D4. Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes

D4. Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes

: Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Lambton County, Ontario Submitted to AECOM 300 Town Centre Blvd., Suite 300 Markham, ON L3R 5Z6 Tel:(905) 477-8400 Fax: (905) 477-1456 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 ASI File 09EA-033 June 2009 (Revised November 2013)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DIVISION PROJECT PERSONNEL Senior Project Manager: Project Manager: Project Administrator: Report Preparation: Graphics Preparation: Report Reviewer: Robert Pihl, MA, CAHP Partner and Senior Archaeologist, Manager, Environmental Assessment Division Rebecca Sciarra, MA, CAHP Heritage Planner Sarah Jagelewski, Hon. BA Research Archaeologist Lindsay Popert, MA, CAHP Assistant Heritage Planner Lindsay Popert Rebecca Sciarra

TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT PERSONNEL i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT CONTEXT 1 2.1 Approach and Methodology 1 2.2 Data Collection 4 3.0 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT 6 3.1 Introduction 6 3.2 Township Survey and Settlement 7 3.3 Existing Conditions 8 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 13 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 13 6.0 REFERENCES CITED 14 APPENDIX A 15 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Identified Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL) in the Clean Harbours Lambton Facility Study Area 9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location of the study area 1 Figure 2: Location of study area in the Township of Moore 8 Figure 3: Location of Identified Cultural Heritage Resources in the Study Area 12

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) was contracted by AECOM, Markham, on behalf of Clean Harbours Canada Inc., to conduct a cultural heritage assessment as part of the Clean Harbours Canada Lambton Facility Environmental Assessment, in Lambton County, Ontario (Figure 1). The study area is bounded by Telfer Road on the west, Petrolia Line on the north, and farm land to the east and south. Figure 1: Location of the study area [NTS Sheet 40 J/16 (Sarnia)] The purpose of this report is to present an inventory of built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes located in the study area. This research was conducted under the project direction of Rebecca A. Sciarra, Heritage Planner. 2.0 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT CONTEXT 2.1 Approach and Methodology This cultural heritage assessment considers cultural heritage resources in the context of improvements to specified areas, pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act. This assessment addresses above ground cultural heritage resources over 40 years old. Use of a 40 year old threshold is a guiding principle when conducting a preliminary identification of cultural heritage resources (Ministry of Transportation 2006; Ministry of Transportation 2007; Ontario Realty Corporation 2007). While identification of a resource that is 40 years old or older does not confer outright heritage significance,

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 2 this threshold provides a means to collect information about resources that may retain heritage value. Similarly, if a resource is slightly younger than 40 years old, this does not preclude the resource from retaining heritage value. The Clean Harbours Canada Lambton Facility has the potential to affect cultural heritage resources in a variety of ways. These include the loss or displacement of resources through removal or demolition and the disruption of resources by introducing physical, visual, audible or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the resources and/or their setting. For the purposes of this assessment, the term cultural heritage resources was used to describe both cultural landscapes and built heritage features. A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection of individual built heritage features and other related features that together form farm complexes, roadscapes and nucleated settlements. Built heritage features are typically individual buildings or structures that may be associated with a variety of human activities, such as historical settlement and patterns of architectural development. The analysis throughout the study process addresses cultural heritage resources under various pieces of legislation and their supporting guidelines. Under the Environmental Assessment Act (1990) environment is defined in Subsection 1(c) to include: cultural conditions that influence the life of man or a community; and any building, structure, machine, or other device or thing made by man. The Ministry of Culture is charged under Section 2 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the responsibility to determine policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario and has published two guidelines to assist in assessing cultural heritage resources as part of an environmental assessment: Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1992), and Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (1981). Accordingly, both guidelines have been utilized in this assessment process. The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (Section 1.0) states the following: When speaking of man-made heritage we are concerned with the works of man and the effects of his activities in the environment rather than with movable human artifacts or those environments that are natural and completely undisturbed by man. In addition, environment may be interpreted to include the combination and interrelationships of human artifacts with all other aspects of the physical environment, as well as with the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of the people and communities in Ontario. The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments distinguish between two basic ways of visually experiencing this heritage in the environment, namely as cultural landscapes and as cultural features. Within this document, cultural landscapes are defined as the following: The use and physical appearance of the land as we see it now is a result of man s activities over time in modifying pristine landscapes for his own purposes. A cultural

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 3 landscape is perceived as a collection of individual man-made features into a whole. Urban cultural landscapes are sometimes given special names such as townscapes or streetscapes that describe various scales of perception from the general scene to the particular view. Cultural landscapes in the countryside are viewed in or adjacent to natural undisturbed landscapes, or waterscapes, and include such landuses as agriculture, mining, forestry, recreation, and transportation. Like urban cultural landscapes, they too may be perceived at various scales: as a large area of homogeneous character; or as an intermediate sized area of homogeneous character or a collection of settings such as a group of farms; or as a discrete example of specific landscape character such as a single farm, or an individual village or hamlet (Section 1.0). A cultural feature is defined as the following: an individual part of a cultural landscape that may be focused upon as part of a broader scene, or viewed independently. The term refers to any man-made or modified object in or on the land or underwater, such as buildings of various types, street furniture, engineering works, plantings and landscaping, archaeological sites, or a collection of such objects seen as a group because of close physical or social relationships (Section 1.0). Additionally, the Planning Act (1990) and related Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) make a number of provisions relating to heritage conservation. One of the general purposes of the Planning Act is to integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions. In order to inform all those involved in planning activities of the scope of these matters of provincial interest, Section 2 of the Planning Act provides an extensive listing. These matters of provincial interest shall be regarded when certain authorities, including the council of a municipality, carry out their responsibilities under the Act. One of these provincial interests is directly concerned with: 2.0 protecting cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic, environmental, and social benefits. Part 4.5 of the PPS states that: Comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning is best achieved through municipal official plans. Municipal official plans shall identify provincial interests and set out appropriate land use designations and policies. Municipal official plans should also coordinate cross-boundary matters to complement the actions of other planning authorities and promote mutually beneficial solutions. Municipal official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas. In order to protect provincial interests, planning authorities shall keep their official plans up-to-date with this Provincial Policy Statement. The policies of this Provincial Policy Statement continue to apply after adoption and approval of a municipal official plan.

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 4 Those policies of particular relevance for the conservation of heritage features are contained in Section 2- Wise Use and Management of Resources, wherein Subsection 2.6 - Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources, makes the following provisions: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. A number of definitions that have specific meanings for use in a policy context accompany the policy statement. These definitions include built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Built heritage resources mean one or more buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history, and identified as being important to a community. Cultural heritage landscapes mean a defined geographical area of heritage significance that has been modified by human activities. Such an area is valued by a community, and is of significance to the understanding of the history of a people or place. Examples include farmscapes, historic settlements, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value (PPS 2005). In addition, significance is also more generally defined. It is assigned a specific meaning according to the subject matter or policy context, such as wetlands or ecologically important areas. With regard to cultural heritage and archaeology resources, resources of significance are those that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people (PPS 2005). Criteria for determining significance for the resources are recommended by the Province, but municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may also be used. While some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation (PPS 2005). Accordingly, the foregoing guidelines and relevant policy statement were used to guide the scope and methodology of the cultural heritage assessment. 2.2 Data Collection In the course of the cultural heritage assessment, all potentially affected cultural heritage resources within the study corridor are subject to inventory. Short form names are usually applied to each resource type, (e.g. barn, residence). Generally, when conducting a preliminary identification of cultural heritage resources, three stages of research and data collection are undertaken to appropriately establish the potential for and existence of cultural heritage resources in a particular geographic area. Background historic research, which includes consultation of primary and secondary source research and historic mapping, is undertaken to identify early settlement patterns and broad agents or themes of change in a study area. This stage in the data collection process enables the researcher to determine the presence of sensitive heritage areas that correspond to 19 th and 20 th century settlement and development patterns. To augment data collected during this stage of the research process, federal, provincial, and municipal databases and/or agencies are consulted to obtain information about specific properties that

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 5 have been previously identified and/or designated as retaining cultural heritage value. Typically, resources identified during these stages of the research process are reflective of particular architectural styles, associated with an important person, place, or event, and contribute to the contextual facets of a particular place, neighbourhood, or intersection. A field review is then undertaken to confirm the location and condition of previously identified cultural heritage resources. The field review is also utilized to identify cultural heritage resources that have not been previously identified on federal, provincial, or municipal databases. Several investigative criteria are utilized during the field review to appropriately identify new cultural heritage resources. These investigative criteria are derived from provincial guidelines, definitions, and past experience. A built structure or landscape is identified as a cultural heritage resource that should be considered during the course of the environmental assessment, if the resource meets a combination of the following criteria: It is 40 years or older; It is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method; It displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit; It demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement; The site and/or structure retains original stylistic features and has not been irreversibly altered so as to destroy its integrity; It has a direct association with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to: the Township of St. Clair; the Province of Ontario; Canada; or the world heritage list; It yields, or had the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of: the Township of St. Clair; the Province of Ontario; Canada; or the world heritage list; It demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to: the Township of St. Clair; the Province of Ontario; Canada; or the world heritage list; It is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area; It is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings; It is a landmark; It illustrates a significant phase in the development of the community or a major change or turning point in the community s history; The landscape contains a structure other than a building (fencing, culvert, public art, statue, etc.) that is associated with the history or daily life of that area or region; or There is evidence of previous historic and/or existing agricultural practices (e.g. terracing, deforestation, complex water canalization, apple orchards, vineyards, etc.). If a resource satisfies an appropriate combination of these criteria, it will be identified as a cultural heritage resource and is subject to further research where appropriate and when feasible. Typically, further historical research and consultation is required to determine the specific significance of the identified cultural heritage resource. When identifying cultural heritage landscapes, the following categories are typically utilized for the purposes of the classification during the field review:

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 6 Farm complexes: Roadscapes: Waterscapes: Railscapes: Historical settlements: Streetscapes: Historical agricultural Landscapes: Cemeteries: comprise two or more buildings, one of which must be a farmhouse or barn, and may include a tree-lined drive, tree windbreaks, fences, domestic gardens and small orchards. generally two-lanes in width with absence of shoulders or narrow shoulders only, ditches, tree lines, bridges, culverts and other associated features. waterway features that contribute to the overall character of the cultural heritage landscape, usually in relation to their influence on historic development and settlement patterns. active or inactive railway lines or railway rights of way and associated features. groupings of two or more structures with a commonly applied name. generally consists of a paved road found in a more urban setting, and may include a series of houses that would have been built in the same time period. generally comprises a historically rooted settlement and farming pattern that reflects a recognizable arrangement of fields within a lot and may have associated agricultural outbuildings and structures. land used for the burial of human remains. Results of the field review are contained in Section 3.0; while Sections 4.0 and 5.0 contain conclusions and recommendations with respect to potential disruptions and displacements of identified heritage resources. 3.0 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT 3.1 Introduction This section provides a brief summary of historic research and a description of previously identified above ground cultural heritage resources that may be affected by the proposed expansion of the Clean Harbours Canada Lambton Facility in the Township of St. Clair, Ontario. Historically, the study area is located in the former Township of Moore, County of Lambton, on the western half of Lot 8 and all of Lot 9, Concession 10. A review of available primary and secondary source material was undertaken to produce a contextual overview of the study corridor, including a general description of Euro-Canadian settlement and land-use.

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 7 3.2 Township Survey and Settlement The former Township of Moore was surveyed by Col. Mountin in 1829. Early inhabitants first settled along the St. Clair River, located west of the study area. The interior of the township was not settled and/or farmed until circa 1836, due to the swampy condition of surrounding land. In the 1850s, improvements were made to the township to encourage settlement, including the building of roads, bridges, drainage systems, and schools. Up until 1850, this area was part of the County of Kent, at which point it was transferred to the County of Lambton. The Township of Moore amalgamated with Sombre Township to create the Municipal Township of Clair (Belden 1880:16; Finlayson 1934). Land Use History The following land use history is based on a combination of land registry records, historic mapping and local history resources where available. Lot 8, Concession 10 was granted by the Crown to Rachael Prowse in October 1836. The 200 acre parcel was subsequently sold to Alexander Fraser, and thereafter to James Holmes in 1837; Wildes Pickersgile in 1844; Haviland Routh in 1844; Andrew Heron in 1855; William Featherstone in 1856; and John Bully in 1856. The eastern half was sold to Samuel Jones in 1860, and the west half was sold to Robert King that same year, and is the portion in which part of the study area resides. The ownership of the western half of Lot 8, Concession 10, changed hands a number of times over the next decade, and it appears that the subsequent owner defaulted on their mortgage which resulted in the Court Of Chancery granting the 100 acre parcel to James Thompson in 1875. In 1881, the land was purchased by Robert Fleck. In 1893, it was sold to Alfred Fleck, and remained in the Fleck family in to the 20 th century. Lot 9, Concession 10 was granted by the Crown to Aaron Still in March of 1837. This 200 acre parcel was later sold to William Barker in 1840, and thereafter to William Renwick in 1844. Renwick later sold the western half of Lot 9 to Robert Wilson in 1849, and the eastern half to William Barker in 1852. In 1853, Barker sold the east half to Robert Wilson, and a year later it was purchased by William Harding. In 1854, Wilson donated a 10,000 square foot parcel of his land for the purposes of establishing a burial ground. In 1855, Wilson sold the west half to John Thornton. The western half of Lot 9, Concession 10 remained in the Thorton family for the remainder of the 19 th century. In 1880, a quarter acre of land was leased to the Corporation of the Township of Sarnia for fifteen years. In 1905, part of the west half of Lot 9 was sold to the Corporation of Moore Township for $3500. Reference is made to gravel, suggesting that part of the land was being used for gravel extraction. William Harding sold the eastern half of Lot 9, Concession 10 to Horates Case in 1869, and was subsequently sold to James Thornton. In 1889, Charles Cranston purchased 50 acres of the east half for $1600, and a few months later, purchased the remaining 50 acres for $2500. In that same year, an agreement regarding a gravel pit was made between Charles Cranston and the Corporation of Moore. Historic mapping from 1880 does not provide the names of the landowner/tenant for Lots 8 and 9, Concession 10 (Figure 2). However, the mapping does indicate that there was a cemetery, and also

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 8 indicates that a Gravel Pit was located directly across from the cemetery in Lot 10, Concession 10. The Abstract Books index indicates that gravel-related transactions involving part of Lot 9 took place in the late 1880s, suggesting that gravel pit may have been established here towards the end of the 19 th century. The present land fill site was established in the 1960s. Further information regarding the location of a former gravel pit within the study area was not found. As such, establishing a link between the gravel pit and present land fill could not be determined. Figure 2: Location of study area in the Township of Moore in the Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Lambton (Belden 1880) 3.3 Existing Conditions In order to make a preliminary identification of existing built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes within the study area, the Ministry of Culture s Ontario Heritage Properties Database, the Township of St. Clair Planning Services, and County of Lambton s GIS Mapping available online were consulted. As a result, one pioneer cemetery was identified. The Township of St. Clair was contacted on April 29, 2009 and the town confirmed that they have not previously identified any cultural heritage resources within the area. A field review was then undertaken in February 2009 to identify and photograph individual built heritage resources and cultural landscapes within the study area. The study area consists of the Lambton Landfill facility and farm fields to the south. The majority of the study area can be described as a heavily altered environment (Plates 1 2). Landfill operations were first established on this site in the

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 9 1960s and historic research suggests that this site was previously used for gravel extraction during the late 19 th century. However, on the western limits of the study area, north of the facility s entrance road, a mid-19 th century cemetery is extant (Plates 3-4). The pioneer cemetery is associated with the Providence Methodist Church (1848-1927) that was formerly located on the southwest corner of the Telfer Road and Petrolia Line intersection. A handful of monuments and inset gravestones serve as reminders of the site s former religious and spiritual uses. To the south of the study area, vestiges of former agricultural land uses are present through the retention of cultivated field patterns and remnant tree lines (Plates 5 6). Lands generally surrounding the study area can be described as retaining an agricultural setting and character (Plates 6-7). Table 1 presents an itemization of identified cultural heritage resources located within or immediately adjacent to the study area while Figure 3 identifies their locations. Table 1: Identified Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL) located within or adjacent to the Lambton Landfill Facility. Feature Location Feature Type Age Description/Comments CHL 1 West side of study area, north of entrance road Cemetery Ca. 1850 Identified during the field review. CHL 2 Tefler Road Roadscape 19 th Century Identified during the field review. Plate 1: Looking southwest into site facility from Telfer Road, south of access road. View of altered and manufactured landscape.

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 10 Plate 2: View of facility machinery and structures, from southwest corner of site and looking northwest. Plate 3: View of proximity of cemetery to facility access road. Plate 4: View of ca. 1850s pioneer cemetery, looking east from Telfer Road.

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 11 Plate 5: View of agricultural fields and tree line south of site facility. Looking east from Telfer Road.

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 12 Plate 6: View of former agricultural field patterns and remnant tree lines. Looking east from Telfer Road. Plate 7: View of 19 th century farmhouse and barn complex, located on the south side of Rokeby Line. Plate 8: Looking south down Telfer Road, which is evocative of 19 th century origins, given its narrow two lane right-of-way and lack of ditching.

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 13 Figure 3: Location of Identified Cultural Heritage Resources in the Study Area

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 14 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based upon historical research, a review of previously identified above ground cultural heritage resources on the Ministry of Culture s Heritage Properties Database, and following a field review of the study area, it was determined that the study area retains few cultural heritage resources. Although the study area was first settled in the early 19 th century, the subject study area, including both the current site facility and vacant fields to the south, retain few cultural heritage resources. The site facility dates to the 1960s and does not retain structures that are of potential cultural heritage significance. The vacant fields to the south do provide a reminder of the area s 19 th century settlement and agricultural economy, however, few specific structures or landscapes elements remain in this area which could be considered to retain a high degree of cultural heritage significance. Immediately within the existing site facility and adjacent to the project study area, two cultural heritage resources are present, which include a pioneer cemetery (CHL 1) and historic roadscape (CHL 2). The pioneer cemetery dates to the mid 19 th century and is associated with the Providence Methodist Church, which stood at the intersection of Telfer Road and Petrolia Line from 1848 to 1927. The adjacent roadscape, with its narrow road right-of-way and shoulders and vegetative screening is evocative of its 19 th century origins. The following provides a summary of field review findings: A total of two cultural heritage resources were identified which include one pioneer cemetery (CHL 1) and one roadscape (CHL 2); and No properties located within or adjacent to the study area have been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or have been previously listed on a municipal heritage inventory. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Landfill facility expansions can have a variety of impacts upon built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. These include the loss or displacement of resources through removal or demolition and the disruption of resources by introducing physical, visual, audible or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the resources and/or their setting. Cultural heritage resources may also be directly affected where the study routes intersect adjoining road rights-of-way that form roadscapes (these are landscapes that are historically associated with the original township surveys, agricultural settlement and transportation). Typically these adjoining roadscapes are two lane, paved surfaces, with gravel shoulders, flanked by grassed ditches, fences and/or tree lines. Any adverse effects are usually limited to intersection improvements such as vegetation removal for sight lines and daylight triangles, and installing concrete curbs and portions of sidewalks. Based on a review of site expansion concepts, two alternatives are being proposed which include a vertical expansion within existing landfill envelope (Alternative 1) and a southerly expansion (Alternative 2). Alternative 1 will result in a vertical expansion over current landfill area with an approximate height equal to existing earth berm height. Alternative 2 will utilize a shallow entombed concept, spread over a total area of 80 hectares south of the existing facility. Alternative 2 will require the development of new berms, however, the final elevation of the site will be at existing grade. These alternatives do not propose to directly impact CHL 1 and indirect impacts to this resource, through the introduction of visual, audible or atmospheric elements, are considered negligible given that landfill

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 15 operations already exist in this location. Development of new berms, in association with Alternative 2, will directly impact CHL 2. In summary, it is recommended that: 1. Proposed landfill facility expansion activities be suitably planned in a manner that avoids any identified, above ground, cultural heritage resources; 2. Construction activities be appropriately staged and undertaken to avoid encroachment or disruption to the pioneer cemetery located directly north of the site access road; and 3. Wherever possible on Telfer Road, landscaping with historic plant materials for berms or vegetative screens is recommended, and hedge rows should be preserved where extant. 6.0 REFERENCES CITED Belden, H 1880 Belden s Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Lambton. Finlayson, Isabella 1934 A Brief History of Moore Township. Accessed on April 29 2009 at http://www.corunna.ca/corunna/moorehist.html Ministry of Culture, Ontario 1981 Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments 1992 Guidelines for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments 2005 Ontario Heritage Act Ministry of Environment, Ontario 2006 Environmental Assessment Act Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario 2005 Ontario Planning Act 2005 Provincial Policy Statement Ministry of Transportation 2002 Environmental Reference for Highway Design 2006 Cultural Heritage Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Technical Requirements for Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Protection/Mitigation. 2007 Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Ontario Realty Corporation 2007 Heritage Management Process Handbook

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 16 Appendix A Inventory of Cultural Heritage Landscapes Located Within or Adjacent to the Lambton Landfill Expansion Study Area

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 17 Cultural Heritage Landscape: CHL 1 Address: Feature Type: Description: Other Comments: North of facility access road Burial Ground A cemetery is extant within the current landfill site s facilities. Based on information provided on a cairn that has been erected on site and land registry records, this cemetery dates to the mid 1850s when land was donated by Robert Wilson for the establishment of a burial ground. The cemetery is associated with the Providence Methodist Church, which was located at the southwest corner of Telfer Road and Petrolia Line. The church ceased to exist in 1927 when its members entered into union with the United Church of Canada. Identified during the field review.

County of Lambton, Ontario Page 18 Cultural Heritage Landscape: CHL 2 Address: Feature Type: Description: Telfer Road, from approximately 1 km south of Petrolia Line to Rokeby Line Roadscape The Telfer Road roadscape is indicated on historic mapping as an original concession road. It continues to retain tangible elements of its 19 th century origin. Its narrow right-of-way, narrow shoulders, and adjacent vegetative screening contribute to the surrounding agricultural landscape. Other Comments: Identified during the field review.