional tracts of land as the need arose to facilitate European settlement.

Following the 1764 Niagara Peace Treaty and the follow-up treaties with Pontiac, the English colonial government considered the Mississaugas to be their allies since they had accepted the Covenant Chain. The English administrators followed the terms of the Royal Proclamation and insured that no settlements were made in the hunting grounds that had been reserved for their use (Johnston 1964; Lytwyn 2005). In 1784, under the terms of the “Between the Lakes Purchase” signed by Sir Frederick Haldimand and the

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 21

Mississaugas, the Crown acquired over one million acres of land in-part spanning westward from near modern day Niagara-on-the-Lake along the north shore of Lake Ontario to modern day Burlington (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 2016).

The eighteenth century saw the ethnogenesis in Ontario of the Métis, when Métis people began to identify as a separate group, rather than as extensions of their typically maternal First Nations and paternal European ancestry (Métis National Council n.d.). Métis populations were predominantly located north and west of Lake Superior, however, communities were located throughout Ontario (MNC n.d.; Stone and Chaput 1978:607,608). During the early nineteenth century, many Métis families moved towards locales around southern Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, including Kincardine, Owen Sound, Penetanguishene, and Parry Sound (MNC n.d.). Recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada (Supreme Court of Canada 2003; Supreme Court of Canada 2016) have reaffirmed that Métis people have full rights as one of the Indigenous people of Canada under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

3.1.3 Historical Euro-Canadian Land Use: Township Survey and Settlement

Historically, the study area is located in part of Lots 9-12, Concession 10, former Township of Grantham, County of Lincoln, and in part of Lots 8-12, former Township of Thorold, County of Welland.

Grantham Township

The land within Grantham Township was acquired by the British from the Mississaugas in 1784. The first township survey was undertaken in 1784, and the first legal settlers occupied their land holdings the same year. The township was named after a town in Lincolnshire, England. It may also have been named to honour Sir Thomas Robinson, 2nd Earl Grantham, who was British secretary of foreign affairs at the end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783. Grantham was initially settled by disbanded soldiers, mainly Butler’s Rangers, following the end of the American Revolutionary War. In 1805, Boulton noted that Grantham was in a good situation with good quality soil, but “indifferently circumstanced for roads.” There were no major battles fought in Grantham during the War of 1812, although several farms were plundered by forces from both sides. Grantham experienced greater economic prosperity following the construction of the Welland Canal. By the 1840s, the township was said to contain good land but that the farms were not well cultivated. The population was comprised mainly of Canadians, Americans, Irish, Scottish and English settlers (Boulton 1805:80; Smith 1846:71; Armstrong 1985:144; Rayburn 1997:141; Grantham Women’s Institute 1940). In 1961, the portion of Grantham Township where the study area is located was amalgamated with the City of St. Catharines (Mika and Mika 1983).

Town of Merritton

Merritton located on the line of the Welland Canal on part Lots 10, 11 and 12 in Concessions 9 and 10, Grantham Township. The town was created out of four small canal communities named Centreville (ca. 1826), Westport, Protestant Hill and Slabtown. In 1858, it was named Welland City. The name was later changed to Merritton, which was incorporated as a village in 1874. A stone town hall was built in 1879 (Jackson and Wilson 1992:137). Locks 11 through 21 of the Second Welland Canal were located within the boundaries of the town. During the late nineteenth century, it contained a spoke factory, two cotton factories, Beatty’s saw and grinding mill, John Brown’s cement plant, a paper mill, several stores, and a telegraph office. It also had at least seven taverns, but only one Wesleyan Methodist Church and school.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 22

The town was served by the Welland Railway and the Great Western Railway. There was a station provided for the town by the Great Western, which was known as Thorold Station. One tollgate existed at the intersection of Glendale Avenue and Merritt Street on the east side of the Lybster Mill. Parts of the village were severely damaged by a tornado which touched down in September 1898. The population numbered about 1,000 in 1873 (Crossby 1873:192; Rayburn 1997:218; Fischer and Harris 2007:187; Merritton Centennial Committee 1974). In 1961, the Town of Merritton was amalgamated with the City of St. Catharines (Mika and Mika 1983).

Thorold Township

The first settlers are believed to have taken up land in Thorold around 1787-88, when the first township survey was undertaken in part by Augustus Jones. Jones also compiled the “Plans of the Townships of this Settlement” in the late autumn of 1791, which included a “List of reduced Provincial Troops” settled in the area, as well as reports on features “towards the public utility” such as water falls, minerals and/or quarries, and the quality of the timber &c (Fraser 1906:346, 388–389, 426–427).

Thorold acquired its name in 1792, likely in honor of Sir John Thorold (1734-1815), a representative for Lincolnshire in the House of Commons. Settlement in Thorold advanced at a pace that was roughly equal to that seen in the other nearby townships in the county. Most of the early settlement and land allotment was made to Loyalists and disbanded soldiers from Butler’s Rangers. Several of the farms within the township suffered damage to fences and crops, and from plunder, during the Battle of Beaver Dams in June 1813. By 1846, the township was referred to as one of the “best settled townships in the Niagara District, containing a great number of excellent, well cleared farms” (Gardiner 1899:276–277; Armstrong 1985:147; Rayburn 1997:342–343; Smith 1846).

Village of Thorold

The village of Thorold began to prosper during the late 1820s as a result of the construction of the first Welland Canal. The site of the village of Thorold was developed on land located between the watersheds of the Ten and Twelve Mile creeks, largely owned by George Keefer, a stock holder in the Canal who had erected a stone grist mill in 1826-7 even before construction of the Canal had reached Thorold. Local inhabitants were doubtful of Keefer’s sanity since his mill had no apparent source of water power when it was first built. Keefer no doubt knew about the proposed route of the canal and thus benefitted from this “insider information.”

By 1846, the village of Thorold had a population of approximately 1,000 inhabitants and contained a post office and three churches (Episcopal, Catholic and Methodist). The prosperity of Thorold was ensured when the second Welland Canal passed through the village. It followed the line of the first canal, but it utilized larger stone lock chambers than its predecessor, which was of wood construction. By the mid- 1870s, the third Welland Canal had been constructed. It followed a slightly different route to the east of the main business district of the town. Nevertheless, the second canal remained navigable (if required), and its hydraulic power continued to be harnessed by the various mills and factories that lined its banks. Thorold was also connected to other communities by the Welland Railway, which still runs adjacent to the west side of the fourth Welland Canal, as well as by the Great Western Railway, which cut through the north-east corner of the township. Thorold was elevated to village status in January 1850, but the population had increased to the point that it was able to acquire the status of a town in December 1874. At

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 23 that time the community was divided into several wards. Thorold attained city status in 1975 (Smith 1846; Page 1876:16).

The Welland Canals

William Hamilton Merritt (1793-1861) came to the Niagara area with his United Empire Loyalist parents in 1796. The young Merritt farmed and entered into the mercantile trade around 1809, and served with distinction during the War of 1812. He returned to his mercantile business after the war, but also began milling. His mill was located a short distance from the Study Area on the banks of Twelve Mile Creek (Old Welland Canal). Around 1818, Merritt conceived the idea of digging a new channel between the Welland River and the head waters of Twelve Mile Creek, which would ensure a steadier supply of water for the mills and other industries in St. Catharines. Two other important early mill owners in the region, John DeCew and George Keefer, supported Merritt’s plan. By 1824, this idea had evolved into plans for the construction of the First Welland Canal. This enterprise not only supplied a steady source of hydraulic power for local businesses, but also created a navigational route which linked Lake Ontario to Lake Erie, thus providing ships access to inland markets throughout the rest of the Great Lakes region for the first time.

The first Welland Canal ultimately proved to be unprofitably and questionably operated. Therefore, in 1841, the government bought out the remaining private shareholders, and initiated plans for the enlargement of the Canal. Construction on the Second Welland Canal, a deeper channel with larger locks built out of masonry (limestone) blocks, occurred between 1842 and 1845. This Canal closely followed the route of the First Welland Canal. The original entrance harbour and Lock 1 of the old Canal remained operational until 1847. After that time, large sections of the First Canal remained as an open waterway utilized by mills and factories as a ready source of hydraulic power. This portion of the Canal would be in service until 1887, when the Third Welland Canal was completed.

3.1.4 Review of Historical Mapping

The 1862 Map of the Counties of Lincoln and Welland (Tremaine 1862), and the 1876 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Counties of Lincoln and Welland (Page 1876) were examined to determine the presence of historic features within the study area during the nineteenth century (Figures 2-3).

It should be noted, however, that not all features of interest were mapped systematically in the Ontario series of historical atlases, given that they were financed by subscription, and subscribers were given preference about the level of detail provided on the maps. Moreover, not every feature of interest would have been within the scope of the atlases. In addition, the use of historical map sources to reconstruct/predict the location of former features within the modern landscape generally proceeds by using common reference points between the various sources. These sources are then geo-referenced in order to provide the most accurate determination of the location of any property on historical mapping sources. The results of such exercises are often imprecise or even contradictory, as there are numerous potential sources of error inherent in such a process, including the vagaries of map production (both past and present), the need to resolve differences of scale and resolution, and distortions introduced by reproduction of the sources. To a large degree, the significance of such margins of error is dependent on the size of the feature one is attempting to plot, the constancy of reference points, the distances between them, and the consistency with which both they and the target feature are depicted on the period mapping.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 24

Historically, the study area is located in part of Lots 9-12, Concession 10, former Township of Grantham, County of Lincoln, and in part of Lots 8-12, former Township of Thorold, County of Welland. Details of historical property owners and historical features in the study area are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Nineteenth-century property owner(s) and historical features(s) within or adjacent to the study area 1862 1876

Con # Lot # Property Historical Property Historical Owner(s) Feature(s) Owner(s) Feature(s) Township of Grantham 10 9 Welland City Welland Canal Merritton Town lots, Welland Canal 10 Welland City None Merritton Town lots 11 Welland City None Merritton Town lots 12 Welland City None Merritton Town lots Township of Thorold n/a 8 Town of Thorold Town lots Town of Thorold Town lots 9 Town of Thorold Town lots, Town of Thorold Town lots Welland Canal Welland Canal 10 Keefer Estate None Town of Thorold Town lots 11 Keefer Estate None Town of Thorold None 12 Keefer Estate None Sam’l Keefer None

The nineteenth-century maps illustrate that St. David’s Road/ Townline Road West was the former county/township boundary; and was also a historically surveyed road. Pine Street North, Queen Street North, and St. David’s Street West were historically surveyed as well. No structures are shown within the study area on the 1862 map (Figure 2). This is because the study area transects the Town of Thorold and Welland City and are illustrated with darker shading and blocks on the maps. The Welland Canal intersects the northern portion of the study area. There are two structures depicted just outside of the study area adjacent to the Welland Canal. The 1876 Illustrated Historical Atlas map (Figure 3) depicts the study area in the same context as the 1862 map with little change. Welland City is now labeled as Merritton. The study area is depicted in a residential context throughout the nineteenth century.

In addition to nineteenth-century mapping, topographic mapping and aerial photographs from the twentieth century were examined. This report presents maps and aerial photographs from 1906, 1938, 1954, and 1973 (Figure 4 –7). These do not represent the full range of maps consulted for the purpose of this study but were judged to cover the full range of land uses that occurred in the area that would reflect the potential cultural heritage value of the area.

The 1906 topographic map (Figure 4) illustrates that the study area retained its residential context into the early twentieth-century. St. David’s Road/ Townline Road West is depicted as a metalled road and a county boundary. There are five houses illustrated along St. David’s Road/ Townline Road West. A number of present-day streets are depicted as unmetalled roadways including Leeson Street, Pine Street North, Queen Street North, and St. David’s Road West. The Welland Canal is illustrated as transecting the study area in the northern portion.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 25

The 1938 topographic map (Figure 5) depicts some development along St. David’s Road with additional houses being depicted. The development is mostly concentrated to the northeastern half of the study area while the southwestern half is less developed. The 1954 aerial photograph (Figure 6) depicts slight growth in the residential area along the northeastern section of the study area while the southwestern portion retains its agricultural context. However, the aerial photograph also shows the significant growth in large portions of the City of Thorold with the construction of new residential neighbourhoods to the south of St. David’s Road.

The 1973 topographic map (Figure 7) illustrates that the study area continues to be depicted in the same residential context into the latter part of the twentieth-century.

Figure 2: The study area overlaid on the 1862 Tremaine’s Map Base Map: Tremaine 1862

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 26

Figure 3: The study area overlaid on the 1876 Illustrated Historical Atlas Base Map: Page 1876

Figure 4: The study area overlaid on the 1906 Niagara NTS map Base Map: NTS Sheet 30 M/3 (Department of Militia and Defence 1906)

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 27

Figure 5: The study area overlaid on the 1938 Niagara NTS map Base Map: NTS Sheet 30 M/3 (Department of National Defence 1938)

Figure 6: The study area overlaid on the 1954 aerial photograph Reference: Plate: 432.791 (University of Toronto 1954)

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 28

Figure 7: The study area overlaid on the 1973 St. Catharines NTS map Base Map: NTS Sheet 30 M/3G (Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources 1973)

3.2 Existing Conditions

3.2.1 Review of Existing Heritage Inventories

In order to make an identification of existing cultural heritage resources within the study area, a number of resources were consulted (MTCS 2016). They include:

• The City of Thorold’s Heritage Designation Directory (2017) provides a list of properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act2. Also, the City’s Potential Heritage Directory provides a list of cultural heritage resources that are not designated but are of cultural heritage value or interest3; • The City of St. Catharines list of Designated Properties under the Ontario Heritage Act (Revised Septeber 2017) provides a list of properties designated under Part IV and Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act4. Also, the City’s Register of Non-Designated Cultural Heritage Properties provides a list of cultural heritage resources that are not designated but are of cultural heritage value or interest;5 • Niagara’s interactive map, Niagara Navigator6;

2 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (http://www.heritagethorold.com/images/THOROLD%20HERITAGE%20INDEX%20- %20Designated%20-%20Apr5-2017.pdf) 3 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (http://www.heritagethorold.com/images/THOROLD%20HERITAGE%20INDEX%20- %20Potential%20-%20Nov2016.pdf) 4 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (https://www.stcatharines.ca/en/buildin/resources/Designated-Properties_Pt-IV-and-V- revised-Sept2016-00000003.pdf) 5 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (https://www.stcatharines.ca/en/buildin/HeritageInventory.asp) 6 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (https://maps.niagararegion.ca/navigator/)

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 29

• The inventory of Ontario Heritage Trust easements7; • The Ontario Heritage Trust’s Ontario Heritage Plaque Guide, an online, searchable database of Ontario Heritage Plaques8; • Ontario’s Historical Plaques website9; • Inventory of known cemeteries/burial sites in the Ontario Genealogical Society’s online databases10; • Parks Canada’s Canada’s Historic Places website: available online, the searchable register provides information on historic places recognized for their heritage value at the local, provincial, territorial, and national levels11; • Parks Canada’s Directory of Federal Heritage Designations, a searchable on-line database that identifies National Historic Sites, National Historic Events, National Historic People, Heritage Railway Stations, Federal Heritage Buildings, and Heritage Lighthouses12; • Canadian Heritage River System. The Canadian Heritage River System is a national river conservation program that promotes, protects and enhances the best examples of Canada’s river heritage13; and, • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Sites14.

In addition, the following stakeholders were contacted to gather information on potential cultural heritage resources, active and inactive cemeteries, and areas of identified Indigenous interest within and/or adjacent to the study area:

• Chloe Richer, Heritage Planner, City of St. Catharines was contacted to gather any information on potential cultural heritage resources or concerns within and/or adjacent to the study area (email communication 14 March 2019). No properties within the study area have been recognized by the City of St. Catharines as having heritage significance. • Heritage Thorold was contacted to gather any information on potential cultural heritage resources or concerns within and/or adjacent to the study area (email communication 13 March 2019). No response has been received at the time of completion of this report. • The MHSTCI (email communication with Karla Barboza, Team Lead, Heritage, sent 13 March 2019, response 18 March 2019). A response confirmed that no Provincial Heritage Properties have been identified within or adjacent to the study area.

Based on the review of available provincial and federal data, there are two previously identified cultural heritage resources within and/or adjacent to the study area.

7 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (http://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/index.php/property-types/easement-properties) 8 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/index.php/online-plaque-guide) 9 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (www.ontarioplaques.com) 10 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (http://vitacollections.ca/ogscollections/2818487/data?grd=3186) 11 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/about-apropos.aspx) 12 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/search-recherche_eng.aspx) 13 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (http://chrs.ca/the-rivers/) 14 Reviewed 14 March 2019 (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/)

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 30

3.2.2 St. David’s Road Reconstruction Study Area– Field Review

A field review of the study area was undertaken by James Neilson, Cultural Heritage Specialist, on 15 March 2019 to document the existing conditions of the study area. The field review was preceded by a review of available, current and historical, aerial photographs and maps (including online sources such as Bing and Google maps). These large-scale maps were reviewed for any potential cultural heritage resources which may be extant in the study area. The existing conditions of the study area are described below. Identified existing and potential cultural heritage resources are discussed in Section 3.2.3 and are mapped in Section 8.0 of this report.

The study area is approximately 1.43 kilometres in length, and is centred on St. David’s Road/Townline Road West between Collier Road/Burleigh Hill Drive and Front Street North in the Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold. St. David’s Road turns into Townline Road West, approximately midway through the study area at a Y-intersection. St. David’s Road and Townline Road West are oriented in a northeast-southwest alignment, and features two- asphalt-paved lanes, with a paved asphalt and gravel shoulder. The road has no curbs and sidewalks are present on the entirety of the northside of the road, and on the south side between Collier Road/Burleigh Hill Drive and St. Charles Drive. A naturalized portion of the 2nd Welland Canal is adjacent to the northern section of the study area (Plates 1-6).

Plate 1: View looking southwest near Townline Road Plate 2: View looking northeast towards Front Street West and Front Street North North on Townline Road West.

Plate 3: Remnant of the 2nd Welland Canal at the Plate 4: View looking northeast where Townline northeast end of the study area. Road West meets St. David’s Road.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 31

Plate 5: View looking southwest from where Plate 6: View looking southwest on St.David’s Road Townline Road West meets St. David’s Road towards Burleigh Hill Drive.

3.2.3 St. David’s Road Reconstruction – Known and Potential Cultural Heritage Resources

Based on the results of the background research and field review, three cultural heritage resources (CHR) were identified within and/or adjacent to the St. David’s Road Reconstruction study area (see Table 2). A detailed inventory of these cultural heritage resources within the study area is presented in Section 7.0 and mapping of the features along with photographic plate locations is provided in Section 8.0 of this report.

Table 2: Summary of known and potential cultural heritage resources (CHR) in the study area Feature ID Address/Location Resource Type Heritage Recognition CHR 1 92 Pine Street Residence Listed in the City of Thorold’s Potential North Heritage Directory CHR 2 95 Pine Street Residence Listed in the City of Thorold’s Potential North Heritage Directory CHR 3 2nd Welland Canal Infrastructure Identified as part of the Field Review

4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES

The proposed improvements to St. David’s Road involve the reconstruction of St. David’s Road and Townline Road between Collier Road/ Burleigh Hill Drive and Front Street, bordering the Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold. Along with roadway improvements, the project includes geometric and operational improvements to the St. David’s Road and Townline Road intersection; improved pedestrian and cyclist amenities throughout the corridor; potential extension of Townline Road to Front Street; and options for an active transportation connection to the Welland Canals Parkway Trail. The project will also include recommendations for upgrades and replacement of underground services (watermain, storm and sanitary sewer). Mapping of the proposed work can be found in Section 10.

To assess the potential impacts of the undertaking, identified CHLs are considered against a range of possible negative impacts, based on the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (Ministry of Tourism and Culture 2006, now administered by the MHSCTI). These include:

• Direct impacts: o Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; and

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 32

o Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance. • Indirect impacts o Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; o Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; o Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; o A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and o Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource.

Indirect impacts from construction-related vibration have the potential to negatively affect CHRs depending on the type of construction methods and machinery selected for the project and proximity and composition of the identified resources. Potential vibration impacts are defined as having potential to affect an identified CHRs where work is taking place within 50 m of features on the property. A 50 m buffer is applied in the absence of a project-specific defined vibration zone of influence based on existing secondary source literature and direction provided from the MHSTCI (Wiss 1981; Rainer 1982; Ellis 1987; Crispino and D’Apuzzo 2001; Carman et al. 2012). This buffer accommodates any additional or potential threat from collisions with heavy machinery or subsidence (Randl 2001).

Several additional factors are also considered when evaluating potential impacts on identified cultural heritage resources. These are outlined in a document set out by the MHSTCI and the Ministry of the Environment entitled Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (October 1992) and include:

• Magnitude: the amount of physical alteration or destruction which can be expected; • Severity: the irreversibility or reversibility of an impact; • Duration: the length of time an adverse impact persists; • Frequency: the number of times an impact can be expected; • Range: the spatial distribution, widespread or site specific, of an adverse impact; and • Diversity: the number of different kinds of activities to affect a heritage resource.

Table 3 outlines the potential impacts on all identified cultural heritage resources within and adjacent to the overall study area.

Table 3: Potential Impacts of the Proposed Undertaking Feature Potential Impact(s) Proposed Mitigation Measures ID CHR 1 It is understood that the limits of the To ensure this property is not adversely impacted proposed improvements will be confined to during construction, baseline vibration monitoring the existing ROW. No direct impacts to this should be undertaken during detailed design. property are anticipated. Should this advance monitoring assessment Construction activities associated with the conclude that the structure on this property will be proposed road improvements have the subject to vibrations, prepare and implement a vibration monitoring plan as part of the detailed

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 33

Feature Potential Impact(s) Proposed Mitigation Measures ID potential to create vibrations that may have design phase of the project to lessen vibration an indirect impact on the property.15 impacts related to construction.

CHR 2 It is understood that the limits of the To ensure this property is not adversely impacted proposed improvements will be confined to during construction, baseline vibration monitoring the existing ROW. No direct impacts to this should be undertaken during detailed design. property are anticipated. Should this advance monitoring assessment Construction activities associated with the conclude that the structure on this property will be proposed road improvements have the subject to vibrations, prepare and implement a potential to create vibrations that may have vibration monitoring plan as part of the detailed an indirect impact on the property. design phase of the project to lessen vibration impacts related to construction.

CHR 3 No direct or indirect impacts are No further work required anticipated as the infrastructure works will be confined to the existing ROW, adjacent to the identified cultural heritage resource.

No direct impacts to identified CHRs are anticipated as a result of the preferred alternative. Indirect impacts to CHR1 and CHR2 may occur as a result of their location adjacent to the preferred alternative. To ensure the properties at 92 Pine Street North and 95 Pine Street North are not adversely impacted during construction, baseline vibration monitoring should be undertaken during detailed design. Should this advance monitoring assessment conclude that the any structures will be subject to vibrations, a vibration monitoring plan should be prepared and implemented as part of the detailed design phase of the project to lessen vibration impacts related to construction. Where feasible, construction activities should be planned in order to prevent impacts to identified cultural heritage resources. Should it not be feasible to avoid adverse vibration impacts to the structure on identified heritage properties, a qualified engineer should undertake a condition assessment of the structures within the vibration zone of influence. Further, the contractor must make a commitment to repair any damages caused by vibrations. The area should be monitored for vibration impacts during construction, and immediately cease work if acceptable vibration thresholds are exceeded until the above has been undertaken.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

The results of background historical research and a review of secondary source material, including historical mapping, revealed a study area with a residential land use history dating to the early nineteenth century. A review of federal registers and municipal and provincial inventories revealed that there are two previously identified features of cultural heritage value within the St. David’s Road Reconstruction study area. One additional potential cultural heritage resource has been identified as part of the field review.

15 Vibration related impacts and associated mitigation are identified through the Noise and Vibration Report.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 34

Key Findings

• The study area contains three potential cultural heritage resources including two residences located at 92 Pine Street North (CHR 1) and 95 Pine Street North (CHR 2) in the City of Thorold and a remnant of the 2nd Welland Canal (CHR 3) within the City of St. Catharines.

• The residences at 92 Pine Street (CHR 1) and 95 Pine Street (CHR 1 and CHR 2) are both identified in the City of Thorold’s Potential Heritage Directory, while the remnant 2nd Welland Canal was identified during field review.

• The identified cultural heritage resources are historically and contextually associated with mid to late-nineteenth century land use patterns in the City of Thorold and the development of the Welland Canal within the City of St. Catharines.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The background research, data collection, and field review conducted for the study area determined that three potential cultural heritage resources are located within or adjacent to the St. David’s Road Reconstruction study area. Based on the results of the assessment, the following recommendations have been developed:

1. Construction activities and staging should be suitably planned and undertaken to avoid impacts to potential cultural heritage resources.

2. To ensure the properties at 92 Pine Street North and 95 Pine Street North are not adversely impacted during construction, baseline vibration monitoring should be undertaken during detailed design. Should this advance monitoring assessment conclude that the structures at 92 Pine Street North and 95 Pine Street North will be subject to vibrations, a vibration monitoring plan should be prepared and implemented as part of the detailed design phase of the project to lessen vibration impacts related to construction.

3. Should future work require an expansion of the study area then a qualified heritage consultant should be contacted in order to confirm the impacts of the proposed work on potential heritage resources.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 35

7.0 REFERENCES

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 2016 Between the Lakes Purchase and Collins Purchase, No. 3. Treaty Texts – Upper Canada Land Surrender. Available online at: .

Armstrong, Frederick H. 1985 Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Dundurn Press, Toronto.

ASI (Archaeology Services Inc.) 2013 Archaeology Potential Model for Durham Region.

Assikinack, F. 1858 Legends and Traditions of the Odawa Indians. The Canadian Journal, Second Series III:115-125.

Birch, J. and R.F. Williamson 2013 The Mantle Site: An Archaeological History of an Ancestral Wendat Community. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, Lanham.

Boulton, D. 1805 Sketch of His Majesty’s Province of Upper Canada. C. Rickaby, London.

Bowman, I. 1975 History of the Peninsula Portage and Canoe Route: Colpoy’s Bay to Lake Huron – with an Overview of Indian Occupation of the Bruce Peninsula. Toronto.

Brown, J. 1995 On Mortuary Analysis – with Special Reference to the Saxe-Binford Research Program. In Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis, edited by L. A. Beck, pp. 3–23. Plenum Press, New York.

City of Thorold 2016a Official Plan of the City of Thorold. Available online at: . 2016b Potential Heritage Directory. Available online at: . 2017 Heritage Designation Directory. Available online at: .

Chapman, L. J. and F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 36

Copway, G. 1850 The Traditional History and Characteristic Sketches of the Ojibway Nation. Charles Gilpin, London. 1851 The Traditional History and Characteristic Sketches of the Ojibway Nation. Benjamin B. Mussey & Co., Boston. 1858 Indian Life and Indian History. Albert Colby and Company, Boston.

Crossby, P.A. 1873 Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America. John Lovell, Montreal.

Department of Energy, Mines and Resources 1973 St. Catharines Sheet 30 M/3G

Department of Militia and Defence 1906 Niagara Sheet No. 3

Department of National Defence 1938 Niagara Sheet 30M/3

Dodd, C.F., D.R. Poulton, P.A. Lennox, D.G. Smith and G.A. Warrick. 1990 The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage. In: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by: C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp.321-360. Occasional Publication 5. London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London.

Edwards, T.W.D., and P. Fritz 1988 Stable-Isotope Palaeoclimate Records from Southern Ontario, Canada: Comparison of Results from Marl and Wood. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 25: 1397–1406.

Ellis, C.J. and D.B. Deller 1990 Paleo-Indians. In: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by: C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37-64. Occasional Publication 5. London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London.

Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon and M.W. Spence. 1990 The Archaic. In: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by: C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication 5. London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London.

Ellis, C.J., P.A. Timmins and H. Martelle 2009 At the Crossroads and Periphery: The Archaic Archaeological Record of Southern Ontario. In: Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity across the Midcontinent. Edited by: T.E. Emerson, D.L. McElrath and A.C. Fortier, pp.787-837. State University of New York Press, Albany.

Ferris, N. 2013 Place, Space, and Dwelling in the Late Woodland. In Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province, edited by M.K. Munson and S.M. Jamieson, pp. 99–111. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 37

Fraser, A. 1906 Minutes and Correspondence of the Land Board, District of Nassau. Third Bureau of the Archives Reports for the Province of Ontario, Toronto.

Gardiner, H.F. 1899 Nothing But Names: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Names of the Counties and Townships of Ontario. George N. Morang & Co. Ltd., Toronto.

Government of Ontario 2006 Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E18. Accessed online at: . 2009 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. Accessed online at: . 2017 Ontario Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Accessed online at: .

Grantham Women’s Institute 1940 Tweedsmuir History of Grantham Township. (no publisher cited).

Jackson, J.N. and S. Wilson 1992 St. Catharines: Canada’s Canal City. St. Catharines Standard Ltd, St. Catharines.

Johnson, I.V.B. 1986 The Early Mississauga Treaty Process, 1781-1819 in Historical Perspective. PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto.

Johnston, C.E. 1964 The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River. The Champlain Society, Toronto, Ontario. Johnston, D. 2004 Connecting People to Place: Great Lakes Aboriginal in Cultural Context. Unpublished paper prepared for the Ipperwash Commission of Enquiry. Available online at: .

Konrad, V.A. 1974 Iroquois Villages on the North Shore of Lake Ontario. 1665-1687. Presented at the Fall Meeting of the Ontario Historical Geographers, November 9, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario. 1981 An Iroquois Frontier: The North Shore of Lake Ontario during the Late Seventeen Century. Journal of Historical Geography 7(2):129-144.

Lennox, P.A., and W.R. Fitzgerald 1990 The Culture History and Archaeology of the Neutral Iroquoians. In The Culture History and Archaeology of the Neutral Iroquoians, C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, editors, pp. 405-456. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5. Ontario Archaeology Society Inc., London.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 38

Lytwyn, V.P. 2005 Historical Research Report: Aboriginal Settlement and Use of the North Pickering Development Planning Area and Adjacent Lands, 1690-1923.

MacLeod, P. 1992 The Anishinabeg Point of View: The History of the Great Lakes Region to 1800 in Nineteenth-Century Mississauga, Odawa, and Ojibwa Historiography. Canadian Historical Review 73(2):194-210.

Merritton Centennial Committee 1974 Merritton Centennial 1874-1974. St. Catharines Standard, St. Catharines.

Métis National Council n.d. The Métis Nation. Available online at: . n.d. Métis Historic Timeline. Available online at: .

Mika, N. & Helma Mika 1983 Places in Ontario Vol III. Mike Publishing Company: Belleville Ontario.

Ministry of Culture, Ontario (MCL) 2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Accessed online at: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage_toolkit.shtml

Ministry of Culture and Communication, Ontario (MCC) 1992 Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments.

Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Ontario (MCR) 1980 Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments. Prepared by Weiler. Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Toronto.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario 2014 Provincial Policy Statement. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Toronto.

Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Ontario 2014 Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Accessed online at: .

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport 2016 Criteria for Evaluation Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes; A Checklist for the Non-Specialists. PDF available online.

Ministry of Transportation

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 39

2007 Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Accessed online at: .

Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 2017 Ajetance Purchase (Treaty 19). Treaty Lands and Territory. .

Page, H.R. 1876 Illustrated Atlas of the Counties of Lincoln & Welland, Ontario. H. R. & Page Co., Toronto.

Paudash, R. 1905 The Coming of the Mississaugas. Ontario Historical Society Papers and Records 6(190).

Rayburn, A. 1997 Place Names of Ontario. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Region of Niagara 2014 Creative Niagara. In Regional Official Plan. Available online at: .

Rogers, E. S. 1978 Southeastern Ojibwa. In Handbook of North American Indians: The Northeast, 15:. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Schmalz, P.S. 1977 The History of the Saugeen Indians. Ontario Historical Society, Ottawa. 1991 The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. University of Toronto Press.

Smith, D.B. 1975 Who Are the Mississauga? Ontario History 67(4):311-222. 2000 Kahgegagahbowh. Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online. Available online at: .

Smith, W.H. 1846 Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer, Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. H. & W. Rowsell, Toronto.

Spence, M.W., R.H. Pihl and C. Murphy 1990 Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by: C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125-170. Occasional Publication 5. London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London.

Stone, L.M. and D. Chaput 1978 History of the Upper Great Lakes. In: Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 15: Northeast. Edited by B.G. Trigger, pp. 602-609. Smithsonian Institute, Washington.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 40

Supreme Court of Canada 2003 R. v. Powley. September 19. 2016 Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development). April 14.

Surtees, R. 1985 A Cartographic Analysis of Indian Settlements and Reserves in Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec, 1763-1867. Research Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Ottawa.

Tanner, H.H., editor 1987 Atlas of the Great Lakes Indian History. Oklahoma University Press, Norman.

Thwaites, R.G. 1896 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travel and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610-1791; the Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes. 73 vols. Burrows and Brothers, Cleveland.

Tremaine, G.C. 1862 Tremaine’s Map of the Counties of Lincoln and Welland. George C. Tremaine, Toronto.

University of Toronto 1954 Aerial photo. Sheet 432.791

Von Gernet, A. 2002 ‘Within the Prick’d Line’: The Historical Context of the 1701 Deed from the Iroquois to the King of England of a Vast Tract of Land. Report Prepared for the Province of Ontario.

Williamson, R.F. 1990 The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by: C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 291-320. Occasional Publication 5. London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London.

Williamson, R.F.. D.A. Robertson, M.S. Cooper, R.I. MacDonald, S.J. Austin, and R.H. Pihl 2008 Life and Death at the Quarry: The Early Woodland Archaeology of the Peace Bridge Site. Ontario Archaeology 85-88:39-68.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 41

8.0 IDENTIFIED CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY

Table 4: Inventory of known and potential cultural heritage resources (CHR) in the study area

Feature ID Address/Location Resource Type Heritage Description of Known/Potential Cultural Heritage Value Photos Recognition CHR 1 92 Pine Street Residence City of Thorold’s Historical: According to the Potential Heritage Directory, the house was constructed circa 1870 and is North Potential Heritage known as the McCleary House. William McCleary was a merchant and politician. A residence appears in this Directory location on the 1938 NTS map.

Design: A two-and-a-half storey brick residence with decorative shingles under the gable roof along the north façade. The house also has a side turret and an elaborate front porch. At some point a rear addition was added to the house.

Context: Located on the east side of Pine Street North, south of St. David’s Road (both of which are historically surveyed roadways in the Township of Thorold). The house is within a modern residential subdivision.

CHR 2 95 Pine Street Residence City of Thorold’s Historical: According to the Potential Heritage Directory, the house was constructed circa 1873 and is known North Potential Heritage as the William Beatty House. William Beatty was a businessman and politician. A residence appears in this Directory location on the 1938 NTS map.

Design: A two storey brick residence with an elaborate verandah trim. The house has a pyramid hipped roof with dormer windows on the east and west elevations. There have been several additions made to the north and rear of the house. A decorative iron fence is present around the property boundary.

Context: Located on the west side of Pine Street North, south of St. David’s Road (both of which are historically surveyed roadways in the Township of Thorold). The house is within a modern residential subdivision.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 42

CHR 3 2nd Welland Canal Infrastructure Identified as part of Historical: The 1st Welland Canal opened in 1829 and connected Port Dalhousie on Lake Ontario to Port Field Review Maitland on Lake Erie. The portion of the Welland Canal adjacent to the study area is largely composed of what is known as the 2nd Welland Canal, which was constructed in the 1840s and was in service until the construction of the 3rd Welland Canal in 1887. The new shorter alignment rendered this portion of the canal unnecessary. Today, this portion of the Canal is part of the Mountain Locks Park which opened in 1978, with portions of the original canal walls and locks still visible.

Design: The portion of the Canal immediately adjacent to the study area has been largely naturalized. Within Mountain Locks Park, the original stone canal walls are present along the waterway.

Context: The canal is situated on the ridge of the Niagara Escarpment within Mountain locks Park with Bradley Street parallel to the South.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 43

9.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE MAPPING

CHR 3 3 2 1

CHR 1 CHR 2 4 5

6

Figure 8: Map of existing and potential cultural heritage resources with plate locations.

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 44

10.0 PROPOSED WORK

Figure 9: Proposed road improvements (R.V. Anderson Associates Limited 2020, annotated by ASI 2020)

ASI Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment St. David’s Road Reconstruction Cities of St. Catharines and Thorold, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario Page 45

Figure 10: Proposed road improvements (R.V. Anderson Associates Limited 2020, annotated by ASI 2020)

ASI