Memorandum - Cordelio Power...Memorandum 3. 2014-06-13_BLW Project Modifications Memo_60301207_DRAFT.Docx To Ms. Agatha Garcia-Wright, Director, Environmental ... and Environmental

AECOM 105 Commerce Valley Drive West, Floor 7 905 886 7022 tel Markham, ON, Canada L3T 7W3 905 886 9494 fax www.aecom.com

Memorandum

3. 2014-06-13_BLW Project Modifications Memo_60301207_DRAFT.Docx

To

Ms. Agatha Garcia-Wright, Director, Environmental Approvals Branch, Ministry of the Environment Page 1

CC Rick Chappell, District Manager, MOE Owen Sound District

Subject

Bluewater Wind Energy Centre – Modification to construction disturbance area (CDA) within Centennial Road right-of-way

From AECOM Canada Ltd.

Date June 16, 2014 Project Number 60301207

Varna Wind LP. (Varna), a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Canada, ULC (NextEra) is constructing a wind energy project in the Municipalities of Bluewater and Huron East in Huron County, Ontario. The project is referred to as the Bluewater Wind Energy Centre (the “Project”).

This memo has been prepared to document a change to a construction disturbance area and to confirm that the change does not have any significant adverse effects to the environment.

Varna is proposing modifications to the Project that involve changes to a construction disturbance area (CDA) in order to accommodate the movement of transmission line pole 107, as requested by the adjacent landowner and the Municipality of Huron East. The proposed modification consists of extending the CDA within the Centennial Road right-of-way. Figure 1 illustrates the modified Project Site Plan and the extension of the CDA along Centennial Road.

AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM), on behalf of Varna, notified the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) of the extension of the CDA in a letter dated June 9, 2014. MNR responded with an email dated June 10, 2014 confirming that in review of the information, a NHA re-confirmation from MNR is not required. In addition, the email confirms that the proposed project modification will not affect the Natural Heritage Assessment already confirmed by MNR. Correspondence with the MNR is included in Attachment A of this memo.

AECOM also submitted the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Centennial Road and Hensall Road ROW Report (Stage 2 Report) dated June 10, 2014 to the MTCS. In a letter dated June 12, 2014, the MTCS confirmed that it was satisfied with the recommendations of the Stage 2 Report. Both the Stage 2 Report and correspondence from the MTCS is included in Attachment B of this memo.

The Project modification described in this memo does not change the overall conclusion of the Project Description Report (June, 2012) and associated Amendments to the Project Description Report (March, 2013 & September 2013) which state that “this project can be constructed, installed and operated without any significant adverse residual effects to the environment. Post-construction monitoring related to effects on wildlife, including birds and bats, will be undertaken to confirm this conclusion”.

Page 2 Memorandum June 16, 2014


Figure 1 Project Location

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

!(

Mil l

Rd

Staf

fa R

d

Par r Line

Kipp

enRd

London Rd

HensallRd

Airport Line

Cent

enni

al R

d

Morr ison Line

182 Rd

Brons on Line

Goshen Line

Perth183Rd

Wal

nutR

d

Rom

anRd

Ti le

Rd

19Lin

e

Division Line

Babylon Line

Pavi

llion

Rd

21Lin

e

181Rd

Bel l's Line

Roge

rvill

eRd

Zuric

h-he

nsal

lRd

HannahLine

Bannockburn Line

Ston

e Rd

Fron

t Rd

Danc

elan

dRd

Bl ind Line

Shor

t Hor

n Rd

26Lin

e

Blackbush Line

Fansvi l le Line

Perth

24Lin

e

Chise

lhurs

t Rd

OakRd

Huro

nRd

Stan

ley

Rd

King

St

Ausable Line

Conc 5 Rd

Perth

17 R

d

Gul ley Line

28 L

ine

KinburnLine

Crys

tal S

prin

gs R

d

Wildwood Line

Mai

n St

Birch

St

Harp

urhe

y Rd

MainStS

MainStN

Blue

Blu

f f Rd

Mill

St

James

St

Marke

t St

Quee

nSt

Davi

d St

E

Mctaggar t Line

Goder

ich S

t W

Smirnof f Line

Goder

ichSt

E

Tower Line

Railw

ay S

t

Sills St

WilliamStW

York

St

AlbertSt

WaterSt

William St E

Roxboro Line

Goshen St N

Davi

d St

ChalkSt S

WilliamSt

HighSt

John St S

John St N

JarvisStS

Huro

n St

NorthLine

SparlingSt

Lorne Ave

Brock St

Fron

t St W

Victo

riaSt

El len St N

John St

ChalkStN

OakSt

Goshen St S

East St

Oxfo

rd S

t W

North

St

Walnut St

Mill

StW

Vien

na S

t

Centr

e St

Parkside Ave

Welsh St

GeorgeStS

Alex

ande

r St

Adam St

York

Cres

Briar

hi ll R

d

Cente

nnial

Rd

Huro

nRd

MillRd

Bronson Line

Zuric

h-he

nsal

lRd

Goshen Line

WilliamSt

Fron

t Rd

Pavi

ll ion

Rd

Babylon Line

SparlingSt

So

uth

Hu

ron

So

uth

Hu

ron

5

7

3

1

8 9

6

4

2

32

16

26

37

36

30

11

35

39

24

29

14

34

28

41

33

13

15

25

23

12

40

21

27

22

17

10

38

18

31

19

4460

00

4460

00

4480

00

4480

00

4500

00

4500

00

4520

00

4520

00

4540

00

4540

00

4560

00

4560

00

4580

00

4580

00

4600

00

4600

00

4620

00

4620

00

4640

00

4640

00

4660

00

4660

00

4680

00

4680

00

4700

00

4700

00

4808000

4808000

4810000

4810000

4812000

4812000

4814000

4814000

4816000

4816000

4818000

4818000

4820000

4820000

4822000

4822000

UTM

Zon

e 17

N, N

AD

83

Proj

ect L

ocat

ion Fi

gure

1

June

201

4P

roje

ct 6

0301

207

Blu

ewat

er W

ind

Ene

rgy

Cen

tre

1:30

,000

Base

map

ping

from

Ont

ario

Min

istry

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

040

080

01,

200

1,60

020

0

Met

res

This

dra

win

g ha

s be

en p

repa

red

for

the

use

of A

EC

OM

's c

lient

an

d m

ay n

ot b

e us

ed,

repr

oduc

ed o

r re

lied

upon

by

third

par

ties,

exce

pt a

s ag

reed

by

AE

CO

M a

nd i

ts c

lient

, as

req

uire

d by

law

or

for

use

by

gove

rnm

enta

l re

view

ing

agen

cies

. A

EC

OM

acc

epts

no

res

pons

ibili

ty,

and

deni

es a

ny l

iabi

lity

wha

tsoe

ver,

to a

ny p

arty

that

mod

ifies

this

dra

win

g w

ithou

t AE

CO

M's

exp

ress

writ

ten

cons

ent.

²Lege

ndW

ind

Ene

rgy

cent

re S

tudy

Are

a

Tran

smis

sion

Lin

e St

udy

Area

!(In

terc

onne

ctio

n Po

int

Mun

icip

al D

ivis

ion

Nat

ural

Fea

ture

sN

atur

al F

eatu

res

(ABC

A)

ABC

A Pr

oper

ties

Prov

inci

al P

ark

Dee

r Win

terin

g A

reas

Wat

erco

urse

Wat

erbo

dy

Car

togr

aphi

c W

etla

nd

! (Tu

rbin

es

Acce

ss R

oads

Col

lect

ion

Line

s

Tlin

e

Subs

tatio

n

Layd

own

Are

a

Dis

turb

ance

Are

a

Proj

ect L

ocat

ion

June

201

4 - 1

20m

Are

a of

In

vest

igat

ion

Path:

I:\GI

S\Ne

xtera

\GIS

Spati

al\M

XDs\R

epor

tMXD

s\NHA

_Map

ping\

Blue

wate

r\601

5503

2_BL

U_Po

le107

_061

3201

4.mxd

Cent

enni

alRd

HensallRd

Adde

d D

istu

rban

ce A

rea



Attachment A Correspondence with MNR

AECOM 105 Commerce Valley Drive West, Floor 7 905 886 7022 tel Markham, ON, Canada L3T 7W3 905 886 9494 fax www.aecom.com

L_L_2014-06-09_Bluewater T-Line Pole 107_60310723.Docx

June 9, 2014

Mr. Joe Halloran Acting Renewable Energy Program Co-ordinator Ministry of Natural Resources Southern Region Phone: 705-755-5353 [email protected]

Dear Mr. Halloran:

Project No: 60310723 Regarding: Transmission Line Pole 107 – Bluewater Wind Energy Centre

Varna Wind Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Canada, ULC (NextEra) is constructing a wind energy project in the Municipalities of Bluewater and Huron East in Huron County, Ontario. The project is referred to as the Bluewater Wind Energy Centre (the “Project”). AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM) was retained by NextEra to prepare a Natural Heritage Assessment and Environmental Impact Study Report for the proposed Project, in accordance with the requirements of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process.

The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) issued confirmation and re-confirmation letters on March 28, 2012, January 11, 2013 and October 3, 2013 for the Natural Heritage Assessment (NHA) and Environmental Impact Study (EIS) Report (AECOM, 2012), the NHA and EIS Report Amendment (AECOM, 2013a), and the NHA and EIS Report Second Amendment (AECOM, 2013b), respectively, met all requirements in accordance with the REA regulation for this project. The NHA and EIS Report and two Amendments are hereafter collectively referred to as the approved NHA and EIS.

This letter has been prepared to document a change to the Project Location that occurred after MNR confirmation of the approved NHA and EIS. An extension of the construction disturbance area within the Centennial Road right-of-way is required in order to accommodate a change in the location of transmission line pole 107. As shown on the attached map (Figure 1), there are no natural heritage features located within 120 m of the expanded construction disturbance area. This was confirmed during a site visit completed by AECOM’s Environmental Monitor (Jay Cashubec; please refer to attached CV for qualifications) on June 6, 2014, who identified no concerns regarding potential effects to the natural environment resulting from the construction of pole 107.

As such, there are no additional potential effects to significant natural heritage features or mitigation measures required to accommodate this change to the Project Location. Nonetheless, general mitigation measures previously described in the approved NHA and EIS and applied throughout the Project (e.g. erosion and sediment control measures, best management practices related to equipment use, material stockpiling and spills, etc) are considered sufficient to avoid or minimize the potential effects of construction of pole 107 on the natural environment.

Page 2June 9, 2014

L_L_2014-06-09_Bluewater T-Line Pole 107_60310723.Docx

Sincerely, AECOM Canada Ltd.

Jessica MacKay Ward, Ph.D. Ecologist [email protected]

JMW:mm Encl.

References

AECOM, 2012: Bluewater Wind Energy Centre Natural Heritage Assessment and Environmental Impact Study Report. Prepared for Varna Wind, Inc. March 2012.

AECOM, 2013a: Bluewater Wind Energy Centre Natural Heritage Assessment and Environmental Impact Study Report Amendment. Prepared for Varna Wind, Inc. January 2013.

AECOM, 2013b: Bluewater Wind Energy Centre Natural Heritage Assessment and Environmental Impact Study Report Second Amendment. Prepared for Varna Wind, Inc. August 2013.

Pat

h: I

:\GIS

\Nex

tera

\GIS

Sp

atia

l\MX

Ds\

Re

port

MX

Ds\

Ch

ange

_re

port

\BLU

_Cha

ngeR

epor

t_O

utpu

ts\6

0155

032_

BLW

_La

you

tCh

ange

sOve

rvie

wE

LC

Zoo

m_2

0140

606

.mxd

561

565

561

564

562

563

FOD

FOD

MA

S

FOD

MA

M2

FOD

5

FOD

SW

T

SW

D

SW

D

FOD

7-2

CU

M

SW

D

SW

D

MA

M2

CU

M

SW

T

FOD

MA

M

MA

M2

SW

D

SW

D3-

3

CU

P3

FOD

7-2

SW

D4-

1FO

D7-

2

FOD

Tile

Rd

Hensall Rd

Kippen Rd

Cent

enni

al Rd

Perth183Rd

28Li

ne

4660

00

4660

00

4680

00

4680

00

4816000

4816000

4818000

4818000

UT

M Z

one

17N

, NA

D 8

3

Proj

ect L

ocat

ion

Figu

re 1

June

201

4Pr

ojec

t 601

5503

2

Blue

wat

er W

ind

Ene

rgy

Cen

tre

This

dra

win

g ha

s be

en p

repa

red

for

the

use

of A

EC

OM

's c

lient

an

d m

ay n

ot b

e us

ed,

repr

oduc

ed o

r re

lied

upon

by

third

par

ties,

exce

pt a

s ag

reed

by

AE

CO

M a

nd i

ts c

lient

, as

req

uire

d by

law

or

for

use

by

gove

rnm

enta

l re

view

ing

agen

cies

. A

EC

OM

acc

epts

no

res

pons

ibili

ty,

and

deni

es a

ny l

iabi

lity

wha

tsoe

ver,

to a

ny p

arty

that

mod

ifies

this

dra

win

g w

ithou

t AE

CO

M's

exp

ress

writ

ten

cons

ent.

1:13

,000

Pro

duc

ed b

y A

EC

OM

un

der

licen

ce fr

om O

ntar

io M

inis

try o

f N

atu

ral R

esou

rces

, Co

pyrig

ht ©

Que

ens

Pri

nte

r 20

13

²

Lege

ndVe

geta

tion

Type

sC

UM

- C

ultu

ral M

eado

w

CU

P - C

ultu

ral P

lant

atio

n

CU

S -

Cul

tura

l Sav

anna

h

CU

T - C

ultu

ral T

hick

et

CU

W -

Cul

tura

l Woo

dlan

d

FOC

- C

onife

rous

For

est

FOD

- D

ecid

uous

For

est

FOM

- M

ixed

For

est

HE

D -

Hed

gero

w

MA

M -

Mea

dow

Mar

sh

MA

S -

Sha

llow

Mar

sh

OA

O -

Ope

n A

quat

ic

SAF

- Fl

oatin

g-le

aved

Sha

llow

Aqu

atic

SAS

- S

ubm

erge

d S

hallo

w A

quat

ic

SDT

- Tre

ed S

and

Dun

e

SWD

- D

ecid

uous

Sw

amp

SWT

- Thi

cket

Sw

amp

TPO

- O

pen

Tallg

rass

Pra

irie

TPS

- Ta

llgra

ss S

avan

nah

Lege

ndTr

ansm

issi

on L

ine

Stud

y A

rea

Win

d E

nerg

y C

entre

Stu

dy A

rea

Prop

ertie

s

Turb

ines

an

d P

erm

anen

t M

eter

olog

ical

Tow

er!(

Adde

d!(

Rem

oved

!(N

o C

hang

e

Layo

ut M

odifi

catio

n (T

ype,

Sta

tus)

Col

lect

ion

Line

, Add

ed

Col

lect

ion

Line

, Rem

oved

Col

lect

ion

Line

, No

Cha

nge

Acce

ss R

oad,

No

Cha

nge

Tran

smis

sion

Lin

e, N

o C

hang

e

Mod

ifica

tion

to D

istu

rban

ce A

reas

Stat

us Adde

dR

emov

edN

o C

hang

e

Layo

ut M

odifi

catio

n Lo

catio

nsA

1 (Au

gust

201

3 - 1

20m

Are

a of

Inve

stig

atio

n

Acce

ss R

oad,

Add

ed

Acce

ss R

oad,

Rem

oved

Nat

ural

Are

as

June

201

4 - 1

20m

Are

a of

Inve

stig

atio

n

Jay CashubecEnvironmental Technologist

EducationDiploma, Environmental Sciences/Environmental Technician, Sir Sandford Fleming College, 2008Environmental Site Assessment Course, Sheridan College, Brampton, Ontario, Canada, 2010

Years of Experience

With AECOM: 1With Other Firms: 5

Professional AssociationsCanadian Environmental Certification Approvals Board

Training and CertificationsEPt Environmental Practitioner in Training CertificationFirst Aid/CPR Training, Level CSmall Non-pleasure Vessel Basic Safety MED A3Drinking Water Operator Level 1Outdoor Wilderness Survival CertificationPleasure Craft Operator CardQuality Assurance Program for Environmental Investigations in Ontario2 Day Environmental Site Assessment Field Camp40-hour HAZWOPER Training, 8-hour Re-certificationWHMIS TrainingTechnical Writing 3 Day Bioscience Field Camp (Aquatic)Certificate in Ichthyology (ROM)Natural Biological Hazards TrainingATV Training Hazardous Material and Transportation of Dangerous Goods Shipping Awareness (CAN)Module 1 & 2 Behavior Based Safety Awareness (AECOM)Cold and Heat Stress Prevention TrainingElectrical Hazards Awareness (CCOHS)Heavy Equipment Hazard AwarenessIncident Investigation Awareness Canadian Due Diligence – OH&S TrainingRailroad General Worker Protection

Mr. Cashubec is an environmental technologist with over 6 years of experience with Phase II environmental site assessments (ESAs), Phase III ESA site remediation activities, and Phase 1 ESA components. He is proficient in a multitude of ground and surface water sampling techniques; as well as various means of soil sampling, well development procedures, low flow sampling methods, elevation surveys, and landfill and quarry monitoring. In addition, he is practiced in the writing of factual reports, and associated figures and tables for presenting data and well versed in working in remote environments, including use of helicopters and all terrain vehicles.

Mr. Cashubec has played an integral part in many projects that required the quality control measures of site specific risk assessments, Ontario Regulation 347, and Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standard for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). He has also facilitated courses that teach sampling procedures in conjunction with the EPA Ontario Regulation 153/04, as amended.

In addition, Mr. Cashubec is experienced in soil vapour and gas monitoring and sampling. He is also experienced with ecological work including fish and benthic invertebrate identification and associated methods of capture. Work has included the drafting of in and near water works proposals, as well as endangered species mitigation plans. Mr. Cashubec has conducted creel surveys, water body and stream characterization, stream flow measurements, electrofishing, bathymetry, and amphibian surveys. He is also regularly responsible for equipment management and transportation, development of health and safety plans, program coordination, sample bottle orders, and service locates.

Project ExperienceSurface Water/Hydro Geology Lafarge, Aggregate Quarry Monitoring, Bath, Ontario; and Brantford, Ontario. Conducted stream flow measurements at various creeks and rivers surrounding quarry to assess water usage. Retrieved data loggers and downloaded information at multiple monitoring locations to assess groundwater levels. Ecology/BioscienceBruce Power, Power Facility – Entrainment Sampling, Kincardine, Ontario. Sampled for larval fish and eggs using a plankton net in conjunction with a swift water rescue system for lowering and raising the net in the water, as well as trolling a plankton net behind a boat on Lake Huron. Bruce Power, Power Facility - Creel Survey, Kincardine, Ontario. Conducted creel surveys at various boat launches. Work included fish identification, measurement, and scale samples. Lafarge, Proposed Quarry - Electrofishing, Mansfield, Ontario. Electrofished a cold water stream, including fish identification and measurement for baseline study, as well as habitat mapping. OPG, Baseline Fishery Studies, Darlington, Ontario. Assisted with setting and removal of gill nets for baseline study in Lake Ontario. This included the measuring, counting, and identification of different species within the great lakes system. OPG, Hydro-Electric Operating Facility - Fish Salvage, Niagara, Ontario. Participated with the salvaging of fish during the dewatering of the power facility. Salvaged and transported fish through various means of gill netting, trap netting, and electrofishing. This included the identification, measurement, and transportation of a variety of species. Managed sediment sampling program concerning environmental impacts. Mining Client, Proposed Lithium Mine, Chibougamou, Quebec. Responsible for organizing water sampling gear and protocols, as well as sample bottle requirements for a large scale surface water sampling program, including depth controlled water sampling, and sediment and benthic sampling. Work was conducted in a remote environment using helicopters, all-terrain vehicles, and 4-wheel drive trucks. Also responsible for retrieving samples for baseline fishery study. Gill netting, minnow traps, and electro-fishing were used; as well as water

Awareness Traffic Safety and Control Awareness Trench and Excavation Safety Awareness Working Around Water Safety Awareness

body and stream characterizing implemented. Mining Client, Proposed Iron Ore Mine, Iqualuit, Quebec. Crew lead on two different occasions in extremely remote environment in northern Quebec. Helicopters were used daily to travel to various locations for baseline fishery work, that involved gill netting, electro-fishing, stream and water body mapping and characterization (both from the ground and the air), bathymetry, and stream flow measurements. Meticulous care was needed for planning the work and the safe return of staff for the duration of the stay at the mining camp, in a predominately French speaking environment. Contaminated SitesConfidential Client, Phase II and III Assessment and Remedial Efforts, Oakville, Ontario. Managed drillers with the sampling and installation of monitoring wells. Sampled wells using low flow procedures. Observed appropriate quality control measures in accordance with Reg.153/04 and possible site specific risk assessment. AKZO/ICI, Phase II and III Testing and Remedial Efforts, Parry Sound, Ontario. Environmental technician involved with hand augering, soil delineation, sediment sampling, and surface and groundwater sampling to assess nitro-aromatic impact. Work also involved sediment sampling through lake ice and accompanying safety measures. Shawcor, Phase II and III Soil Delineation, Hamilton, Ontario. Managed the excavation of test pits to assess delineation of coal tar impact. FSM Management, Oil Water Separator and Groundwater Investigation, Mississauga, Ontario. Monitored oil water separators in accordance with TSSA regulations, and sampled effluent for petroleum hydrocarbon exceedances. Monitored and sampled groundwater wells within fuel storage tank farm area for petroleum hydrocarbon impact. Drafted multiple factual reports for client based on analytical data and information gathered on site. TransCanada Pipeline, Soil and Ground and Surface Water Investigation, Hearst, Ontario. Hand augured boreholes in and surrounding run-off ditch to assess hydrocarbon and metals impact in sediment. Sampled groundwater wells stretching from Ramore to 90 kilometres west of Hearst. IBM, Soil Vapour and Ambient Air Sampling, Toronto, Ontario. Conducted a soil vapour sampling program in an industrial building. Duties included installing sub-slab soil vapour probes; vacuum leak testing with helium; screening for various gases, including O2, CO2, CH4, He, and Isobutylene; and sampling via summa canisters and flow controllers. Ambient and background air samples were taken using summa canister’s and flow controllers for quality assurance. John Deere, Contaminate Mitigation between Adjacent Properties, Woodstock, Ontario. Responsible for retrieving defendable soil vapour samples, including vacuum leak tests using helium, collecting samples via flow controllers and summa canisters. Also responsible for low-flow groundwater sampling using peristaltic pump and flow- through cell to document geochemical parameters to ensure that stabilization had occurred and water was being sampled from the representative formation. All in accordance with Ministry of Environment/Environmental Protection Agency protocols. Hydro One, Phase II Proposed Hydro-Generating Station, Holland Landing, Ontario. Managed the installation of boreholes and monitoring wells. Conducted surface and groundwater sampling to assess the condition of the site and potential impacts. As well, collected soil samples to assess geotechnical soil integrity and composition for building purposes. Conducted GPS and shot elevation survey to ensure well location and flow of groundwater. Public Works and Government Services Canada, Phase I and II Site Investigation, Parry Sound, Ontario. Assisted with Phase I site visit for federal client. Managed drillers in conducting Phase II soil sampling and well installation regarding impact from former gas station. Public Works and Government Services Canada, Phase II Investigation, Multiple Sites, Toronto, Ontario. Working for a federal client, managed drillers in conducting soil sampling and well installations to assess subsurface impacts from armoury buildings on multiple sites across Toronto. Sampled water and shot elevation surveys to help determine groundwater flow direction. Federal Government Client, Phase II Investigation of Subsurface Impact, Thunder Bay, Ontario. Responsible for overseeing drillers while conducting soil sampling and well installation surrounding fire fighter training facility inside airport in-field. Organized and shipped soil and groundwater samples.

1

Cus

hing

, Jul

ia

From

:H

allo

ran,

Joe

(MN

R) <

Joe.

Hal

lora

n@on

tario

.ca>

Sent

:Tu

esda

y, J

une

10, 2

014

9:55

AM

To:

Mac

Kay

War

d, J

essi

caC

c:R

ose,

Mar

c; G

arci

a, A

ndre

a; T

ang,

Jon

atha

n; M

urra

y, J

ake;

Val

liant

, Em

ma

(MN

R);

Keyv

ani,

Moh

sen

(EN

E)

Subj

ect:

RE:

Blu

ewat

er W

EC -

Proj

ect L

ocat

ion

Cha

nge

for T

-line

Pol

e 10

7

Hi Je

ssic

a,

Than

k yo

u fo

r the

doc

umen

tatio

n de

taili

ng th

e pr

opos

ed p

roje

ct m

odifi

catio

n at

the

Blue

wat

er W

ind

Ener

gy C

entr

e.

In re

view

of t

he in

form

atio

n, a

NHA

re-c

onfir

mat

ion

from

MN

R is

not r

equi

red.

The

pro

pose

d pr

ojec

t mod

ifica

tion

will

not

affe

ct th

e N

atur

al H

erita

geAs

sess

men

t alre

ady

conf

irmed

by

MN

R.

Chee

rs,

Joe

Hal

lora

nSo

uthe

rn R

egio

nPh

: 705

-755

-535

3jo

e.ha

llora

n@on

tario

.ca

From

: M

acKa

y W

ard,

Jes

sica

[m

ailto

:Jes

sica

.Mac

KayW

ard@

aeco

m.c

om]

Sen

t: J

une

9, 2

014

6:52

PM

To:

Hal

lora

n, J

oe (

MN

R)C

c: R

ose,

Mar

c; G

arci

a, A

ndre

a; T

ang,

Jon

atha

n; M

urra

y, J

ake

Sub

ject

: Bl

uew

ater

WEC

- P

roje

ct L

ocat

ion

Chan

ge fo

r T-

line

Pole

107

Hi Jo

e,

Plea

se fi

nd a

ttac

hed

a le

tter

we

have

pre

pare

d re

gard

ing

a ch

ange

to th

e Bl

uew

ater

Win

d En

ergy

Cen

tre

Proj

ect L

ocat

ion.

An

exte

nsio

n of

the

tran

smiss

ion

line

cons

truc

tion

dist

urba

nce

area

with

in th

e Ce

nten

nial

Roa

d rig

ht-o

f-way

is re

quire

d in

ord

er to

acc

omm

odat

e a

chan

ge in

the

loca

tion

of p

ole

107.

We

kind

ly re

ques

t con

firm

atio

n th

at th

is ch

ange

is a

ccep

tabl

e to

MN

R.

Best

rega

rds,

Jess

ica

2

Jess

ica

Mac

Kay

War

d, P

h.D.

Ecol

ogis

t, En

viro

nmen

tD:

905

-747

-751

4 C

: 416

-333

-527

4Je

ssic

a.M

acKa

yWar

d@ae

com

.com

AECO

M10

5 Co

mm

erce

Val

ley

Driv

e W

est,

7th

Floo

rM

arkh

am, O

N

L3T

7W3

T: 9

05-8

86-7

022

F: 9

05-8

86-9

494

ww

w.a

ecom

.com



Attachment B Stage 2 Report and Correspondence from MTCS

Environment

Varna Wind, Inc.

Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Centennial Road and Hensall Road ROWTransmission Line Study for Bluewater Wind Energy CentreGeographic Township of TuckersmithMunicipality of Huron East, Huron County, Ontario

Licensee: Erik PhaneufLicense: P393PIF Number: P393-0027-2013

Prepared by:AECOM410 – 250 York Street, Citi Plaza 519 673 0510 telLondon, ON, Canada N6A 6K2 519 673 5975 faxwww.aecom.com

Project Number: 60301207FIT Number: FIT-FJI7S7X

Date:June 10, 2013REVISED REPORT

AECOM Varna Wind, Inc Stage 2 Archaeological AssessmentROW Centennial Road and Hensall Road South for Transmission Poles

Distribution List

Hard Copy # PDF Association / Company Name

0 yes Varna Wind, Inc.

0 yes Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

1 yes AECOM

Revision Log

Revision # Revised By Date Issue / Revision Description

1 A. Grant 10 June 2014 Revised to show all areas subject to assessment

AECOM Signatures

Report Prepared By:Adria Grant, BA, CAHPArchaeology Practice Lead

Report Reviewed By:Marc Rose, MES, MCIP, RPPSenior Environmental Planner


Executive Summary

AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM) was contracted by Varna Wind, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Canada, ULC, to conduct a Stage 2 archaeological assessment of additional land to be impacted by the proposed transmission line route to the Bluewater Wind Energy Centre (WEC) in the Municipality of Huron East, Huron County, Ontario. The land subject to assessment consists of 75 m of the road right-of-way (ROW) of Centennial Road south of Hensall Road, and Hensall Road south of Centennial Road which will be impacted by the placement of transmission poles, located within the Geographic Township of Tuckersmith, now the Municipality of Huron East, Huron County, Ontario. This report documents the background research, fieldwork methods and results and presents conclusions and recommendations pertaining to archaeological concerns in these areas.

This Stage 2 archaeological assessment was conducted to meet the requirements for an application for a Renewable Energy Approval (FIT-FJI7S7X), as outlined in Ontario Regulation 359/09 section 22(3) of the Environmental Protection Act (Ontario Government 2009a). According to section 22(1) of O. Reg 359/09, an archaeological assessment must be conducted if it is deemed that archaeological materials will be impacted during the renewable energy project. In 2012 Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) deemed the Bluewater WEC to have a moderate to high archaeological potential for pre-contact Aboriginal archaeological material and a moderate to high potential for Euro-Canadian archaeological material (Golder 2012a). This project is also subject to the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b) and the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists(Government of Ontario 2011).

The Stage 2 archaeological assessment for the 75 m section of Centennial Road ROW south of Hensall Road, and the 75 m section of Hensall Road ROW south of Centennial Road did not result in the identification of any archaeological sites or material. The entire subject property was found to be extensively previously disturbed and did not retain archaeological integrity. Archaeological concerns in this area may be considered addressed and no further archaeological work is required.

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport is asked to accept this report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports and issue a letter of concurrence with the recommendation that archaeological concerns under land use planning and development processes are considered addressed and no further archaeological assessment is required.


Project Personnel

Project Director Marc Rose, M.E.S., MCIP, RPP

Project Manager Adria Grant, BA, (R131), Archaeology Practice Lead

Licensed Archaeologist Erik Phaneuf, (P393), Professional Archaeologist

Report Production Jennifer Morgan, MA

Field Supervisor Adria Grant, BA, CAHP (R131), Nancy Van Sas, BA (R323)

Field/Lab Technicians Adria Grant, BA, CAHP (R131)

Project Support Stephanie Patzer, Environmental Engineer

GIS Analyst Paul Adams

Acknowledgements

Proponent Contact Andrea Garcia, NextEra Energy Canada, ULC

Municipality of Huron East Barry Mills, Public Works

Ministry of Tourism, Culture Archaeological Data Coordinatorand Sport Archaeological Review Coordinator

Jim Sherratt, Archaeology Team Lead


Table of Contents

Distribution ListExecutive SummaryProject Personnel

page

1. Project Context ............................................................................................................................11.1 Development Context .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 21.2 Historical Context................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2.1 Pre-Contact Aboriginal Settlement ......................................................................................... 21.2.2 Post-Contact Aboriginal Settlement........................................................................................ 41.2.3 Euro-Canadian Settlement ..................................................................................................... 51.2.4 Reports with Relevant Background Information ..................................................................... 6

1.3 Archaeological Context........................................................................................................................ 81.3.1 Natural Environment ............................................................................................................... 81.3.2 Known Archaeological Sites and Surveys .............................................................................. 81.3.3 Determination of Archaeological Potential ............................................................................. 91.3.4 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................... 10

2. Field Methods............................................................................................................................. 11

3. Record of Finds.......................................................................................................................... 12

4. Analysis and Conclusions......................................................................................................... 13

5. Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 14

6. Bibliography and Sources......................................................................................................... 15

7. Images ........................................................................................................................................ 197.1 Photographs ...................................................................................................................................... 19

8. Maps ........................................................................................................................................... 22

9. Advice on Compliance with Legislation................................................................................... 27

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of Study Area............................................................................................................................. 23Figure 2: Study Area in Detail ................................................................................................................................. 24Figure 3: A Portion of the 1879 Map of the Geographic Township of Tuckersmith ................................................ 25Figure 4: Methods and Results of the Stage 2 Field Investigation.......................................................................... 26

List of Tables

Table 1: Cultural Chronology for Huron County ............................................................................................................ 2Table 2: Archaeological Assessment Reports for Bluewater Wind Energy Centre....................................................... 6Table 3: Registered Archaeological Sites within the Bluewater WEC Study Area....................................................... 8Table 4: Inventory of Documentary Record................................................................................................................. 12


1. Project Context1.1 Development Context

AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM) was contracted by Varna Wind, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Canada, ULC, to conduct a Stage 2 archaeological assessment of additional land to be impacted by the proposed transmission line route to the Bluewater Wind Energy Centre (WEC) in the Municipality of Huron East, Huron County, Ontario. The land subject to assessment consists of 75 meters (m) of the road right-of-way (ROW) of Centennial Road south of Hensall Road, and Hensall Road south of Centennial Road which will be impacted by the placement of transmission poles, located within the Geographic Township of Tuckersmith, now the Municipality of Huron East, Huron County, Ontario. This report documents the background research, fieldwork methods and results and presents conclusions and recommendations pertaining to archaeological concerns in these areas.

This Stage 2 archaeological assessment was conducted to meet the requirements for an application for a Renewable Energy Approval (FIT-FJI7S7X), as outlined in Ontario Regulation 359/09 section 22(3) of the Environmental Protection Act (Ontario Government 2009a). According to section 22(1) of O. Reg 359/09, an archaeological assessment must be conducted if it is deemed that archaeological materials will be impacted during the renewable energy project. In 2012 Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) deemed the Bluewater WEC to have a moderate to high archaeological potential for pre-contact Aboriginal archaeological material and a moderate to high potential for Euro-Canadian archaeological material (Golder 2012a). This project is also subject to the OntarioHeritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b) and the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists(Government of Ontario 2011).

The project is referred to as the Bluewater WEC and is located in the Municipalities of Bluewater and Huron East, Huron County, Ontario. The Bluewater WEC project involves the site preparation, construction, operation, and decommissioning of a Class 4 wind generating facility. The major components of the project include:

40 GE 1.6 MW Wind Turbine generator locations with pad mounted step-up transformers (a maximum of 37 turbines will ultimately be constructed)

Turbine access roads (approximately 40 km)

Temporary and permanent laydown and storage areas

Approximately 52 km of 34.5 kV underground electrical collection lines

Approximately 24 km of 115 kV transmission line proposed along Centennial Road and Hensall Road from the proposed transformer substation to the existing Hydro One Seaforth Transformer Station

Operations and maintenance building

A Stage 1 archaeological assessment was conducted by Golder (2012a) and following the Stage 1 archaeological assessment, a Stage 2 field investigation was carried out on the majority of the lands to be impacted during the proposed development of the Bluewater WEC by Golder (2012b, 2013a) and Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) (2013a, 2013b). The following report pertains to two sections of ROW that were not previously assessed during the Stage 2 archaeological assessments for the Bluewater WEC and will be impacted by the Transmission Line.

1


Permission to access the study area to conduct all required archaeological fieldwork activities was provided by Andrea Garcia of NextEra Energy Canada, ULC and Barry Mills of the Municipality of Huron East. There were no limits placed on access.

The MTCS is asked to review the results and recommendations presented in this report and provide a Letter of Review and Acceptance into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports.

1.1.1 Objectives

The objective of the Stage 2 property assessment is to determine if any archaeological resources are present on the ROW land and to make a determination on whether any of the resources might be artifacts or archaeological sites with cultural heritage value or interest requiring further assessment, and to recommend appropriate Stage 3 assessment strategies for any archaeological sites identified.

1.2 Historical Context

The study area consists entirely of the ROW land, extending 75 m south of the intersection of Centennial Road and Hensall Road along both roadways. The study area consists of Lot 5, Concession 6 north of Centennial Road andeast of Hensall Road; Lot 5, Concession 7 south of Centennial Road, east of Hensall Road; and, Lot 6, Concession 7 south of Centennial Road, west of Hensall Road, in the Geographic Township of Tuckersmith, now the Municipality of Huron East, Huron County, Ontario.

1.2.1 Pre-Contact Aboriginal Settlement

It has been demonstrated that Huron County has been extensively utilized by pre-contact Aboriginal people who began occupying southwestern Ontario as the glaciers receded from the land, as early as 11,000 B.C. Table 1provides a breakdown of the cultural and temporal history of past occupations in the Huron County, drawn from Ellis and Ferris (1990).

Table 1: Cultural Chronology for Huron County

Archaeological Period Characteristics Time Period Comments

Early Paleo-Indian Fluted Points 9000-8400 BC Arctic tundra and spruce parkland, caribou hunters

Late Paleo-Indian Holcombe, Hi-Lo and Lanceolate Points 8400-8000 BC Slight reduction in territory size

Early Archaic Notched and Bifurcate base Points 8000-6000 BC Growing populations

Middle Archaic Stemmed and Brewerton Points, Laurentian Development 6000-2500 BC Increasing regionalization

Late ArchaicNarrow Point 2000-1800 BC Environment similar to presentBroad Point 1800-1500 BC Large lithic toolsSmall Point 1500-1100 BC Introduction of bow

Terminal Archaic Hind Points, Glacial Kame Complex 1100-950 BC Earliest true cemeteriesEarly Woodland Meadowood Points 950-400 BC Introduction of pottery

Middle Woodland Dentate/Pseudo-scallop Ceramics 400 BC – AD 500 Increased sedentism

Late Woodland

Riviere au Vase Phase AD 500-800 Seasonal hunting and gathering

Younge Phase AD 800-1200 Agriculture combined with seasonal rounds

Springwells Phase AD 1200-1400 Agricultural villagesWolf Phase AD 1400-1500 Earthworked villages, warfare

Contact Aboriginal Various Algonkian and Iroquoian Groups AD 1600-1875 Early written records and

treatiesEuro-Canadian French and English Euro-Canadian AD 1749-present European settlement

Note: taken from Ellis and Ferris, 1990

2


As Chapman and Putnam (1984) illustrate, the modern physiography of southern Ontario is largely a product of events of the last major glacial stage and the landscape is a complex mosaic of features and deposits produced during the last series of glacial retreats and advances prior to the withdrawal of the continental glaciers from the area. Southwestern Ontario was finally ice free by 12,500 years ago. With continuing ice retreat and lake regressions the land area of southern Ontario progressively increased while barriers to the influx of plants and animals steadily diminished (Karrow and Warner 1990).

The first human settlement can be traced back 11,000 years; these earliest well-documented groups are referred to as Paleo-Indians which literally means old or ancient Indians. Paleo-Indian people were non-agriculturalists who depended on hunting and gathering of wild food stuffs; they would have moved their encampments on a regular basis to be in the locations where these resources naturally became available and the size of the groups occupying any particular location would vary depending on the nature and size of the available food resources (Ellis and Deller 1990). The picture that has emerged for early and late Paleo-Indian people is of groups at low population densities who were residentially mobile and made use of large territories during annual cycles of resource exploitation (Ellis and Deller 1990).

The next major cultural period following the Paleo-Indian is termed the Archaic, which is broken temporally into the Early, Middle and Late. There is much debate on how the term Archaic is employed; general practice bases the designation off assemblage content as there are marked differences in artifact suites from the preceding Paleo-Indian and subsequent Woodland periods. As Ellis et al (1990) note, from an artifact and site characteristic perspective the Archaic is simply used to refer to non-Paleo-Indian manifestations that pre-date the introduction of ceramics. Throughout the Archaic period the natural environment warmed and vegetation changed from closed conifer-dominated vegetation cover, to mixed coniferous and deciduous forest to the mixed coniferous and deciduous forest in the north and deciduous vegetation in the south we see in Ontario today (Ellis et al 1990). During the Archaic period there are indications of increasing populations and decreasing size of territories exploited during annual rounds: fewer moves of residential camps throughout the year and longer occupations at seasonal campsites; continuous use of certain locations on a seasonal basis over many years; increasing attention to ritual associated with the deceased; and, long range exchange and trade systems for the purpose of obtaining valued and geographically localized resources (Ellis et al 1990).

In the 17th century two major language families, Algonquian and Iroquoian, were represented by the diverse people of North America. Iroquoian speaking people were found in southern Ontario and New York State, with related dialects spoken in the mid-Atlantic and interior North Carolina, while Algonquian speaking peoples were locatedalong the mid-Atlantic coast into the Maritimes, throughout the Canadian Shield of Ontario and Quebec and much of the central Great Lakes region (Ellis et al 1990). Linguists and anthropologists have attempted to trace the origin and development of these two language groups and usually place their genesis during the Archaic (Ellis et al 1990).

The Early Woodland period is distinguished from the Late Archaic period primarily by the addition of ceramic technology, which provides a useful demarcation point for archaeologists but is expected to have made less difference in the lives of the Early Woodland peoples. The settlement and subsistence patterns of Early Woodland people shows much continuity with the earlier Archaic with seasonal camps occupied to exploit specific natural resources (Spence et al 1990). During the Middle Woodland well-defined territories containing several key environmental zones were exploited over the yearly subsistence cycle. Large sites with structures and substantial middens appear in the Middle Woodland associated with spring macro-band occupations focussed on utilizing fish resources and created by consistent returns to the same site (Spence et al 1990). Groups would come together into large macro-bands during the spring-summer at lakeshore or marshland areas to take advantage of spawning fish; in the fall inland sand plains and river valleys were occupied for deer and nut harvesting and groups split into small

3


micro-bands for winter survival (Spence et al 1990). This is a departure from earlier Woodland times when macro-band aggregation is thought to have taken place in the winter (Ellis et al 1988; Granger 1978).

The period between the Middle and Late Woodland period was both technically and socially transitional for the ethnically diverse populations of southern Ontario and these developments laid the basis for the emergence of settled villages and agriculturally based lifestyles (Fox 1990). The Late Woodland period began with a shift in settlement and subsistence patterns involving an increasing reliance on maize horticulture. Corn may have been introduced into southwestern Ontario from the American Midwest as early as 600 A.D.; however, it did not become a dietary staple until at least three to four hundred years later. A more sedentary lifestyle was adopted by the Ontario Iroquoians and villages with longhouses and palisades were occupied by large numbers of people. Increased warfare is inferred from the defensive placement of village walls and recorded changes over time in village organization are taken to indicate the initial development of the clans which were a characteristic of the historically known Iroquoians.

A distinct cultural occupation was present in the Late Woodland in the western-most corner of southern Ontario in the modern counties of Kent, Essex and Lambton as well as portions of west Middlesex and west Elgin. This emerging cultural manifestation is generally classified as Western Basin Tradition and has been observed in south-eastern Michigan and north-western Ohio. The inhabitants of these communities are considered distinct from Iroquoian groups to the east and Mississipian to the south. In recent years research has indicated that there was more variability in settlement-subsistence patterns within Western Basin Tradition groups than previously thought, the most surprising being evidence of significant maize consumption (Watts et al 2011). Western Basin Tradition people had previously been thought to maintain seasonal hunting and gathering cycles and non-sedentary lifestyles and much evidence has been recorded from seasonal occupation sites (Murphy and Ferris 1990); however, recent research in the Arkona area of Lambton County has uncovered large agriculturally based villages (Golder 2012). We now understand the Western Basin Tradition as Late Woodland people who combined seasonal hunting and gathering along with maize horticulture and lived in short-term camps, large palisaded villages and everything in between. The radical changes that agricultural practice brought to the Early Ontario Iroquoian people living to the east did not have the same impact on settlement-subsistence patterns in the Western Basin Tradition.

Archaeologists are able to trace archaeologically known groups from this time period to the historically documented people identified when French fur traders first arrived (Wright 1994). The Ontario Iroquois from southern Ontario gave rise to the Huron, Petun, Neutral and Erie; the St. Lawrence Iroquois, a distinct population encountered by Jaques Cartier in 1535 that had disappeared by the time Samuel de Champlain returned to the same area in 1603; and from Northern Ontario the groups that gave rise to the Algonquian speaking Cree, Ojibwa and Algonquin people (Wright 1994).

1.2.2 Post-Contact Aboriginal Settlement

The post-contact Aboriginal occupation of southern Ontario was heavily influenced by the dispersal of Iroquoian speaking peoples, such as the Huron, Petun and Neutral by the New York State Confederacy of Iroquois, followed by the arrival of Algonkian speaking groups from northern Ontario. The Ojibwa of southern Ontario date from about 1701 and occupied the territory between Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario (Schmalz 1991). This is also the period in which the Mississaugas are known to have moved into southern Ontario and the Great Lakes watersheds (Konrad 1981) while at the same time the members of the Three Fires Confederacy, the Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatomi were immigrating from Ohio and Michigan (Feest and Feest 1978). As European settlers encroached on their territory the nature of Aboriginal population distribution, settlement size and material culture changed. Despite these changes it is possible to correlate historically recorded villages with archaeological manifestations and the similarity of those sites to more ancient sites reveals an antiquity to documented cultural expressions that confirms a long historical continuity to Iroquoian systems of ideology and thought (Ferris 2009). First Nations people of southern

4


Ontario have left behind archaeological resources throughout the Great Lakes region that show continuity with past peoples even if this was not recorded in Euro-Canadian documentation.

The study area within Huron County was most likely occupied by Algonkian-speaking groups who also exhibitedcultural influence from Iroquoian-speaking groups, both before and after European contact. Generally, the pre-contact Aboriginal presence in much of southern Ontario reflects occupation by Northern Iroquoian speakers.During and following the Iroquois Wars of the mid-17th century and the dispersal of the Iroquoian-speaking Huron-Petun and Neutral, a considerable reduction in the extent of territory occupied by Iroquoian speakers occurred in southern Ontario. Beginning about 1690 Algonkian speakers from northern Ontario began to move southwards (Ferris 2009; Rogers 1978:761; Schmalz 1991). It has been presumed that occupation of Huron County before about 1690 would have been by Iroquoians, but the Middle Woodland Saugeen Complex, known best from locations just north of Huron County in the Saugeen River valley such as the Donaldson site, is most often interpreted as Algonkian (Fiedel 1999), arguing for an occupation of Huron County by Algonkian speakers for millennia. Dating somewhat later than the Donaldson site, Wright (1974:303; Fox 1990:461) believed that the isolated occurrence of a palisaded village in neighbouring Bruce County at the Middle Ontario Iroquoian-like (Middleport substage) Nodwell site established a case for immigration by the Iroquoian-speaking Huron. More recently, however, Rankin (2000) has argued that the Nodwell village represents a short-lived sedentary farming experiment by hunter-gatherers, probably indigenous Algonkian speakers, who may have been ancestral to the Odawa (see also Warrick 2008:159). French missionaries indicated relatively close ties between the Odawa and the Huron-Petun (Fox 1990; cf. Feest and Feest 1978:773).

Ferris (1999:119-120) has also pointed out the potential misuse in the literature of the designation “Huron” todescribe sites in Huron and Bruce County. As Koenig (2005:61-61) indicates, there are some who argue that the ancestors of those Algonkian speaking First Nations now occupying the shores of Lake Huron and Bruce Peninsula only arrived in the mid-1800s, relating to known relocations from the U.S. and the establishment of reserves (Surtees 1971:48). In southwestern Ontario, however, members of the Three Fires Confederacy (Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatomi) were immigrating from Ohio and Michigan in the late 1700s (Feest and Feest 1978:778-779). Still, archaeological sites in Huron County point to much earlier settlement, probably by at least some of their ancestors. So, during the Late Woodland period, there is evidence that the study area could have been inhabited by Algonkianor Iroquoian speaking groups, or a combination of groups.

While it is difficult to trace ethnic affiliation during the period of initial contact between Aboriginal and Europeangroups, Koenig states that “there is no doubt that some native groups regularly occupied sites on the [Bruce]peninsula at the end of [the early historic] period” (2005:62). Feest and Feest (1978:772-773) imply that the Bruce Peninsula was Odawa territory from 1616 and early 17th century French glass trade beads at the Glen and Cripps sites on the northern tip of the Bruce Peninsula appear to attest to this (Fox 1990:465-466). Fox not only points to Odawa (or Ottawa) settlement on the Bruce Peninsula during the mid-1600s at Hunter’s Point, but also to sites in the southern Bruce County littoral such as the Hunter site on the Saugeen Reserve, dating about 1600 (1990:462, 472), as well as the Inverhuron-Lucas site (1990:463). Abandonment of this area by the Odawa seems to have occurred, at least briefly, in the mid-1600s due to the Iroquois Wars (Fox 1990:472). By 1690, Algonkian speakers from the north appear to have begun to repopulate Huron and Bruce Counties (Rogers 1978:761). This is the period in which the Mississaugas are known to have moved into southern Ontario and the Lower Great Lakes watersheds (Konrad 1981).

1.2.3 Euro-Canadian Settlement

This area first enters Euro-Canadian documentation as part of Treaty 27½ made between the Chippewa First Nations and James Givens, representative of the Crown on the 26th of April 1825 and is described as:

5


… an agreement made at Amherstburg in the Western District of the Province of Upper Canada on the 26th of April, 1825, between James Givens, Esquire, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, on behalf of His Majesty King George the Fourth and the Chiefs and Principal Men of the part of the Chippewa Nation of Indians, inhabiting and claiming the tract of land … . Wawanosh Township in the County of Huron was named after Way-way-nosh the principal Chief of the Band making this Treaty.

Morris 1943: 26-27

Treaty Number 27½ was subsequently confirmed on July 10th, 1827 as Treaty Number 29 with only a minor change in the legal description of the boundaries of the land surrender (Morris 1943:27).

The Euro-Canadian creation and settlement of Huron County was largely due to the Canada Company, itself formed in 1824, purchasing a large parcel of land known as the Huron Tract and preparing it for settlement by British settlers. The Huron Tract was mostly surveyed by Deputy Provincial Surveyor John McDonald on behalf of the Canada Company.

By the late 1800’s Huron County and the Township of Tuckersmith had been subject to years of settlement and development by Euro-Canadian pioneers. According to the 1879 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Huron County Ontario, Township of Tuckersmith G. Laidlaw was the owner of Lot 5, Concession 6, A. Sproat was the owner of the western quarter of Lot 5, Concession 7, and M. O’Keefe was the owner of Lot 6, Concession 7 (Belden & Co. 1879).Structures associates with these owners are shown to be some distance from the current study areas. The 19th

century map indicates the dense settlement of Euro-Canadian people in this area. The community of Egmondville is located north to the north and Brucefield is west of the current study area. The current road grid is in place and recognizable as the transportation system still in use today. Figure 3 provides a portion of the 1879 map with the study areas illustrated.

Additional detailed information on the Euro-Canadian settlement of this area, and specifically the Geographic Township of Tuckersmith, may be found in the Stage 1 archaeological assessment report for the Bluewater WEC (Golder 2012a).

1.2.4 Reports with Relevant Background Information

The project area has been the subject of a series of archaeological assessments conducted as part of the Bluewater WEC and Transmission Line Study. A list of these archaeological assessments is provided in Table 2. The report with relevant background information for the current study area is the Stage 1 report; however other reports provide information on archaeological resources and additional areas subject to archaeological assessment in the vicinity.

Table 2: Archaeological Assessment Reports for Bluewater Wind Energy Centre

Year Title Author PIF Number(s)2012a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, NextEra Energy Canada, ULC, Bluewater

Wind Energy Centre, Huron County, Ontario.Golder P001-609-2010

2012b Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, NextEra Energy Canada, ULC, Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, Huron County, Ontario (Final Report).

Golder P218-040-2011, P319-017-2012

2013a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, Location 26 through 35, Various Lots and Concessions, Geographic Township of Stanley, Hay and Tuckersmith, now Municipalities of Bluewater and Huron East, Huron County, Ontario (Revised Report)

Golder P218-275-2012

2013b Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, Locations Golder P218-279, 280,

6


13, 14, 24 and 25, Various Lots and Concessions, Geographic Township of Hay and Stanley, Huron County, Ontario.

281, 282-2012

2013a Stage 2 Property Assessment, Additional Lands and ROWs, Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Multiple Lots and Concessions, Municipalities of Bluewater and Huron East, Geographic Townships of Hay, Stanley and Tuckersmith, Huron County, Ontario.

ARA P007-522-2013

2013b Stage 2 Property Assessment, Heavy Haul Route Turns, Bluewater Wind EnergyCentre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater Multiple Lots and Concessions,Geographic Townships of Hay and Stanley Huron County, Ontario.

ARA P089-0032-2013

2013c Stage 3 Site-Specific Assessment, Location 13 (AiHj-6), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 10, Concession 11, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario.

ARA P089-025-2013

2013d Stage 3 Site-Specific Assessment, Location 14 (AiHk-1), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 9, Concession 8, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario.

ARA.P089-026-2013

2013e Stage 3 Site-Specific Assessment, Location 24 (AiHj-9), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 24, North Boundary, Geographic Township of Hay, Huron County, Ontario.

ARAP089-027-2013

2013f Stage 3 Site-Specific Assessment, Location 25 (AjHj-14), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 17, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario.

ARAP089-028-2013

2013g Stage 3 Site-Specific Assessment, Location 25 (AjHj-14), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 17, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario.

ARAP089-031-2013

2013h Stage 3 Site-Specific Assessment, Location 30 (AjHi-12), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Huron East, Part of Lot 23, Concession 4 ELR, Geographic Township of Tuckersmith, Huron County, Ontario.

ARAP007-544-2013

2013i Stage 4 Mitigation of Development Impacts, Location 14 (AiHk-1), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 9, Concession 8, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario.

ARAP007-506-2013

2013j Stage 4 Mitigation of Development Impacts, Location 13 (AiHj-6), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Part of Lot 10, Concession 11, Municipality of Bluewater, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario.

ARAP007-557-2013

2013k Stage 4 Mitigation of Development Impacts, Location 24 (AiHj-9), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 24, North Boundary, Geographic Township of Hay, Huron County, Ontario.

ARAP007-558-2013

2013l Stage 4 Mitigation of Development Impacts, Location 25 (AjHj-14), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 17, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario.

ARAP007-559-2013

7


1.3 Archaeological Context

1.3.1 Natural Environment

The study area falls within the Horseshoe Moraines physiographic region as described by Chapman and Putnam (1966). The Horseshoe Moraines physiographic region:

…forms the core of a horseshoe-shaped region flaking the upland that lies to the west…The southwestern limb of the region, typically seen as the southern part of Huron County, has a fairly simple landscape. Structurally it consists of two, and in some places three moranic ridges composed of pale, brown, hard, calcareous fine-textured till, with a moderate degree of stoniness. Huron clay loam is the most representative soil type of themoranic ridges and it occurs quiet widely in other well drained areas as well. The average depth of the Huron profile is from 18 to 20 inches and even though the slopes are generally moderate, the top soil is susceptible to erosion.

Chapman and Putnam 1966:198

The topography of the study area was found to be relatively level. The closest source of potable water is the Broadfoot Drain which is situated approximately 450 m west of the intersection of Centennial Road and Hensall Road. Lake Huron is located approximately 25 km to the west of this location.

1.3.2 Known Archaeological Sites and Surveys

Previous assessments have indicated that Huron County was intensively occupied by pre-contact Aboriginal people and early Euro-Canadian pioneers. During the Stage 1 background study Golder consulted the Archaeological Sites Database (ASDB) and reported 12 archaeological sites within the limits of the Bluewater WEC study area, including ten pre-contact Aboriginal sites and two multi-component sites. Table 3 provides a breakdown of the archaeological sites within the study area, according to the Stage 1 archaeological assessment by Golder (2012a).

Table 3: Registered Archaeological Sites within the Bluewater WEC Study Area

Cultural Affiliation Site Type Number of Sites

Pre-Contact Aboriginal Campsite 5

Pre-Contact Aboriginal Findspot 3

Pre-Contact Aboriginal/Historic Euro-Canadian

Campsite 1

Archaic/Historic Euro-Canadian

Campsite/House 1

Middle Woodland Campsite 1

Woodland Campsite 1

Two phases of Stage 2 archaeological assessments were subsequently completed by Golder (2012b, 2013a). Thefirst phase was carried out between May 5, 2011 and March 22, 2012 under the PIF numbers P218-040-2011 and P319-017-2012 (Golder 2012b). The second phase was conducted between April 4, 2012 and August 7, 2012 under PIF P218-275-2012(Golder 2013a). ARA also carried out Stage 2 assessments of additional lands and ROWsbetween May and August 2013 under PIF P007-522-2013, as well as an assessment of lands with the potential to be impacted by the proposed turbine delivery route to the Bluewater WEC in July, August, and October 2013 under PIF P089-0032-2013 (ARA 2013a, 2013b).

8


A total of 39 archaeological sites (Locations 1–35, Locations 36–37) were identified during the Stage 2 archaeological assessments and included 21 pre-contact Aboriginal sites and 16 Euro-Canadian sites. Twelve of these sites (Locations 13–14, 24–26, 28–33 and 36) were recommended for Stage 3 archaeological assessment (Golder 2012b: Table 52; 2013a: Table 41, ARA 2013a: 46–47). An additional two Euro-Canadian sites (Locations 38 and 39) were identified during the assessment of lands with the potential to be impacted by the proposed turbine delivery route (ARA 2013b). These sites were found to be of no further cultural heritage value or interest and were not recommended for Stage 3 assessment (ARA 2013b: 50). Golder and ARA subsequently conducted Stage 3 site-specific assessments and Stage 4 mitigations of development impacts at those sites within the project location that could not be avoided through project redesign (Golder 2013b; ARA 2013c–2013l). None of these sites are in close proximity to the study area.

The provincial archaeological sites database (ASDB) was referred to on November 29, 2013 to determine if there were any registered archaeological sites in close proximity to the study area. The database search indicated that there are no archaeological sites within a 1 km radius of the current ROW study area land.

1.3.3 Determination of Archaeological Potential

Archaeological potential is established by determining the likelihood that archaeological resources may be present on a subject property. Criteria commonly used by the Ontario MTCS (Ontario Government 2011) to determine areas of archaeological potential include:

Proximity to previously identified archaeological sites; Distance to various types of water sources;Soil texture and drainage;Glacial geomorphology, elevated topography and the general topographic variability of the area;Resource areas including food or medicinal plants, scarce raw materials and early Euro-Canadian industry;Areas of early Euro- Canadian settlement and early transportation routes;Properties listed on municipal register of properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b);Properties that local histories or informants have identified with possible archaeological sites, historical events, activities or occupants; and Historic landmarks or sites.

Distance to modern or ancient water sources is generally accepted as the most important element for past humansettlement patterns and when considered alone may result in a determination of archaeological potential. In addition any combination of two or more of the criteria listed above, such as well drained soils or topographic variability, may indicate archaeological potential.

Certain features indicate that archaeological potential has been removed, such as land that has been subject to extensive and intensive deep land alterations that have severely damaged the integrity of any archaeological resources. This includes landscaping that involves grading below the topsoil level, building footprints, quarrying and sewage and infrastructure development (Ontario Government 2011).

The potential for pre-contact and contact period Aboriginal archaeological resources is judged to be moderate to high, based on the proximity to potable water and previously known archaeological sites (Golder 2012a:32). The potential for Euro-Canadian archaeological resources is judged to be moderate to high based on the proximity to thehistoric communities within or just outside of the study area, the early 19th century settlement of Tuckersmith

9


Township as agriculturally based, and the historical evidence of First Nations residing within the study area (Golder2012a:34).

1.3.4 Existing Conditions

The Stage 2 archaeological assessment for the proposed transmission line development of the segments of the Centennial Road ROW, east of Hensall Road and the Hensall Road ROW, south of Centennial Road, was conducted on December 6, 2013 under Professional license P393 issued by the MTCS to Erik Phaneuf, Professional Archaeologist at AECOM, under PIF number P393-0027-2013. The Stage 2 archaeological assessment was attempted on December 4, 2013; however upon arrival at the site it was found to have over 5 centimetres (cm) of snow cover and the assessment was delayed until conditions for archaeological assessment improved.

The land subject to assessment consists of 75 m of the ROW of Centennial Road south of Hensall Road, and Hensall Road south of Centennial Road which will be impacted by the placement of transmission poles, located within the Geographic Township of Tuckersmith, now the Municipality of Huron East, Huron County, Ontario. The study areas consist primarily of gravel road with grassy shoulders and are made up of two sections approximately 0.16 ha in size, for a total of 0.32 ha of land subject to assessment.

10


2. Field MethodsThe Stage 2 field investigation involved the physical survey of a 75 m section of Centennial Road ROW south of Hensall Road, and a 75 m section of Hensall Road ROW south of Centennial Road, as shown in Figures 2 and 4.Although the proposed location for transmission poles will impact only the north ROW sections of Centennial and Hensall roads, both the north and south sections of ROW were assessed to provide flexibility for transmission pole placement.

The study area land consists of 60% gravel road surface and 40% grassy shoulder within which a gas main and existing hydro poles are situated. As the area could not be ploughed the Stage 2 field investigation was conductedby the standard shovel test pit survey method and where previous disturbance could be visually determined the area was photo-documented. The limits of the ROW were staked prior to the archaeological assessment. Although the entire ROW appeared previously disturbed a line of test pits were excavated at the limit of the ROW closest to the agricultural fields to determine if any land retaining archaeological potential was present. Test pits were excavated at a 10 m interval due to evidence of previous disturbance, and each test pit was approximately 30 cm in diameter, was excavated at least 5 cm into sterile subsoil and was examined for stratigraphy, cultural features or evidence of fill. All soil was screened though hardware mesh with an aperture of 6 millimetres (mm) to facilitate the recovery of cultural material and was then used to backfill the pit. The determination of previous disturbance was verified by the test pit excavation and the high level of road grade gravel and other non-native fill within the soil excavated. No cultural material was identified during the test pit survey which would have caused the survey intervals to be decreased according to Section 2.1.3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ontario Government 2011).

As per the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Section 7.8.6, Standard 1a, Ontario Government 2011), Photos 1 to 10 document the study area to confirm conditions met the requirements for Stage 2 archaeological assessment. Photograph locations and directions are provided on Figure 4 along with an illustrationof the methods and results of the Stage 2 field investigation.

The weather during the Stage 2 assessment was cold and overcast, with a high of 4 degrees Celsius. Visibility and lighting conditions were excellent and there were no conditions that were detrimental to the identification and recovery of archaeological material.

11


3. Record of FindsThe Stage 2 archaeological assessment for the 75 m section of Centennial Road ROW south of Hensall Road, and the 75 m section of Hensall Road ROW south of Centennial Road, as shown in Figures 2 and 4, was conducted by employing the methods outlined in Section 2 of this report. The Stage 1 background research conducted by Golder indicated that the study area had a moderate to high potential to contain archaeological resources (Golder 2012a:32-34); however, the Stage 2 field investigation did not result in the identification of any archaeological sites or material.

The entire subject property was found to be extensively previously disturbed and did not retain archaeological integrity. In addition no archaeological sites or material were identified during the course of the Stage 2 archaeological assessment. Table 4 provides a listing of the documentary record generated by the Stage 2 fieldwork and indicates the location of each document type.

Table 4: Inventory of Documentary Record

Document Type Quantity Location Additional CommentsField Notes 2 pgs AECOM London Office In original field book and photocopied in project fileHand Drawn Maps 1 pg AECOM London Office In original field book and photocopied in project fileProponent Maps 1 pg AECOM London Office Hard copy and digital copy in project fileDigital Photographs 28 AECOM London Office Stored digitally in project file

12


4. Analysis and ConclusionsThe Stage 2 archaeological assessment for the 75 m section of Centennial Road ROW south of Hensall Road, and the 75 m section of Hensall Road ROW south of Centennial Road did not result in the identification of any archaeological sites or material. The entire subject property was found to be extensively previously disturbed and did not retain archaeological integrity. Archaeological concerns in this area may be considered addressed and no further archaeological work is required.

13


5. RecommendationsThe Stage 2 archaeological assessment for the 75 m section of Centennial Road ROW south of Hensall Road, and the 75 m section of Hensall Road ROW south of Centennial Road did not result in the identification of any archaeological sites or material. The entire subject property was found to be extensively previously disturbed and did not retain archaeological integrity. Archaeological concerns in this area may be considered addressed and no further archaeological work is required.

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport is asked to accept this report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports and issue a letter of concurrence with the recommendation that archaeological concerns under land use planning and development processes are considered addressed and no further archaeological assessment is required.

14


6. Bibliography and SourcesArchaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) 2013a Stage 2 Property Assessment, Additional Lands and ROWs, Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X,

Multiple Lots and Concessions, Municipalities of Bluewater and Huron East, Geographic Townships of Hay, Stanley and Tuckersmith, Huron County, Ontario. PIF #P007-522-2013. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

2013b Stage 2 Property Assessment, Heavy Haul Route Turns, Bluewater Wind Energy Centre FIT-FJI7S7X,Municipality of Bluewater, Multiple Lots and Concessions, Geographic Townships of Hay and Stanley, Huron County, Ontario. PIF #P089-0032-2013. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

2013c Stage 3 Site-Specific Assessment, Location 13 (AiHj-6), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 10, Concession 11, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario. PIF #P089-025-2013. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

2013d Stage 3 Site-Specific Assessment, Location 14 (AiHk-1), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 9, Concession 8, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario. PIF #P089-026-2013. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

2013e Stage 3 Site-Specific Assessment, Location 24 (AiHj-9), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 24, North Boundary, Geographic Township of Hay, Huron County, Ontario. PIF #P089-027-2013. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

2013f Stage 3 Site-Specific Assessment, Location 25 (AjHj-14), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 17, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario. PIF #P089-028-2013. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

2013g Stage 3 Site-Specific Assessment, Location 29 (AjHj-16), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 15, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario. PIF #P089-031-2013. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

2013h Stage 3 Site-Specific Assessment, Location 30 (AjHi-12), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Huron East, Part of Lot 23, Concession 4 ELR, Geographic Township of Tuckersmith, Huron County, Ontario. PIF #P007-544-2013. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

2013i Stage 4 Mitigation of Development Impacts, Location 14 (AiHk-1), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 9, Concession 8, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario. PIF #P007-506-2013. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

2013j Stage 4 Mitigation of Development Impacts, Location 13 (AiHj-6), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 10, Concession 11, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario. PIF #P007-557-2013. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

2013k Stage 4 Mitigation of Development Impacts, Location 24 (AiHj-9), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 24, North Boundary, Geographic Township of Hay, Huron County, Ontario. PIF #P007-558-2013. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

2013l Stage 4 Mitigation of Development Impacts, Location 25 (AjHj-14), Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, FIT-

15


FJI7S7X, Municipality of Bluewater, Part of Lot 17, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Stanley, Huron County, Ontario. PIF #P007-559-2013. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

Belden, H. & Co.1879 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Huron, Ontario. Toronto: H. Belden & Co.

Chapman, L. J. and D. F. Putnam1966 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Second edition. Ontario Research Foundation, University of Toronto

Press.

Ellis, C.J., J.A. Fisher and D.B. Deller1988 Four Meadowood Phase Lithic Artifact Assemblages from Caradoc and Delaware Townships, Southwestern

Ontario. Kewa 88(8):3-20.

Ellis, Chris J., Ian T. Kenyon and Michael W. Spence1990 The Archaic. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris.

Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5.

Ellis, Chris J. and D. Brian Deller1990 Paleo-Indians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris.

Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5.

Ellis, Christopher J. and Neal Ferris (editors)1990 The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650, Eds. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris, Occasional

Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.

Ferris, Neal1999 What’s in a Name? The Implications of Archaeological terminology Used in Nonarchaeological Context. In

Taming the Taxonomy: Toward a New Understanding of Great Lake Archaeology, edited by Ronald Williamson and Christopher Watts.

2009 The Archaeology of Native-lived Colonialism: Challenging History in the Great Lakes. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Feidel, Stuart1999 Algonquians and Iroquoians: Taxonomy, Chronology and Archaeological Implications. In Taming the

Taxonomy: Toward a New Understanding of Great Lake Archaeology, edited by Ronald Williamson and Christopher Watts.

Feest, Johanna E. and Christian F. Feest1978 In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol.15 Northeast, pp.772-786. B.G. Trigger, Ed. Washington:

Smithsonian Institute.

Fox, William A.1990 The Middle to Late Woodland Transition. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, eds. Chris

J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder)2012a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, NextEra Energy Canada, ULC, Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, Huron

County, Ontario. PIF #P001-609-2010. Golder Associates Ltd.

16


2012b Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, NextEra Energy Canada, ULC, Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, Huron County, Ontario (Final Report). PIF #P218-040-2011, P319-017-2012. Golder Associates Ltd.

2013a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, Location 26 through 35, Various Lots and Concessions, Geographic Township of Stanley, Hay and Tuckersmith, now Municipalities of Bluewater and Huron East, Huron County, Ontario (Revised Report). PIF #P218-275-2012. Golder Associates Ltd.

2013b Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, Bluewater Wind Energy Centre, Locations 13, 14, 24 and 25, Various Lots and Concessions, Geographic Township of Hay and Stanley, Huron County, Ontario. PIFs #P218-279, 280, 281, 282-2012. Golder Associates Ltd.

Karrow, P.F. and B.G Warner1990 The Geological and Biological Environment for Human Occupation in Southern Ontario. In The Archaeology

of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5.

Koenig, Edwin2005 Cultures and Ecologies A Native Fishing Conflict on the Saugeen-Bruce Peninsula. University of Toronto

Press, Toronto.

Konrad, Victor 1981 An Iroquois Frontier: the North Shore of Lake Ontario during the Late Seventeenth Century. Journal of

Historical Geography 7(2).

Murphy, Carl and Neal Ferris1990 The Late Woodland Western Basin Tradition of Southwestern Ontario. In The Archaeology of Southern

Ontario to A.D. 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5.

Ontario Government1990a Environmental Protection Act. R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER E.19. Last amendment: 2010, c. 16, Sched. 7, s.2.

Retrieved August 21, 2013 from: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e19_e.htm

1990b Ontario Heritage Act. R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER O.18, Last amendment: 2009, c. 33, Sched. 11, s. 6. Electronic document: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o18_e.htm. Last assessed April 2013.

2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

n.d Archaeological Sites Database (ASDB). Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Rogers, E.S1978 Southeast Ojibwa. In Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 15, Northeast, edited by Bruce Trigger,

pp.760-771.

Schmalz, Peter S.1991 The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. University of Toronto Press.

Surtees, Robert1971 The Original People. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Toronto.

17


Spence, Michael W., Robert H. Pihl and Carl R. Murphy1990 Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to

A.D. 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5.

Warrick, Gary2008 A Population History of the Huron-Petun, A.D. 500-1650. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wright, James V.1994 Before European Contact. In Aboriginal Ontario: Historic Perspectives on the First Nations. Eds. Edward S.

Rogers and Donald B. Smith. Ontario Historical Studies Series, Dundurn Press, Toronto.

18


7. Images7.1 Photographs

Photo 1: North ROW of Centennial Road, facing southeast, note sloping road grade

Photo 2: North ROW of Centennial Road, example of test pit with evidence of disturbance, note gravel

Photo 3: North ROW of Centennial Road, facing northwest towards intersection with Hensall Road, note road grade

Photo 4: South ROW of Centennial Road, facing southeast, note sloping road grade

19


Photo 5: South ROW of Centennial Road, example of test pit note disturbance

Photo 6: South ROW of Hensall Road, facing southwest, note sloping road grade

Photo 7: South ROW of Hensall Road, example of test pit, note gravel

Photo 8: North ROW of Hensall Road, facing northeast towards intersection with Centennial Road, note road grade

20


Photo 9: North ROW of Hensall Road, example of test pit, note gravel

Photo 10: North ROW of Hensall Road, facing southwest

21


8. MapsMaps documenting the methods and results of the Stage 2 archaeological assessment of the 75 m section of Centennial Road ROW south of Hensall Road, and the 75 m section of Hensall Road ROW south of Centennial Road are provided on the following pages.

22

k

MIL

L

KIPPEN

PARR

STA

FFA

21

19

LONDON

HENSALL

AIRPORT

GOSHEN

MORRISON

CEN

TEN

NIA

L

ROAD183

FRON

T

28

17

ROAD182

BRONSON

DIVISION

BLUEWATER

TILE

WA

LNU

T

RO

MA

N

BELLS

ROAD18132

BABYLON

8

RO

GER

VILL

E

HURO

N

LINE

26

HANNAH

BANNOCKBURN

BLIND

DA

NC

ELA

ND

STON

E

FANSVILLE

ZUR

ICH

HEN

SALL

HYDR

OLI

NE

VAN

AST

RA

SHO

RT

HO

RN

OAK

COUN

TYRD

24

BLACKBUSH

NORTH

AUSABLE

BAYF

IELD

RIV

ER

COUNTYRD180

PAVI

LLIO

N

CHIS

ELHU

RST

MAPLE

BRID

GE

MAIN

KINBURN

WILDWOOD

GULLEY

TUYLL

CRY

STA

L SP

RIN

GS

ROXBORO

DAV

ID

KIN

G

WEB

B

BLU

E B

LUFF

JER

RY

CR

EST

GODE

RICH

MCTAGGART

SANCTUARY

STIRLINGS

JAN

E

FRY

HARP

URHE

Y

SUN

SET

LAPO

RTE

WO

OD

LAN

D

3

CH

UR

CH

JOHN

BLU

EHAV

EN

SMIRNOFF

SHA

NG

RIL

ACO

LIN

A

MARK

ET

KEIT

H

TOWER

ELMSLIE

OLD RIVER

EGER

TON

BEA

CH

LIDDERDALE

YOR

K

WILLIAM

RAILW

AY

MO

OR

E

BIRC

H

BED

AR

D

ELLIOT

LORNE

ALBERT

BAULCH

MA

RY

ELM

RAVI

NELINDYDEL

EVA

N

DRIFTWOOD

GEORGE

JOWETT

CENT

REDU

KE

PAVI

LLIO

N

MA

IN

MIL

LM

ILL

FRON

T

WOODLAND

RO

GER

VILL

EKINBURN

BRONSON

BABYLON

HURO

N

CENT

ENNI

AL

ZUR

ICH

HEN

SALL

BLU

E B

LUFF

BRONSON

4440

00

4440

00

4460

00

4460

00

4480

00

4480

00

4500

00

4500

00

4520

00

4520

00

4540

00

4540

00

4560

00

4560

00

4580

00

4580

00

4600

00

4600

00

4620

00

4620

00

4640

00

4640

00

4660

00

4660

00

4680

00

4680

00

4700

00

4700

00

4720

00

4720

00

4808000

4808000

4810000

4810000

4812000

4812000

4814000

4814000

4816000

4816000

4818000

4818000

4820000

4820000

4822000

4822000

4824000

4824000

UTM

Zon

e 17

N, N

AD

83

Loca

tion

of P

roje

ct

Are

a

Figu

re 1

June

201

460

3012

07

Blu

ewat

er W

EC

Tra

nsm

issi

on L

ine

Stu

dyS

tage

2 A

rcha

eolo

gica

l Ass

essm

ent

1:75

,000

Bas

emap

ping

from

Ont

ario

Min

istry

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

This

dra

win

g ha

s be

en p

repa

red

for

the

use

of A

EC

OM

's c

lient

an

d m

ay n

ot b

e us

ed,

repr

oduc

ed o

r re

lied

upon

by

third

par

ties,

exce

pt a

s ag

reed

by

AE

CO

M a

nd i

ts c

lient

, as

req

uire

d by

law

or

for

use

by

gove

rnm

enta

l re

view

ing

agen

cies

. A

EC

OM

acc

epts

no

res

pons

ibili

ty,

and

deni

es a

ny l

iabi

lity

wha

tsoe

ver,

to a

ny p

arty

that

mod

ifies

this

dra

win

g w

ithou

t AEC

OM

's e

xpre

ss w

ritte

n co

nsen

t.

²0

460

920

1,38

01,

840

230

Met

res

Lege

nd Blu

ewat

er W

ind

Ene

rgy

Cen

tre

Stu

dy A

rea

Blu

ewat

er T

rans

mis

sion

Lin

eS

tudy

Are

a

Lot L

ines

Wat

erbo

dy

Wat

erco

urse

Woo

dlot

Stud

y A

rea

Stu

dy A

rea

Loca

tion

k

Hensall Rd

Cent

enni

al R

d

305

310

4816000

4816000

UTM

Zon

e 17

N, N

AD

83

Stud

y A

rea

in D

etai

l Figu

re 2

June

201

460

3012

07

Blu

ewat

er W

EC

Tra

nsm

issi

on L

ine

Stu

dyS

tage

2 A

rcha

eolo

gica

l Ass

essm

ent

1:1,

000

Bas

emap

ping

from

Ont

ario

Min

istry

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

This

dra

win

g ha

s be

en p

repa

red

for

the

use

of A

EC

OM

's c

lient

an

d m

ay n

ot b

e us

ed,

repr

oduc

ed o

r re

lied

upon

by

third

par

ties,

exce

pt a

s ag

reed

by

AE

CO

M a

nd i

ts c

lient

, as

req

uire

d by

law

or

for

use

by

gove

rnm

enta

l re

view

ing

agen

cies

. A

EC

OM

acc

epts

no

res

pons

ibili

ty,

and

deni

es a

ny l

iabi

lity

wha

tsoe

ver,

to a

ny p

arty

that

mod

ifies

this

dra

win

g w

ithou

t AEC

OM

's e

xpre

ss w

ritte

n co

nsen

t.

²0

612

1824

3

Met

res

Lege

nd Con

tour

s

Pre

viou

sly

Ass

esse

d

Stu

dy A

rea

Lot L

ines

2000

2000

Not

to S

cale

A Po

rtio

n of

the

1878

Map

of

The

Tow

nshi

p of

Tuc

kers

mith

Figu

re 3

June

201

460

3012

07

Blu

ewat

er W

EC

Tra

nsm

issi

on L

ine

Stu

dyS

tage

2 A

rcha

eolo

gica

l Ass

essm

ent

Bas

emap

ping

from

Ont

ario

Min

istry

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

This

dra

win

g ha

s be

en p

repa

red

for

the

use

of A

EC

OM

's c

lient

an

d m

ay n

ot b

e us

ed,

repr

oduc

ed o

r re

lied

upon

by

third

par

ties,

exce

pt a

s ag

reed

by

AE

CO

M a

nd i

ts c

lient

, as

req

uire

d by

law

or

for

use

by

gove

rnm

enta

l re

view

ing

agen

cies

. A

EC

OM

acc

epts

no

res

pons

ibili

ty,

and

deni

es a

ny l

iabi

lity

wha

tsoe

ver,

to a

ny p

arty

that

mod

ifies

this

dra

win

g w

ithou

t AEC

OM

's e

xpre

ss w

ritte

n co

nsen

t.

²

Lege

nd

Stud

y A

rea

¹

Hensall Rd

Cent

enni

al R

d

305

310

4816000

4816000

UTM

Zon

e 17

N, N

AD

83

Met

hods

and

Res

ults Fi

gure

4

June

201

460

3012

07

Blu

ewat

er W

EC

Tra

nsm

issi

on L

ine

Stu

dyS

tage

2 A

rcha

eolo

gica

l Ass

essm

ent

1:1,

000

Bas

emap

ping

from

Ont

ario

Min

istry

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

This

dra

win

g ha

s be

en p

repa

red

for

the

use

of A

EC

OM

's c

lient

an

d m

ay n

ot b

e us

ed,

repr

oduc

ed o

r re

lied

upon

by

third

par

ties,

exce

pt a

s ag

reed

by

AE

CO

M a

nd i

ts c

lient

, as

req

uire

d by

law

or

for

use

by

gove

rnm

enta

l re

view

ing

agen

cies

. A

EC

OM

acc

epts

no

res

pons

ibili

ty,

and

deni

es a

ny l

iabi

lity

wha

tsoe

ver,

to a

ny p

arty

that

mod

ifies

this

dra

win

g w

ithou

t AEC

OM

's e

xpre

ss w

ritte

n co

nsen

t.

²0

612

1824

3

Met

res

Lege

nd Con

tour

s

Lot L

ines

Pre

viou

sly

Dis

turb

ed -

V

isua

lly A

sses

sed

Test

Pit

at 1

0m In

terv

als

-P

revi

ousl

y D

istu

rbed

= !

!1P

hoto

Loc

atio

n an

d D

irect

ion

=!!

1

! (2

=!!3

=!!

4

! (5

=!

!

6

! (7

=!

!8

! (9

=!

!

10

Pre

viou

sly

Ass

esse

d


9. Advice on Compliance with LegislationThis report is submitted to the Ontario 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 0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, a letter will be issued by the Ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development.

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 time as a licensed archaeologist has completed 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.

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.

The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ontario Ministry of Consumer Services.

27

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

Archaeology Program Unit Programs and Services Branch 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto, ON M7A 0A7 Telephone: (416) 212-5107 Email : wai.hadlari@ontario,ca

Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport

Unité des programmes d’archéologie Direction des programmes et des services 401 Rue Bay, Bureau 1700 Toronto, ON M7A 0A7 Téléphone: (416) 212-5107 Email: wai.hadlari@ontario,ca

June 12, 2014

Andrea Garcia NextEra Energy Canada, ULC 390 Bay Street,Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2

RE: Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Centennial Road and Hensall Road ROW Transmission Line Study for Bluewater Wind Energy Centre Geographic Township of Tuckersmith, Municipality of Huron East, Huron County, Ontario MTCS File Number: HD00689 FIT Number: FIT-FJI7S7X PIF: P393-0027-2013

Dear Ms. Garcia:

This letter constitutes the Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s written comments as required by s. 22(3)(a) of O. Reg. 359/09 under the Environmental Protection Act regarding archaeological assessments undertaken for the above project.

Based on the information contained in the report you have submitted for this project, the Ministry believes the archaeological assessment complies with the Ontario Heritage Act's licensing requirements, including the licence terms and conditions and the Ministry's 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Please note that the Ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of the report.*

The report recommends the following:

The Stage 2 archaeological assessment for the 75 m section of Centennial Road ROW south of Hensall Road, and the 75 m section of Hensall Road ROW south of Centennial Road did not result in the identification of any archaeological sites or material. The entire subject property was found to be extensively previously disturbed and did not retain archaeological integrity. Archaeological concerns in this area may be considered addressed and no further archaeological work is required.

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport is asked to accept this report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports and issue a letter of concurrence with the recommendation that archaeological concerns under land use planning and

* 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.

development processes are considered addressed and no further archaeological assessment is required.

The Ministry is satisfied with these recommendations.

This letter does not waive any requirements which you may have under the Ontario Heritage Act. A separate letter addressing archaeological licensing obligations under the Act will be sent to the archaeologist who completed the assessment and will be copied to you.

This letter does not constitute approval of the renewable energy project. Approvals of the project may be required under other statutes and regulations. It is your responsibility to obtain any necessary approvals or licences.

Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,

Wai Hadlari Archaeology Review Officer

cc. Erik Phaneuf

Documents

Memorandum - Cordelio Power...Memorandum 3. 2014-06-13_BLW Project Modifications Memo_60301207_DRAFT.Docx To Ms. Agatha Garcia-Wright, Director, Environmental ... and Environmental