Loading...
04 28 2014 Heritage Committee Agenda Township of Oro-Medonte Heritage Committee Meeting Agenda Council Chambers Monday April 28, 2014 6:00 p.m. Page 1.Adoption of Agenda: a) Motion to Adopt the Agenda. 2.Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest: 3.Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting: 3 - 7a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monday, March 24, 2014. 4.Deputations: None. 5.Communications: 8 - 13a) Update from the African Church sub-committee. 14 b) Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services, re: Update on Oro African Church Stakeholders' Meeting held on Wednesday, April 16, 2014. 15 c) Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services, re: Procurement of Restoration Services for the Oro African Church. 16 d) Correspondence dated March 25, 2014 from Brenda Clark, County of Simcoe, re: Resolution Regarding Restoration of the Oro African Methodist Episcopal Church - Parks Canada Grant Application. 17 e) Correspondence dated April 4, 2014 from The Honourable Dr. Don Meredith, Senate, re: Funding through the Parks Canada National Historic Sites Cost Sharing Program - Oro African Church. 18 - 31 f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee. 32 g) Building Department Demolition Permits Issued - March 2014. 33 h) Update from the Policy and Procedures for Artifacts and Archives sub- committee. 34 - 95 i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for Oro-Medonte. 96 j) Donna Hewitt, Director of Corporate and Strategic Initiatives, re: International Page 1 of 99 Plowing Match. 97 k) Justin Hodgkinson, Recreation Coordinator, re: Reprint of the Story of Oro. 98 - 99 l) Correspondence dated April 8, 2014 from the Simcoe County Historical Association, re: A Commemoration - 70th Anniversary of D-Day (June 6, 1944) and Annual General Meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 29, 2014 - Midhurst United Church. 6.Next Meeting Date: Monday, May 26, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. 7.Adjournment: a) Motion to Adjourn. Page 2 of 99 3.a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monda... The Township of Oro-Medonte Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes Council Chambers Monday, March 24, 2014Time: 6:01 p.m. Present: Councillor John Crawford, Chair Councillor Mel Coutanche, Vice Chair Mayor H.S. Hughes Suzanne Busby Tim Crawford Ruth Fountain Wayne Lintack, arrived @ 6:05 p.m. Bruce Malcom, arrived @ 6:10 p.m. Dorothy Moore Kayla Thibeault Regrets: Leah Burton Murray Cayley Staff: Justin Hodgkinson, Community Recreation Coordinator; Marie Brissette, Committee Coordinator 1.Adoption of Agenda: a) Motion to Adopt the Agenda. Motion No. HC140324-1 Moved by Fountain, Seconded by Thibeault It is recommended that the agenda for the Heritage Committee meeting of Monday, March 24, 2014 be received and adopted. Carried. 2.Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest: None declared. 3.Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting: a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monday, February 24, 2014. Motion No. HC140324-2 Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Busby It is recommended that the draft minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monday, February 24, 2014 be adopted as printed and circulated. Carried. 15 Page of Page 3 of 99 3.a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monda... Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes – March 24, 2014 4.Deputations: None. 5.Communications: a) Update from the African Church sub-committee. Motion No. HC140324-3 Moved by Busby, Seconded by Lintack It is recommended that the update from the African Church sub-committee be received. Carried. b) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee. Motion No. HC140324-4 Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Moore It is recommended 1. That the draft Municipal Listing Policy be received. 2. And That the item be brought forward to the April 28, 2014 Heritage Committee meeting. Carried. c) Building Department Demolition Permits Issued - February 2014. Motion No. HC140324-5 Moved by Moore, Seconded by Crawford It is recommended that the Building Department Demolition Permits Issued - February 2014 be received. Carried. 25 Page of Page 4 of 99 3.a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monda... Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes – March 24, 2014 d) Update from the Policy and Procedures for Artifacts and Archives sub-committee. No update was provided. e) Correspondence dated March 5, 2014 from Bruce Clark, re: Request for Military History Memorabilia. Motion No. HC140324-6 Moved by Busby, Seconded by Malcom It is recommended 1. That the correspondence dated March 5, 2014 from Bruce Clark, re: Request for Military History Memorabilia be received. 2. And That any information relating to Mr. Clark's request be forwarded to the Committee Coordinator no later than Friday, April 4, 2014 for a response. Carried. f) Corporate Services – Planning Report CCW 14-121, Dan Kingsbury, MCIP, RPP, Planner II, County of Simcoe, re: Penetanguishene Road War of 1812 Heritage Route. Motion No. HC140324-7 Moved by Busby, Seconded by Lintack It is recommended that the Corporate Services – Planning Report CCW 14-121, Dan Kingsbury, MCIP, RPP, Planner II, County of Simcoe, re: Penetanguishene Road War of 1812 Heritage Route be received. Carried. g) Correspondence dated February 21, 2014 from Allan Sinton, re: Memorial Plaque, McNutt Road. Motion No. HC140324-8 Moved by Fountain, Seconded by Thibeault It is recommended 1. That the correspondence dated February 21, 2014 from Allan Sinton, re: Memorial Plaque, McNutt Road be received. 2. And That Mr. Sinton be requested to provide funding alternatives and draft sign templates for the Heritage Committee’s consideration. Carried. 35 Page of Page 5 of 99 3.a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monda... Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes – March 24, 2014 h)Pamela Blackmore, Project Manager, County of Simcoe, re: 2013 Cultural Study Report. Motion No. HC140324-9 Moved by Busby, Seconded by Lintack It is recommended that the correspondence from Pamela Blackmore, Project Manager, County of Simcoe, re: 2013 Cultural Study Report be received. Carried. i) Correspondence dated February 13, 2014 from Jacqueline Soczka, re: Doors Open Orillia. Motion No. HC140324-10 Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Busby It is recommended that the correspondence dated February 13, 2014 from Jacqueline Soczka, re: Doors Open Orillia be received. Carried. j) The Quarterly Newsletter of the Simcoe County Historical Association, Vol. 42, No. 4. Motion No. HC140324-11 Moved by Busby, Seconded by Crawford It is recommended that the Quarterly Newsletter of the Simcoe County Historical Association, Vol. 42, No. 4 be received. Carried. 45 Page of Page 6 of 99 3.a) Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held on Monda... Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes – March 24, 2014 6.Next Meeting Date: Monday, April 28, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. 7.Adjournment: a) Motion to Adjourn. Motion No. HC140324-12 Moved by Fountain, Seconded by Moore It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 7:53 p.m. Carried. Councillor Crawford, Chair Marie Brissette, Committee Coordinator 55 Page of Page 7 of 99 5.a) Update from the African Church sub-committee. Page 8 of 99 5.a) Update from the African Church sub-committee. Page 9 of 99 5.a) Update from the African Church sub-committee. Page 10 of 99 5.a) Update from the African Church sub-committee. Page 11 of 99 5.a) Update from the African Church sub-committee. Page 12 of 99 5.a) Update from the African Church sub-committee. Page 13 of 99 5.b) Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Servi... Verbal Matters (Section 12.3 of Township’s Procedural By-Law No. 2013-05411) Name: Councillor Crawford Item Number/Name: 5b) Update on Oro African Church Stakeholders' Meeting held on Wednesday, April 16, 2014 Meeting Date: 04 28 2014 Motion No.: Motion No. HC140428-4 Type of Meeting: Council Special Council Committee of Adjustment Accessibility Advisory Committee Recreational Technical Support Group X Heritage Committee Speaking Notes: -25 attendees -presentation by consultants -recommendations presented, comments being gathered -final reporting coming soon 4/29/14 Page 14 of 99 5.c) Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Servi... Verbal Matters (Section 12.3 of Township’s Procedural By-Law No. 2013-05411) Name: Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services Item Number/Name: 5c) Procurement of Restoration Services for the Oro African Church Meeting Date: 04 28 2014 Motion No.: Motion No. HC140428-5 Type of Meeting: Council Special Council Committee of Adjustment Accessibility Advisory Committee Recreational Technical Support Group X Heritage Committee Speaking Notes: -the Director reviewed options and conclusions -noted that the specifics for the project would be difficult to tender out, not conducive to the project 4/29/14 Page 15 of 99 5.d) Correspondence dated March 25, 2014 from Brenda Clark, ... Page 16 of 99 5.e) Correspondence dated April 4, 2014 from The Honourable ... Page 17 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  Municipal Register Application Form (Correction/Removal) Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties “Non-designated” Properties Heritage Planner, City of Guelph Community Design and Development Services rd 3 Floor, 1 Carden Street Guelph ON N1H 3A1 P (519) 837-5616 Date Application Filed: ________________ F (519) 837-5640 Eplanning@guelph.ca File Number: ________________________ GENERAL APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS You may consult Community Design and Development Services (CDDS) staff concerning any questions/concerns you encounter in completing and/or submitting this application. If you require more space than is provided on this form, please attach additional pages and/or . documents. Supporting documentation should be included with the application PART A: Applicant Information Name of Registered Property Owner: _________________________________________________ Address of Registered Property Owner: _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone Number: __________________________ Fax Number: __________________________ Email Address: __________________________________________________________________ \[Please note: Authorization is required if the applicant is not the owner. See Part F.\] Agent Information (If another party is filling out this application on behalf of the owner. All correspondence will be sent to the agent and copied to the owner.) Name of Agent: _________________________________________________________________ Address of Agent: ________________________________________________________________ Phone Number: __________________________ Fax Number: __________________________ Email Address: __________________________________________________________________ PART B: Property Information Address of Subject Property: _______________________________________________________ Legal Description (e.g. Lot and Plan No.): _____________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ Date of Acquisition of Subject Property: ______________________________________________ Current Use(s): _________________________________________________________________ Review Process Guidelines Page 1 of 6 Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties – Non-designated Properties Page 18 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  Existing Structures: Structure 1: ________________________________ Yes (please specify use) Structure 2: ________________________________ No Structure 3: ________________________________ Current Photograph of property attached. Yes No PART C: Request Details When filling out this section please consult the current Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Resources – Non-Designated Properties (see www.guelph.ca – search municipal register), a Glossary of Architectural Terms (www.OntarioArchitecture.com; www.historicplaces.ca/nor-sta/request.aspx?req=sec6/page6a) and the “Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest” prescribed in Ontario Regulation 9/06 to theOntario Heritage Act (See Attached Appendix A). 1)Correction to Municipal Register Are you requesting a correction to Municipal Register information? Yes No If Yes, please identify what information is incorrect and provide details explaining what change you are requesting and include documentation/data sources in support of your application. Property Address: _______________________________________________________ Legal Address: _______________________________________________________ Build Date: _______________________________________________________ Significant Features: _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 2) Removal from the Municipal Register Are you requesting removal from the Municipal Register? Yes No If Yes, Page 2 Page 19 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  a)Please provide your rationale for the property not displaying any design or physical value under the Criteria attached as Appendix A to the Review Process Guidelines. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ b)Please provide your rationale for the property not displaying any historic or associative value under the Criteria attached as Appendix A to the Review Process Guidelines. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ c)Please provide your rationale for the property not displaying any contextual value under the Criteria attached as Appendix A to the Review Process Guidelines. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ Has a Heritage Assessment been conducted? Yes No (If the answer to any of the above questions is ‘Yes’, please attach the appropriate Report to this application) Heritage Consultant Information Name of Heritage Consultant: __________________________________________________ Address of Heritage Consultant: ________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ Email Address: __________________________________________________________________ Phone Number: __________________________ Fax Number: ___________________________ Review Process Guidelines Page 3 of 6 Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties – Non-designated Properties Page 20 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  3) Assessment by Heritage Guelph Are you requesting Heritage Guelph to conduct a detailed Heritage Assessment of the property? Yes No Please note that additional time will be required for Heritage Guelph to conduct a detailed assessment of the property. If a detailed assessment is sought by the property owner, additional background research is required which could warrant proceeding with the designation of a property under the Ontario Heritage Act. PART D: Project Information Is this property currently or previously the subject of a development application (e.g. Re-zoning, site plan control, building permit, demolition, etc)? Yes No If Yes, please provide Date: _________________________________________________________________ File Number: _________________________________________________________________ Purpose: _________________________________________________________________ Details/Outcome: _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ Review Process Guidelines Page 4 of 6 Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties – Non-designated Properties Page 21 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  PART E: Sworn Declaration I/WE HEREBY CERTIFY that the information contained in this application is true, correct and complete in every respect and may be verified by the City of Guelph, including Heritage Guelph members, by such inquiry as it deems appropriate, including inspection of the property for which this application is being made. I/WE HEREBY GRANT PERMISSION to the City, or its agents, including Heritage Guelph members, to inspect my/our property as part of the review/heritage assessment process. _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Name of Property Owner Title _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Signature of Property Owner Date (Owner must sign this application. Please see Part F: Authorization for Agent to Act for Owner) _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Signature of Agent (where applicable) Date _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Name of Qualified Person (where applicable) Title (Heritage Consultant) _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Signature of Qualified Person (where applicable) Date (Heritage Consultant) ** Personal information in this application (name, address, phone number, e-mail address) is part of the public record and by signing such application form the applicant acknowledges that such information can be disclosed to the public. Review Process Guidelines Page 5 of 6 Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties – Non-designated Properties Page 22 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  PART F: Authorization for Agent to Act for Owner (If application is signed by an Agent on Owner’s behalf, the Owner’s written authorization below must be completed and submitted with the application. I/WE __________________________________________________________________________ Of the _________________________ of _____________________________________________ In the County/Region of ___________________________________________________________ Do hereby authorize ______________________________________________________________ To act as my/our agent in this application. _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Signature of Owner (s) Date ____________________________________ Print Name of Owner (s) ** Personal information in this application (name, address, phone number, e-mail address) is part of the public record and by signing such application form the applicant acknowledges that such information can be disclosed to the public. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * OFFICE USE: Date Received: ______________ Application Complete: 60 Day Review Period Ends: ______________ Support Materials Provided: Correction Request Request Result ____________________________________________________ Removal Request Date of Heritage Guelph Sub-committee ______________ Date of Heritage Guelph Meeting ______________ Invite Applicant ______________ Council Date ______________ Result Result _____________________________________________________ Register and copies Updated AMANDA updated Comments: ________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Review Process Guidelines Page 6 of 6 Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties – Non-designated Properties Page 23 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  Municipal Register Review Process Guidelines Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties “Non-designated” Properties BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE MUNICIPAL REGISTER A review process and application form has been developed to provide a process to review requests to either consider corrections to listed information and/or removal of properties listed on the Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties – Non- Designated Properties. The Municipal Register is the official list of cultural heritage properties that has been identified as being important to the community. It is an important tool to help a municipality monitor its cultural heritage resources and plan for their conservation. Every municipality in Ontario, under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, is required to maintain a Municipal Register that lists all formally designated heritage properties. A municipal council may expand the Register to also include “non-designated” properties that it believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest. Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act sets out the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Under the legislation, a property is required to meet one of the criteria to be considered a cultural heritage resource. The decision to include a “non-designated” property rests with municipal council upon consultation with its municipal heritage committee, i.e. Heritage Guelph. The Municipal Register for the City of Guelph includes two lists: 1)The Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties – Designated Properties This list includes key information on all the buildings, structures, landscapes and districts that have been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. 2)The Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties – Non-Designated Properties This list includes “non-designated” properties that have cultural heritage value or interest. The listing of non-designated properties provides interim protection for sites undergoing change by requiring owners to provide the City with 60 days notice of their intention to demolish or remove a building or structure on the property. This notice period allows the City to make a well informed decision about whether long term protection of the property should be sought through the formal designation process. If your property is listed as a “non-designated” property and you disagree with information included on the Municipal Register you can use this application form to: 1)Request consideration for a correction to the information included on the Municipal Register for your property; or 2)Request consideration for removal of your property on the Municipal Register on the basis that it does not meet any of the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest prescribed under Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act (See Attached Appendix A). Review Process Guidelines Page 1 of 6 Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties – Non-designated Properties Page 24 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  REVIEW PROCESS Application City staff will review your application to ensure that the information is complete. Applications will not be processed until all required information and material is submitted with the application form. Once a complete application is received, City staff will date the application, acknowledge receipt and identify if the application is complete or incomplete. Complete applications will be processed and staff will begin their review. If an application is incomplete, City staff will identify the missing information and/or documentation needed to support your application. A. Request for Correction of the Heritage Register City staff will be responsible for the review of applications requesting corrections to listed information, including supporting documentation. Based on the information submitted, City staff may: a)Correct information recorded for your property on the Register; or b)Keep information as listed and advise you of the reason(s) for not making the requested change. Heritage Guelph may be consulted if deemed necessary by staff or at the request of an applicant. City staff and/or Heritage Guelph will make the final decision regarding correction requests. Where applicable, the information on the Register will be corrected. B. Request for Removal from the Heritage Register Heritage Guelph will review all applications requesting removal from the Municipal Register, including supporting documentation. Based on the information submitted, Heritage Guelph may: a)Recommend to City Council that the property remain listed on the Register; or b)Recommend to City Council that the property be removed from the Register. Heritage Guelph meetings are open to the public and applicants are encouraged to attend the meeting and present the rationale for their request. City Council will make the final decision regarding the listing of properties on The Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties – Non-Designated Properties. Where applicable, the property will be removed from the Register. A flow chart illustrating the above process is enclosed for reference (See page 5). Review Process Guidelines Page 2 of 6 Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties Ï Non-designated Properties Page 25 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  STEPS FOR APPLICANTS 1)ConsultThe Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties - Non-designated Properties at www.guelph.ca/living under heritage planning. Scroll through the alphabetical list of streets to find the entry for your property. A hard copy of the Municipal Register is also available at the City Clerk’s Office. 2)Check the resources below for information about heritage architectural terms used in the Register, designation criteria for determining the cultural value of your property, researching your property, and professional heritage consultants. 3)Complete the Application Form (Correction/Removal) with specific details to support your request to correct information and/or request the removal of your property from the Register. 4)Submit the completed form to: Community Design and Development Services Attn: Heritage Planner Location: 1 Carden Street, City Hall Phone: 519-837-5616 Fax: 519-837-5640 Email: planning@guelph.ca 5)City staff will date the application, acknowledge receipt and identify if the application is complete or not. 6)If an application is incomplete City staff will identify the missing information and/or documentation needed to support your application. You will need to submit the missing information and/or documentation before City staff will continue processing your request. 7)Where the request is for a correction, City staff will advise you of its decision and the Register will be modified as appropriate. 8) Where the request is for removal, City staff will advise you when Heritage Guelph will review your request. You are encouraged to attend the Heritage Guelph meeting and present the rationale for the request. 9)City staff will advise you of Heritage Guelph’s recommendation and when the matter will be forwarded to City Council for a final decision. Review Process Guidelines Page 3 of 6 Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties Ï Non-designated Properties Page 26 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  RESOURCES Definition of Terms Used in “Significant Features” Description of the Property Glossary of Architectural Terms (www.OntarioArchitecture.com) o Standards and Guidelines for Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/nor- o sta/request.aspx?req=sec6/page6a) Designation Criteria Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest - Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act (See Attached Appendix A) Researching Your Property Guelph Public Library – see guide to researching the history of your house o Guelph Civic Museum o Wellington County Museum and Archives o Land Registry Office o Professional Heritage Consultants For complex applications, you may engage the services of a heritage professional to provide the rationale and support documentation for your application. Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (www.caphc.ca) o SPECIAL NOTES Application for removal does not necessarily mean removal will be granted. Properties will remain listed on the Municipal Register until Council approves their removal. Heritage Assessment reports prepared by a heritage professional may be included with the application for review but are not required for a complete application if appropriate supporting documentation is provided to demonstrate that the criteria under Appendix A is not applicable. Where heritage assessment reports are submitted to the City, they must be signed and sealed by a qualified professional in the field of cultural heritage resource assessment and acceptable to the City in consultation with Heritage Guelph. Costs of a heritage assessment conducted by an independent third party will not be reimbursed. Applicants will not be charged for assessments conducted by Heritage Guelph. Designated properties are not eligible for removal from the Municipal Register. Review Process Guidelines Page 4 of 6 Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties Ï Non-designated Properties Page 27 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  REVIEW PROCESS FLOWCHART APPLY Obtain Application Form Check Register Listing Information Check Resources Complete Form & Submit REVIEW Application Reviewed by Heritage Planner Application Acknowledged Incomplete Applications Returned for More Information Once Complete, Application is Processed CORRECTION REQUEST REMOVAL REQUEST DECISION RECOMMENDATION Heritage Planner Decides to: Application Considered by Heritage Guelph Correct Information; or o Subcommittee Keep Information as Listed o Heritage Guelph Meeting Scheduled Heritage Guelph Consulted as Applicant Invited to Heritage Guelph Appropriate Meeting Heritage Guelph Recommendation to Council: Remove Property on Register; or o Keep Property on Register o ACTION Information Corrected on Register Where Appropriate REMOVAL REQUEST DECISION Council Decides to: Remove Property on Register; or o Keep Property listed on Register o ACTION Property Removed from Register Where Appropriate Review Process Guidelines Page 5 of 6 Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties Ï Non-designated Properties Page 28 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  APPENDIX A CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 MADE UNDER THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT Criteria 1.(1) The criteria set out in subsection (2) are prescribed for the purposes of clause 29 (1) (a) of the Act. (2) A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest: 1. 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. 2. 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 a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. 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 its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. Transition 2. This Regulation does not apply in respect of a property if notice of intention to designate it was given under subsection 29 (1.1) of the Act on or before January 24, 2006. Review Process Guidelines Page 6 of 6 Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties Ï Non-designated Properties Page 29 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address Period Recorder Name Description Photographs: Front Façade Left Facade Right Facade Rear Facade Details Setting Date Design or Physical Value RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes particular architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes and/or detail noteworthy? Notes _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contextual Value RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the continuity or character N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes of the street,neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes link to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within R N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes the region, city or neighbourhood? C (indicate degree of importance) N Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes notable landscaping orexternal features that complete the site? Notes _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Integrity RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes Note: if relocated, i.e. relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes and design features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? N/A Unknown No YesN/A Unknown No Yes Notes _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 30 of 99 5.f) Update from the Heritage Properties sub-committee.  City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Historical or Associative Value & Significance RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or Unknown No YesUnknown No Yes contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Unknown No YesUnknown No Yes Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage No Yes Unknown No Yes Unknown resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act? A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people? Notes _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Further Action/Follow Up Recorder Evaluation Sub-Committee Add toHeritage Register Add to Heritage Register * High Priority for Designation High Priority for Designation Heritage District Potential Heritage District Potential Additional Research Required Additional Research Required Additional Photographs Required Setting All Façades Details Additional Photographs Required Request Permission to Access Property Request Permission to Access Property Other__________________________________________ Other________________________________________________ General Comments _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ * Date of Property Owner Notification __________________________________________________________________________________________ Property Owner Name and Address ___________________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation Heritage Kitchener Committee Recommendation Council Decision Add to Heritage Register Add to Heritage Register No Action - Keep on File No Action - Keep on File Date________________________________________ Date________________________________________ 2 Page 31 of 99 5.g) Building Department Demolition Permits Issued - March 2... Page 32 of 99 5.h) Update from the Policy and Procedures for Artifacts and... Verbal Matters (Section 12.3 of Township’s Procedural By-Law No. 2013-05411) Name: Justin Hodgkinson, Community Recreation Coordinator Item Number/Name: 5h) Update from the Policy and Procedures for Artifacts and Archives sub-committee Meeting Date: 04 28 2014 Motion No.: Motion No. HC140428-10 Type of Meeting: Council Special Council Committee of Adjustment Accessibility Advisory Committee Recreational Technical Support Group X Heritage Committee Speaking Notes: -the Community Recreation Coordinator noted the progress made on sorting through items at the Township Administration Office and that staff would coordinate with the Simcoe County Archives for the next steps 4/29/14 Page 33 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... PLANNING FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE CITY OF KINGSTON Submitted to: Planning and Development Department City of Kingston 26 Ontario Street Kingston, Ontario K7L 2Z3 Prepared by: Archaeological Services Inc. 528 Bathurst Street Toronto, Ontario M5S 2P9 Tel.: (416) 966-1069 Fax: (416) 966-9723 Email: info@iasi.to Website: www.iasi.to March 2010 Page 34 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An Archaeological Master Plan with a comprehensive potential model is the latest response to an old problem how to deal with evidence of the past that is, for the most part, not visible because it is buried underground (or under water). The City of Kingston has a long cultural history that begins approximately 10,000 years ago and continues to the present. The archaeological sites that are the physical remains of this lengthy settlement history represent a fragile and non-renewable cultural heritage resource. The common response of “out of sight, out of mind,” however, is no longer possible in today’s political and legal climate. Recent court cases involving Aboriginal land claims, not to mention stop-work orders issued when human remains are uncovered on a development site, are but two examples of the ways in which archaeological resources affect property owners and the municipalities in which they are located. Policy initiatives, such as those found in the report of the Ipperwash inquiry, recommending that every municipality in Ontario adopt a master plan for archaeological resources so as to identify their flashpoints and put in place a way of dealing with them before they happen, coupled with more stringent heritage resource conservation policies in the Provincial Policy Statement (Planning Act), the Ontario Cemeteries Act, and the Ontario Heritage Act, require municipalities to more wisely plan for the conservation of archaeological resources. In other words, cities such as Kingston have no choice but to address archaeology, preferably by preparing archaeological master plans. The good news is that such plans are an excellent tool for municipalities. First, they tell you what has been found by providing an inventory and evaluation of known archaeological resources. Second, they tell you where undiscovered archaeological resources are most likely to be found by identifying areas of archaeological resource potential. Both of these inventories are mapped onto the City’s GIS database, making them very accessible to staff and the public alike. Third, they tell you what to do with both the known and probable places in which archaeological resources are likely to be encountered, by providing the step by step process for managing such resources. Fourth, they structure this advice within a clear, logical framework based on an historical analysis of the city and using international best practices for preparing cultural resource management plans. In this way, they are effective and robust, able to withstand challenges and suited to updating as new information emerges. Once an Archaeological Master Plan is in place, the risk of unfortunate surprises occurring (such as disturbing a burial site) is significantly reduced, and public awareness of archaeological resources considerably increased. Property owners, developers, and prospective buyers know beforehand whether they will have to conduct archaeological investigations if they want to develop or redevelop a site. Citizens will know their community’s history better and, it is hoped, appreciate its heritage more fully. And with more cultural heritage resources identified and interpreted within Kingston, tourists will have a greater selection of places to visit. Indeed, careful planning for the conservation and interpretation of cultural heritage resources will promote economic growth and offer opportunities for improving local quality of life. The preparation of such a plan is particularly crucial for the City of Kingston, which underwent amalgamation eleven years ago. It is anticipated that the population of the municipality will increase by approximately 12% over the next 20 years. In recognition of these facts, the City of Kingston retained Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI), in association with Carl Bray and Associates Ltd., to prepare the master plan. The Archaeological Master Plan of the City of Kingston has three major goals: Archaeological Services Inc. Page 35 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... 1)the compilation of inventories of registered and unregistered archaeological sites within the City and the preparation of an overview of the area's settlement history as it may be expected to pertain to archaeological resources; 2)the development of an archaeological site potential model, based on known site locations, past and present land uses, and environmental and cultural-historical data; and 3)a review of the current federal, provincial, and municipal planning and management guidelines for archaeological resources, as well as the identification of a new recommended management strategy for known and potential archaeological resources within the City. To date, more than 90 archaeological sites have been registered within the City, which date from the earliest period of human occupation in the region 10,000 years ago through to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In order to understand the manner in which additional, as yet undocumented archaeological sites may be distributed within the City, an archaeological potential model was developed using the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) to map various sets of information as separate, but complementary, layers of spatial data on 1:2,000 scale digital base maps. The zones of pre-contact archaeological potential were determined only after a detailed consideration of the past natural and cultural environments in the City. The zones were then based on distance to various forms of potable water, soil drainage characteristics and slope attributes. Examination of the early historic mapping of the City, together with consideration of the basic historical themes that have been most influential in the development of the historic core of the City and the former townships of the City, led to the identification of areas of early settlement, commercial, industrial and transportation development and the mapping of these zones as areas of historic archaeological potential. The final task in the analysis was to eliminate areas where previous development has resulted in extensive landscape disturbance. The remaining lands falling within the zones of pre-contact and historic potential encompass approximately 66% of the total landmass of the City. The tool that the City currently uses to require assessments, provided by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, currently captures about 88% of the City. The role of the municipality in the conservation of these resources is crucial. Planning and land use control are predominantly municipal responsibilities and the impact of municipal land use decisions on archaeological resources is significant, especially since municipally-approved developments constitute the majority of land disturbing activities in the Province. The primary means by which these resources may be protected is through the planning application process. Furthermore, review of development applications for archaeological resource concerns are made directly by the City. In recognition of these facts, the final task of the Master Plan research was the identification of a series of policies for incorporation in the Official Plan and of practices within the development applications process that will ensure the conservation of these valuable cultural heritage resources within the overall process of change and growth in the City. The results of this work were compiled in two reports entitled Master Plan of Archaeological Resources City of Kingston, Technical Report and Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston, both dated February 2010. The major recommendations resulting from this study include: That the policies attached as Appendix A be incorporated into the Official Plan. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 36 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... It is recommended that the archaeological potential and Archaeologically Sensitive Area (ASA) mapping be used in determining requirements for archaeological assessments. It is recommended that the Planning and Development Department work with City departments to establish protocols that ensure that in all appropriate circumstances, construction projects undertaken by developers, ratepayers and the City of Kingston that may impact archaeological resources on public lands (e.g., trail, playground, playing field, public washroom, parking lot construction, road widening/extension, trunk sewer and watermain construction, stormwater management facility construction, municipal building and structure construction, etc.) and which are located in areas of archaeological potential or areas identified as being archaeologically sensitive, are subject to archaeological assessment prior to any land disturbing activity. It is recommended that when there are any new designations of heritage properties (which include constructions dating before 1920) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, that the property footprint be added to the final potential mapping (Appendix B). If the newly designated property is surrounded by greenfields, the newly designated property should be buffered by 100 metres for archaeological potential. No Stage 4 archaeological investigations on Aboriginal sites should be undertaken within the City of Kingston without first filing a First Nations consultation report with the Planning and Development Department. Archaeological assessment reports should contain advisories on the steps to be taken should unanticipated deeply buried archaeological remains or human remains be found on a property during construction activities. In order to ensure the long term viability of the Archaeological Master Plan, it should be subject to comprehensive review on a five year basis and should be carried out by a licensed archaeologist in co-ordination with the five year review of the City’s Official Plan Procedures outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the City of Kingston should be followed regarding the sharing of information concerning archaeological site locations. It is recommended that the City develop and adopt, in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, relevant Aboriginal communities, other agencies, landowners, and the public, a “Contingency Plan for the Protection of Archaeological Resources in Urgent Situations.” The City of Kingston should implement a public awareness initiative by which the general public might be made more knowledgeable of the wide range of archaeological resources present within the City. The City of Kingston should consider preparing both an accurate and comprehensive inventory of the archaeological collections currently held by museums and consulting archaeologists and a guideline encouraging the curation of material from archaeological sites within Kingston at local museums. In summary, cities can no longer avoid dealing with archaeological resources especially since provincial planning policy has been strengthened in this regard. More importantly, there are clear precedents in law that demonstrate the severe financial and political costs of avoiding this responsibility. Kingston is making a wise choice in building on their past commitment and joining with other major municipalities in Ontario (e.g., Archaeological Services Inc. Page 37 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Windsor, London, Region of Waterloo, Toronto, Ottawa) in adopting progressive policies for the wise use and conservation of their archaeological records. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 38 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 6 PROJECT PERSONNEL Project Director:Dr. Ronald F. Williamson Heritage Consultant:Dr. Carl Bray Project Historians:Ms. Mary L. MacDonald Mr. Brian Narhi Environmental Archaeologist:Dr. Robert I. MacDonald Archaeological Site Research:Ms. Sarina Finlay Project Archaeologist:Dr. Robert I. MacDonald GIS Technician and Graphics:Ms. Sarina Finlay Report Preparation:Ms. Mary L. MacDonald Dr. Robert I. MacDonald Mr. Brian Narhi Dr. Ronald F. Williamson Ms. Annie Veilleux Acknowledgments The project team would like to thank Marcus Letourneau for sharing his expertise and knowledge with the heritage record of the City and for his advice in steering the course of the study. We are also grateful for the helpful comments on early drafts of the plan by Nick Adams, Chris Junker-Andersen, Winston Wong, Sue Bazely, Robert Cardwell, Henry Cary, Hugh Daeschel, John Duerkop, John Grenville, Nick Grimhoff, and Joe Last. The technical working group for the study included: Chris Andersen, Shirley Bailey, Cynthia Beach, Jamie Brash, Hugh Daechsel, John Duerkop, Eartha (Katarokwi Native Friendship Centre), Robin Etherington, Mark Fluhrer, Dan Franco, Hugh Gale, Therese Greenwood, John Grenville, Phil Healey, Kristine Hebert, Speros Kanellos, Vicki Kimmett, Kingston Construction Association, Lindsay Lambert, Marcus Letourneau, Alan Mcleod, Jim Miller, Cherie Mills, Neal Ritchie, Mark Segsworth, Lance Thurston, Mark VanBuren, Marnie Venditti, George Wallace, Damon Wells, Terry Willing, and Winston Wong. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 39 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................2 PROJECT PERSONNEL...........................................................................................................................................6 TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................................7 1INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................9 Defining Archaeological Resources...................................................................................................................10 2AN OVERVIEW OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL MODEL..............................................11 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................11 Pre-contact Aboriginal Site Potential Layer......................................................................................................11 Historic Archaeological Site Potential Layer....................................................................................................12 Known Archaeological Site Layer......................................................................................................................13 Defining Archaeologically Sensitive Areas........................................................................................................13 Integrity Layer....................................................................................................................................................14 Composite Archaeological Potential Layer.......................................................................................................14 3ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AS CULTURAL HERITAGE: DEFINITIONS...........................16 Introduction: Conservation, Change and Planning - Some Key Concepts.........................................................16 Defining Cultural Heritage................................................................................................................................17 The Ontario Archaeological Site Database.......................................................................................................18 The Threats to ArchaeologicalResources..........................................................................................................19 4JURISDICTION OVER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.................................................................20 Provincial Legislation........................................................................................................................................20 The Ontario Planning Act (2005) and the Provincial Policy Statement (2005)..............................................................20 The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (1997).......................................................................................................23 The Ontario Heritage Act...............................................................................................................................................23 Other Provincial Legislation..........................................................................................................................................24 Federal Legislation............................................................................................................................................24 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.......................................................................................................................25 Cultural Property Export and Import Act.......................................................................................................................26 Parks Canada.................................................................................................................................................................26 Parks Canada Guidelines for the Management of Archaeological Resources (2005)................................................26 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2003)...............................................26 Guide to the Preparation of Commemorative Integrity Statements (2002)................................................................27 Other Federal Legislation...............................................................................................................................................27 International Treaties and Charters...................................................................................................................27 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property............................................................................................................................................................27 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention).....28 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage..............................................................................28 City of Kingston Official Plan Policies..............................................................................................................28 City of Kingston Township (former)................................................................................................................................28 Pittsburgh Township (former).........................................................................................................................................29 Kingston Township (former)...........................................................................................................................................29 Summary............................................................................................................................................................30 5OWNERSHIP...................................................................................................................................................31 6IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................................................................................33 Archaeological Services Inc. Page 40 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 8 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................33 Recommended Archaeological Resource Management Procedures..................................................................33 Defining Archaeologically Sensitive Areas........................................................................................................34 The Planning Review Process: A Summary.......................................................................................................36 The Municipal Project Review Process..............................................................................................................38 Assessing Resource Impacts and Identifying Mitigation Strategies...................................................................38 7PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................41 8REFERENCES CITED...................................................................................................................................45 APPENDIX A: PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES APPENDIX B: THE COMPOSITE ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL LAYER FOR THE CITY List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Site Potential Modelling Criteria...............................................................................................15 List of Figures Figure 1: Location of Archaeologically SensitiveAreas.............................................................................................35 List of Appendix Figures Appendix B - Figure 1: The Composite Archaeological Potential Layer for the City...................................................2 Appendix B - Figure 2: The Composite Archaeological Potential Layer for the City...................................................3 Appendix B - Figure 3: The Composite Archaeological Potential Layer for the City...................................................4 Appendix B - Figure 4: The Composite Archaeological Potential Layer for the City...................................................5 Archaeological Services Inc. Page 41 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 9 1 INTRODUCTION The role of the municipality in the conservation of archaeological resources is crucial. Planning and land use control are predominantly municipal responsibilities and the impact of municipal land use decisions on archaeological resources is significant, especially since municipally-approved developments constitute the majority of land disturbing activities in the Province. The primary means by which these resources may be protected is through the planning application process. Moreover, the review of development applications for archaeological resource concerns is now made directly by the City. In recognition of these facts, the City of Kingston retained Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI), in association with Carl Bray and Associates Ltd., to prepare an archaeological master plan for the City. The ultimate objective of the project was the preparation of a planning study which identifies, analyses, and establishes priorities concerning archaeological sites located within the boundaries of the City. While a previous Archaeological Master Plan was developed for the City in the late 1980s by Cataraqui Archaeological Research Foundation (CARF), it only addressed the former City of Kingston and not the former Townships of Kingston and Pittsburgh. The plan was never formally adopted by the City and is now out-of-date. The City has no comprehensive mapping for the amalgamated City or database for identifying areas of archaeological potential and for rationalizing requirements for archaeological assessments in advance of development. Indeed, it now relies on the application of generic Ministry of Tourism and Culture criteria which covers approximately 88% of the City’s lands. It is anticipated that the population of the City of Kingston will increase by approximately 12% over the next 20 years.Change and growth within the City must be guided by sound planning and management policies, all of which must be consistent with recent changes to provincial archaeological resource conservation legislation and policy. In the case of pre-contact archaeological sites, any efforts undertaken by the City to identify and protect such sites will be viewed very positively by First Nations. Any attempt to avoid this responsibility would be viewed very dimly by First Nations. While the City of Kingston Archaeological Master Plan is an important document in-and-of itself, information gathered through the Archaeological Master Plan will also serve as an important contribution to the Cultural Plan for the City of Kingston. The development of a Cultural Plan was identified as one of the priorities for the Cultural Services Department. An Archaeological Master Plan is also a means to address related issues within the Focus Kingston: Community Strategies Plan 2000-2010 report concerning the need for a heritage strategy and the need for protecting and identifying important cultural resources. The study was designed within a framework that comprised three phases of research, the results of each of which are presented in two separate reports. Phases 1 and 2 entailed the collection, assessment and synthesis of information from various public and private sources. The major goals of this research were: 1)the compilation of inventories of registered and unregistered archaeological sites and of lands that no longer have archaeological integrity due to previous development activity; 2)the preparation of an overview of the settlement history of various sectors of the City, as it may be expected to pertain to archaeological resources; and 3)the development of an archaeological site potential model based on known site locations, past and present land uses, and environmental and cultural-historical data. The final task of the Master Plan research was the identification of a series of policies for incorporation in the Archaeological Services Inc. Page 42 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 10 Official Plan, and of practices within the development applications process that will ensure the conservation of these valuable cultural heritage resources within the overall process of change and growth in the City. The results of the technical research and modelling are fully presented in the companion volume to this document, which is entitled Master Plan of Archaeological Resources, City of Kingston, Technical Report. This document presents a discussion of the implications of the archaeological potential modelling exercise and a review of the current planning and management guidelines for archaeological resources that have been developed by various jurisdictions. It further identifies a recommended management strategy for known and potential archaeological resources within the City. Defining Archaeological Resources The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement defines archaeological resources (Section 6, Definitions) as including “artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites.” Individual archaeological sites (that collectively form the archaeological resource-base) are distributed in a variety of locational settings across the landscape, being locations or places that are associated with past human activities, endeavours, or events. These sites may occur on or below the modern land surface, or may be submerged under water. The physical forms that these archaeological sites may take include: surface scatters of artifacts; subsurface strata which are of human origin, or incorporate cultural deposits; the remains of structural features; or a combination of these attributes. As such, archaeological sites are both highly fragile and non-renewable. The Ontario Heritage Act (Ontario Regulation 170/04) defines "archaeological site" as “any property that contains an artifact or any other physical evidence of past human use or activity that is of cultural heritage value or interest’; "artifact" as “any object, material or substance that is made, modified, used, deposited or affected by human action and is of cultural heritage value or interest”; and "marine archaeological site" as “an archeological site that is fully or partially submerged or that lies below or partially below the high-water mark of any body of water”. Archaeological fieldwork is defined as “any activity carried out on, above or under land or water for the purpose of obtaining and documenting data, recovering artifacts and remains or altering an archaeological site and includes monitoring, assessing, exploring, surveying, recovering, and excavating.” Archaeological Services Inc. Page 43 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 11 2 AN OVERVIEW OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL MODEL Introduction Archaeological sites in the City of Kingston represent an important heritage resource for which only limited locational data exist. While access to such distributional information is imperative to land-use planners and heritage resource managers, the undertaking of a comprehensive archaeological survey of the city in order to compile a complete inventory was clearly not feasible. As an alternative, therefore, planners and managers must depend on a model which predicts how sites are likely to be distributed throughout the municipality. Such a model can take many forms depending on such factors as its desired function, the nature and availability of data used in its development, the geographic scope of the project, and the financial resources available. Ideally these constraints are balanced in order to produce a model of maximum validity and utility. The following sections provide an overview of the layers that together form the model of archaeological site potential. Details for each of these layers including all of the supporting research are presented in the companion volume to this document entitled, Master Plan of Archaeological Resources, City of Kingston, Technical Report. Pre-contact Aboriginal Site Potential Layer Throughout most of pre-contact history, the inhabitants of the City of Kingston were hunter-gatherers who practiced an annual subsistence round to exploit a broad range of natural resources for food and raw materials for such needs as shelter construction and tool fabrication. Later Aboriginal populations who practiced agriculture appear to have used the region for hunting and fishing, choosing to establish their villages in neighbouring areas. Assuming, therefore, that access to natural resources influenced and constrained the movement and settlement of Aboriginal peoples, our goal was to understand what these resources were, how they may have been distributed, how their use and distribution may have changed over time, and how the landscape itself may have constrained movement and access to resources as well as settlement location. The proximity of major waterways is considered to have always been a significant factor influencing land-use patterns in the City of Kingston. Transformations of the Lake Ontario shoreline notwithstanding, the fundamental layout of the major drainage systems in Kingston has remained the same since the late Pleistocene, and the waterways have likely acted as travel and settlement corridors ever since. The middle reaches of the inland drainage systems may have comprised late fall and winter microband hunting and fishing territories analogous to those recorded historically throughout the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region. Throughout these waterways, stream confluences may have been routinely used as stop-over spots, leaving traces in the archaeological record. While wintertime land use would not have been constrained by access to well-drained campsites or the limits of navigable waterways, such routes would have still provided familiar, vegetation-free corridors for travel. In light of these considerations, four criteria were combined to create the pre-contact archaeological potential layer. First, all river and major stream segments—defined as those represented by two lines (i.e., banks) on the hydrographic layer—were buffered at 250 metres. For the Lake Ontario shore, the buffer actually extended 100m offshore in some areas in order to capture known and suspected underwater archaeological sites. Second, valleyland edges of the Napanee Limestone Plain were buffered by 200 metres. Third, all subordinate streams—defined as those watercourses represented by a single line on the hydrographic layer— were buffered by 200 metres, but only where the buffers crossed well- or imperfectly drained soils. Fourth, all wetlands greater than 0.5 hectares in extent were buffered within 250 metres where the buffers crossed well- Archaeological Services Inc. Page 44 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 12 or imperfectly drained soils. The major exception to the wetland buffering was the area of the Central Pittsburgh Drain. Windshield survey of this area confirmed that, prior to artificial draining, this would have been a vast morass that would have been both difficult to navigate through and unappealing for settlement. Accordingly, the entire area was excluded from the zone of pre-contact Aboriginal archaeological potential. Using the digital elevation model, areas of slope exceeding 10 degrees were similarly excluded from this potential zone. Historic Archaeological Site Potential Layer The GIS layer of historical features is based largely on primary source documents including eighteen map sets, which range in date from the early French regime to 1878. It is recognized that these maps did not always illustrate historic features that may be of interest, therefore, it can in no way be considered definitive and all of the mapped locations should be considered to be approximate. The boundaries of all of the early settlement centres were plotted using the same map series. It is recognized that some of the more massive features associated with many historic archaeological sites are likely to have survived as deeply buried deposits in areas that have been developed. This is reflected in the earliest occupied cores of settlements where historic archaeological potential overrides the integrity layer. Within the historic core of the City of Kingston, the boundaries conform to the political boundary of the city at the time of its incorporation in 1846. The boundaries of other settlements, as plotted, serve to indicate those areas where most of the building activity was concentrated at the time the source maps were produced. Indeed, the settlement centre overlay is indicative of those areas that exhibit potential for the presence of meeting halls, school houses, blacksmith shops, stores, grain warehouses, hotels, taverns, and other commercial service buildings. All schools, places of worship and commercial buildings, such as inns, that occur outside of the major settlement centres were mapped individually, if their locations were shown on the Illustrated Historical Atlas maps. These features represent the earliest structures of social and economic significance in the region and should be considered heritage features demonstrating significant archaeological potential. All features were mapped as points buffered by a radius of 100 metres to capture ancillary features. All mill locations, manufacturers, lime kilns, quarries and mines were mapped based on the nineteenth century surveys and the Illustrated Historical Atlas maps. All features were mapped as points buffered by a radius of 100 metres to capture ancillary features. Isolated rural homesteads were also incorporated within this layer. While nineteenth century maps do not necessarily provide comprehensive locational data for rural homesteads, it is anticipated that those represented on the Illustrated Historical Atlas and Township histories will represent the majority of these resources. Each of these isolated rural homesteads/farmsteads will need to be evaluated in association with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture to determine their worthiness for systematic archaeological investigation given their quantity and ubiquity. All features already designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, situated inside settlement centres, had their property footprints added to the final archaeological potential mapping. They are not subject to exclusion through the integrity layer. Those designated properties outside of settlement centres were also plotted and buffered by a radius of 100 metres for archaeological potential. Transportation routes such as early settlement roads, established by the 1870s (buffered by zones of 200 metres either side), and early railways (buffered by zones of 50 metres either side) have been mapped to draw Archaeological Services Inc. Page 45 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 13 attention to potential heritage features adjacent to their rights-of-way. Eighty-six percent (86%) of all currently mapped historic buildings (n=1149) are situated within the early transportation and water buffers, clear evidence of the efficacy of the historic model and of the fact that the vast majority of unmapped features will be caught by the model’s buffers. Cemeteries and family burial grounds have been included in the historic theme layer due to their particularly sensitive nature and the fact that these sites may become invisible in the modern landscape. Information concerning pioneer cemeteries was obtained from microfilm records deposited at the Archives of Ontario by the Kingston \[Region VIII\] Branch of the Ontario Genealogical Society, and in some instances from Land Registry records. Their locations were plotted based on an examination of the Historical Atlas of 1878, OGS transcriptions and 1:50 000 topographic mapping. These locations were not field verified. The active municipal and private cemeteries that were in the City GIS layer have also been plotted. Known Archaeological Site Layer There are 88 documented archaeological sites within and immediately adjacent to the City boundaries of which 81 were mapped and entered into the project GIS as a discrete layer. Of these, 80 are registered by the provincial site database (as of December, 2007) and eight are not (e.g., Shoal Tower, Dry Dock Museum). Of the 88 sites, only 16 date to the pre-contact period. In that the model is inductive in nature and is not constructed on the basis of the location attributes of known sites, the fact that any newly discovered sites have not been plotted will have no impact on the potential model. For site potential modeling purposes, each registered site plotted as a point was buffered by 100 metres. Defining Archaeologically Sensitive Areas In recognition of the demonstrated unique and heightened archaeological sensitivity of the historic core of the City of Kingston (see Appendix A in Master Plan of Archaeological Resources, City of Kingston, Technical Report), which is defined as the area bounded by North, Bagot, and West Streets and which encompasses the Kingston Market Square Heritage Conservation District and the eastern sector of the area identified as the potential Old Sydenham Heritage Area Heritage Conservation District (as identified in the Old Sydenham Heritage Area HCD Study Report), the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District, various settlement centre cores, as well as two very significant archaeological sites for which boundaries have been documented and deposits have survived (i.e., Kingston Outer Station, Belle Island), they have been designated as Archaeologically Sensitive Areas (ASAs). It is also acknowledged that other particularly significant archaeological sites, including ones of national and international prominence, are captured within the historic core of the City (e.g., Market Square, Fort Frontenac). Where there is potential for very significant archaeological resources, numerous case studies both in Kingston and elsewhere (e.g., Fort Frontenac – Stewart 1983, 1985; CARF 2006a, b, c; Market Square – CARF 2004; Upper Canada’s First Parliament Buildings – Dieterman and Williamson 2001) have documented that twentieth century development does not erase all significant archaeological deposits related to earlier periods of settlement. Rather, it means that the archaeology of such areas is more complex. In the case of the historic core of the City, for example, removal of industry, the demolition of some of the commercial and institutional buildings, and the infilling of rear yards and courtyards, often in fairly passive ways (i.e., the creation of parking lots) have left a fragmented, but often well-preserved archaeological record. The archaeological remains may range from built features that have survived one or more redevelopment events by virtue of the massive scale at which they were constructed (in terms of the areas they covered, or the depths to which they extended) to comparatively small scale domestic deposits that have been sealed by later grade alterations, Archaeological Services Inc. Page 46 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 14 such as the filling that often takes place in areas given over to parking lots. The precise identification of areas of archaeological potential within the urban core requires a cautious approach, ideally one undertaken on a property-by-property approach, whereby detailed reconstructions of the development history of a given parcel leads to a clear understanding of the types of activities that took place there and the likelihood that any significant archaeological deposits have survived. Definition of the historic core, the Barriefield HCD, and other settlement centres as Archaeologically Sensitive Areas will permit such an approach as applications for the redevelopment of specific properties are submitted to the City. The legislative support for the concept of the ASA is provided by the 2005 changes to the Ontario Heritage Act, whereby in Subsection 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, it became illegal for any person or agency to knowingly alter an archaeological site without a license (see Section 1 for definition of archaeological site). “Alteration” of an archaeological site is deemed to include any form of unsanctioned disturbance or destruction of an archaeological resource brought about by any means (i.e., either archaeological excavation, site looting, or development). Under Sections 69(1-3), an individual or a director of a corporation found in violation of the Act or the regulations is liable to a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for up to one year or both. A corporation found in violation of the Act or the regulations is liable to a fine of up to $250,000, and more specifically, if a person or director or officer of a corporation is convicted of knowingly contravening Subsection 48(1), the maximum fine that may be imposed is $1,000,000.00. This change to the Ontario Heritage Act, in effect, offers automatic protection to all archaeological sites and the designation of an ASA for lands that exhibit significant potential on the basis of the available data will permit the City to exercise due diligence in all planning contexts to ensure that any adverse impacts to potential archaeological resources are suitably mitigated. Integrity Layer An integrity layer was compiled based on a review of present land uses within the City. The objective of this task was to distinguish between those lands upon which modern development activities have likely destroyed any archaeological resources, and those lands, such as parking lots, schoolyards, parks and golf courses, where resources potentially remain wholly or primarily undisturbed. This layer was compiled using the built-up layer from the National Topographic Data Base together with high-resolution ortho-imagery provided by the City. Areas deemed to have no remaining archaeological integrity were subsequently excluded from the zone of archaeological potential. The only exceptions to this were the ASAs and all registered archaeological sites and designated heritage features. This layer is best viewed on the City’s GIS platform. Alterations to the evaluation of integrity may result from a detailed Stage 1 report which demonstrates clearly that a study area has been severely disturbed thereby negating archaeological potential. Composite Archaeological Potential Layer The final GIS layer, which is the map of the composite zone of archaeological potential within the City of Kingston, was compiled by merging the zones of pre-contact archaeological potential and zones of historic archaeological potential, as defined through application of the various modeling criteria (Table 1). All areas lacking landscape integrity were then excluded from this layer. The resultant potential mapping presents an Archaeological Services Inc. Page 47 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 15 approximation of the overall distribution of archaeological resources in the City of Kingston. On the basis of this mapping, it may be suggested that 31,015.06 hectares or 65.5% of the area within the City of Kingston Municipal boundary, exhibits potential for the presence of hitherto undocumented archaeological sites. For purposes of comparison, it was determined that the Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s generic proximity to water model (Ministry of Culture 1997) captures about 88% of the city. Table 1: Summary of Site Potential Modelling Criteria Environmental or Cultural Feature Buffer Distance (metres) Buffer Qualifier Pre-contact Aboriginal Site Potential lakes 250 none two-line rivers 250none wetlands200>0.5 ha.; well and imperfectly drained soils only valley lands (top of bank) 200none single-line watercourses 200well and imperfectly drained soils only Central Pittsburgh Drain 0removed from potential zone slopes 10 degrees 0removed from potential zone pre-contact ASAs polygon as mappedno buffer, override integrity Historic Euro-Canadian Site Potential Historic ASAs - historic settlement polygon as mapped no buffer, override integrity centres (including Historic Core and Barriefield HCD) designated sites 100override integrity Potential inundated sites 100 from Lake Ontario and from existing shore Cataraqui River domestic sites 100none breweries and distilleries 100none hotels/taverns 100 none historic schools and churches 100none historic mills, forges, extraction 100 none industries early settlement roads 200both sides early railways 50both sides train stations 100none cemeteries100 around polygon (closed or none abandoned cemeteries only) military batteries 100none battlefieldsPolygon as mapped none General Criterion all registered archaeological sites 100 override integrity Appendix B, Figures 1-4 illustrate the composite potential layer for the City. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 48 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 16 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AS CULTURAL HERITAGE: DEFINITIONS Introduction: Conservation, Change and Planning - Some Key Concepts The Province’s natural resources, water, agricultural lands, mineral resources, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources provide important environmental, economic, and social benefits. The wise use and management of these resources over the long term is a key provincial interest. The Province must ensure that its resources are managed in a sustainable way to protect essential ecological processes and public health and safety, minimize environmental and social impacts, and meet its long-term needs (Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System, Provincial Policy Statement, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2005, pp. 2-3). In Ontario, cultural heritage conservation is accepted as a legitimate objective of planning activity, as it is in many other provinces and countries. Conservation planning provides an important mechanism for ensuring that future development (e.g., residential, industrial and infrastructure construction) respects the cultural heritage of the City. Conservation planning and management is generally concerned with ensuring that valued cultural heritage resources are conserved and protected, in a sound and prudent manner, in the continuing and unavoidable process of change in the environment. A key issue is that the role of the custodian and steward of these resources generally falls to the private property owner. It is neither possible nor desirable that all resources be brought into public ownership. Therefore, conservation management is undertaken by a variety of actors, and it is necessary, through legislation and education, to bring all of these actors together in pursuit of a common goal. In many instances, it is traditional planning mechanisms that now seek to ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved and/or maintained within the process of change. In the process of change, cultural heritage resources may be affected in several ways. Change may be some action that is purposefully induced in the environment, such as development activities (e.g., road building, residential construction). This may result in both adverse and beneficial impacts, depending on the degree to which the change is sensitively managed. Change may also be a gradual and natural process of aging and degeneration, independent of human action, which affects artifacts, building materials, human memories or landscapes. Thus cultural resource management must ensure that change, when it does occur, is controlled. Its negative impacts upon cultural heritage resources must be either averted or minimized, through either ensuring that change has no adverse impacts whatsoever, or that intervention in the process will result in the promotion of beneficial effects. In the protection of archaeological sites from land use disturbances or infrastructure facilities, the major characteristics of both archaeological sites and “planning” have a bearing on success. Archaeological resources have many distinct attributes that make their protection a challenging task. Not only are they fragile and non-renewable, but from a planning perspective one of their most important characteristics is that they are frequently located on private property. Thus, any policy must attempt to satisfy the dual and sometimes conflicting objectives of respecting certain private property rights while at the same time, protecting a resource valued by society. “Planning” is generally undertaken in an effort to seek a common or public good that market forces and private interests do not seek. Within the context of planning and development approval, archaeological sites are similar to ecological features in that they may not have a tangible market value. Moreover, traditional benefit-cost valuation techniques are unable to price the resource accurately in market terms, since there is no legitimate market for archaeological artifacts. Consequently, individuals responsible for the disruption of archaeological sites may not comprehend the value of preservation to society, a factor which has an obvious impact on protection policies. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 49 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 17 On the other hand, the nature of the decision-making process constitutes one of the major and unique characteristics of planning in Ontario. Indeed, properly documented heritage criteria are often considered in the determination of the form, spatial extent and character of land disturbances. Also, the involvement of public and interest groups is encouraged or mandatory, such that decisions are sensitive to community concerns and are discussed openly. Moreover, the review and approvals process permits administrative hearings on matters at issue, with an independent decision. Thus, there is the opportunity to protect or conserve heritage features by selecting least damaging alternatives, through participation in planning decisions and in the review and approvals process. Defining Cultural Heritage The utility of this study as a guide that will assist to incorporate archaeological resources within the overall planning and development process, fundamentally rests upon a clear understanding of the physical nature of cultural heritage resources in general, the variety of forms they may assume, and their overall significance and value to society. In common usage, the word heritage tends to be vaguely equated with “things of the past.” While it may be arguable that such an interpretation of the term is true, it is so only in the very narrowest sense. An interest in heritage does indeed indicate an awareness of, and concern for, “things of the past,” yet at the same time it recognizes that these “relics” are worthy of such interest primarily because they provide insights into the processes that have helped to shape the contemporary world in which we live, and that will continue to exert an influence into the future. Examination of our heritage, therefore, not only allows us to learn about our origins and our history, but it also provides a means of understanding who we are now, and a means of glimpsing who we may become. In recognition of the essentially timeless quality of these “things of the past,” Ontario’s heritage has been defined as: all that our society values and that survives as the living context — both natural and human — from which we derive sustenance, coherence and meaning in our individual and collective lives (Ontario Heritage Policy Review \[OHPR\] 1990:18- 19). Such an all-encompassing definition has the additional advantage of recognizing that our heritage consists of both natural and cultural elements. As human beings, we do not exist in isolation from our natural environment. On the contrary, there has always been a complex interrelationship between people and their environment and each has shaped the other, although the nature and direction of these mutual influences has never been constant. This definition further recognizes that heritage not only includes that which is tangible, but also that which is intangible. All of those elements that make up this heritage are increasingly being viewed in the same manner as are “natural resources,” in that they are scarce, fragile, and non-renewable. These cultural heritage resources, therefore, must be managed in a prudent manner if they are to be conserved for the sustenance, coherence and meaning of future generations, even if their interpretations of the significance and meaning of these resources in contributing to society may be different from our own. The development of the means by which to manage these cultural resources depends, in turn, on the recognition that on a practical level it is necessary to categorize them by type, yet at the same time these basic types also form a continuum. Both the distinctiveness of the individual categories of cultural resources and the Archaeological Services Inc. Page 50 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 18 overlap between these categories has been recognized by the Ontario Heritage Policy Review. This work (OHPR 1990:23) defined three broad classes of cultural resources: IMMOVABLE HERITAGE – land or land-based resources, such as buildings or natural areas that are “fixed” in specific locations; for example: structures – buildings, ruins, and engineering works, such as bridges; sites – archaeological sites, battlegrounds, quarries, earth science sites such as rock formations, and life science sites such as rare species habitats; areas – streetscapes, neighbourhoods, gardens, lakes, rivers and other natural, scenic, and cultural landscapes; MOVABLE HERITAGE – resources, such as artifacts and documents, that are easily “detachable” and can be transported from place to place; for example: objects – artifacts such as artworks, utensils and adornments, and earth and life science specimens, such as fossils and crystals; documents – including newspapers, letters, films, and recordings; INTANGIBLE HERITAGE – such as traditional skills and beliefs; for example: values – attitudes, beliefs and tastes; behaviours – including skills, games, dances and ceremonies; speech – stories and narratives, songs, sayings, and names. Each of these categories, however, often overlaps with others. Archaeological sites, for example, are “immovable” resources, yet in most cases these sites are formed by concentrations of man-made or man- modified objects that are “movable” resources. Similarly, “movable” or “immovable” resources, such as buildings or documents often derive their significance through their intangible cultural associations, as they may reflect or typify specific skills or beliefs. Despite the fact that all cultural heritage resources should be viewed as components of a single continuum, there remains a need to distinguish between the three basic categories outlined above. This is because the approaches to the examination of resources within the different categories must be specifically tailored to their characteristics and needs. Not only does the study of the different types of resources require different and often highly specialized techniques, but the threats that these resources face are often different as well. Thus planning decisions related to the conservation of different types of resources are informed by different sets of considerations. Likewise, the means by which such planning decisions are implemented will also vary. The Ontario Archaeological Site Database Since 1974 all archaeological sites for the Province of Ontario have been registered with the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) maintained by the Heritage Branch and Libraries Branch of the Archaeological Services Inc. Page 51 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 19 Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto. This data base is the official, central repository of all site information for the province collected under the Ontario Heritage Act (1974, 1980). An associated Geographic Information System has been developed by Ministry of Tourism and Culture. Within the OASD registered archaeological sites are organized within the “Borden” system, which is based on blocks of latitude and longitude, each measuring approximately 13 kilometres east-west by 18.5 kilometres north-south. Each block is assigned a unique four letter designator and sites within each block are numbered sequentially as they are found. The inventory of registered archaeological sites that formed the initial basis for the present study was compiled by the Data Co-ordinator of the Archaeology Unit, Heritage Branch and Libraries Branch, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, and by the City of Kingston’s Planning and Development Department. The Threats to Archaeological Resources Protecting archaeological sites has become especially important in southern Ontario, where landscape change has been occurring at an ever increasing rate since 1950, resulting in substantial losses to the non-renewable archaeological record. The scale of the threats facing the archaeological record of southern Ontario were considered in a study in which rates of demographic and agricultural change were examined over the last century, and estimates generated of the number of archaeological sites that have been destroyed (Coleman and Williamson 1994). While the period of initial disturbance to sites was from 1826 to 1921, when large tracts of land were deforested and cultivated for the first time, that disturbance typically resulted in only partial destruction of archaeological data as most subsurface deposits remained intact. However, extraordinary population growth in the post-World War I period, resulted in a more disturbing trend as large amounts of cultivated land were consumed by urban growth. The nature and potential magnitude of the threat that continued landscape change posed to a finite and non- renewable archaeological feature base between 1951 and 1991 is staggering; it is possible that more than 10,000 sites were destroyed during that period of which 25% represented significant archaeological features that merited some degree of archaeological investigation, since they could have contributed meaningfully to our understanding of the past (Coleman and Williamson 1994: Tables 2 and 3). It can be assumed that the reduction of the archaeological feature base of the City of Kingston also took place at a serious rate. Archaeological sites also face a less direct, but equally serious form of threat, in which man-made changes to the landscape inadvertently alter or intensify destructive natural processes in adjoining regions. Increased run- off of surface water in the wake of forest clearance, for example, or hydrological fluctuations associated with industrial and transportation development may result in intensified rates of erosion on certain sites due to processes such as inundation. The amount of land (and hence the potential number of archaeological sites) which has been subjected to these destructive forces is impossible to quantify, but is likely to be considerable. While there has recently been a marked reduction in the rate of archaeological site destruction throughout much of the province, since certain municipalities adopted progressive planning policies concerning archaeological site conservation, the potential for the loss of archaeological resources in the future remains great, due to continuing growth and development. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 52 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 20 4 JURISDICTION OVER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES In terms of direct conservation and protection, the lead provincial government role has been filled by the Minister of Tourism and Culture. The Minister is responsible for encouraging the sharing of cultural heritage and for determining policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario (Cuming 1985). Under the Ontario Heritage Act, a process is defined that ensures that “once a property is designated of archaeological or historical significance and is likely to be adversely affected by commercial, industrial, agricultural, residential, or other development,” the appropriate measures are taken. In order to maintain a professional standard of archaeological research and consultation, the Minister is responsible for issuing licenses to qualified individuals, without which archaeological activities involving exploration, survey or field work are illegal. All reports submitted to the Ministry, as a condition of an archaeological license are reviewed by Ministry staff to ensure that the activities conducted under a license meet current technical guidelines, resource conservation standards, and the regulations of the Ontario Heritage Act. The regulation of archaeological activities carried out within the development context requires that all approval authorities must integrate the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act within their land use planning process. The rationale for a greater sharing of responsibilities between provincial and local governments for all types of heritage including archaeological resources was explained most effectively in a document entitled A Strategy for Conserving Ontario’s Heritage (Ontario Heritage Policy Review 1990). This document suggested a re-allocation of roles, in which the provincial government would maintain an advisory function and the municipal governments would assume the day-to-day responsibility for monitoring those archaeological features in their jurisdiction. Provincial Legislation The specific provincial legislation governing planning decisions is complex, but provides for a number of opportunities for the integration of archaeological conservation. The two principal pieces of legislation are the Planning Act (2005) and the Environmental Assessment Act (1997). Despite the on-going provincial transfer of review responsibilities, well over 1000 formal development applications throughout the province, under both Environmental Assessment and Planning Act processes, are reviewed annually by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. Consequently, approximately 500 to 800 archaeological sites have been documented annually in southern Ontario since 1990 as a result of planning mechanisms. The Ontario Planning Act (2005) and the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) With respect to archaeological resources, the most recent Provincial Policy Statement, which came into effect March 1, 2005, states that: Development and site alteration shall only be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential if the significant 1 archaeological resources have been conserved by removal and documentation, or by preservation on site. Where significant archaeological resources must be preserved on site, only development and site alteration which maintain the heritage integrity of the site will be permitted (Section 2.6, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology). 1 “Removal” of an archaeological resource is accomplished through mitigative documentation and/or excavation. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 53 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 21 For the above policy statement, significant archaeological resources are defined as those “that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people.” The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act”. Provincial interests in land use planning are also detailed in the Provincial Policy Statement provided in Section 3(1) of the Planning Act, as amended by the Strong Communities Act (2004), whereby: a decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Municipal Board, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, “shall be consistent” with this policy statement. Thus all decisions made during the development process, regardless of the identity of the development proponent or the relevant approval agency, must address potential heritage resource impacts. Given the provincial interest, any planning activity referred to in the Planning Act, including the preparation of Official Plans or any planning application, should have regard for matters of provincial interest. The statements in the Act are sufficient for a municipality to require that an archaeological assessment be completed prior to the approval of a planning application. It should be noted that an archaeological assessment must now be completed and submitted with an application for approval of a plan of subdivision. Section 51 (17) of the Planning Act, Part VI Subdivision of Land, now delineates under Schedule 1 the information and material to be provided by an applicant for approval of a plan of subdivision (O. Reg. 544/06, s. 2). This section states the applicant shall provide the approval authority with the following prescribed information and material: 23. Whether the subject land contains any areas of archaeological potential. 24. If the plan would permit development on land that contains known archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential, a)an archaeological assessment prepared by a person who holds a license that is effective with respect to the subject land, issued under Part VI (Conservation of Resources of Archaeological Value) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and b)a conservation plan for any archaeological resources identified in the assessment. Note that the PPS defines "archaeological resources" as "includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites" (see Section 1.1 above). In the case of a zoning by-law, the Planning Act allows a municipality to use the option of attaching a holding “H” symbol to a zoning by-law and require that as a condition of removing the holding symbol, and before development can proceed, an archaeological assessment or other matter be completed. Archaeological zoning by-laws may also be developed by a municipality under Section 34 of the Planning Act to protect significant archaeological resources and sites. The municipality must have due regard to matters of provincial interest, which means that archaeological assessments must be undertaken in support of development applications where identified as necessary. In regard to municipal projects, the Planning Act states that where there is an Official Plan in effect, no public Archaeological Services Inc. Page 54 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 22 work shall be undertaken that does not conform to the Plan. The Act also permits municipalities to pass zoning by-laws: “for prohibiting any use of land and the erecting, locating or using of any class or classes of buildings or structures on land that is the site of a significant archaeological resource”. In summary, a municipality is obligated, within the existing legislative framework, to require archaeological concerns be addressed in connection with any planning application and is able to pass zoning by-law(s) regulating the use of land that is the site of a significant archaeological resource. Moreover, a municipality is prevented from undertaking any public work that does not comply with its Official Plan. Heritage protection policies are appropriate in Official Plans, if developed and incorporated properly. If a municipality has a sound basis in its policies (Official Plan), it is possible to ensure that applications conform to heritage requirements. The Programs and Services Branch of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture has the primary responsibility under the OntarioPlanning Act and Ontario Heritage Act for matters relating to cultural heritage including archaeological resources. This branch has developed an “Ontario Heritage Tool Kit” that includes guides for interpreting the Ontario Heritage Act as well as InfoSheets on applying the cultural heritage and archaeology provincial policies. One of their primary responsibilities is to oversee the Municipal Plans Review process. The first component of this process is the determination of the potential for a development application to impact archaeological resources, based on a range of environmental and historic criteria. Should it be determined that there is potential for impacts to archaeological resources resulting from the approval of the development application, then the second component is the requirement that the development proponent undertake an archaeological assessment, the results of which are subject to Ministry of Tourism and Culture review and acceptance. Such assessments may be required for official plan amendments or plans of subdivision, and may also be required for smaller-scale developments reviewed under consent and zoning by- law amendment applications. In all of those cases where potential is identified on all or a portion of a subject property, a standard archaeological condition is attached to the development application. The current condition recommended by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture reads: The proponent shall carry out an archaeological assessment of the subject property and mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. No grading or other soil disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the City of Kingston and the Ministry of Tourism and Culture confirming that all archaeological resource concerns have met licensing and resource conservation requirements. While a generic primer has been developed by the Ministry of Culture (1997) for informing municipal planners about evaluating archaeological potential, those municipalities that have undertaken detailed archaeological potential studies or master plans have access to much more detailed information, that provides more effective and accurate means of determining archaeological potential and whether or not an assessment will be required. The review of site specific development applications, for the purpose of determining if archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential are present within any particular subject plan, may now be made directly by the City of Kingston through the use of this archaeological master plan, consisting of potential mapping, explanatory text, and suggested procedures for implementation of the study’s conclusions. Review of the resulting archaeological investigations, in order to determine that Ontario Heritage Act requirements have been satisfied, remains the responsibility of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, which provides notification to the consulting archaeologist of the results of their review. The Ministry of Tourism and Culture may notify the approval authority and development proponent of their review. That Ministry also administers all matters related to the management of the resources documented, Archaeological Services Inc. Page 55 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 23 mitigation strategies proposed, and any disputes arising from the conservation of archaeological resources under the land use planning process. The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (1997) The Environmental Assessment Act (1997) applies to public sector projects and designated private sector projects. Private sector projects that are designated by the Province as subject to the Act are usually major projects such as landfills. The purpose of the Act is “the betterment of the people ... by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment” (Section 2). Environment is very broadly defined to include “the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of man or a community” \[Section 1(c) (iii)\] and “any building, structure ... made by man” \[Section 1(c) (iv)\]. Thus, environment is broadly interpreted to include heritage artifacts, structures or events. The Environmental Assessment Act requires the preparation of an environmental assessment document, containing inventories, alternatives, evaluations and mitigation. It is subject to formal government review and public scrutiny and, potentially, to a tribunal hearing. Heritage studies of these major undertakings are a common component. There are also Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Class environmental assessments for municipal projects that require similar considerations, but entail a simplified review and approval process. Various provincial ministries are establishing protocols related to activities subject to the environmental assessment process, in order to ensure that heritage concerns in their respective jurisdictions are addressed. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (2004), for example, ensures that archaeological surveys are undertaken in advance of all new road construction in order to ensure that no archaeological sites will be unknowingly damaged or destroyed, and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources prepared a set of guidelines on the conservation of heritage features as part of the Timber Management Planning Process (1991). The Ontario Heritage Act 2 is charged under Section 2 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the The Ministry of Tourism and Culture responsibility to “determine policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario” and so fills the lead provincial government role in terms of direct conservation and protection of cultural resources. The Minister is responsible for encouraging the sharing of cultural heritage and for determining policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario (Cuming 1985). These goals are generally accomplished through other legislated processes, such as those required by the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act, rather than directly through the Ontario Heritage Act itself. The Ontario Heritage Act does, however, govern the general practice of archaeology in the province. In order to maintain a professional standard of archaeological research and consultation, the Minister is responsible for issuing licenses to qualified individuals. In 2005, changes to the Ontario Heritage Act in Subsection 48(1), made it illegal for any person or agency to knowingly alter an archaeological site without a license (see Section 1.1 for definition of archaeological site). “Alteration” of an archaeological site is deemed to include any form of unsanctioned disturbance or destruction of an archaeological resource brought about by any 2 Provincial management of cultural resources has been carried out by operations units attached variously to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation (1993-1998), the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation (1998-2002), the Ministry of Culture (2002-2010) and now the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 56 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 24 means (i.e., either archaeological excavation, site looting, or development). This in effect offers automatic protection to all archaeological sites and the City should exercise due diligence in all planning contexts to ensure that archaeological features are protected from disturbance of any nature. Under Subsections 69(1-3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, an individual or a director of a corporation found in violation of the Act or the regulations is liable to a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for up to one year or both. A corporation found in violation of the Act or the regulations is liable to a fine of up to $250,000, and more specifically, if a person or director or officer of a corporation is convicted of knowingly contravening Subsection 48(1), the maximum fine that may be imposed is $1,000,000.00. All reports submitted to the Ministry, as a condition of an archaeological license are reviewed by Ministry staff to ensure that the activities conducted under a license meet current technical guidelines, resource conservation standards, and the regulations of the Ontario Heritage Act. The regulation of archaeological activities carried out within the development context requires that all approval authorities must integrate the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act within their land use planning process. Other Provincial Legislation Other land use legislation in the province provides opportunities for archaeological resource protection. The Aggregate Resources Act, governing approval of pits and quarries and administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources, recognizes the potential impact quarrying activities may have on cultural features such as archaeological resources. Furthermore, the development of a pit or quarry will often require an official plan amendment or zoning by-law amendment, and thus would require involvement by the municipality at either the upper or lower tier level. The process for addressing archaeological concerns is similar to that outlined for Planning Act related projects. A background study, field survey and detailed archaeological investigations are all identified as required Technical Reports under Part 2.2 of the Provincial Standards for Bill 53 under the Aggregate Resources Act. The Cemeteries Act also addresses the need to protect human burials, both marked and unmarked, which is yet another valuable link to the past. Burial locations uncovered on archaeological sites constitute “unregistered cemeteries” that are, in essence, in violation of the Cemeteries Act. The discovery of such burials will require further investigation in order to define the extent and number of interments, and either the registration of the burial location as a cemetery, or the removal of the remains for re-interment in an established cemetery. The actual workings of this process are complex and vary depending upon whether the burial(s) are an isolated occurrence, or part of a more formal cemetery, and whether the remains in question are Aboriginal or Euro-Canadian. In all cases, the success of the process is dependent upon the co-operation of the landowner, the next of kin (whether biological or prescribed), and the Cemeteries Registrar (Ministry of Consumer and Business Services). The Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s role in the process is to assist in co- ordinating contact and negotiation between the various parties, and ensuring that archaeological investigations of such burial sites meet provincial standards. With this legislative planning context, success in protecting heritage features depends on sufficient resource information, sound policies, the capability to implement requirements, and participation by both local and provincial heritage planners in the process. Federal Legislation The major federal statutes applicable to archaeology include the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Cultural Property Export and Import Act. There is no federal legislation which specifically governs Archaeological Services Inc. Page 57 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 25 archaeological research and planning. In cases where archaeological issues on federal lands do not fall into the category of exports or the confines of an environmental impact assessment, federal land managers are expected to rely on federal policies applicable to all departments or to the specific directives of their own departments. In terms of the protection of archaeological resources, the federal government’s role would be confined primarily to land that it owns, such as national historic sites and parks, lands belonging to federal departments, such as National Defence or Agriculture, lands where there is a federally regulated undertaking, such as railways or airports, and lands where a federally regulated development project is proposed. The federal government’s Archaeological Heritage Policy Framework (Department of Canadian Heritage 1990) states that: As heritage protection is an essential element of our Canadian identity, and as our archaeological heritage is a source of inspiration and knowledge, it is the policy of the Government of Canada to protect and manage archaeological resources. In order to realize these objectives on all lands and waters under federal jurisdiction, the Parks Canada Agency has an advisory role for the protection and management of all archaeological resources on all lands and waters under federal jurisdiction. Several federal departments have specific rules to protect archaeological heritage, such as the Department of National Defence and the Parks Canada Agency. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act The Federal Archaeology Office is also recognized as an “expert department” for matters involving implementation of specific legislation in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), where it is outlined that the Government of Canada seeks to conserve and enhance environmental quality and to ensure that the environmental effects of projects receive careful consideration before responsible authorities take actions in connection with them. An “environmental effect”, in respect of a project, is defined to include: Any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any effect of any such change on health and socio-economic conditions, on physical and cultural heritage, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons, or any structure site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance (Section 2(1)). The Reference Guide on Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources (1996:2) for the CEAA goes on to describe a cultural heritage resource as: …a human work or a place that gives evidence of human activity or has spiritual or cultural meaning, and that has historic value… This interpretation of cultural resources can be applied to a wide range of resources, including cultural landscapes and landscapes features, archaeological sites, structures, engineering works, artifacts and associated records. Legally, a project that would prompt an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act also triggers a requirement to research archaeology. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 58 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 26 Cultural Property Export and Import Act The regulations under the federal Cultural Property Export and Import Act offer a specific list of objects or artifacts that are protected under the Canadian Cultural Property Export Control List. The list incorporates: archaeological object\[s\] of any value recovered from the soil of Canada, the territorial sea of Canada or the inland or other international waters of Canada not less than 75 years after its burial, concealment or abandonment if the object is an artifact or organic remains, including human remains, associated with or representative of historic cultures. The document then goes on to list specific artifacts relating to the “Aboriginal peoples of Canada” (2a), to the “progressive exploration, occupation, defense and development of the territory that is now Canada by non- aboriginal peoples” (2b) and “organic remains associated with or representative of historic or prehistoric cultures” (2c). Parks Canada Part of the mandate of Parks Canada, as per the Parks Canada Charter, is to “protect and present nationally significant natural and cultural heritage…” Not only is the Archaeological Services Branch of the Parks Canada Agency responsible for all issues pertaining to archaeology on Parks Canada lands, it also has an advisory role, upon request, to other federal departments. The Agency has developed a number of policies and guidelines, as well as directives, bulletins and manuals, concerning the preservation of cultural heritage. Here are some examples: Parks Canada Guidelines for the Management of Archaeological Resources (2005) Using the principles and practices of the Cultural Resource Management Policy (1994), this document presents Parks Canada’s approach to archaeological resource management as a component of cultural resource management. It provides guidelines on the undertaking of projects and activities that may affect terrestrial or underwater archaeological resources in heritage areas under the jurisdiction of the Parks Canada Agency. These include National Parks of Canada, National Historic Sites of Canada, National Marine Conservation Areas of Canada, National Park Reserves of Canada, and National Marine Conservation Area Reserves. These guidelines can also be used by other federal land managers seeking advice on the management of archaeological resources. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2003) This document serves to guide heritage conservation projects, including projects on archaeological sites that have an impact on archaeological resources. Section 3 deals with the Guidelines for Archaeological Sites, Landscapes, Buildings, and Engineering Works. It is intended that the separate guidelines for these four subjects be used in conjunction with one another to ensure that all heritage values of a historic place be protected. Recently, Parks Canada has released the latest draft Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Archaeological Sites. It resulted from extensive consultation with government, academic, and consulting archaeologists and benefited from their application in a number of pilot projects across Canada. It is suggested that archaeologists consider this document as a guide to best practice when designing and undertaking their archaeological work within the City of Kingston. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 59 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 27 Guide to the Preparation of Commemorative Integrity Statements (2002) The Parks Canada Management Plan requires that Commemorative Integrity Statements (CIS) be prepared for all heritage sites owned and managed by Parks Canada. This policy includes a component of all CIS policies addressing both terrestrial and marine archaeological heritage sites. In Kingston, there is a rich archaeological record, and Parks Canada is working with a variety of federal agencies to prepare policies for their identification, evaluation, conservation and interpretation. This is th especially true for the marine archaeological sites associated with the early 19 century naval dockyard. According to the regional supervisor, Parks Canada is working with the Department of National Defense to determine the extent and ownership of water lots along the Kingston waterfront, as a precursor to more specific investigation of, and policy for, underwater archaeological resources. Currently, Parks Canada is preparing a submission to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board (HSMB) for designation of several known marine archaeological heritage resources, including the War of 1812 warship “St. Lawrence”, as National Historic Sites, in order to ensure their protection. As for terrestrial archaeological heritage resources, Parks Canada has prepared a CIS for a number of the key National Historic Sites within the municipality. The archaeological policies in each case are governed by the Parks Canada Management Plan, as applied to each site within the CIS. Usually, any intervention is preceded by archaeological investigation in accordance with recognized professional standards, a basic archaeological survey is undertaken, and the values of archaeological resources are effectively communicated to the public. Archaeological research has been undertaken in recent years at a number of these sites (e.g., Bellevue House, Fort Henry, Royal Military College and Fort Frederick). Other Federal Legislation Under the Canada Shipping Act(CSA, 1985), all material recovered from a wreck (ships and aircraft) during any activity, such as fishing, diving or during an archaeological excavation, must be reported to the district Receiver of Wreck, an officer of Transport Canada. The Canada Shipping Act (2001) provides for the regulation of wrecks that, on the recommendation of Parks Canada, have heritage value. International Treaties and Charters Canada supports and/or adheres to a number of treaties which impose a duty on the governments of Canada, its provinces and territories, to take action for archaeological management. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property Promoted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1970 and formally acceded by Canada in 1978, this Convention declares that “cultural property acquired by archaeological, ethnological or national science missions” is recognized as belonging “to the cultural heritage of each State” (article 4). To ensure the protection of their cultural property, under article 5, participating countries are obliged to (among other obligations): contribute to the formation of draft laws and regulations designed to secure the protection of the cultural heritage… establish and keep up to date, on the basis of a national inventory of protected property, a list of important public and private cultural property… Archaeological Services Inc. Page 60 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 28 promote the development or the establishment of scientific and technical institutions (museums, libraries, archives, laboratories, workshops…)… organize the supervision of archaeological excavations, ensuring the preservation “in situ” of certain cultural property, and protecting certain areas reserved for future archaeological research… Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention) Under article 1 of this Convention, which Canada formally adhered to in 1976, “cultural heritage” may consists of “sites – works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view.” To ensure the protection of their cultural property, under article 5 participating countries are obliged to (among other obligations): adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programs… develop scientific and technical studies and research to work out such operating methods as will make the State capable of counteracting the dangers that threaten its cultural or natural heritage to take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of this heritage… Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage This convention, which was adopted by UNESCO in 2001, requires participating countries to adopt necessary measures to preserve their underwater cultural heritage. Canada has not yet made a decision concerning ratification. Professionals in Canada are also guided by principles set by international organizations such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). Four Charters in particular provide guidance on archaeological resources management: Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter), describes the principles of appropriate conservation; Charter on the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter), outlines the principles and practices of conservation based on the cultural significance of historic places; Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (Lausanne Charter), reflects basic principles and guidelines relating to the management of archaeological resources and is a reference for policies and practice; Charter for the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage outlines the principles for the appropriate protection and management of cultural sites underwater. City of Kingston Official Plan Policies The following summaries were taken from the Official Plan of the former City of Kingston as well as the former Townships of Pittsburgh and Kingston. These will be replaced in the new Official Plan by the policies generated during this study. City of Kingston Township (former) Archaeological Services Inc. Page 61 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 29 The former City of Kingston recognized the conservation of resources of archaeological value as an integral part of an effective and comprehensive heritage conservation program and that there was value in investigating and conserving heritage resources with respect to their contribution to the interpretation of the origins of the community. The City's particular archaeological heritage is founded on pre-contact occupancy by native peoples of lands which are now included within the corporation boundaries, and the age of historic settlement which began with the establishment of Fort Frontenac in the seventeenth century. It is the intent of this Plan to provide for the recognition, investigation and preservation of the City's archaeological resources. To this end, the City undertook an Archaeological Master Plan Study in the late 1980s which was intended to form the basis for detailed archaeological conservation policies and result in the development of policies, guidelines, and a plan of action for the development and protection of archaeological resources and facilities in the City. The policies of this Plan were to be amended appropriately on adoption of an overall archaeological conservation strategy by Council. While this overall archaeological conservation strategy was not adopted by Council, the City nevertheless supported the principles of archaeological conservation in accordance with the following policies: a)the City will continue to enforce existing municipal legislation regarding the discovery of items of archaeological or historic interest; b)the City will continue to notify recognized archaeological conservation agencies of relevant requests for planning approvals with respect to such matters as Official Plan and zoning amendments, subdivision and condominium applications, and applications for site plan approval; c)the City intends to allow recognized archaeological conservation agencies an opportunity to comment on the archaeological potential of development and redevelopment sites; d)the City intends to facilitate dialogue among the agencies, private interests, and the City with respect to the discovery and identification of archaeological resources. Pittsburgh Township (former) The Township recognized that “there may be archaeological remains of prehistoric or historic habitation, or areas of significant archaeological potential within the Pittsburgh Planning Area. The Township may require archaeological assessments as a condition of any development proposals containing a known archaeological site or considered to have archaeological potential. Archaeological assessments are to be carried out by an archaeologist licensed under the Ontario Heritage Act, and reports produced are to be in keeping with guidelines set out by the Province. In order to preserve significant archaeological resources, Council may employ the powers provided in the Planning Act to prohibit in the Zoning By-law the use or erection of structures on lands which contain these archaeological resources.” Also, the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan recognized the fragile and non-renewable nature of archaeological resources and the potential for their presence within the plan area. It also articulates the requirement for archaeological assessment in advance of any land-disturbing activities. Kingston Township (former) Kingston Township adopted a Heritage Strategy for the Township as a separate document from the Official Plan. While the Official Plan was intended to be supportive of the Heritage Strategy, it was recognized that not all elements of the Strategy could be, or were appropriately addressed in the Plan. The Official Plan encouraged “the preservation and enhancement of heritage resources. It is intended that heritage resources be identified and conserved, wherever practical. For the purpose of this Plan heritage resources means both Archaeological Services Inc. Page 62 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 30 physical and intangible heritage resources including structures, landscapes, natural areas, archaeological and paleontological sites, cemeteries and burial places, documents, place names, artifacts, traditions and values, skills, songs and stories. Heritage is viewed as the total environment inherited from the past, contributed to in the present and handed on to the future. It contributes significantly to the identity and unique character of the community, and contributes to the attractiveness of the greater Kingston area for tourism.” With reference to the Heritage Strategy, as may be amended from time to time, Council intended to: a)identify, recognize and conserve the Township's heritage resources; b)promote the maintenance and development of historically appropriate landscaping around heritage properties; c)encourage, in cooperation with the County and the Province, the maintenance of the character of the rural areas of the Township; d)promote the preservation of the Kingston Mills Lock Station and development which respects the heritage value of the site and surrounding area; e)respect the integrity of archaeological remains on site and require sufficient investigation and mitigation to ensure their preservation; f)encourage the maintenance of existing heritage resources as part of new development proposals, where practical; g)integrate heritage preservation considerations into the planning and development process, especially in the areas of land use and environmental planning; and, h)promote, in consultation with the residents and the Loyalist Parkway Group of Advisors, the development of Highway 33 in a manner that is compatible with its designation as the Loyalist Parkway. Official Plan Policies The City of Kingston has recently adopted a new Official Plan which consolidates the policies of the former municipalities. Appendix A presents the policies pertaining to archaeological heritage. Summary With all of these planning requirements, success in protecting heritage features depends on sufficient resource information, sound policies, the capability to implement requirements, and participation by all City staff in the process. These objectives are also being realized, in the case of archaeological resources, through the preparation and updating of master plans and the inclusion of policies in the Official Plan of the City of Kingston. Heritage protection policies are appropriate in Official Plans, if developed and incorporated properly, if only to draw attention to the fragility of archaeological sites. Moreover, as the Official Plan is implemented, it is possible to reinforce provincial, federal and local interests by requiring certain information to be supplied, conditions to be satisfied or actions to be taken. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 63 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 31 5 OWNERSHIP The question of ownership of archaeological resources, whether they be sites or individual artifacts has never been adequately resolved in Ontario. Consequently, issues of ownership have often complicated the protection or conservation of the resource. This situation led the Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s Advisory Committee on New Heritage Legislation to the suggestion that: Ontario should follow the lead of many provincial governments in asserting Crown ownership of archaeological objects. This cuts out all claims but those of true owners. In the case of material of Aboriginal origin, however, such an approach may be inconsistent with current steps toward First Nations’ self-government and jurisdiction over certain matters. Resolution of this matter should be negotiated with First Nations (Minister’s Advisory Committee 1992:42). If the Crown is to become the custodian of such materials, however, it will first be necessary to make better provision for their storage, curation and access to interested individuals or groups, than currently exists (OHPR 1990:59). Furthermore, it will be essential to resolve the equally legitimate, but frequently conflicting, interests of First Nations, the scientific community and of society in general, regarding the ultimate disposition of precontact archaeological remains. Such an objective will only be met through a long process of negotiation and consultation among these groups. The first steps, however, have been taken in this regard. In the late 1980s, the Assembly of First Nations and the Canadian Museums Association together sponsored a Task Force on Museums, the purpose of which was to develop an ethical framework and strategies by which Aboriginal peoples and cultural institutions can work together to represent Aboriginal history and culture. The results of extensive consultations carried out by the Task Force are available in the Task Force Report on Museums and First Peoples. Also, the Canadian Archaeological Association together with the Federal Department of Communications sponsored an extensive program of consultation with Aboriginal communities across Canada resulting in a Statement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples, which should serve to guide the actions of Canadian archaeologists (Nicholson et al. 1996). While neither of these documents asserts singular ownership of artifacts, they both provide guidelines regarding their interpretation and presentation to the public. The Ontario Heritage Act also governs matters related to the care and curation of artifacts. Under Section 66 (1), this legislation stipulates that “The Minister may direct that any object taken under the authority of a license or a permit be deposited in such public institution as he may determine to be held in trust for the people of Ontario” (1974, c.122, s.66). Moreover, under Regulation 881 (6a), pertaining to licensing under the Ontario Heritage Act, “It is a term and condition of a license that the licensee keep in safekeeping all objects of archaeological significance that are found under the authority of the license and all field records that are made in the course of the work authorized by the license, except where the objects and records are donated to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario or are directed to be deposited in a public institution under subsection 66 (1) of the Act.” The application of this section of the Act and this regulation typically involves the curation of recovered artifacts by the archaeologist until such time that the analyses are complete and that a place for ultimate disposition can be arranged, usually a fully accredited public repository. It is also generally assumed that archaeologists will consult with the landowner to decide upon the location for the ultimate disposition of artifacts. In general, it is desirable that material from a particular archaeological site is ultimately deposited in a public institution located in the same community (either a local museum or a First Nation cultural centre), Archaeological Services Inc. Page 64 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 32 provided that adequate storage, curatorial facilities for both artifacts and field records are available, that the institution’s collections are accessible to researchers, and that the material is not transferred or disposed of without provincial approval. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 65 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 33 6 IMPLEMENTATION Introduction As discussed above, the role of municipalities in the conservation of heritage features is crucial. Planning and land use control are predominantly municipal government responsibilities and the impact of municipal land use decisions on archaeological resources is significant, especially since municipally-approved developments constitute the majority of land disturbing activities in the Province (Hansen 1984). Without adequate screening at a municipal level, the provincial government is unable to ensure protection for valued archaeological resources. Viewed from this perspective, archaeological protection cannot be implemented without municipal involvement. The primary means by which cultural heritage resources are best protected is through the planning process. This requires the development of appropriate policies for the City of Kingston and incorporation into the review process. The municipality also plays a crucial role in ensuring that the archaeological site protection measures of the Ontario Heritage Act are recognized and valued. The mapping prepared for this study is designed to be used by City of Kingston staff to make decisions regarding requirements for archaeological resource assessments and/or monitoring in advance of development and/or site alteration. Education is an important part of this process. While the public is generally supportive of environmental causes, we must also educate our community that the record of our cultural environment is slowly vanishing. As a science, archaeology often suffers from the attitudes and actions which result from public misconceptions about its motives, aims and methods. It is encouraging to note that when members of the public are made aware of archaeological sites, there exists a genuine interest not only in the pre-contact history and history of a City, but also in archaeology itself as an academic discipline. The City should support programs and endeavours related to involving the public in the investigation of the City’s archaeological record. Archaeological Resource Management Procedures The archaeological review procedure, as it relates to development, requires close co-operation between the Planning and Development Department and other City of Kingston Departments, the staff of the Programs and Services Branch (Culture Programs Unit) of Ministry of Tourism and Culture, as well as both the development and the archaeological/historical research communities. In the case of all land-use alterations, the determination of whether or not there is a need for archaeological assessment will form part of the pre- consultation process between the development proponent and the City prior to the submission of an application. An archaeological condition should be applied for any consent application that creates a new building lot (on land that is presently vacant) if: the application (or any part of it) is situated within the zone of archaeological potential, or the application contains or will directly affect a federal, provincial, or municipal historic landmark, monument, site or designated property or conservation district, battlefield cemetery, and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value. Establishing these procedures will address the policies of the Ontario Planning Act and the related Archaeological Services Inc. Page 66 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 34 components of both the Ontario and CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Acts. The new archaeological procedures will also apply to municipal development and/or infrastructure projects that involve construction, erection or placing of a building or structure. In addition, other activities such as site grading, excavation, removal of topsoil, or peat and the placing and dumping of fill; drainage works, except for the maintenance of existing municipal and agricultural drains, should be subject to the same procedures (see also By-law No. 2006-134, A By-law to Regulate the Discovery of Items of Archaeological or Historical Interest on City of Kingston Property and Site Alteration By-law). In order to apply the new archaeological procedures on all public lands managed by the City, the Planning and Development Department should hold internal discussions with staff from other departments to establish protocols that ensure that in all appropriate circumstances, construction projects undertaken by those departments that are located in areas of archaeological potential or areas identified as being archaeologically sensitive, are subject to archaeological assessment prior to any land disturbing activity. Through such discussions, the Planning and Development Department will be better able to establish some guidelines on the kind of work that needs to be reviewed for possible archaeological concerns and work which would not require review. Defining Archaeologically Sensitive Areas In recognition of the demonstrated archaeological sensitivity of the historic core of the City, other settlement centre cores, the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District as well as a number of significant still at least partially intact archaeological sites for which boundaries have been documented (i.e., Kingston Outer Station, . Belle Island), they should be designated as Archaeologically Sensitive Areas (ASAs) (Figure 1) Within such an ASA, even small-scale soil disturbance activities, such as private swimming pool construction, house additions, and activities such as parks and recreation facilities upgrades that will result in subsurface disturbance to previously undisturbed, or potentially undisturbed, lands, should be preceded by archaeological 3 The decision of which level of assessment will be required will be made by the appropriate assessment. Planning and Development Department staff on the basis of the submitted plans regarding the proposed activities. Proposed activities that will not result in new subsurface disturbance will not be subject to assessment. The legislative support for the concept of the ASA is provided by recent changes to the Ontario Heritage Act, as outlined in Section 4.1. This provision offers automatic protection to all archaeological sites, but the designation of an ASA around a site that exhibits significant potential on the basis of the available data will permit the City to exercise due diligence in all planning contexts. If a property is located in an ASA, archaeological review will be required prior to any soil disturbance. 3 The ASA is not intended to serve as a basis for directing urban growth, it is only intended to ensure that the heritage values associated with archaeological resources are recognized and enhanced during such growth. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 67 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4A 44 444 4 44 44 4 A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4444A 44444 4 44A 44 44 4 4A 4 44 4 4 44 A 444 44 444 44 A 4444444 4444 A 44 4 44 4 A 444 444 444 44 A 44 444 4 4 A 44 44 44 4 44 Page 68 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 36 The Planning Review Process: A Summary Recommended guidelines for the approach used in the review process for all land disturbance applications within the City have been developed and are summarized below. As part of the pre-consultation process, City staff will determine if an archaeological assessment is required for a proposed application by means of review of the archaeological potential mapping. Should any portion of the property fall within a zone of archaeological potential or should the property contain a previously registered archaeological site, the City will require that the applicant undertake an archaeological assessment as a supportive document for planning application. The development applicant will then retain a licensed archaeologist to conduct a Stage 1 or Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment of the entire subject property, not simply the portion(s) that falls within the zone of archaeological potential. All work conducted by the licensed archaeologist must conform to the standards set forth in the most current (draft or approved) Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines authorized by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. In the case of rural severances, only the land disturbance footprint need be assessed unless that footprint exceeds 50% of the area of the created lot. In the case that the footprint of land disturbance exceeds 50% of the lot area, the entire lot upon which construction is proposed will be assessed. Once the archaeological assessment, consisting of background research and field survey (if required), has been completed, the archaeological consultant must submit a report to the Programs and Services Branch of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and to the Planning and Development Department as prescribed in the City’s Legal Deposit By-law. The Ministry of Tourism and Culture has agreed to copy the City on any compliance letter issued to an archaeological consultant. This letter will serve to notify both parties that all provincial concerns with respect to archaeological resource conservation and archaeological licensing have been met. Upon receipt of this letter and supporting documentation (e.g., copies of archaeological site registration forms and reports) from the archaeological consultant, the City may then clear the planning application of any further archaeological concern. The following wording for a standard archaeological condition should be used in planning agreements, building permits, site alteration permits, engineering agreements, OHA approvals or any other document where the need for an archaeological assessment has been identified. This wording shall be amended from time to time to reflect necessary changes. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 69 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 37 SUGGESTED WORDING FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONDITION The proponent shall carry out an archaeological assessment of the entire development property and mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. No demolition, grading or other soil disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the approval authority confirming that all archaeological resource concerns have met resource conservation requirements. The property will be assessed by a consultant archaeologist, licensed by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990); and any significant sites found will be properly mitigated (avoided or excavated), prior to the initiation of construction, servicing, landscaping or other land disturbances. The consultant archaeologist will submit 1) 1:10,000 scale mapping that clearly outlines the limits of the property subject to assessment and the locations of any new archaeological site locations; and 3) a copy of the relevant assessment report(s) all to the Planning and Development Department. The following standard clauses (amended from time to time) must be included in all assessment reports, as required by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture: (a) In the event that deeply buried or previously undiscovered archaeological deposits are discovered in the course of development or site alteration, all work must immediately cease and the site must be secured. The Cultural Program Branch of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (416-314-7123) and the City of Kingston Heritage Planner (613- 546-4291 ext 1386) must be immediately contacted. (b) In the event that human remains are encountered, all work must immediately cease and the site must be secured. The Kingston Police (613-549-4660), the Registrar of Cemeteries Regulation Section of the Ontario Ministry of Consumer Business Services (416-326-8494), the Cultural Program Branch of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (416-314-7123), and the City of Kingston Heritage Planner (613-546-4291 ext 1386) must be immediately contacted. The following information should also be provided to applicants concerning the archaeological assessment process. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 70 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 38 THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS Stage 1 A assessment consists of background research concerning registered sites on the subject lands or within close proximity, as well as the environmental character of the property and its land use history. A Stage 2 assessment consists of field survey to document any sites that may be present on a property. It should be noted that completion of an archaeological field assessment of a particular development property, no matter how rigorous, does not fully guarantee that all significant archaeological resources on that property will be identified prior to land disturbance. This is particularly the case in areas where processes such as filling, flooding or erosion have resulted in the burial of original ground surfaces, or with respect to isolated Stage 3 human burials that are typically small features that can escape detection. investigations are designed to secure a detailed understanding of the nature and extent of a site and may involve complete or partial Stage 4 systematic surface collection and test excavation. undertakings comprise extensive excavation; comparative analysis and interpretation of content and contextual information. If one or more significant archaeological sites that will require further mitigation are documented during the course of an assessment, it is generally possible to secure partial clearance for the property, in that the archaeological requirement may be removed from the balance of the subject lands not encompassed by the archaeological site(s) and suitable protective buffer zones. Although the final report of comprehensive archaeological mitigation work may take many months to complete, final clearance for the property may be available upon the archaeological consultant completing the fieldwork, submitting a brief executive summary to Ministry of Tourism and Culture staff and the proponent providing information regarding any outstanding concerns (e.g., commitment to production of the final report). Should a proponent choose not to proceed with all necessary assessment and/or site mitigations prior to, and in support of the application, the completion of these activities to the satisfaction of Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the Planning and Development Department must be made a condition of draft approval. The Municipal Project Review Process In order to ensure consistency of approach with that of the development industry and to follow best practice, municipal projects, whether or not they fall under the Environmental Assessment Act, will be subject to the same process. Should the project impact areas of archaeological potential, the completion of an assessment and any necessary mitigation, subject to the approval of Ministry of Tourism and Culture, will be required. Assessing Resource Impacts and Identifying Mitigation Strategies If no adverse impacts to an archaeological resource will occur, then development may proceed as planned. Should a significant archaeological resource be discovered during the course of an assessment, the development proponent, the archaeological consultant, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, and the City of Kingston as the approval authority must assess the potential impact to an archaeological resource and arrive at rational decisions regarding integration of that resource into the site or development plan or the Archaeological Services Inc. Page 71 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 39 implementation of mitigative options. The review process at this stage requires the input of the proponent in order to make the decisions regarding potential adverse effects to a site. Should a site be threatened, the two available options are to immediately integrate the site into the development plan such as through re-allocation of open space/community park space or provide for mitigative procedures. The decision-making process with respect to mitigative procedures may be subject to a cost benefit analysis where the mitigative option involves input from all of the stakeholders (i.e., the City, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, the heritage community and the development proponent - either public sector or private sector). The Aboriginal community must also be consulted throughout the site mitigation process. This is particularly true in the case of Late Woodland sites, which regardless of their size have the potential to contain human burials. It is often assumed that the First Nation that is geographically closest to the project is the most suitable group with whom to consult, particularly when the issues at stake are those of archaeological resources and human remains. However, the complex histories of the First Nations of southern Ontario, both before and after European contact and settlement, means that such assumptions can be simplistic and detrimental to the success of the entire consultation process. Under all circumstances there should be an effort to identify the group or more likely groups that are the most appropriate (on cultural-historical grounds) to act as the designated descendants of those who occupied the project area in the past, and who are willing to participate and ensure that cultural heritage remains are treated in an appropriate and seemly manner. This identification process is best achieved through negotiation with a variety of communities in order that they may themselves arrive at the final decision. It should also be noted that the Ministry of Tourism and Culture has issued new draft Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Assessment, which includes a requirement for engagement with Aboriginal Communities between Stages 3 and 4 archaeological investigations on Aboriginal sites and recommended engagement before Stage 2 and 3. While these guidelines have not yet been finalized, such consultation is now expected by most First Nations. In any situation, there are a number of mitigative options, including avoidance, modifications to construction techniques, and various degrees of documentation and/or excavation, as discussed below. Similarly, in all cases, thought should be given to the interpretive and educational potential of the site. Detailed information regarding a site is frequently required in order to make a more accurate assessment of significance and to determine the potential for adverse effects. This may involve different levels of on-site investigations. Many of the sites routinely encountered will prove to be of little or no significance and will not require further investigation, beyond the mapping, measuring and photographing of the surface attributes of the archaeological site that has already occurred during the course of the initial archaeological assessment. Where more extensive archaeological mitigation is required, recommended mitigative options may take numerous forms, including: Preservation: the preferred mitigative option. Preservation may involve long-term protective measures such as project design changes (site avoidance) that integrate the resource within the overall development plan. To further avoid both accidental impact and intentional vandalism and looting, additional protective measures may include fencing, screening, or capping (only in special circumstances). The City must determine whether preservation is to occur on the landscape scale (i.e., areas of high cultural landscape heritage integrity combined with high archaeological potential Archaeological Services Inc. Page 72 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 40 are to be preserved as a whole), or at the scale of individual sites that are deemed to be particularly significant or sensitive (e.g., Late Woodland settlements that may contain human burials). Stabilization: may be required in the case of eroding archaeological deposits. This may involve the salvage excavation of the eroding area and/or the construction of retaining walls or barriers. Systematic Data Recovery: involves the recovery of data from significant archaeological sites, when other mitigative options are not feasible. It includes a complete or partial systematic surface collection, excavation, or both; a comparative analysis and interpretation of content and contextual information; and production of an investigative report. This mitigation strategy ultimately results in the destruction of the archaeological site. Monitoring: monitoring may be undertaken (only in specific circumstances) to ensure that adverse impacts on archaeological sites which could not be predicted or evaluated prior to construction are addressed. Monitoring requires the presence of a licensed archaeologist during the construction phase of a project. This takes the form of scheduled site visits and on-call availability during a long term project. All decisions regarding mitigative options or preservation strategies are subject to Ministry of Tourism and Culture review and approval. The site preservation/avoidance option has both short- and long-term components. The short-term component involves both the redesign of the development plan (e.g., lot layouts, parkland, road, and service alignments) and ensuring that the resource(s) in question are physically protected during construction by means of fencing or other visible barriers. The long-term protective measures can include the use of zoning by-laws or other conditions or orders for development that prohibit any future land use activities that might result in soil disturbance. For information regarding the preparation of a Conservation Plan, which is a document that details how an archaeological site can be conserved, the proponent and their consultant might consult with InfoSheet #5,Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, 2005. Such a plan could only be prepared after a detailed Stage 3 investigation of the site that is necessary to define the nature and extent of the site. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 73 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 41 7 PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS In light of the preceding considerations, the following recommendations are made: That the policies attached as Appendix A be incorporated into the Official Plan 1). It is recommended that the archaeological potential and Archaeologically Sensitive Area (ASA) 2) mapping be used in determining requirements for archaeological assessments. It is recommended that the Planning and Development Department work with City 3) departments to establish protocols that ensure that in all appropriate circumstances, construction projects undertaken by developers, ratepayers and the City of Kingston that may impact archaeological resources on public lands (e.g., trail, playground, playing field, public washroom, parking lot construction, road widening/extension, trunk sewer and watermain construction, stormwater management facility construction, municipal building and structure construction, etc.) and which are located in areas of archaeological potential or areas identified as being archaeologically sensitive, are subject to archaeological assessment prior to any land disturbing activity. It is recommended that when there are any new designations of heritage properties (which 4) include constructions dating before 1920) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, that the property footprint be added to the final potential mapping (Appendix B). If the newly designated property is surrounded by greenfields, the newly designated property should be buffered by 100 metres for archaeological potential . No Stage 4 archaeological investigations on Aboriginal sites should be undertaken within the 5) City of Kingston without first filing a First Nations consultation report with the Planning and Development Department . Such a report should contain a description of the engagement with the appropriate Aboriginal community(s) and copies of any documentation arising from the process. The report must include a rationale for identifying which communities were engaged, a description of the engagement procedures were, dates of when the engagement occurred, documentations of the strategies undertaken to incorporate the input of the Aboriginal community(s) in to the fieldwork (e.g., monitoring) and a description of the process for reporting results to the community(s). Archaeological assessment reports should contain advisories on the steps to be taken should 6) unanticipated deeply buried archaeological remains or human remains be found on a property during construction activities. The advisory should note that Ministry of Tourism and Culture should be notified immediately. It should further specify that if human remains are encountered during construction, the development proponent should immediately cease work, and contact the police, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, and the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services. The City’s Planning and Development Department must also be contacted. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 74 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 42 If the burials are determined to be of Aboriginal origin, the relevant Aboriginal communities must also be notified and their assistance sought. In any case in which deeply buried archaeological remains (including burials) are encountered, all construction activity in the vicinity of the discovery must be postponed until an appropriate mitigation strategy is identified and executed. In order to ensure the long term viability of the Archaeological Master Plan, it should be 7) subject to comprehensive review on a five year basis by a licensed archaeologist and should be carried out in co-ordination with the five year review of the City’s Official Plan. Such a review should consider any changes in Ministry of Tourism and Culture criteria for site significance, any data gaps in the site inventory, changes required to the archaeological potential modeling, and all procedures and guidelines related to the implementation of the Plan. Any review regarding site significance should involve a synthesis of archaeological knowledge resulting from the implementation of this plan to define what kind of sites require excavation to further our knowledge of the pre-contact and post-contact past of the City. Procedures outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Tourism 8) and Culture and the City of Kingston should be followed regarding the sharing of information concerning archaeological site locations. As defined in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the City of Kingston, information concerning site locations can be freely used for internal purposes. Such information can only be provided externally for a given property to a party or agent of the party holding title to that property. Any other external requests to the City for information about site locations must be referred to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. This Memorandum of Understanding should be updated regularly. It is recommended that the City develop and adopt, in consultation with the Ministry of 9) Tourism and Culture, relevant Aboriginal communities, other agencies, landowners, and the public, a “Contingency Plan for the Protection of Archaeological Resources in Urgent Situations.” The Contingency Plan should specify that if deeply buried archaeological remains are found on a property during construction activities, work should cease, and then the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the Planning and Development Department must be notified immediately. It should further specify that if human remains should be encountered during construction, the proponent should immediately cease work, and contact the City of Kingston Police, the City of Kingston Planning and Development Department, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As noted above, it is illegal for any person or agency to alter an archaeological site without a license. This in effect offers automatic protection to all archaeological sites and the City must exercise due diligence in all contexts, including emergency situations, to ensure that archaeological features are protected from disturbance of any nature. Such a Contingency Plan should address: a notification process, involving the City of Kingston, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and any other communities or agencies identified during the consultation process; Archaeological Services Inc. Page 75 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 43 an investigation and reporting process undertaken by a licensed archaeologist; financial responsibility, structured according to the ability to pay of public sector, private sector, and individual land owners. In the case of individual land owners, it may be necessary to establish a contingency fund; the need to establish greater latitude and flexibility in civic financial and other assistance for private conservation activities. Inducements of various types, extended to the private owner/developer in the community interest, are often seen as the quid pro quo for regulatory restrictions (Minister's Advisory Committee 1992:44). While recognizing that the City may be concerned about the potential effects of property tax inducements (e.g., rebates, temporary assessment freezes, etc.) on existing property assessments and tax revenues, it is suggested that the feasibility of such measures merits further consideration during consultation for the Contingency Plan. The City of Kingston should implement a public awareness initiative by which the general 10) public might be made more knowledgeable of the wide range of archaeological resources present within the City. A heightened public awareness of the importance and fragility of archaeological resources can serve as an additional and effective means of protecting those resources. The City should support any programs and endeavours related to involving the public in the investigation of the City’s archaeological record. The City of Kingston should consider preparing both an accurate and comprehensive inventory 11) of the archaeological collections currently held by museums and consulting archaeologists and a guideline encouraging the curation of material from archaeological sites within Kingston at local museums. There is an identified need to co-ordinate the disposition of artifacts recovered from archaeological sites within the City. It is generally preferable that material from a particular archaeological site is ultimately deposited in a public institution located in the same community, provided that adequate storage and curatorial facilities for both artifacts and field records are available, that the institution's collections are accessible to researchers, and that the material is not transferred or disposed of without provincial approval. While many of the existing museum facilities and other agencies such as CARF within the City already have collections of material, or may be willing to accept additional material, a large amount of material from sites in the City is currently curated elsewhere. Collections derived from the activities of private archaeological consulting firms, for the most part, remain in the care of those firms. It is recommended that the City consider preparing an accurate and comprehensive inventory of the collections currently held by museums and consulting archaeologists. Should the City deem it desirable to establish a guideline encouraging the curation of material from archaeological sites within Kingston at local museums (existing or proposed), researchers active in the City could be made aware of this City interest. In order to implement such a process, it would first be necessary to ensure that such institutions possess adequate storage and curatorial facilities, and management policies. Should the City, in Archaeological Services Inc. Page 76 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 44 consultation with the local museums, wish to adopt a comprehensive policy concerning the curation of artifacts from archaeological sites within the City, and incorporate any such policy within the overall implementation of the archaeological master plan, it is recommended that any such curatorial facilities (existing or proposed) and their practices meet current professional standards with respect to such issues as climate control, security, and researcher access. As the curation of archaeological materials on Provincial lands falls entirely within the regulatory framework of the Province, the City should request financial assistance from the Province for the study and implementation of the public curation of materials found within its jurisdiction. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 77 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 45 8 REFERENCES CITED Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 1992 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Cataraqui Archaeological Research Foundation (CARF) 1987-90 Kingston Archaeological Master Plan Study. 4 Volumes. Unpublished report prepared by the Cataraqui Archaeological Research Foundation for the City of Kingston. 2004 Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, Market Square BbGc-88, Kingston, Ontario, 2002 and 2003 Investigations. Report on file with the City of Kingston. 2006a Stage 2 Archaeological Excavations, North Block, BbGc-8 and BbGc-78, Part One, Kingston, Ontario. Report on file with the City of Kingston. 2006b Stage 2 Archaeological Excavations, North Block, BbGc-8 and BbGc-78, Part Two – LVEC Footprint, Kingston, Ontario. Report on file with the City of Kingston 2006c Stage 2 Archaeological Excavations, North Block, BbGc-78, Part Three – King Street, Part Four – Barrack Street, Kingston, Ontario. Report on file with the City of Kingston Coleman, Derek J. and Ronald F. Williamson 1994 Landscapes Past to Landscapes Future: Planning for Archaeological Resources. In Great Lakes Archaeology and Paleoecology: Exploring Interdisciplinary Initiatives for the Nineties, edited by Robert I. MacDonald, pp.61-80. Proceedings of a symposium presented by the Quaternary Science Institute, University of Waterloo, Ontario, September 21-22, 1991. Cuming, D.J. 1985 Advisory Notes on Heritage Conservation and Municipal Planning. On File at Heritage Branch, Ministry of Culture and Communications (now Ministry of Tourism and Culture), Toronto. Department of Canadian Heritage 1977 Cultural Property Import and Export Act. 1990 Archaeological Heritage Policy Framework. Dieterman, F. and R.F. Williamson 2001 Government on Fire: The History and Archaeology of Upper Canada’s First Parliament Buildings. Toronto: eastendbooks. Hansen, G. 1984 Built-on Lands: Definition and Canadian Area Estimates. Plans Canada 17/4. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) 1965 Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter) 1990 Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (Lausanne Charter) 1999 Charter on the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter) 1999 Charter for the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Minister’s Advisory Committee 1992 Minister’s Advisory Committee on New Heritage Legislation. Ministry of Culture and Archaeological Services Inc. Page 78 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 46 Communications (now Ministry of Tourism and Culture), Toronto. Ministry of Consumer and Business Services, Ontario 1990 Cemeteries Act. Ministry of Culture, Ontario 1997 Conserving A Future For Our Past: Archaeology, Land Use Planning & Development in Ontario. Toronto: Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology & Heritage Planning Unit. 2005 Ontario Heritage Act 2006 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (final draft, August 2006). Cultural Programs Branch, Ontario Ministry of Culture, Toronto. Ministry of Environment, Ontario 2006 Environmental Assessment Act Ministry of Government Services, Ontario 2002 Government Efficiency Act Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario 2004 The Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act (Bill 26). 2005 Ontario Planning Act 2005 Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System. Provincial Policy Statement Part IV, pp. 2-3. Toronto. Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario 1990 Aggregate Resources Act. 1991 Timber Management Guidelines for the Protection of Cultural Heritage Resources. Ministry of Transportation, Ontario 2004 Environmental Protection Requirements for Transportation Planning, and Highway Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance. Nicholson, Bev, David Pokotylo and Ron Williamson (editors) 1996 Statement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples. Report from the Aboriginal Heritage Committee, Canadian Archaeological Association. Canadian Archaeological Association and Department of Communications, Ottawa. Ontario Heritage Policy Review \[OHPR\] 1990 A Strategy for Conserving Ontario’s Heritage. Ministry of Culture and Communications (now Ministry of Tourism and Culture), Toronto. Parks Canada 1994 Cultural Resource Management Policy 2002 The Parks Canada Charter. 2002 Guide to the Preparation of Commemorative Integrity Statements. 2003 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2005 Parks Canada Guidelines for the Management of Archaeological Resources. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Archaeological Services Inc. Page 79 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Page 47 1996 Reference Guide on Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Stewart, W. Bruce 1983 The Kingston Harbourfront Archaeological Project Phase II—Fort Frontenac: Results of the 1982 Test Excavations. Unpublished report on file with the Cataraqui Archaeological Research Foundation, Kingston. 1985 The Structural Evolution of Fort Frontenac. Northeast Historical Archaeology 14: 38-49. Task Force on Museums and First Peoples 1992 Turning the Page: Forging New Partnerships Between Museums and First Peoples (2nd edition). Task Force Report on Museums and First Peoples. Assembly of First Nations and Canadian Museums Association, Ottawa. Transport Canada 2001 Canada Shipping Act. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. 1976 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention) 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Archaeological Services Inc. Page 80 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Appendix A: Page 1 of 2 APPENDIX A: PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES Goal : To recognize, protect, and conserve archaeological sites within the City. Policies : Archaeological Master Plan 7.4.1 An Archaeological Master Plan is being undertaken for the City of Kingston and will result in further policy provisions. Until such time as the Archaeological Master Plan is complete, the provincial criteria/checklist for determining an area of archaeological potential will be applied. Conservation of Heritage Resources 7.4.2 The City will permit development and site alteration on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential if the significant archaeological resources have been conserved by removal and documentation, or by conservation on site. Where significantarchaeological resources must be preserved on site, only development and site alteration that maintains the heritage integrity of the site is permitted. Designation of Sites 7.4.3.The City intends to cooperate with the Provincial Government to designate archaeological sites in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. Register of Cultural Heritage Sites 7.4.4.The City’s register of cultural heritage resources may include available archaeological site data and locations, and relevant mapping from the provincial archaeological database of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, under the provisions of a municipal-provincial data sharing agreement. These site data and locations will be maintained for the purpose of heritage conservation planning and development review. The mapping database will be updated regularly when appropriate, as new archaeological sites are identified. Locations Confidential 7.4.5.It is the policy of the City to keep confidential the existence and location of archaeological sites to protect against vandalism, disturbance, and the inappropriate removal of resources, as per the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the City of Kingston data sharing agreement. Provincial Approval 7.4.6.All archaeological assessment reports must be reviewed and a compliance letter issued by the province and a copy of the assessment report will be provided and held by the City for information purposes. Emergency Protection of Resources 7.4.7.A contingency plan must be prepared, with the advice of a licensed archaeologist and/or the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and adopted by by-law, for emergency situations to protect archaeological resources on accidental discoveries or under imminent threat(s). Archaeological Services Inc. Page 81 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Appendix A: Page 2 of 2 Burial Sites 7.4.8.Where burial sites are encountered during any excavation or other action, the provisions of the Cemeteries Act and its regulations will apply. Where there are First Nations burials, they will be addressed by consultation with all relevant First Nations communities. Required Studies .Upon receiving information that lands proposed for development may include 7.4.3 archaeological resources or constitute an area of archaeological potential, Council will not take any action to approve the development,and the owner of such land will be requested to have studies carried out at the owner’s expense by qualified persons to: a)survey andassess the property; b)assess the impact of the proposed development; c)indicate methods to mitigate any adverse impact of the proposed development on any archaeological resources, including methods of recovery and preservation; d)comply with current Ministry of Tourism and Culture standards and guidelines for consulting archaeologists; and, e)provide a compliance letter issued by the Province for any completed archaeological study. Conservation of Archaeological Resources 7.4.10.The City will encourage the conservation of archaeological resources as may be identified by the City, the Province or other group or agency, and will continue to enforce municipal and provincial legislation with respect to the discovery of items of archaeological or historic interest on a property. Archaeological Services Inc. Page 82 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Planning for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in the City of Kingston Appendix B: Page 1 of 5 APPENDIX B: THE COMPOSITE ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL LAYER FOR THE CITY Archaeological Services Inc. Page 83 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... ARCHAEOLOGICAL MASTER PLAN KEY MAP City of Kingston Kingston West Study Area Appendix B - Figure 1: Composite Archaeological Potential Layer A 44 44 4 44 A 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Composite Potential Roadway Railway 4444A 444444 4 Historic Water Stream or Drainage Ditch Rivers, Lakes and Ponds Marshes A 4444 444 Kingston West Study Boundary 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 A 4 4 A 4 4 4A 4 44 44 44 4 44 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 444444A 4 A 4 4 4 4 4 4 A4 4 A 444 4 44 4 44 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A A 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 4 4 44 A 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4A 4 4 4 4 4 A A 44 4 4 4 44 4444 4444444A ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. DATE: MARCH 25, 2008 Kilometers DRAWN BY: S.F. 0123450.5 Page 84 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... ARCHAEOLOGICAL ¯ MASTER PLAN KEY MAP City of Kingston Kingston West Study Area Appendix B - Figure 2: Composite Archaeological Potential Layer 44A 44 4 44 44 44 44 4 4 Final Potential A 4 44 4 4 4 44 4 A 444 44 44 44 Roadway 4 4 4 4 Railway 4 4 4 A Historic Water Stream or Drainage Ditch 444A 4444 Rivers, Lakes and Ponds 4 4 Marshes 4 4 4A 4 4 4 Kingston West Study Boundary 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 44444444 4444A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 44 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 A A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A A 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 444444 4444444 444444 44 44 4444 A A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4A 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4A 4 4A4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 A 44 44 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 A A A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 4 A 4 44 44 4 4 4A 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4A 44 44 44 4 A 44 44 4 4 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. DATE: OCT 20, 2009 Kilometers DRAWN BY: S.F. 0123450.5 Page 85 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... ARCHAEOLOGICAL MASTER PLAN KEY MAP City of Kingston Kingston East Study Area Appendix B - Figure 3: Composite Archaeological Potential Layer A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Composite Potential Roadway Railway 4 4 4 4 Historic Water 4 A 4444 44 4 44 444 4 44 4 4 4 Stream or Drainage Ditch 4 4 4 4 4 A Marshes 4 4 4 4 4 Rivers, Lakes and Ponds 4 4 A Kingston East Study Boundary 4A 44 44 44 4 4 4 4 4A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A A 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 A 44 4 4 4 4 444 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 44 44 4 A 4 4 A 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 44 4 4 A 4 A 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 4 4A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A DATE: MARCH 28, 2008 Kilometers DRAWN BY: S.F. 0123450.5 Page 86 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... ARCHAEOLOGICAL MASTER PLAN KEY MAP City of Kingston A 4 4 4 4 4 4 44A 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 Kingston East Study Area A 4 4A 44 44 4 44 44 44 4 4 Appendix B - Figure 4: 4 4 4 4 4 4 Composite Archaeological Potential Layer Composite Potential Roadway Railway A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Historic Water 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Stream or Drainage Ditch A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 Marshes 4 4 4 4 Rivers, Lakes and Ponds 4 4 4 4 4 Kingston East Study Boundary 4 4 4 A 4 A 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 4 A A A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 A 44 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A A 44 4 44 44 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A A 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 A 4 4 4 4 DATE: MARCH 28, 2008 Kilometers DRAWN BY: S.F. 0123450.5 Page 87 of 99 InfoSheet 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Archaeological Management Plans Overview and context Did You Know? An Archaeological Management Plan What is an Archaeological Management Plan? Who can undertake an Archaeological Management Plan? Page 88 of 99 InfoSheet 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Purpose and goal of an Archaeological Management Plan Page 89 of 99 InfoSheet 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Typical AMP Process The development of an AMP: Compile Inventory Historical Research & Data Collection Aboriginal and Local Four main steps in designing an Archaeological Management Community Plan are: Consultation Analysis of Data and Model Site Potential Develop Archaeological Potential Map/ Policies/Procedures Implement Plan Page 90 of 99 InfoSheet 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Basic steps in constructing an archaeological site potential model: a) Model pre-contact site potential b) Model historical site potential c) Compile an integrity layer related to more recent site disturbances d) Compile a composite archaeological potential layer Archaeological Management Plan sample archaeological potential mapping Page 91 of 99 InfoSheet 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Areas of municipal Integration of an Archaeological Management Plan into responsibility municipal planning policies and processes that could be subject to an archaeological review: Plans of subdivision and condominium Site specific official plan amendments Site plans involving large parcels of undisturbed land such as recreational, commercial and industrial projects (e.g., golf courses, trailer parks, industrial parks, shopping malls) Small-scale applications (e.g., consent to sever) Municipal infrastructure projects involving the construction, erection or placing of a building or structure, road developments and widenings, sewage and water projects, wind turbine proposals, etc. Site alteration activities (e.g., site grading, excavation, Reviewing development proposals and municipal projects removal of topsoil/peat, placing and dumping of fill, drainage works) Demolition permits and building relocation activities (e.g., residential and commercial heritage buildings) Develop an AMP implementation and review procedure for municipal staff Page 92 of 99 InfoSheet 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Engage Aboriginal, local communities and local heritage groups Produced by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Provincial Planning Policy Branch ISBN 978-1-4435-3434-5 (PDF) ISBN 978-1-4435-3433-8 (HTML) © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2010 Paid for by the Government of Ontario Disponible en français: Les plans de gestion archéologique Page 93 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Page 94 of 99 5.i) Wayne Lintack, re: Archaeological Management Plan for O... Page 95 of 99 5.j) Donna Hewitt, Director of Corporate and Strategic Initi... Page 96 of 99 5.k) Justin Hodgkinson, Recreation Coordinator, re: Reprint ... Verbal Matters (Section 12.3 of Township’s Procedural By-Law No. 2013-05411) Name: Justin Hodgkinson, Community Recreation Coordinator Item Number/Name: 5k) Reprint of the Story of Oro Meeting Date: 04 28 2014 Motion No.: Motion No. HC140428-13 Type of Meeting: Council Special Council Committee of Adjustment Accessibility Advisory Committee Recreational Technical Support Group X Heritage Committee Speaking Notes: -the Community Recreation Coordinator noted the need to have the books preprinted -he noted that costs were recoverable through sales of the books 4/29/14 Page 97 of 99 5.l) Correspondence dated April 8, 2014 from the Simcoe Coun... Page 98 of 99 5.l) Correspondence dated April 8, 2014 from the Simcoe Coun... Page 99 of 99