Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 2 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Archaeology Programs Unit Programs and Services Branch Culture Division 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Tel.: (416) Andrea.Williams@ontario.ca Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport Unité des programmes d'archéologie Direction des programmes et des services Division de culture 401, rue Bay, bureau 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Tél. : (416) Andrea.Williams@ontario.ca Mar 23, 2018 Philip Woodley (P018) Sandhill Ancaster ON L9G 4V5 RE: Review and Entry into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports: Archaeological Assessment Report Entitled, "STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE ADELAIDE STREET NORTH/CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY GRADE SEPARATION MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON LOTS 12 AND 13 CONCESSIONS I AND II IN THE GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF LONDON, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, IN THE CITY OF LONDON ", Dated Jul 12, 2017, Filed with MTCS Toronto Office on Jan 8, 2018, MTCS Project Information Form Number P , MTCS File Number Dear Mr. Woodley: This office has reviewed the above-mentioned report, which has been submitted to this ministry as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c This review has been carried out in order to determine whether the licensed professional consultant archaeologist has met the terms and conditions of their licence, that the licensee assessed the property and documented archaeological resources using a process that accords with the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists set by the ministry, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations are consistent with the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. The report documents the assessment of the study area as depicted in Maps 7 to 10 of the above titled report and recommends the following: 1. Stage 2 archaeological assessment is not required for those areas visually determined to be disturbed (78.2%) including: Adelaide Street North, Oxford Street, Piccadilly Street, McMahen Street, Pall Mall Street, Central Avenue, Rosedale Street, Elias Street, Princess Avenue, Lorne Avenue, Dufferin Avenue, Queens Avenue, the CPR rail line, standing structures, residential driveways, and sidewalks. 2. The remainder of the study area requires a Stage 2 archaeological assessment prior to any ground disturbing activities. Since the remainder of the study area is in the front and backyards of residential structures, and within manicured public parklands, ploughing is not feasible. Based on the results of the Stage 1 assessment, it is recommended that: a. Approximately 4.9% of the study area contains should be subject to a test pit survey at 5 m intervals as per Section of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011:31).

2 Page 2 of 2 b. Approximately 16.9% of the study area should be subject to a strategic test pit survey to confirm disturbance as per Section f the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011:38). 3. Additionally, due to the potential for deeply buried archaeological remains within the study area, construction monitoring is required. During grading and other soil disturbing activities, a licensed archaeologist must be on site to inspect and monitor the area for intact topsoil deposits, subsurface features, and artifacts. Should construction monitoring result in the identification of a new archaeological site, immediate steps must be taken to mitigate impacts following the standards prescribed for Stage 3 and/or Stage 4 assessments, as required. A report documenting the results of the construction monitoring must be submitted to the MTCS for review. Based on the information contained in the report, the ministry is satisfied that the fieldwork and reporting for the archaeological assessment are consistent with the ministry's 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists and the terms and conditions for archaeological licences. This report has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. Please note that the ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of reports in the register. Should you require any further information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Andrea Williams Archaeology Review Officer cc. Archaeology Licensing Officer Gillian Thompson,MMM Group Ltd. Max Kireev,City of London 1 In no way will the ministry be liable for any harm, damages, costs, expenses, losses, claims or actions that may result: (a) if the Report(s) or its recommendations are discovered to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent; or (b) from the issuance of this letter. Further measures may need to be taken in the event that additional artifacts or archaeological sites are identified or the Report(s) is otherwise found to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent.

3 STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE ADELAIDE STREET NORTH/CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY GRADE SEPARATION MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON LOTS 12 AND 13 CONCESSIONS I AND II IN THE GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF LONDON, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, IN THE CITY OF LONDON Original License Report Submitted to: WSP Canada Group Inc. 610 Chartwell Road, Suite 300 Oakville, ON L6J 4A9 Phone (905) Submitted by: 1480 Sandhill Drive, Unit 3 Ancaster, Ontario L9G 4V5 Phone (905) License Holder: Philip Woodley #P018 Project # P July 12, 2017

4 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report discusses the rationale, methods and results of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the Adelaide Street/Canadian Pacific Railway Grade Separation Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) in the City of London. Triggered by the Environmental Assessment Act, this Class EA is aimed at identifying and assessing a range of planning and design alternatives for the grade separation including subway (rail over road) and overpass (road over rail), while at the same time confirming the needs of the Adelaide Street corridor, recognizing the full range of users within the community including pedestrians, cyclists, rail, transit vehicles and motorists. The study area is located on Lots 12 and 13, Concessions I and II in the Geographic Township of London, Middlesex County. (NDA) was contracted by WSP Canada Group Inc.on behalf of the City of London to conduct this Stage 1 archaeological assessment. The study area measures approximately 16.6 hectares. The purpose of this Stage 1 archaeological assessment is to provide information about the property s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork, and current land condition in order to determine the archaeological potential of the property. Detailed documentary research was conducted and provides a record of the property s archaeological and land use history, as well as its present condition. This research is presented in the historical and archaeological context sections of this report (Sections 1.2 and 1.3). A property inspection was also completed to gain first-hand knowledge of the property s geography, topography, and current condition, and to evaluate and map archaeological potential (Section 2.2). As no permission was granted to private property within the study area, the property inspection was carried out from publicly accessible lands. The background research resulted in the identification of multiple features of archaeological potential within the study area. Most prominent are the location of the study area within the historic City of London, numerous historic roadways, nearby historic structures as illustrated on nineteenth century maps. Additionally, 15 listed or registered heritage properties are located within or immediately adjacent to the study area, and the heritage conservation districts of Old East and East Woodfield are also situated within the subject property. Finally, a former tributary of the Thames River bisected the study area prior to being channeled underground, first draining through the former Horn Lake. However, the potential for a study area to contain archaeological resources is tempered with a consideration of the presence and extent of past disturbances and other areas of low archaeological potential. Approximately 78.2% of the study area has been visually determined to be disturbed, and does not require further assessment. Disturbances are related to the construction of roadways, the Canadian Pacific Railway, commercial and residential developments, as well as associated above and below ground infrastructure. These disturbances have caused deep and extensive land alterations that have removed archaeological potential within the upper soil layers. Considering the age of the community, it is possible that deeply buried archaeological remains are present below the disturbance. Approximately 21.8% of the study area still holds archaeological potential and will require further assessment. Areas of archaeological potential include McMahen Park, the backyards of the

5 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA ii residential structures on the south side of Oxford Street East (east of Adelaide Street North), and manicured grass boulevards in the front yards of some of the residential/commercial structures. While it is likely that some portions of the manicured lawns may be disturbed from road and building construction, testing is required to confirm the extent of disturbance. On the basis of the above information, the following recommendations are made: 1. Stage 2 archaeological assessment is not required for those areas visually determined to be disturbed (78.2%) including: Adelaide Street North, Oxford Street, Piccadilly Street, McMahen Street, Pall Mall Street, Central Avenue, Rosedale Street, Elias Street, Princess Avenue, Lorne Avenue, Dufferin Avenue, Queens Avenue, the CPR rail line, standing structures, residential driveways, and sidewalks. 2. The remainder of the study area requires a Stage 2 archaeological assessment prior to any ground disturbing activities. Since the remainder of the study area is in the front and backyards of residential structures, and within manicured public parklands, ploughing is not feasible. Based on the results of the Stage 1 assessment, it is recommended that: a. Approximately 4.9% of the study area contains should be subject to a test pit survey at 5 m intervals as per Section of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011:31). b. Approximately 16.9% of the study area should be subject to a strategic test pit survey to confirm disturbance as per Section f the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011:38). 3. Additionally, due to the potential for deeply buried archaeological remains within the study area, construction monitoring is required. During grading and other soil disturbing activities, a licensed archaeologist must be on site to inspect and monitor the area for intact topsoil deposits, subsurface features, and artifacts. Should construction monitoring result in the identification of a new archaeological site, immediate steps must be taken to mitigate impacts following the standards prescribed for Stage 3 and/or Stage 4 assessments, as required. A report documenting the results of the construction monitoring must be submitted to the MTCS for review.

6 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA iii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF IMAGES LIST OF MAPS LIST OF APPENDICES PERSONNEL I III IV IV V V VI 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT Development Context Historical Context Settlement History Pre-Contact Post-Contact Past and Present Land Use Review of Nineteenth Century Maps Review of Twentieth Century Aerial Photographs Built Heritage Resources Archaeological Context Condition of the Property Previous Archaeological Work Registered or Known Archaeological Sites Archaeological Master Plan STAGE 1 BACKGROUND STUDY Background Study Methods Property Inspection Field Methods Analysis and Conclusions RECOMMENDATIONS ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION IMAGES MAPS BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 29 APPENDICES 32

7 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Pre-Contact Settlement History 2 Table 2: Post-Contact Settlement History 3 Table 3: Built Heritage Resources within the Study Area 4 LIST OF IMAGES Image 1: Adelaide St. N facing northwest, note manicured and landscaped lawns 13 Image 2: Adelaide St. N facing northwest, note commercial parking lot 13 Image 3: Adelaide St. N facing northeast, note bus station, parking lot, sidewalk 13 Image 4: Oxford St. E facing southwest, note driveway and commercial parking lot, manicured lawn 13 Image 5: Oxford St. E facing northeast, note driveway and commercial parking lot, manicured lawn 13 Image 6: Intersection of Adelaide St. N and Oxford St. E facing northwest 13 Image 7: Oxford St. E facing southwest, note landscaped and terraced residences 14 Image 8: Oxford St. E facing northeast, note manicured lawns 14 Image 9: Oxford St. E facing southeast, note manicured lawn, parking lot 14 Image 10: Piccadilly St. facing northeast, note manicured lawns 14 Image 11: Adelaide St. N facing northwest, note commercial properties, sidewalks 14 Image 12: McMahen Park facing south 14 Image 13: McMahen St. facing southwest 15 Image 14: Pall Mall St. facing northeast, note manicured lawns 15 Image 15: Adelaide St. N at CPR tracks facing northwest 15 Image 16: Adelaide St. N at CPR tracks facing southeast 15 Image 17: Adelaide St. N at CPR tracks facing southeast 15 Image 18: Parking lot facing southeast 15 Image 19: Central Ave. facing southwest 16 Image 20: Adelaide Street North facing north, note gas station 16 Image 21: Residential block on west side of Adelaide Street North facing southwest 16 Image 22: Rosedale Street facing west 16 Image 23: Adelaide Street North facing northeast 16 Image 24: Princess Street facing west 16 Image 25: Adelaide Street North facing northwest 17 Image 26: Dufferin Avenue facing west 17 Image 27: Adelaide Street North facing southeast 17 Image 28: Queens Avenue facing northeast 17 Image 29: Queens Avenue facing northeast, note Banting House 17 Image 30: Adelaide Street North facing northwest 17 Image 31: Adelaide Street North facing southeast 18

8 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA v LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Location of the Study Area on Topographic Map 19 Map 2: Location of the Study Area on 1862 Tremaine Map of Middlesex County, Canada West 20 Map 3: Location of the Study Area on 1878 H. R. Page & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of Middlesex County, Ont. 21 Map 4: Location of the Study Area on 1954 Aerial Photograph 22 Map 5: Location of the Study Areas on The City of London Archaeological Master Plan 23 Map 6: Features of Archaeological Potential within the Study Area 24 Map 7: Assessment Results Tile 1 25 Map 8: Assessment Results Tile 2 26 Map 9: Assessment Results Tile 3 27 Map 10: Assessment Results Tile 4 28 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX I: Unaltered Development Plans 33 APPENDIX II: Document Inventory 35

9 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA vi PERSONNEL Project Director Field Director Report Graphics Report Preparation Editor Philip Woodley (P018) Craig Ramsoomair (R1106) Andrew Turner (R1042) Amanda Parks (R450) Lara Wood (P1078)

10 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA PROJECT CONTEXT 1.1 Development Context This report discusses the rationale, methods and results of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the Adelaide Street/Canadian Pacific Railway Grade Separation Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) in the City of London (Map 1). Triggered by the Environmental Assessment Act, this Class EA is aimed at identifying and assessing a range of planning and design alternatives for the grade separation including subway (rail over road) and overpass (road over rail), while at the same time confirming the needs of the Adelaide Street corridor, recognizing the full range of users within the community including pedestrians, cyclists, rail, transit vehicles and motorists (APPENDIX I). The study area is located on Lots 12 and 13, Concessions I and II in the Geographic Township of London, Middlesex County. (NDA) was contracted by WSP Canada Group Inc. on behalf of the City of London to conduct this Stage 1 archaeological assessment. The study area measures approximately 16.6 hectares. The purpose of this Stage 1 archaeological assessment is to provide information about the property s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork, and current land condition in order to determine the archaeological potential of the property. Detailed documentary research was conducted and provides a record of the property s archaeological and land use history, as well as its present condition. This research is presented in the historical and archaeological context sections of this report (Sections 1.2 and 1.3). A property inspection was also completed to gain first-hand knowledge of the property s geography, topography, and current condition, and to evaluate and map archaeological potential (Section 2.2). As no permission was granted to private property within the study area, the property inspection was carried out from publicly accessible lands. Assessment activities were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990, c.o. 18) in compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011) under an archaeological consulting license (#P018) issued to Philip Woodley of NDA. The field notes, photos and related documents will be curated at the office of NDA. (APPENDIX II). 1.2 Historical Context After a century of archaeological work in southern Ontario, scholarly understanding of the historic usage of lands in the City of London has become very well-developed. With occupation beginning in the Palaeo-Indian period approximately 11,000 years ago, the greater vicinity of the study area comprises a complex chronology of Pre-Contact and Euro-Canadian histories. Section provides an overview of the region s settlement history, and Section summarizes the past and present land use of the study area.

11 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA Settlement History Pre-Contact The Pre-Contact history of the region is both lengthy and rich due to the variety of Indigenous groups inhabited the landscape. Archaeologists generally divide this complex history into three main periods: Palaeo-Indian, Archaic and Woodland. Each of these periods comprises a range of discrete sub-periods characterized by specific material culture, settlement patterns and lifeways. The principal archaeological horizons/cultures of the region are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Pre-Contact Settlement History (Wright 1972; Ellis and Ferris 1990; Warrick 2000; Munson and Jamieson 2013) Sub-Period Timeframe Characteristics Early Palaeo-Indian Late Palaeo-Indian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Early Woodland BC BC BC BC BC BC Middle Woodland 400 BC AD 600 Middle/Late Woodland Transition Late Woodland (Early Iroquoian) Late Woodland (Middle Iroquoian) Late Woodland (Late Iroquoian) Post-Contact AD AD AD AD Gainey, Barnes and Crowfield traditions; Small bands; Mobile hunters and gatherers; Utilization of seasonal resources and large territories; Fluted projectiles Holcombe, Hi-Lo and Lanceolate biface traditions; Continuing mobility; Campsite/Way-Station sites; Smaller territories are utilized; Non-fluted projectiles Side-notched, Corner-notched (Nettling, Thebes) and Birfurcate Base traditions; Growing diversity of stone tool types; Heavy woodworking tools appear (e.g., ground stone axes and chisels) Stemmed (Kirk, Stanly/Neville), Brewerton side- and corner-notched traditions; Reliance on local resources; Populations increasing; More ritual activities; Fully ground and polished tools; Net-sinkers common; Earliest copper tools Narrow Point (Lamoka), Broad Point (Genesee) and Small Point (Crawford Knoll) traditions; Less mobility; Use of fish-weirs; True cemeteries appear; Stone pipes emerge; Long-distance trade (marine shells and galena) Meadowood tradition; Crude cord-roughened ceramics emerge; Meadowood cache blades and side-notched points; Bands of up to 35 people Saugeen tradition; Stamped ceramics appear; Saugeen projectile points; Cobble spall scrapers; Seasonal settlements and resource utilization; Post holes, hearths, middens, cemeteries and rectangular structures identified Princess Point tradition; Cord roughening, impressed lines and punctate designs on pottery; Adoption of maize horticulture at the western end of Lake Ontario; Oval houses and incipient longhouses; First palisades; Villages with 75 people Glen Meyer tradition; Settled village-life based on agriculture; Small villages (0.4 ha) with people and 4 5 longhouses; Semi-permanent settlements Uren and Middleport traditions; Classic longhouses emerge; Larger villages (1.2 ha) with up to 600 people; More permanent settlements (30 years) Pre-Contact Neutral tradition; Larger villages (1.7 ha); Examples up to 5 ha with 2,500 people; Extensive croplands; Also hamlets, cabins, camps and cemeteries; Potential tribal units; Fur trade begins ca. 1580; European trade goods appear The arrival of the European explorers and traders at the beginning of the 17 th century triggered widespread shifts in Indigenous lifeways and set the stage for the ensuing Euro-Canadian settlement process. Documentation for this period is abundant, ranging from the first sketches of Upper Canada and the written accounts of early explorers to detailed township maps and lengthy histories. The Post-Contact period can be effectively discussed in terms of major historical events, and the principal characteristics associated with these events are summarized in Table 2.

12 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 3 Table 2: Post-Contact Settlement History (Smith 1846; H.R. Page & Co. 1878; Mulvany 1885; Robinson 1885; Coyne 1895; Lajeunesse 1960; Cumming 1972; Mika 1972; Champion 1979; Smith 1987; Ellis and Ferris 1990; Surtees 1994; Hughes 2009; NRC 2010; AO 2011) Historical Event Timeframe Characteristics Early Contact Five Nations Invasion Anishnabeg Influx Fur Trade Development British Control Loyalist Influx Middlesex County Development London Township Formation and Development Early 17 th century Mid-17 th century Late 17 th and early 18 th century Early and mid- 18 th century Mid-18 th century Late 18 th century Late 18 th and early 19 th century 19 th century Brûlé explores the area in 1610; Champlain visits in 1613 and 1615/1616; Iroquoian-speakers (Huron, Petun and Neutral) and Algonkian-speakers (Anishinabeg) encountered; European goods begin to replace traditional tools Haudenosaunee (Five Nations) invade ca. 1650; Neutral, Huron and Petun Nations are defeated/removed; vast Iroquoian hunting territory established in the second half of the 17 th century; Explorers continue to document the area Ojibway, Odawa and Potawatomi expand into Haudenosaunee lands in the late 17 th century; Nanfan Treaty between Haudenosaunee and British in 1701; Anishnabeg occupy the area and trade directly with the French and English Growth and spread of the fur trade; Peace between the French and English with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713; Ethnogenesis of the Métis; Hostilities between French and British lead to the Seven Years War in 1754; French surrender in 1760 Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognizes the title of the First Nations to the land; Numerous treaties arranged by the Crown; First acquisition is the Seneca surrender of the west side of the Niagara River in August 1764 United Empire Loyalist influx after the American Revolutionary War ( ); British develop interior communication routes and acquire additional lands; Between the Lakes Purchase in 1784 orchestrated by Haldimand to obtain lands for Six Nations; Constitutional Act of 1791 creates Upper and Lower Canada The area that would eventually become Middlesex County was initially part of the London District. The lands comprising Middlesex were purchased from the Ojibway through the Long Woods Purchase (1822) and the Huron Tract Purchase (1827). In 1849 following the abolition of the district system, Middlesex County comprised the Townships of Adelaide, Aldborough, Bayham, Caradoc, Delaware, Dorchester, Dunwich, Ekfrid, London, Metcalfe, Mosa, Malahide, Southwold, Westminster, Williams, Yarmouth, and the Town of London. The Township remained one of the most well settled areas in Southwestern Ontario due to excellent land and being well timbered with both pine and high quality hardwoods. By the mid-19 th century 52,783 ha were under cultivation. By 1842, the population reached 31,350 and in 1844 there were 93 saw mills and 35 grist mills. By 1861 the population reached 48,736 individuals. The Township of London was first surveyed from by Col. Burwell, with the first land patent being granted in 1812 to Hon. John Hale. No permanent settlement was made in the Township of London until 1817 when a few lots were purchased by residents from the neighbouring City of London. Settlement increased substantially after this date. The City of London was incorporated as a village in 1840 with a population of almost Following this, villages and other municipalities continued to experience population increase due to the excellent farming conditions and the enterprise of the settlers. The study area is also located on the north margins of the City of London, within the villages of London East and East Woodfield Past and Present Land Use The study area is located on Lots 12 and 13, Concessions I and II in the Geographic Township of London, Middlesex County. To reconstruct the historic land use of the study area, NDA conducted a review of nineteenth century maps and twentieth century aerial photographs focused on the study area to provide insight in to the past and present land use and settlement history of the property. Furthermore, a review of the City of London s Inventory of Heritage Resources (2006) was completed to document the known structures of historical importance located within the study area.

13 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA Review of Nineteenth Century Maps The nineteenth century maps reviewed include G.R. and G. M. s Tremaine s Map of the County of Middlesex, Canada West (1862) (Map 2) and H.R. Page & Co. s Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Middlesex, Ont. (1878) (Map 3). Both maps demonstrate that Lots 12 and 13 Concession I and II were heavily subdivided to accommodate the growth of the City of London and the villages of East Woodfield and London East. While neither map lists property owners, historic features of potential are illustrated on the maps including historic roads (current Adelaide Street North, St James Street, Oxford Street East, Piccadilly Street, Pall Mall Street, McMahen Street, Central Avenue, Princess Avenues, Dufferin Avenue, and Queens Avenue), and the historic City of London, and London East. While no structures are illustrated immediately within the study area, several are noted within the vicinity. Additionally, the 1862 Tremaine map shows that a tributary of the Thames River, which first flowed through the former Lake Horn, is shown to have once bisected the study area. Several bridges crossing the tributary are also displayed on the 1862 map. Neither the tributary nor Lake Horn are illustrated on the 1878 H.R. Page & Co. atlas. Based on the presence of these historic features within and immediately adjacent to the study area, there is a distinct potential for encountering historic archaeological resources on the property Review of Twentieth Century Aerial Photographs A review of a 1954 aerial photograph demonstrates that the study area had become a well established residential and commercial area (Map 5). New roads and buildings are seen within and immediately adjacent to the study area. Additionally, the Canadian Pacific Railway is seen to bisect the study area. Originally developed as part of the West Ontario Pacific Railway in 1887, the rail line came under the ownership of the CPR the following year in Built Heritage Resources The Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) gives municipal heritage advisory committees the responsibility of researching and recommending to municipal council properties of cultural value or interest. The properties are recorded and monitored through a heritage register as designated (under the OHA) or listed (non-designated properties with cultural heritage interest or value that may become candidates for designation). A preliminary review of the City of London s Inventory of Heritage Resources (2006) revealed that at least 15 properties have been listed or registered within or immediately adjacent to the study area. Of these buildings, five are Designated Part IV and the remainder are listed. Listed properties have been assigned priority numbers to reflect the heritage value of the resources. Priority 1 buildings are considered London s most important heritage structures that merit designation. Priority 2 buildings merit evaluation for designation. Priority 3 buildings may merit designation as part of a group of buildings, or as part of a Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Table 3 provides a list of these properties by address. Table 3: Built Heritage Resources within the Study Area (City of London 2006) Address Built Architectural Style Heritage Status Building Name 429 Adelaide St. N c1860 Blacksmith Shop Priority Adelaide St. N 1928 Industrial Priority 2 O-Pee-Chee Building

14 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 5 Address Built Architectural Style Heritage Status Building Name 442 Adelaide St. N 1907 Late Victorian Designated Part IV Banting House 479 Adelaide St. N 1880 Second Empire Designated Part IV Adelaide St. N 1907 Queen Anne Priority Adelaide St. N c1900 Vernacular Priority Adelaide St. N c1888 Eclectic Designated Part IV Adelaide St. N c1900 Vernacular Priority Adelaide St. N c1900 Vernacular Priority Adelaide St. N c1900 Vernacular Priority Adelaide St. N 1892 Queen Anne Priority 1 Central Cat Hospital 598 Pall Mall Street c1893 Vernacular Priority Queens Avenue 1881 Second Empire Designated Part IV Central Baptist Church Princess Avenue c1880 Vernacular Priority Dufferin Street EW HCD c1895 Victorian Designated Part IV - Additionally, portions of the study area are located within two separate HCDs. The Old East HCD is located on the east side of Adelaide Street North from Queens Avenue to Central Avenue. The study area intersects with the Old East HCD along Central Avenue and Queens Avenue, both of which contain designated properties under Part V of the OHA. The East Woodfield HCD is located along the along the west side of Adelaide Street North from Queens Avenue to Princess Street. One National Historic Site is also located within the study. The Banting House, which is situated at 442 Adelaide Street North, is also a municipally designated property under Part IV of the OHA. Finally, one historic plaque has been noted within the study area. Located at the Banting house, the plaque reads: Here, in the early morning hours of October 31, 1920, Dr. Frederick Banting conceived an idea for research that led to the discovery of insulin. He believed that diabetes, then a fatal disease, could be treated by a substance extracted from a dog's atrophied pancreas. Banting was the pivotal member of the Toronto team that isolated and refined this extract, now known as insulin. In January 1922, insulin showed spectacular test results and became a lifesaving therapy worldwide. Banting House, known as the "Birthplace of Insulin", reminds us of the most important Canadian medical discovery of the 20th century. The presence of listed and designated built heritage structures, two HCDs, a National Historic Site, and one historic plaque all increase the potential for historic Euro-Canadian archaeological sites to be present on the property. The study area is currently comprised of roads, sidewalks, residential and commercial developments, the CPR rail line, manicured grass boulevards, and parklands.

15 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA Archaeological Context The archaeological context of any given study area must be informed by the general condition of the property (Section 1.3.1), summaries of any previous archaeological work conducted within 50 m of the subject property (Section 1.3.2), whether there are any registered or known archaeological sites located within 1 km of the study area (Section 1.3.3), and a review of municipal archaeological potential mapping (Section 1.3.4). The Stage 1 property inspection was carried out on May 8, 2017, and the specific weather and lighting conditions are summarized in Section Condition of the Property The study area is located within the deciduous forest region of southern Ontario, which is dominated by agricultural and urban areas. In terms of physiography, the study area is located within the Cardoc Sand Plains and London Annex. The Caradoc Sand Plains and London Annex physiographic region is located both west and east of London and measures approximately 300 square miles (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 146). The region is comprised of small plains covered in sand or other light textured water-laid deposits, which distinctly differ from the adjacent clay plains and moraines. Additionally, a basin is present within this region, surrounding the city and extending several miles to the east. Glacial spillways deposited beds of silt and sand into the basin. Following the drainage of spillways, gravelly alluvium was deposited over the lower portions of the basin, and later along the Thames to Komoka where terraces appear. More specifically, the study area measures 16.6 hectares and spans Adelaide Street North from approximately 100 m north of Oxford Street to approximately 100 m south of Queens Avenue. The study area ranges in width between 50 m and 325 m with Adelaide Road North as the centreline. from approximately 100 metres south of 19 th Avenue to approximately 500 metres north of Stouffville Road. While most of the study area is comprised of roadways, commercial and residential developments, sidewalks, manicured grass boulevards, and parklands, are also present. The Upper Thames River encircles the study area and is located approximately 1.5 km to 2 km to the north west and south. A 1931 soil map was reviewed and indicates the soil within the study area is Fox fine sandy loam a greyish brown fine sandy loam over yellow sandy loam over reddish brown clayey sand over stratified and sand (OAC 1931). The general topography is flat to undulating (Map 1) Previous Archaeological Work The MTCS s Ontario Archaeological Sites Database was consulted to determine whether any archaeological assessments had been previously conducted within the limits of, or immediately adjacent to the study area. According to this search, there are no reports documenting field work within 50 m of the study area Registered or Known Archaeological Sites The MTCS s Ontario Archaeological Sites Database was consulted to determine whether any registered or known archaeological resources are located within 1 km of the study area. No archaeological sites have been documented within 1 km of the study area.

16 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA Archaeological Master Plan In 1996, the City of London created an archaeological master plan to assist with the planning and development of the City (London 1996). The City of London Archaeological Master Plan is accompanied by mapping that illustrates areas of potential within the City, as well as areas of no archaeological potential. A review of this map shows that most the study area does not hold archaeological potential based on factors described in the 1996 plan (Map 5).

17 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA STAGE 1 BACKGROUND STUDY 2.1 Background Study Methods The Stage 1 background study was completed as per Section 1.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011:14). The background study involved an examination of the archaeology, history, geography and current land condition of the vicinity of the study area and is detailed in the Historical and Archaeological Context sections above. The research includes information from the following sources: Historic settlement maps Aerial photographs Built heritage registers Commemorative plaques or monuments The most up-to-date listing of sites from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport s archaeological sites database within 1 km of the study area Reports of previous field work within 50 metres of the study area Topographic maps at 1:10,000 (recent and/or historical) or the most detailed scale available Official Plans and Archaeological Management Plans The highest quality and most detailed mapping available was utilized. The background study has demonstrated the past and present land use and settlement history of the property, and has provided information sufficient to evaluate the presence of archaeological potential within the study area (Map 6). 2.2 Property Inspection Field Methods In order to gain first-hand knowledge of the geography, topography and current condition of the study area, a property inspection was conducted on May 8, The study area was subject to random spot checking in accordance with the requirements set out in Section 1.2 of the S&Gs (MTCS 2011:15 17). However, given the lack of permission to enter private properties, access was restricted to public lands, and all photographs were taken from roadways. Fieldwork was carried out under weather and lighting conditions that met the requirements set out in Section 1.2 Standard 2 of the S&Gs (MTCS 2011:16). Environmental conditions were ideal during the inspection, with sunny skies, a high of 10 C, and excellent lighting. Where possible, the study area was documented with photographs (Image 1 to Image 29). The property inspection confirmed that all features of archaeological potential (e.g., historicallysurveyed roadways, watercourses, etc.) were present where they were previously identified, and did not result in the identification of any additional features of archaeological potential not visible on mapping (e.g., relic water channels, patches of well-drained soils, etc.). No culturallysignificant structures or built features that would affect assessment strategies were identified (MTCS 2011:16 17). Map 7 to Map 10 details the results of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment and the locations and directions of photographs (Image 1 to Image 29). Approximately 78.2% of the study area was visually determined to be disturbed. Disturbances were related to the construction of Adelaide

18 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 9 Street North (Image 1), Oxford Street (Image 4), Piccadilly Street (Image 10), McMahen Street (Image 13), Pall Mall Street (Image 14), Central Avenue (Image 19), Rosedale Street (Image 22), Elias Street, Princess Avenue (Image 23), Lorne Avenue, Dufferin Avenue (Image 26), and Queens Avenue (Image 28 and Image 29). The rights-of-way of these transportation routes demonstrated deep and extensive land alterations. Additional disturbances were related to standing commercial (Image 2, Image 5, and Image 6) and residential (Image 21, Image 22, and Image 31) structures, parking lots (Image 4 and Image 6), the Canadian Pacific Railway (Image 15 to Image 17), and transportation and utility infrastructure (Image 19, Image 20, and Image 30). However, the remainder of the study area (21.8%) still contains archaeological potential and will require further assessment. Areas of potential include McMahen Park (Image 12), which does not appear to have been subject to previous extensive or deep land alterations. Manicured grass boulevards are found in front of many of the residential structures within the study area. Since it is not currently known whether the soils were disturbed during the construction of the houses and adjacent roads, further assessment to confirm disturbance is required. Additionally, entry into the backyards of private residences located along the south side Oxford Street East, east of Adelaide Street North, could not be completed due to a lack of permission to enter; however, aerial imagery suggests that archaeological potential is extant within these backyards, and so further assessment will be required. 2.3 Analysis and Conclusions In addition to relevant historical sources and the results of past archaeological assessments, the archaeological potential of a property can be assessed using its soils, hydrology and landforms as considerations. Section of the S&Gs (MTCS 2011:17 18) recognizes the following features or characteristics as indicators of archaeological potential: previously identified sites, water sources (past and present), elevated topography, pockets of well-drained sandy soil, distinctive land formations, resource areas, areas of Euro-Canadian settlement, early transportation routes, listed or designated properties, historic landmarks or sites, and areas that local histories or informants have identified with possible sites, events, activities or occupations. Also taken into consideration is the presence and extent of deep land alterations that have severely damaged the integrity of any archaeological resources. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment has resulted in the identification of multiple features of archaeological potential within the study area, most prominent of which is the location of the study area within the historic City of London, and within the community of London East. Numerous historic roadways traverse the study area, and several historic structures have been illustrated on nineteenth century maps immediately adjacent to the study area. Additionally, the presence of built heritage resources within a study area can increase the potential to recover historic Euro-Canadian archaeological material. At least 15 properties have been listed or registered within or immediately adjacent to the study area, and the heritage conservation districts of Old East and East Woodfield are also situated within the subject property. Additionally, a former tributary of the Thames River bisected the study area prior to being channeled underground, first draining through the former Horn Lake. Finally, while no archaeological sites have been registered within 1 km of the study area, this is likely the result of the lack of archaeological assessments within the surrounding area.

19 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 10 The presence of the above heritage features indicates there is high archaeological potential for encountering archaeological sites associated with the occupation of the study area by both Pre- Contact peoples and early settlers. However, the potential for a study area to contain archaeological resources is tempered with a consideration of the presence and extent of past disturbances and other areas of low archaeological potential. As noted, approximately 78.2% of the study area has been visually determined to be disturbed. Disturbances are related to the construction of roadways, the Canadian Pacific Railway, commercial and residential developments, as well as associated above and below ground infrastructure. These disturbances have caused deep and extensive land alterations that have removed archaeological potential within the upper soil layers. Considering the age of the community, it is possible that deeply buried archaeological remains are present below the disturbance. Approximately 21.8% of the study area still holds archaeological potential and will require further assessment. Areas of archaeological potential include McMahen Park, the backyards of the residential structures on the south side of Oxford Street East (east of Adelaide Street North), and manicured grass boulevards in the front yards of some of the residential/commercial structures. While it is likely that some portions of the manicured lawns may be disturbed from road and building construction, testing is required to confirm the extent of disturbance.

20 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of the above information, the following recommendations are made (Map 7 to Map 10): 1. Stage 2 archaeological assessment is not required for those areas visually determined to be disturbed (78.2%) including: Adelaide Street North, Oxford Street, Piccadilly Street, McMahen Street, Pall Mall Street, Central Avenue, Rosedale Street, Elias Street, Princess Avenue, Lorne Avenue, Dufferin Avenue, Queens Avenue, the CPR rail line, standing structures, residential driveways, and sidewalks. 2. The remainder of the study area requires a Stage 2 archaeological assessment prior to any ground disturbing activities. Since the remainder of the study area is in the front and backyards of residential structures, and within manicured public parklands, ploughing is not feasible. Based on the results of the Stage 1 assessment, it is recommended that: a. Approximately 4.9% of the study area contains should be subject to a test pit survey at 5 m intervals as per Section of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011:31). b. Approximately 16.9% of the study area should be subject to a strategic test pit survey to confirm disturbance as per Section of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011:38). 3. Additionally, due to the potential for deeply buried archaeological remains within the study area, construction monitoring is required. During grading and other soil disturbing activities, a licensed archaeologist must be on site to inspect and monitor the area for intact topsoil deposits, subsurface features, and artifacts. Should construction monitoring result in the identification of a new archaeological site, immediate steps must be taken to mitigate impacts following the standards prescribed for Stage 3 and/or Stage 4 assessments, as required. A report documenting the results of the construction monitoring must be submitted to the MTCS for review.

21 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION Section of the S&Gs requires that the following information be provided for the benefit of the proponent and approval authority in the land use planning and development process (MTCS 2011: ): 1. This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alteration to archaeological sites by the proposed development. 2. It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such times as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 3. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. 4. The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services. 5. Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological field work or protection remain subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered nor may artifacts be removed from them, except by a person holding an archaeological license.

22 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA IMAGES Image 1: Adelaide St. N facing northwest, note manicured and landscaped lawns Image 2: Adelaide St. N facing northwest, note commercial parking lot Image 3: Adelaide St. N facing northeast, note bus station, parking lot, sidewalk Image 4: Oxford St. E facing southwest, note driveway and commercial parking lot, manicured lawn Image 5: Oxford St. E facing northeast, note driveway and commercial parking lot, manicured lawn Image 6: Intersection of Adelaide St. N and Oxford St. E facing northwest

23 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 14 Image 7: Oxford St. E facing southwest, note landscaped and terraced residences Image 8: Oxford St. E facing northeast, note manicured lawns Image 9: Oxford St. E facing southeast, note manicured lawn, parking lot Image 10: Piccadilly St. facing northeast, note manicured lawns Image 11: Adelaide St. N facing northwest, note commercial properties, sidewalks Image 12: McMahen Park facing south

24 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 15 Image 13: McMahen St. facing southwest Image 14: Pall Mall St. facing northeast, note manicured lawns Image 15: Adelaide St. N at CPR tracks facing northwest Image 16: Adelaide St. N at CPR tracks facing southeast Image 17: Adelaide St. N at CPR tracks facing southeast Image 18: Parking lot facing southeast

25 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 16 Image 19: Central Ave. facing southwest Image 20: Adelaide Street North facing north, note gas station Image 21: Residential block on west side of Adelaide Street North facing southwest Image 22: Rosedale Street facing west Image 23: Adelaide Street North facing northeast Image 24: Princess Street facing west

26 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 17 Image 25: Adelaide Street North facing northwest Image 26: Dufferin Avenue facing west Image 27: Adelaide Street North facing southeast Image 28: Queens Avenue facing northeast Image 29: Queens Avenue facing northeast, note Banting House Image 30: Adelaide Street North facing northwest

27 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 18 Image 31: Adelaide Street North facing southeast

28 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA MAPS Map 1: Location of the Study Area on Topographic Map

29 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 20 Map 2: Location of the Study Area on 1862 Tremaine Map of Middlesex County, Canada West

30 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 21 Map 3: Location of the Study Area on 1878 H. R. Page & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of Middlesex County, Ont.

31 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 22 Map 4: Location of the Study Area on 1954 Aerial Photograph

32 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 23 Map 5: Location of the Study Areas on The City of London Archaeological Master Plan

33 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 24 Map 6: Features of Archaeological Potential within the Study Area

34 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 25 Map 7: Assessment Results Tile 1

35 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 26 Map 8: Assessment Results Tile 2

36 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 27 Map 9: Assessment Results Tile 3

37 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 28 Map 10: Assessment Results Tile 4

38 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Archives of Ontario (AO) 2011 The Changing Shape of Ontario: Early Districts and Counties Available online at: Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd Edition. Toronto: Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Coyne, J. H The Country of the Neutrals (As Far as Comprised in the County of Elgin): From Champlain to Talbot. St. Thomas: Times Print. Cumming, R. (ed.) 1972 Historical Atlas of the County of Wellington, Ontario. Reprint of 1906 Edition. Toronto: Historical Atlas Publishing Co. Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (eds.) 1990 The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5. London: Ontario Archaeological Society Inc. Hayes, D Historical Atlas of Toronto. Toronto: Douglas & McIntyre. H.R. Page & Co Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Middlesex, Ont. Accessed online at: Lajeunesse, E.J The Windsor Border Region: Canada s Southernmost Frontier. Toronto: The Champlain Society. London, City of 1996 The City of London Archaeological Master Plan. Accessed online at: Plan.pdf Mika, N.H. (ed.) 1972 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York and the Township of West Gwillimbury & Town of Bradford in the County of Simcoe, Ontario. Offset Edition, originally published by Miles & Co. (1878). Belleville: Mika Silk Screening Limited. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Toronto: MTCS Ontario Archaeological Sites Database. Toronto: MTCS.

39 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 30 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) 2016 Ontario s Forest Regions. Available online at: Mulvany, C.P., G.M. Adam and C.B. Robinson 1885 History of Toronto and the County of York, Ontario, Volume 1. Toronto: C. Blackett Robinson. Munson, M.K. and S.M. Jamieson (eds.) 2013 Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province. Kingston: McGill-Queen s University Press. Natural Resources Canada (NRC) 2010 Historical Indian Treaties. Atlas of Canada, 6 th Edition. Accessed online at: Ontario Agricultural College (OAC) 1931 Soil Survey Map of the County of Middlesex Province of Ontario Soil Survey Report No.6. Accessed online at: Smith, D.B Sacred Feathers: The Reverend Peter Jones (Kahkewaquonaby) and the Mississauga Indians. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Smith, W.H Smith s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting all Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto: H. & W. Rowsell. Surtees, R.J Land Cessions, In Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations, edited by E.S. Rogers and D.B. Smith, pp Toronto: Dundurn Press. Tremaine, George C Map of the County of Middlesex, Canada West. Accessed online at: University of Toronto 2009 Digital Aerial Photographs, Southern Ontario 1954 West Index. Available online at: indexwest.html. Warrick, G The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):

40 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 31 Wright, J.V Ontario Prehistory: An Eleven-Thousand-Year Archaeological Outline. Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.

41 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 32 APPENDICES

42 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 33 APPENDIX I: Unaltered Development Plans

43 Stage 1 AA for the Adelaide Street/CPR Grade Separation Municipal Class EA 34