7.2 heritage resourcesspatialim.golder.ca/draft_ea/docs/phase1_draftea... · funeral, burial and...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PHASE 1 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE TO PICKLE LAKE PROJECT SECTION 7.0: SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT BASE CASE AND EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

7.2 Heritage Resources This section describes and summarizes the built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes (referred to as heritage resources throughout this section) Base Case studies undertaken for the Phase 1 New Transmission Line to Pickle Lake Project (the Project) and presents an assessment of the effects of the Project on Cultural Heritage. The assessment follows the general approach and concepts described in Section 4.0.

7.2.1 Input from Engagement Issues raised by Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal groups and stakeholders during engagement and how they were addressed in the heritage resources assessment are listed in Table 7.2-1. Comments, responses and follow-up actions are provided in Appendix 2.3A, Aboriginal Engagement Summary Report and Appendix 2.4A, Stakeholder Engagement Summary Report.

Table 7.2-1: Summary of Issues Raised during Engagement Related to Heritage Resources

Issue How Addressed in the Environmental Assessment Aboriginal Community

or Aboriginal Group/Stakeholder

Effects on burial grounds and known grave sites

The Base Case and effects assessment conducted for cultural heritage resources included consideration of grave sites. Wataynikaneyap has located the Project footprints for all corridors to avoid existing cultural heritage resources, including known grave sites. Should archaeological or heritage sites potentially be affected by the Project, Wataynikaneyap will engage with potentially affected Aboriginal communities and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport prior to any disturbance. An Archaeology Management Plan which documents procedures if archaeological sites are encountered during Project construction, will be developed in collaboration with Aboriginal communities. An overview of this plan is provided in Section 9.3.1.18 If archaeological sites are encountered, this procedure will be implemented alongside input from Aboriginal assistants. The requirements of the Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology, which include Aboriginal engagement and determining protocols if archaeological finds occur during construction of the Project, will be implemented.

Engagement with Cat Lake First Nation and Township of Pickle Lake on the Terms of Reference

7.2.2 Information Sources Information for the heritage resources Base Case was collected from review of the following sources:

municipal heritage registers from the following municipalities:

Municipality of Sioux Lookout;

Township of Ignace; and

Township of Pickle Lake.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-35


Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) Abandoned Mines Information System (AMIS) database (MNDM 2016);

Ontario Heritage Act Register (administered by the Ontario Heritage Trust);

Ontario Heritage Trust Online Plaque Guide (Ontario Heritage Trust 2016a) and Ontario Places of Worship Inventory (Ontario Heritage Trust 2016b);

Canadian Register of Historic Places (Canada’s Historic Places 2016);

Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada Directory of Federal Heritage Designations (Parks Canada Agency 2012) and Directory of Heritage Railway Stations (Parks Canada Agency 2014);

Ontario Provincial Parks inventories;

archival documents and secondary sources;

aerial imagery; and

built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes referenced during archaeological studies.

For the purposes of the environmental assessment, sufficient information was deemed to be available from the references listed above to assess the potential effects of the Project on Euro-Canadian heritage resources. Aboriginal heritage resources are beyond the scope of this assessment and are considered under Archaeology (Section 7.1) and the traditional land and resource use assessment in Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests (Section 8.0).

7.2.3 Criteria, Indicators, and Endpoints The criterion, assessment endpoint and indicators selected for the assessment of Project effects on heritage resources, and the rationale for their selection, are provided in Table 7.2-2.

Table 7.2-2: Heritage Resources Criteria and Indicators

Criteria Rationale Indicators Endpoints

Built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes

Built heritage remains are a non-renewable resource that could be affected by Project activities

Cultural heritage landscapes are a non-renewable resource that could be affected by Project activities

Heritage resources and landscapes may have spiritual and symbolic meaning for First Peoples and Canadians

Heritage resources and landscapes are protected under the Ontario Heritage Act

Number, type and location of identified and potential built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes

Conservation of heritage resources

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-36


Known heritage resources: Known or recognized heritage resources are properties or areas that have been evaluated and found to be of cultural heritage value or interest and are identified, designated or otherwise protected by a governmental approval agency responsible for heritage. The following are some of the legislative tools available to protect and recognize heritage resources:

Ontario Heritage Act

Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002

Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006

Historic Sites and Monuments Act

Canada National Parks Act

Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act

Potential heritage resources: Potential heritage resources include any type of property, landscape or feature which may be of cultural heritage importance and could be considered by some level of authority as worthy of protection under a relevant heritage protection method but has not yet been evaluated or given formal recognition or protection by a governmental approval agency.

Aboriginal heritage resources are beyond the scope of this assessment and are considered under Archaeology (Section 7.1) and the traditional land and resource use assessment in Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests (Section 8.0).

7.2.4 Assessment Boundaries 7.2.4.1 Temporal Boundaries The Project is planned to occur during two stages:

Construction stage: the period from the start of construction to the start of operations (approximately 18 to 24 months).

Operation and maintenance stage: encompasses operation and maintenance activities throughout the life of the Project.

The assessment of Project effects on heritage resources considers effects that occur during the construction stage. There is no anticipated Project effect during operation since all heritage resources will be identified, and impact management measures undertaken as required, prior to the construction stage. This period is sufficient to capture the effects of the Project.

7.2.4.2 Spatial Boundaries Spatial boundaries for the assessment are provided in Table 7.2-3 and shown in on Figure 7.2-1.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-37


Table 7.2-3: Heritage Resources Spatial Boundaries

Criteria Spatial Boundaries Area (ha) Description Rationale

Heritage Resources

Preliminary Proposed Corridor Project footprint

1,630 Includes the Project footprints for 40-m-wide transmission line alignment ROW, connection facility at Dinorwic, transformer station at Pickle Lake, access roads and trails and temporary construction works (e.g., construction camps, turn-around areas, and laydown areas).

Designed to capture the potential direct effects of the physical footprint of the Project.

Corridor Alternative Around Mishkeegogamang Project footprint

1,455 Includes the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment ROW that travels west around Mishkeegogamang First Nation, footprints for the connection facilities located 20 km west of Ignace, transformer station at Pickle Lake, access roads and trails and temporary construction works (e.g., construction camps, turn-around areas, and laydown areas).


Corridor Alternative Through Mishkeegogamang Project footprint

1,445 Includes the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment ROW that travels east through Mishkeegogamang First Nation, footprints for the connection facilities located 20 km west of Ignace, transformer station at Pickle Lake, access roads and trails and temporary construction works (e.g., construction camps, turn-around areas, and laydown areas).


Preliminary Proposed Corridor local study area

77,954 Includes a 2–km–wide corridor around the 40-m-wide transmission line ROW boundary with a 50 m buffer outside of the 2-km-wide corridor, and a 500 m buffer from the boundary of access roads, laydown areas, connection facilities and construction camps.

The heritage resources LSAs were selected to encompass direct and indirect adverse effects on heritage resources that may result from construction activity, site or landscape alteration, or demolition and to account for potential refinements to the Project.

Corridor Alternative Around Mishkeegogamang local study area

65,445

Corridor Alternative Through Mishkeegogamang local study area

63,445

Note: ha = hectares; km = kilometres; LSA = local study area; m = metres; ROW = right-of-way.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-38

"S

"S

"S

"S

#*

#*

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

WapesiLake

MamiegowishLake

Bow Lake

CollishawLake

KapikikLake

Springpole Lake

NarrowLake

WenasagaLake

GardenLake

OtukamamoanLake

MercutioLake

EsoxLake

ManionLake

Fry Lake

SmoothrockLake

ClearwaterWest Lake

IndianLake

RugbyLake

LostLake

PenassiLake

AmikLake

KukukusLake

BellLake

BasketLake

UpperManitou

Lake

DinorwicLake

AgimakLake

ManitouRiver

GulliverLake Scotch

Lake

WhiteOtter LakeKaopskikamak

Lake

VickersLake

CarillonLake

ShabumeniLake

TroutLake

BerthaLake

SesikinagaLakeConfederation

LakeJeanette

Lake

PerraultLake

ZionzLake

CedarLake

BluffyLake

BlackstoneLake

Lake St.Joseph

AdamhayLake

MinissLake

CarlingLake

Savant Lake

HeathcoteLake

OnamakawashLake

St.Raphael

Lake

De LessepsLake

TullyLake

MarchingtonLake

KawaweogamaLake

RaggedWood Lake

UnevenLake

VistaLake

HarmonLake

HilltopLake

BigVermilion

Lake

AbramLake

Big SandyLake

MountairyLake

MetiongaLake

WeaverLake

WawangLake

MooselandLake

ArmisticeLake

MuskegLake

Lac Seul

Lac desIles

PelicanLake

AchapiLake

RedpathLake Upturnedroot

Lake

TotoganLake

OchigLake

CoucheemoskogLake

MenakoLakes

WrightLake

KamungishkamoLake

OsnaburghLake

WhitestoneLake

KasagiminnisLake

Cat Lake

KapkichiLake

WilliamsLake Badesdawa

Lake

PickleLake

TarpLake

MeenLake

ObaskakaLake

KishikasLake

BrennanLake

GraysonLake

GraniteLake

DoranLake

BamajiLake

BedivereLake

Lac desMilleLacs

IreneLake

PettitLake

SelwynLake

GooseLake

BirchLake

LittleTroutLake

WhitemudLake

DobieLake

WapikaimaskiLake

SparklingLake

LowerWabakimi

Lake

KashishibogLake

ObustigaLake

FairchildLake

SeseganagaLake

FinlaysonLake

BotsfordLake

MorrisLake

SowdenLake

BoyerLake

BertrandLake

CrowrockLake

RouteLake

GullwingLake

EltrutLake

Ord Lake

BendingLake

KeecheneekeeSahkaheekahn/Upper

Goose Lake

ArmitLake

VincentLake

TurtleLake

RaleighLake

ElsieLake

ChurchillLake

NoraLakeHarris

Lake

DibbleLake

SeineRiver

JoyceLake

BarringtonLake

PaguchiLake

KinlochLake

HighstoneLake

PressLake

Holinshead Lake

GullLake

WapageisiLake

MinchinLake

FitchieLake

StormyLake

EntwineLake

EastPashkokogan

Lake

McCreaLake

BarrelLake

MinnitakiLake

SturgeonLake

CecilLake

ClearLake

KezikLake

McVicarLake

MattawaLake

MamakwashLake

HookerLake

ZarnLake

SlateLake

ObongaLake

Shikag Lake

WomanLake

HorseshoeLake

WhitefishLakeThaddeus

Lake

WinteringLake

LowerManitou

Lake

SandbarLake

PekagoningLake

Eye Lake

MountLake

HamiltonLake

OtatakanLake

PakashkanLake

EagleLake

FawcettLake

WhitewaterLake

UchiLake

Dog Lake

WatcombLake

ST. RAPHAELLAKE PROVINCIAL PARK

(WATERWAY CLASS)

!

BUTLER LAKEPROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE

!

KOPKA RIVERPROVINCIAL PARK(WATERWAY CLASS)

!

OBONGA-OTTERTOOTHPROVINCIAL PARK(WATERWAY CLASS)

!

EAST ENGLISH RIVERPROVINCIAL PARK

(WATERWAY CLASS)

!TURTLE RIVER-WHITE OTTERLAKE PROVINCIAL PARK

(WATERWAY CLASS)

!

WINDIGO POINTPROVINCIAL NATURERESERVE

!

MINNITAKI KAMESPROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE

!

KAIASHKPROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE!SANDBAR LAKEPROVINCIAL PARK(NATURAL ENVIRONMENTCLASS)

!

PIPESTONE RIVERPROVINCIAL PARK

!

BRIGHTSAND RIVERPROVINCIAL PARK

! OJIBWAYPROVINCIAL PARK

WABAKIMIPROVINCIAL PARK

!

PANTAGRUELCREEK PROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE

!

LOLA LAKEPROVINCIAL

NATURERESERVE

! AARONPROVINCIAL

PARK

!

PAHNGWAHSHAHSHKOHWEEMUSHKEEG

!

GULL RIVER PROVINCIALPARK (WATERWAY

CLASS)

ALBANY RIVERPROVINCIAL PARK

!

BEEKAHNCHEEKAHMEENGDEEBAHNCHEEKAYWEEHNEENAHOHNAHNUHN

!

PIPESTONERIVERPROVINCIAL PARK

!

PANTAGRUELCREEK PROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE

!

BEEKAHNCHEEKAHMEENGDEEBAHNCHEEKAYWEEHNEENAHOHNAHNUHN

!

BONHEUR RIVER KAME PROVINCIAL NATURE RESERVE

Cat LakeFirstNation

Lac Seul First Nation

McDowell Lake FirstNation

Slate Falls Nation

WabigoonLake Ojibway

Nation

Eagle LakeFirst

Nation

Lac Des MilleLacs First Nation

Mishkeegogamang FirstNation

OjibwayNation ofSaugeen

WabauskangFirst Nation

Savant Lake

04680

0472504727

06554

CentralPatricia Mine

Red RoofAnglican Church

CLIENTWATAYNIKANEYAP POWER L.P.

PROJECT

TITLEPOTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCES LOCATED WITHIN THE PRELIMINARYPROPOSED CORRIDOR AND CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES

G:\Projects\2011\11-1151-0456_Dryden_To_PickleLake_TransmissionLine\GIS\MXDs\Working\Baseline\CulturalHeritage\P1_B_Heritage_0001.mxd

IF TH

IS ME

ASUR

EMEN

T DOE

S NOT

MAT

CH W

HAT I

S SHO

WN, T

HE SH

EET S

IZE H

AS BE

EN M

ODIFI

ED FR

OM:

25mm

0

1535751 #### #### 7.2-1

2017-06-21JMCJMC/MMHCMH

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DDDESIGNEDPREPAREDREVIEWEDAPPROVED

LEGENDPreliminary Proposed Corridor 40-m-wideTransmission Line Alignment Right-of-way (ROW)Corridor Alternatives Proposed 40-m-wideTransmission Line Alignment ROWPotential New Access

Potential Existing AccessLaydown Area(Preliminary Location)Construction Camp(Preliminary Location)Connection Facility(Preliminary Location)Transformer Station(Preliminary Location)

!. City

!( Town

")

Wataynikaneyap PowerCommunity(First Nation Community)

") First Nation Community

Railway

Road

Waterbody

Provincial Park

Conservation Reserve

First Nations ReserveUtility Lines

Existing ElectricalTransmission LineNatural Gas Pipeline

Heritage ResourcesLocal Study Area

"SPotential Cultural HeritageResource: Abandoned MineSites pre-1977

#*Potential Built HeritageResources

DRAFTPHASE 1 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE TO PICKLE LAKE PROJECT

0 20 40

1:1,100,000 KILOMETERS

REFERENCE(S)1. BASE DATA - MNR LIO AND NTDB, OBTAINED 20152. CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES - PROVIDED BY GENIVAR MAR-AUG 20123. PRELIMINARY PROPOSED 40-M-WIDE ALIGNMENT ROW - PRODUCED BYGOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. OCTOBER 24, 20134. ACCESS DATA - PROVIDED BY POWERTEL. POWTEL ACCESS STUDY2015-06-26.ZIP, CAMPS PREFERRED ROUTE.KMZ, 599 ROUTE ACCESS.KMZ5. CONNECTION FACILITY & TRANSFORMER STATION - PROVIDED BYPOWERTEL. STATIONS PREFERRED ROUTE.KMZ6. FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES FROM INDIGENOUS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRSCANADA (WWW.AINC-INAC.GC.CA)7. PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIOMINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 20088. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATESYSTEM: UTM ZONE 15

1. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ACCOMPANYING TEXT.2. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.3. NOT FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES.

NOTE(S)

"S#*

!( CENTRALPATRICIA

HIGH

WAY 8

08

04680

CentralPatriciaMine

#*

HIGH

WAY 5

99

Red RoofAnglican

Church

"S04725

"S04727

"S

LITTLE BUTLER ROAD

06554


This page intentionally left blank

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-40


7.2.5 Description of the Existing Environment (Base Case) 7.2.5.1 Data Collection Methods This Base Case characterization follows the process of a preliminary screening using the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: A Checklist for the Non-Specialist (MTCS 2015). The purpose of the checklist is to determine, through desktop study, whether known or potential heritage resources of interest or value are present in the Project area, and determine if the Project will require a subsequent Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) or Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). The MTCS guidance suggests as a “rule of thumb” that potential for cultural heritage value or interest be considered for any structure or landscape 40 years of age or older. This does not assume that all properties with features older than the 40-year threshold have cultural heritage value or interest, or discount properties with features less than 40 years old as having no cultural heritage value, but rather recognizes that the potential for cultural heritage value or interest increases with age.

A Preliminary Screening was completed, per the MTCS checklist, to identify the Base Case conditions for Euro-Canadian heritage resources, and involved review of previous research, engagement with potential cultural heritage stakeholders, review of municipal, provincial and federal heritage databases, and analysis of available geospatial data. This work is preliminary and intended to determine whether a subsequent CHER or HIA is required for the Project.

7.2.5.2 Regional Context The following provides an overview of the Euro-Canadian history of northwestern Ontario and identifies the types of known and potential heritage resources that may be present in the regional study area (RSA). An overview of pre-and-post contact Aboriginal history is provided in Section 7.1 (Archaeology).

Early European Exploration in Northern Ontario European exploration of northern Ontario in the Lake Superior region began in the early 1600s. The first European to reach Lake Superior was most likely Etienne Brulé, an interpreter employed by Samuel de Champlain (Stuart 2003). It would be several decades before Lake Superior and its surrounding region were more thoroughly explored by the Europeans. These early European explorations relied heavily on knowledge of existing territorial routes provided by the local First Nations, which were based on extensive trade among the First Nations. The first known European explorers on the lake were Pierre Esprit Radisson and Médard Court. They set off in 1658 and returned two years later with “a rich cargo of furs and the knowledge that the best furs could be obtained to the north and west of Superior” (Stuart 2003).

European exploration of the James Bay Region began in 1610 with Henry Hudson, who entered the bay while exploring what would come to be called Hudson Bay. James Bay would later be named for Welsh captain Thomas James, who explored the area more extensively from 1630 to 1631. Apart from Hudson’s ship being visited briefly by a Cree man in 1611, the English sailors made no contact with Aboriginal people (Morantz 2001).

The English formally initiated trading on James Bay in 1668 when Fort Rupert was established on the Rupert River. Moose Fort (Factory) and Fort Albany followed in 1673 and 1675, both located on the south end of James Bay. Trading post journals record the extent that Aboriginal peoples were travelling to trade at these posts; one record from Gloucester House (operated from 1777-1818) indicates that Aboriginals were travelling to the trade post from up to 600 miles away (Newton and Mountain 1980).

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-41


The earliest European exploration of north-central Canada occurred along the shores of the bays and the major river systems, with further inland exploration occurring at a later date. In the early decades of European exploration northern North America was explored by both the English and the French. The English focused their efforts of exploration in and around Hudson Bay and James Bay, and further inland along the watershed systems off of these bays. The French concentrated their efforts further south and moved inland along the St. Lawrence waterway before exploring the Great Lakes area further inland. A portion of the local study area (LSA) is located in a region that was first explored prior to 1751 in association with the river-based transportation corridor leading from Lake St. Joseph to Lake of the Woods and further west (University of Toronto 2010). The southern half of the LSA was explored by Europeans in the third quarter of the eighteenth century. Figure 7.2-2 illustrates the geographical spread of European exploration throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century in northern Ontario.

The Fur Trade and Euro-Canadian Settlement in Northern Ontario The northern portions of Ontario, north of Lake Superior and south and west of Hudson Bay and James Bay have had a number of successive exploration ventures beginning in 1610 with the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), but more extensively in the mid-eighteenth century. Henry Kelsey was the first of the European explorers to venture into the northern part of Ontario and further east. On Kelsey’s second expedition (1690-1692), he explored from York Fort in Hudson Bay and extended the HBC trade west to the Saskatchewan River. Anthony Henday was the second explorer of European descent to venture into the Petit Nord of Ontario, penetrating further west and well into the Prairies. The boundaries of the Petit Nord are approximately described as being James Bay and Hudson Bay to the north, the divide between the Moose and the Albany River drainages to the east, Lake Superior and the boundary waters between Lake Superior and Lake Winnipeg to the south and Lake Winnipeg and the Hayes River system to the west (Hackett 2002).

During the time of initial European exploration, Charles II, in 1670, granted the Hudson Bay Company (HBC) exclusive rights for English trading in the land drained by rivers flowing into Hudson’s Bay, referred to by the Europeans as Rupert’s Land. Rupert’s Land was composed of a number of different physio-geographic regions that included the Hudson Bay Lowlands, located along Hudson and James Bays consisting of marshy lowlands with slow-moving rivers and the Canadian Shield located to the south, east and west of the Hudson Bay Lowlands, consisting of rugged terrain, exposed bedrock, glacial features and numerous lakes. Further to the west were the Prairies and to the south, the Great Lakes region (Harris 1987). The Project is located within the Canadian Shield region.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-42

G:\Pr

ojects

\2011

\11-11

51-04

56_D

ryden

_To_

Pickle

Lake

_Tran

smiss

ionLin

e\GIS\

MXDs

\Work

ing\Ba

selin

e\Cult

uralHe

ritage

\P1_B

_Heri

tage_

0002

.mxd

IF TH

IS ME

ASUR

EMEN

T DOE

S NOT

MAT

CH W

HAT I

S SH

OWN,

THE

SHEE

T SIZE

HAS

BEEN

MOD

IFIED

FROM

:25

mm0

CLIENTWATAYNIKANEYAP POWER L.P.PROJECTPHASE 1 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE TO PICKLE LAKETITLEEUROPEAN EXPLORATION BY DATE

1535751 - - 7.2-2

2017-06-21JRJR\MMHCMH

CONSULTANT



DRAFT

North Dakota

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Michigan

Lake Winnipeg

LakeManitoba

CatLake

FawcettLakeBirch Lake

TroutLake Bamaji

Lake Lake St.Joseph

ChurchillLake

MinissLake

Lac Seul

SavantLake

Lakeof the

Woods

Lake NipigonSturgeon LakeMinnitaki

LakeWapikaimaski

LakeLake ofBays

EagleLake

Lake Superior

1:3,500,000

LEGENDHeritage Resources Local Study AreaProvince BoundaryWaterbody

Areas Explored and Mapped by EuropeansBefore 17511752 - 17741775 - 1821

0 40 80 120 160 20020

KILOMETRES

NOTE(S)

REFERENCE(S)

THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ACCOMPANYING TEXT.ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.NOT FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES.

1. BASE DATA - MNR LIO AND NTDB, OBTAINED 20152. CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES - PROVIDED BY GENIVAR MAR-AUG 20123. PRELIMINARY PROPOSED 40-M-WIDE ALIGNMENT ROW - PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATESLTD. OCTOBER 24, 20134. ACCESS DATA - PROVIDED BY POWERTEL. POWTEL ACCESS STUDY 2015-06-26.ZIP, CAMPSPREFERRED ROUTE.KMZ, 599 ROUTE ACCESS.KMZ5. CONNECTION FACILITY & TRANSFORMER STATION - PROVIDED BY POWERTEL. STATIONSPREFERRED ROUTE.KMZ6. FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES FROM INDIGENOUS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA(WWW.AINC-INAC.GC.CA)7. TRANSPORTATION ROUTES, DEPOTS AND BREAK-OF-BULK-POINTS DATA - HISTORICAL ATLASOF CANADA, VOL. 1 ED. R. COLE HARRIS 1987. UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS, TORONTO, ON.8. PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OFNATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 20089. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATESYSTEM: UTM ZONE 15



June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-44


Unlike the HBC, French interests within the area were supported by independent traders and voyagers from Montreal and the St. Lawrence venturing into western and northern Ontario through the Great Lakes. Both the English HBC and the French St. Lawrence traders (SLT) vied for control over the rich and highly productive resources of Rupert’s Land. In 1686, French forces from the St. Lawrence captured Fort Albany and a few years later, took York Factory and Fort Severn on Hudson Bay. These victories enabled a French monopoly on fur trade in the Hudson Bay region until 1713 when the Treaty of Utrecht relegated the French to the southerly St. Lawrence – Great Lakes route into Ontario’s hinterland, while the English regained control over their forts and over the northern Hudson Bay routes (Harris 1987).

Intermixed within the network of expanding HBC and SLT posts were groups of highly mobile boreal forest adapted First Nations groups, consisting mainly of Cree and Ojibway, with Assiniboine located further to the west around Lake Winnipeg. In the early period of the fur trade, First Nations groups acted as middlemen, trading furs for European goods such as firearms, ammunition, blankets, tobacco and various other objects between European traders and other First Nations groups further afield. As tensions rose between the SLT and the HBC, so did the tensions rise between local First Nations groups. Settlement and warfare patterns changed with local Cree families and communities settling beside or within close proximity to established forts and trading posts. These families supplied the posts with provisions and locally obtained furs. Eventually, the First Nations and Europeans intermixed giving rise to a population that became referred to as the Métis.

With these increased tensions between the HBC and SLT, First Nations groups allied with the different trading companies. In doing so, traditional lands shifted as First Nations groups expanded and retracted, vying for control over important trapping routes and transportation corridors. By 1720, the majority of land granted to the HBC by Royal charter were controlled by Cree bands. The Cree in these areas had a number of allies, including the Siouan-speaking Assiniboine to the west and the Algonquian-speaking Ojibway to the south. The Cree’s prime rivals were the Athabaskan speaking Chipewyan who were located to the north of the Churchill River. However, by 1740, the Ojibway expanded north and east of Lake Superior and occupied the territory between Lake Winnipeg and Hudson Bay, traditionally Cree territory. This displaced the Assiniboine who moved westward and occupied the parkland areas as far north as the Saskatchewan River (Harris 1987).

A major impact upon First Nations populations was the spread of epidemic diseases through the movement of people and the transport of goods. A smallpox outbreak in 1737-1738 killed up to two-thirds of some groups within the Petit Nord. A subsequent outbreak in 1781-1783 claimed between half and two-thirds of the Ojibway in northwest Ontario. Measles, whooping cough, influenza and tuberculosis all took their toll at various times well into the twentieth century, with disease most effectively spread along the trading routes of the fur companies (Hackett 2002).

The state-organized French fur trade within the region ended in 1769 when Montreal surrendered to the English. However, French fur traders continued to work independently and forced the HBC to set up more inland posts. It was around this time that the North West Company (NWC) was created to quell the HBC westward advances. From the early part of the 1770s until 1821, competition between the two groups was fierce. With both companies unable to sustain the prolonged and intense competitions, they amalgamated into a single operation under the overall banner of the HBC (Klimko 1994).

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-45


William Tomison (1767–1780) explored areas from Fort Severn south and west towards Sandy Lake, Deer Lake and Poplar Hill, then further west to Lake Winnipeg. Tomison joined the HBC in 1760 and worked his way through the ranks to become the Company’s first “Chief, Inland”. His primary responsibility was to spread the company’s activities to the interior from Hudson Bay Forts. Around the same time, groups associated with the SLT and voyagers began exploring the vast hinterland north and west from the shore of Lake Superior.

Two of the most relevant European explorers during this time period were George Sutherland and David Thompson. Sutherland, who worked for the NWC in the later part of the 1770s explored from Lake Nipigon, north then west through Sturgeon Lake, Lac-Seul, Trout Lake, Red Lake and into Lake Winnipeg. David Thompson was initially employed by the HBC, beginning in the 1770s. During his tenure with HBC, he refined his skills as a surveyor and mathematician and in 1774 was promoted to Chief Surveyor for the Company. In 1797, after much frustration with the politics of the HBC, Thompson quit and walked 80 kilometres (km) to a NWC post where he finished out his days as a fur trader and surveyor. It was during this time that Thompson surveyed areas from the western shore of Lake Superior west through Rainy River, Lake of the Woods and into Lake Winnipeg, in 1797 and 1804, respectively.

During this time of initial exploration, both the HBC and the French SLT began to create forts and houses in order to establish trade routes along the various water corridors (Figure 7.2-3). The primary corridors that the various groups (Figure 7.2-4) utilized for trade and transport are mapped by the distribution of forts, company houses and trade posts. Major routes utilized by traders included the waterways connecting York Factory south along the Hayes River to Lake Winnipeg. The eastern side of Lake Winnipeg and the water ways from Fort Albany in James Bay, east down the Albany River, through Osnaburgh House, Lac-Seul, Bas-de-la-Rivière into the south end of Lake Winnipeg were also well travelled. Numerous other small or secondary corridors by the traders connected various other forts, houses and depots within the Petit Nord. Portions of the LSA cross over a number of these early fur trade corridors. The trading posts in the vicinity of the LSA are: Osnaburgh House, Lac-Saint-Joseph, Horse Lake, and Lac-Seul.

Despite attempts to dislodge each other, the HBC and French SLT competed on an even footing during the latter part of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century. Between 1774 and 1821 there were over 600 posts, most of them only being occupied for only a few years, and at the time of the merger of the NWC and HBC in 1821 only 125 posts remained in operation, 68 of which were controlled by the HBC. This number was further reduced to eliminate the unprofitable posts, lowering the overall number to 45 in 1825 (Wynn 2007). A mainstay of the newly united trade companies remained the beaver pelt, representing approximately 40% of their overall trade. Several of these forts and trade posts have been subject to archaeological excavation, most notably Fort Albany on James Bay starting in 1960 (Kenyon 1986), Gloucester House on the Albany River (Newton and Mountain 1980) and Martin’s Falls, also located on the Albany River (Vyvyan 1980).

The demand for fur bearing and game animals in the northern interior to facilitate the trade for imported items was ultimately unsustainable. Depopulation through natural and artificial causes of species such as deer, elk, caribou and moose led to an increased focus on smaller game such as snowshoe hare and wildfowl, as well as an increased reliance on goods obtained from trading posts (Rogers and Smith 1994). Settlement centred near trading posts was reinforced through the Treaty System, the creation of reserves, and the introduction of the snowmobile in the 1960s but many in First Nations communities sustained their traditional land use and travel practices, often over huge geographic areas.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-46

G:\Pr

ojects

\2011

\11-11

51-04

56_D

ryden

_To_

Pickle

Lake

_Tran

smiss

ionLin

e\GIS\

MXDs

\Work

ing\Ba

selin

e\Cult

uralHe

ritage

\P1_B

_Heri

tage_

0003

.mxd

IF TH

IS ME

ASUR

EMEN

T DOE

S NOT

MAT

CH W

HAT I

S SH

OWN,

THE

SHEE

T SIZE

HAS

BEEN

MOD

IFIED

FROM

:25

mm0


NOTE(S)

REFERENCE(S)


1. BASE DATA - MNR LIO AND NTDB, OBTAINED 20152. CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES - PROVIDED BY GENIVAR MAR-AUG 20123. PRELIMINARY PROPOSED 40-M-WIDE ALIGNMENT ROW - PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATESLTD. OCTOBER 24, 20134. ACCESS DATA - PROVIDED BY POWERTEL. POWTEL ACCESS STUDY 2015-06-26.ZIP, CAMPSPREFERRED ROUTE.KMZ, 599 ROUTE ACCESS.KMZ5. CONNECTION FACILITY & TRANSFORMER STATION - PROVIDED BY POWERTEL. STATIONSPREFERRED ROUTE.KMZ6. FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES FROM INDIGENOUS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA(WWW.AINC-INAC.GC.CA)7. TRADING POST DATA - HISTORICAL ATLAS OF CANADA, VOL. 1 ED. R. COLE HARRIS 1987.UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS, TORONTO, ON.8. PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OFNATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 20089. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATESYSTEM: UTM ZONE 15

PROJECTPHASE 1 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE TO PICKLE LAKETITLEFUR TRADE POSTS

1535751 - - 7.2-3


CONSULTANT



DRAFT1:1,000,000

Ontario

OSNABURGHHOUSE

EAGLELAKE

TROUT LAKE

FORT LAC-SEUL

STURGEON LAKE

LAKE ST.ANN'S NEW

HOUSE

PASHKOGANLAKE

CROW NESTLAKE

EAGLE LAKE

TROUT LAKE

FORT LAC-SEUL HORSE LAKE

MONONTAGUE

STURGEONLAKE FORT SKUNK

HEADLAKE

FORT DUNCAN

WHITEWATERLAKE

LAC-SAINT-JOSEPH

MISCACOGGAMYLAKE

FORTLAC-LA-MORT

PASHKOGANLAKE

MOOSE LAKE

CAT LAKEHOUSESCROW

NESTLAKE

TroutLake

WhitewaterLake

Lac Seul

MinnitakiLake

WapikaimaskiLake

Eagle Lake

Bell Lake

LEGENDHeritage Resources Local Study AreaWaterbodyProvince Boundary

0 10 20 30 40 505

KILOMETRES

INITIAL OCCUPATION OF TRADING POST

PRE-1774

1806-1821

1790-1805

PRE-1774

1774-1789

1790-1805

1806-1821

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY

PRE-1774

1774-1789

1790-1805

1806-1821

ST. LAWRENCE TRADERS

DURATION OF POST

MORE THAN 15 YEARS

5-15 YEARS

LESS THAN 5 YEARS

https://capws.golder.com/sites/WataynikaneyapPowernewPhase1TransmissionLineToPickleLakenorthernOntario/GIS/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsites%2FWataynikaneyapPowernewPhase1TransmissionLineToPickleLakenorthernOntario%2FGIS%2F05%20Cultural%20Heritage&FolderCTID=0x012000428F871B2D482141AC0A1485405262C8&View=%7b042DB798-D5C5-4FD3-85E5-58CC3F4C33B9%7d



June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-48

G:\Pr

ojects

\2011

\11-11

51-04

56_D

ryden

_To_

Pickle

Lake

_Tran

smiss

ionLin

e\GIS\

MXDs

\Work

ing\Ba

selin

e\Cult

uralHe

ritage

\P1_B

_Heri

tage_

0004

.mxd

IF TH

IS ME

ASUR

EMEN

T DOE

S NOT

MAT

CH W

HAT I

S SH

OWN,

THE

SHEE

T SIZE

HAS

BEEN

MOD

IFIED

FROM

:25

mm0


NOTE(S)

REFERENCE(S)


1. BASE DATA - MNR LIO AND NTDB, OBTAINED 20152. CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES - PROVIDED BY GENIVAR MAR-AUG 20123. PRELIMINARY PROPOSED 40-M-WIDE ALIGNMENT ROW - PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATESLTD. OCTOBER 24, 20134. ACCESS DATA - PROVIDED BY POWERTEL. POWTEL ACCESS STUDY 2015-06-26.ZIP, CAMPSPREFERRED ROUTE.KMZ, 599 ROUTE ACCESS.KMZ5. CONNECTION FACILITY & TRANSFORMER STATION - PROVIDED BY POWERTEL. STATIONSPREFERRED ROUTE.KMZ6. FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES FROM INDIGENOUS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA(WWW.AINC-INAC.GC.CA)7. TRANSPORTATION ROUTES, DEPOTS AND BREAK-OF-BULK-POINTS DATA - HISTORICAL ATLASOF CANADA, VOL. 1 ED. R. COLE HARRIS 1987. UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS, TORONTO, ON.8. PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OFNATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 20089. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATESYSTEM: UTM ZONE 15

PROJECTPHASE 1 NEW TRANSMISSION LINE TO PICKLE LAKETITLEHISTORIC TRANSPORTATION ROUTES AND MAJOR DEPOTS

1535751 - - 7.2-4


CONSULTANT



DRAFT1:3,500,000

"u"u

"u"u

"u

"u"u

"$

"$

"#

"u

"$

"$

"#

"#

"u"uManitoba

Nunavut

Ontario

ISLANDLAKE

SANDYLAKE

RED LAKE HOUSE

James Bay

CatLake

FawcettLakeTrout

Lake Lake St.Joseph

MinissLake

Lac Seul

Lakeof the

Woods

Lake Nipigon

WapikaimaskiLake

Lake ofBays

EagleLake

WabigoonLake

Lake Superior

ISLAND LAKE

SANDY LAKE

GREATFALL

HOUSE

RED LAKEHOUSE

LAC LA PLUIE

LAC-SEUL

OSNABURGHHOUSE

FORT PIC

FORT DUNCAN

FORT WILLIAM

MARTIN'SFALLS

ALBANY FORT

TROUT LAKE

TROUT LAKE

"u

"u Hudson's Bay Company

St. Lawrence Traders

Major Boat-Building Centre

Major Canoe-Building Centre#

$

Depots and/or Break-of-Bulk-Points

LEGENDHeritage Resources Local Study AreaProvince BoundaryWaterbody

Type of Transportation RouteMajor RouteMinor Route

0 40 80 120 160 20020

KILOMETRES

https://capws.golder.com/sites/WataynikaneyapPowernewPhase1TransmissionLineToPickleLakenorthernOntario/GIS/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsites%2FWataynikaneyapPowernewPhase1TransmissionLineToPickleLakenorthernOntario%2FGIS%2F05%20Cultural%20Heritage&FolderCTID=0x012000428F871B2D482141AC0A1485405262C8&View=%7b042DB798-D5C5-4FD3-85E5-58CC3F4C33B9%7d



June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-50


Air travel opened up the north and replaced the previous reliance upon waterways. Most northern communities are now supplied by air and supplemented by the winter road system, both of which combined with the widespread adoption of snowmobiles have played an important role in opening communication between northern communities and larger northern centres. Any wrecks encountered, either submerged or on land could potentially be of importance for future generations with regards to the opening up of Canada’s North and should be reported.

Outlined below is a brief summary of HBC and SLT posts located within vicinity of the Project. None of these posts are located within the LSA nor will any potential heritage resources related to them be affected by the Project.

Osnaburgh House Osnaburgh (Mishkeegogamang) House was a HBC post located at the east end of Lake St. Joseph. Originally constructed in 1786 to compete with the NWC post at Lake Nipigon. The post was rebuilt in 1794, closed for a brief period between 1810 and 1815, then re-opened until 1963 when it was again closed and a new structure was built along the newly constructed Highway 599 (Voorhis 1930, Del Vecchio 2007).

Lac Saint Joseph This small SLT post was located on the north shore of Lac Saint Joseph. It was occupied for a short period between 1790 and 1805. This post is not mentioned in Voorhis (1930).

Horse Lake This small SLT post located on the shore of Horse Lake was occupied for less than five years between 1790 and 1805. The post is not mentioned in Voorhis (1930).

Lac Seul Fort Lac Seul was a major HBC post located on the north shore of Lac Seul at the White Pine Narrows. It was located on the route between Fort Alexander, near the eastern shore of Lake Winnipeg, and Fort Albany on James Bay, via Osnaburgh House on Lac-Saint Joseph. The post was originally constructed in 1803, burned down and was re-constructed shortly after 1815 and is included in the 1856 list of posts (HBC Archives 1985). The post was in operation until at least the 1970s (Voorhis 1930, G. Kenny pers. comm. 2014).

Early Twentieth-Century Mining in the Pickle Lake Region Central Patricia Gold Mines were discovered in 1928, and in operation by 1935 (Ferguson 1966). Pickle Lake was the nearest sizable lake to Central Patricia and Pickle Crow, a second gold mine in the region, and it was the chosen location for the principal town site in the area (Ferguson 1966). Within a decade of the discovery of gold, the area around Pickle Lake had a number of small businesses including hotels and restaurants, two churches, a bank, and even a baker and steam bath (Harasym 2017). The Township of Pickle Lake was incorporated in 1980 and includes the communities of both Pickle Lake and Central Patricia (Harasym 2017).

The Central Patricia mine halted production in 1951. All that remains of Central Patricia is the mine shaft head and few buildings located along the edge of Highway 599. The Pickle Crow gold mine stopped production in 1966 and Pickle Crow is now a ghost town with all of its structures having been dismantled or burned down in the 1970s as part of a Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) attempt to remediate the abandoned mine site.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-51


7.2.5.3 Known Heritage Resources in the Local Study Areas 7.2.5.3.1 Federally Recognized Heritage Resources Federally-recognized heritage resources are those properties, buildings, and places that have been designated or protected under the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, Canada National Parks Act, or the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act. Federal heritage designations can include national historic sites, persons and events of national historic importance, heritage railway stations, federal heritage buildings, and heritage lighthouses. Only a small proportion of these are directly administered by Parks Canada, but Parks Canada provides heritage conservation advice and support whether the asset is privately owned or the responsibility of a provincial or federal department.

Parks Canada manages the Canadian Register of Historic Places, which is a database of recognized heritage properties. A search of the Canadian Register of Historic Places database in November 2016 found no recognized sites in the LSAs. The closest federally recognised heritage resource is a Canadian National Railway (CNR) station located in the Town of Sioux Lookout approximately 20 km west from the LSA of the Preliminary Proposed Corridor. While the railway itself has no heritage status, the importance of the CNR is well recognized and the station is designated under the federal Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act.

7.2.5.3.2 Provincially Recognized Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Protection and conservation of properties of cultural heritage value or interest in Ontario is primarily achieved under the Ontario Heritage Act, which empowers municipalities to recognize and protect built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, although the MTCS also has the authority to designate properties of cultural heritage value or interest. Other provincial acts such as the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 and the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 also serve to protect cultural heritage resources. Unauthorized disturbance to cemeteries and burial sites is prohibited under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002. The Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 sets aside provincial parks as administrative reserves for the purpose of protecting the natural environment within their boundaries. There are seven different classes of parks including wilderness, nature reserve, cultural heritage, natural environment, waterway, recreational, and aquatic. All seven classes of parks can include heritage resources within their boundaries, which are to be protected by implementing administrative controls carried out by each park’s staff and the MNRF.

There is one provincial park located within the LSA for the Preliminary Proposed Corridor. For the corridor alternatives, the LSAs contains three provincial parks. Tables 7.2-4 and 7.2-5 provide the locations of these provincial parks.

Table 7.2-4: Provincial Parks Located within the Local Study Area for the Preliminary Proposed Corridor

Provincial Park In Project Footprint In LSA Distance from Project Footprint (m)

East English River Provincial Park Yes Yes 0 (within footprint)

Note: LSA = local study area; m = metres.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-52


Table 7.2-5: Provincial Parks Located within the Local Study Area for the Corridor Alternatives Around and Through Mishkeegogamang

Provincial Park In Project Footprint In LSA Distance from Project Footprint (m)

East English River Provincial Park Yes Yes 0 (within footprint)

Sandbar Lake Provincial Park Yes Yes 0 (within footprint)

Saint Raphael Provincial Park No Yes 50 Note: LSA = local study area; m = metres.

Management of heritage resources on provincially owned land is guided by the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (MTCS 2011). Provincially-recognized heritage resources include properties, plaques and monuments that have been recognized by the provincial government and provincial agencies through the use of registers, plaque programs, monuments and conservation easements, agreements and covenants. The MTCS and the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT), a provincial government agency, maintain a list of these resources, and the OHT also manages the Ontario Heritage Act Register, which includes information on properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

A request was sent to the OHT, on November 24, 2016, for information on heritage resources designated under the Ontario Heritage Act in the vicinity of the Project. At that time, the OHT stated that no known heritage resources were located in the LSAs.

7.2.5.3.3 Municipally Recognized Heritage Resources Municipally recognized heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes are protected under by-laws enabled by Part IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Other forms of municipal heritage resources include informally recognized plaques, monuments and parks.

The Project is located in three municipalities: the Township of Ignace, the Municipality of Sioux Lookout, and the Township of Pickle Lake. In November 2016, municipal planning departments were contacted to determine if municipally recognized heritage resources were present in the vicinity of the Project. Although these municipalities responded with information regarding potential heritage resources, few of these sites were formally recognized. The only formally recognized municipal heritage resources included the CNR station at Sioux Lookout (Section 7.2.5.3.1), which is not located in the LSAs.

7.2.5.3.4 Results of Known Heritage Resources Screening The desktop assessment determined that known heritage resources (built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes) are not located within the LSA for all corridors.

7.2.5.4 Potential Heritage Resources in the Local Study Areas 7.2.5.4.1 Aboriginal Communities Heritage Resources Engagement with Aboriginal communities has occurred in support of the EA. One potential mill town site (McDougall Mills) northeast of Sioux Lookout was identified during engagement. This site is outside of the

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-53


Preliminary Proposed Corridor LSA and will not be affected. Potential effects of the Project on Aboriginal heritage resources are addressed as part of the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interest assessment (Section 8.0).

7.2.5.4.2 Potential Heritage Resources Identified in Forest Management Plans Potential heritage resources associated with the lumber industry include former camps, waterway modifications, sawmills, and roadways, but there is no database of lumbering-related heritage resources available for the region (MNR 2007). The MNRF manages heritage resources in Crown forests through its regional Forest Management Plans, and as directed by the Forest Management Guide for Cultural Heritage Values (MNR 2007).

The Forest Management Guide identifies five classes of cultural heritage values that need to be addressed in forest management, which include:

archaeological sites

archaeological potential sites

cultural heritage landscapes

historical Aboriginal community values; and

cemeteries.

Five forest management units are crossed by the LSAs for the preliminary proposed and corridor alternatives. The Preliminary Proposed Corridor crosses the Dryden Forest, Lac Seul Forest, Wabigoon Forest and English River Forest management units. The Corridor Alternative Ignace Area East (through Mishkeegogamang) crosses the Wabigoon Forest, English River Forest and Caribou Forest management units and the Corridor Alternative Ignace Area West (around Mishkeegogamang) crosses the Caribou Forest management unit. No Euro-Canadian potential built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes were identified within these areas.

7.2.5.4.3 Potential Heritage Resources Associated with Transportation Potential heritage resources related to transportation include the infrastructure itself as well as the quarries, construction camps and features that supported the construction of transportation facilities. The large-scale transportation works in the LSA are the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR), the Algoma Central Railway and Highway 17.

7.2.5.4.4 Potential Heritage Resources Associated with Mining Potential heritage resources associated with mining include buildings, machines, tramways, roads, dams and other features. The MNDM maintains the AMIS, a database of abandoned mine sites that in some cases includes information on potential heritage resources at mining sites. The AMIS database only uses point coordinates for most abandoned mine locations and these can be inaccurate if converted from historic map sources. In addition, mine site operations often cover a large geographic area around the point coordinate and potential resources may be located in the LSAs even if the AMIS point is a distance from the LSAs.

An AMIS database search returned four former mines with an unknown date or over 40 years old in the LSAs for the preliminary proposed and the corridor alternatives. None of these former mines are located in the Project footprint. Details about these former mines are provided in Table 7.2-6.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-54


Table 7.2-6: Potential Heritage Resources from Mining

Mine Name Date of Operation AMIS # MDI Identifier

Distance to Preliminary Proposed Corridor Project Footprint

(m)

Distance to Corridor Alternative

Around Mishkeegogamang Project Footprint

(m)

Distance to Corridor Alternative

Through Mishkeegogamang Project Footprint

(m)

Alcona 1933-1991 04727 MDI52J04SE00004 226 38,631 38,631 Foregold 1951-1987 04725 MDI52J04NE00002 443 39,435 39,435 Central Patricia 1934-1951 04680 MDI52O08NE00008 517 517 517 Gummeson 1938 06554 MDI52G05NW00002 32,818 438 438

Note: AMIS #= Abandoned Mines Information System Identifier; MDI = Mineral Deposit Inventory; m = metres.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-55


7.2.5.4.5 Potential Heritage Resources Associated with Agriculture Potential heritage resources related to agriculture include farm operation structures such as houses, barns, outbuildings and landscape features such as field rows, field walls, fences and tree lines. Minimal agricultural activity is known to have taken place in the LSAs for the preliminary proposed and corridor alternatives, and no potential built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes related to Euro-Canadian agriculture were identified.

7.2.5.4.6 Other Potential Heritage Resources Several municipalities have identified potential heritage resources though none are located within the Project footprints.

Along with the CNR Station located in Sioux Lookout, the municipality identified two other potential heritage resources. These are the court house and the post office, located within Sioux Lookout. When the court house was built is unknown, though according to Brian MacKinnon, Municipal Clerk for Sioux Lookout, it is not of recent construction. Based on the photographic records provided by the Sioux Lookout Community Museum, the opening date for the post office was April 13, 1938. These heritage resources are located outside of the LSA for the Preliminary Proposed Corridor.

Several sites with potential cultural heritage value were identified in the Township of Pickle Lake. These include the Central Patricia mine site, the Pickle Crow mine site, Osnaburgh House, an abandoned burial site, an Anglican Church, and a Roman Catholic Church and associated manse. The Central Patricia mine site is located within Central Patricia, north of Pickle Lake, and was in operation from 1934 to 1951. This mine site is located within the LSAs for the corridor alternatives, but outside the Project footprints. The Pickle Crow mine site is also north of Pickle Lake, and is surrounded by an abandoned settlement site. The locality of the mine was first explored in 1928 and a shaft was sunk by Northern Arial Minerals in 1933 (MNDM 2016). The potential built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscape associated with this mine are located outside of the LSAs for all the corridor alternatives.

Dates for the abandoned burial site are unknown. However, according to the Township, it may be of potential cultural heritage value or interest. The burial site is reported to be at the south end of Graveyard Lake and is outside of all of the LSAs. The Roman Catholic Church is within Central Patricia, but outside of the Project footprint. The Anglican Church, also known as the Red Roof Church, was moved to Rat Rapids/Cedar Rapids; although it is within the Corridor Alternative Through Mishkeegogamang LSA, it is outside of the Project footprint as currently defined. Neither church are listed in the Ontario’s Places of Worship online database (Ontario Heritage Trust 2016b).

Osnaburgh House is a former fur trade post established by the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1786. The structure itself was not built at this time; however, the post has existed at this location for approximately 200 years (Mishkeegogamang Ojibway Nation 2010). This location is also where government officials met with First Nations leaders for the signing of Treaty 9 in 1905 (Old Post Lodge 2016). Osnaburgh House and any associated potential cultural heritage landscape is not within the LSAs.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-56


7.2.5.4.7 Potential Heritage Resources Summary Table 7.2-7: provides a summary of potential heritage resources identified within the LSA corridors but outside the Project footprint.

Table 7.2-7: Summary of Potential Heritage Resources by Corridor Alternative

Preliminary Proposed Corridor Corridor Alternative Around Mishkeegogamang

Corridor Alternative Through Mishkeegogamang

Foregold mine site (1951-1987) Alcona mine site (1933-1991) Central Patricia mine site

(1934-1951) Roman Catholic Church

(unknown construction date)

Gummeson mine site (1938) Central Patricia mine site



Anglican Church moved to Rat Rapids/Cedar Rapids (unknown construction date)

Gummeson mine site (1938) Central Patricia mine site



7.2.6 Project-Environment Interactions and Pathways Analysis The linkages between Project components and activities and potential effects to heritage resources are identified and assessed through a pathway analysis (Section 4.4). Potential effect pathways were identified by reviewing the Project Description (Section 3.0), existing environmental conditions, input from municipal engagement, knowledge from similar projects and activities, and the preliminary potential effects identified in the Terms of Reference (Golder 2014). Net effects after the implementation of impact management measures are screened. The screening process classifies potential effect pathways into the following categories:

No pathway: the pathway is removed (i.e., effect is avoided) by implementation of impact management measures or Project design. The pathway is not expected to result in a measurable change relative to the Base Case and, therefore, would not have a net effect on a criterion’s assessment endpoint.

Secondary: the pathway could result in a measurable environmental change relative to the Base Case but would have a negligible net effect on a criterion’s assessment endpoint. The pathway is, therefore, not expected to additively or synergistically contribute to effects of other past, previous or reasonably foreseeable projects.

Primary: the pathway is likely to result in an environmental change relative to the Base Case that could contribute to net effects on a criterion’s assessment endpoint.

Potential pathways for effects to cultural heritage are presented in Table 7.2-8. Classification of effects pathways to archaeological resources are also presented in Table 7.2-8, and detailed descriptions are provided in the following sections.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-57


Table 7.2-8: Potential Effect Pathway for Effects to Heritage Resources

Project Component or Activity Effect Pathway Pathway Duration Impact Management Measures Pathway

Type

Project activities during the construction stage: clearing and

grubbing of vegetation along the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment right-of-way, access roads and trails and other construction areas; and

foundation and conductor installation.

Alteration of a cultural heritage resource from vibration of construction equipment during construction clearing and grubbing of vegetation along the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment right-of-way, access roads and trails and other construction areas.

Temporary during construction, and permanent from the construction stage through the operation and maintenance stage.

Heritage resources studies will be completed, the heritage resource sites identified and the associated impact management measures identified prior to construction.

The Project footprint will be surveyed and marked prior to construction to limit activities to the designated areas of the Project.

Project personnel will be made aware when working near identified potential heritage resources and avoid areas that are flagged or fenced, and abide by restrictions on in/out privileges.

Existing roads and trails will be used where possible. A Built Heritage Management will be prepared and implemented

prior to construction to provide direction in the event that heritage resources not previously identified are suspected or encountered unexpectedly during construction. An overview of this plan is provided in Section 9.3.1.19.

In the event that a previously unidentified heritage or archaeological resource is suspected or encountered, Wataynikaneyap will contact the applicable First Nation, heritage or archaeology resource specialist, municipality and provincial Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, as applicable

Suspend activity at that location if it has the potential to damage or affect feature. Work at that location will not resume until permission is granted by Wataynikaneyap in engagement with appropriate regulators as required.

The resource specialist may deem it necessary to visit the site and will, regardless of whether a site visit is required, develop an appropriate impact management measures plan in engagement with Wataynikaneyap, applicable First Nation and the MTCS.

Secondary

Note: MTCS = Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport,

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-58


7.2.6.1 Pathway Screening 7.2.6.1.1 No Pathway No “no pathways” are predicted for net effects to heritage resources.

7.2.6.1.2 Secondary Pathway In some cases, both a Project component or activity (i.e., source) and an effect pathway may exist, but the Project is assessed as resulting in a minor environmental change with a negligible net effect on heritage resources relative to Base Case values, resulting in a predicted secondary pathway. Project activities during the construction stage, such as clearing and grubbing along the right-of-way and other access and construction areas, and construction of infrastructure (e.g., access roads, bridges, turn-around areas, laydown areas and temporary construction camps), as well as erection of towers and placement of conductors, are predicted to result in an effect pathway.

The MTCS Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process (MTCS 2006) defines seven potential direct or indirect effects (impacts) a development or site alteration may have on known or identified built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes:

Direct impacts:

Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, or features.

Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance.

Indirect impacts:

Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden.

Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship.

Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features.

A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces.

Alteration of a cultural heritage resource from vibration of construction equipment during construction clearing and grubbing of vegetation along the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment right-of-way, access roads and trails and other construction areas

There are potential heritage resources in each of the corridor LSAs (Table 7.2-6). Potential effects on heritage resources are most likely to occur during Project construction, through vibration from up to 60 metres (m) from source (Wilson, Ihrig and Associates 2012).

As currently mapped, none of the potential heritage resources are within 60 m of the project footprint and expected effects from vibration, however there is uncertainty around the exact locations of the potential resources. Once the preferred corridor is selected, field survey, research, and evaluation as part of a CHER will be completed to determine if any of the identified potential heritage resources are of cultural heritage value or interest and if other, not previously documented heritage resources are present in the LSA. The CHER will characterize the potential heritage resources and also confirm the geographic extent of the potential resources in the LSA that could be affected by vibrations from project activities, for example there may be additional features related to the resources

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-59


that could be affected by the Project that are not documented and are closer to the Project footprint than currently documented. If any potential heritage resources are evaluated as being of cultural heritage value or interest, a HIA will be required to identify the specific effects the Project may have on the heritage attributes of newly identified built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, and recommend impact management measures to ensure the heritage attributes of the resources are conserved. The CHER (and HIA, if necessary) will be submitted to the MTCS for approval. A compliance letter for the Project under the Ontario Heritage Act will be obtained from the MTCS prior to construction, and the impact management measures specified in the compliance letter will be adhered to.

If Project design changes, known and potential heritage resources identified in this report will be avoided to the extent practical. Should impact management measures additional to those identified above be required, these will be discussed with applicable First Nation communities, municipalities and regulatory agencies.

A Chance Find Procedure will be implemented during construction. This Chance Find Procedure will include measures should a cultural heritage feature be identified during construction. Should a resource be identified, Wataynikaneyap will contact applicable First Nation communities, municipality, a cultural heritage resource specialist and the MTCS.

With effective implementation of the impact management measures summarized in Table 7.2-8, the net effect of the Project on potential heritage resources is predicted to be negligible; and there is no potential for an effect on the heritage resources endpoint (i.e., conservation of heritage resources).

7.2.6.1.3 Primary Pathway No primary pathways are predicted for net effects to heritage resources. Subsequently, there is no further assessment, characterization, and determination of the significance of net effects.

7.2.7 Project Case Effects Assessment No primary pathways are predicted for the heritage resources criterion because the Project footprint does not overlap with any known or potential heritage resources and the secondary effects identified above can be effectively mitigated.

7.2.8 Reasonably Foreseeable Developments Case Effects Assessment No primary effect pathways were identified between the Project and heritage resources (Section 7.2.6.1.3); therefore, the Project is not predicted to contribute to cumulative effects in the reasonably foreseeable developments (RFD) Case (Table 7.2-9).

7.2.9 Prediction Confidence in the Assessment Confidence that there will be no predicted net effects on heritage resources is moderate based on the identification of potential heritage resources that may interact with the Project footprint. A CHER is required to confirm if the potential heritage resources have cultural heritage value and to confirm the locations of the potential heritage resources and their distance from the Project footprint.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-60


7.2.10 Monitoring This section identifies any recommended effects monitoring to verify the prediction of the effects assessment and to verify the effectiveness of the impact management measures and compliance monitoring to evaluate whether the Project has been constructed, implemented, and operated in accordance with the commitments made in the Draft EA Report. If the CHER identifies heritage resources within the LSA, and the HIA identifies specific impacts, periodic monitoring may be required. As discussed above, Wataynikaneyap will continue engage with applicable Aboriginal communities, municipalities and the MTCS should there be a potential effect to known or potential heritage resources as a result of a Project design change.

7.2.11 Information Passed on to Other Components Results of the archaeological resources assessment were reviewed and incorporated into the following components of the EA:

Archaeology (Section 7.1);

Socio-economics (Section 7.3);

Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests (Section 8.0).

7.2.12 Component Summary Table 7.2-9 presents a summary of the assessment results for the heritage resources criteria by corridor alternative.

Table 7.2-9: Heritage Resources Assessment Summary

Criteria Preliminary Proposed Corridor

Corridor Alternative Around

Mishkeegogamang

Corridor Alternative Through

Mishkeegogamang

Built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes

Negligible predicted effects for the Project Case.

The Project is not predicted to contribute to cumulative effects in the RFD Case.

Negligible predicted net effects for the Project Case.


Negligible predicted net effects for the Project Case.


Notes: RFD = reasonably foreseeable development\

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-61


7.2.13 References

Canada National Parks Act (S.C. 2000, c. 32). Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-14.01/.

Canada’s Historic Places. 2016. Canadian Register of Historic Places (CRHP).http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/home-accueil.aspx. Accessed on November 24, 2016.

Del Vecchio, M. 2007. Osnaburgh House: A Microcosm of Canadian History. Manuscript on file at Golder Associates Ltd., Mississauga, ON.

Ferguson, Stewart A. 1966. Geology of Pickle Crow Gold Mines Limited and Central Patricia Gold Mines Limited, No. 2 Operation. Miscellaneous Paper MP-4. Ontario Department of Mines, Toronto.

Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act. 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 33. Available at: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02f33.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.). 2014. Amended Terms of Reference for the Wataynikaneyap Power Project, Phase 1: New Transmission Line to Pickle Lake Project Environmental Assessment. Submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. Available at: www.wataypower.ca

Hackett, P.F.J. 2002. “A Very Remarkable Sickness”: Epidemics in the Petit Nord, 1670 to 1846. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, MB.

Harasym, R. 2017. Sunset Country Ontario, Canada: The History of Pickle Lake. https://visitsunsetcountry.com/history-pickle-lake-ontario-canada. Accessed January 17, 2017.

Harris, R.C., ed. 1987. Historical Atlas of Canada, Volume 1: From the Beginning to 1800. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Buffalo and London.

HBC Archives (Hudson’s Bay Company, Winnipeg). 1985. Lac Seul (ON) Post Mark: L.S. 1850S, K.3 1898-1950, S.4 C1950, Sc (1898). Reformatted (from microfilm) February 1999.

Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 52 (4th Supp.). Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-3.5/.

Historic Sites and Monuments Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-4). Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-4/.

Kenny, G. 2014. Band Archaeologist, Lac Seul First Nation. Personal Communication. Written Comments, August 21, 2014.

Kenyon, W.A. 1986. The History of James Bay 1610-1686, A Study in Historical Archaeology. Royal Ontario Museum, Archaeology Monogram 10, Toronto, ON.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-62


Klimko, O. 1994. The Archaeology of Land Based Fur Trade Posts in Western Canada. PhD Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC.

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS). 2015. Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: A Checklist for the Non-Specialist. Toronto, ON

Mishkeegogamang Ojibway Nation. 2010. About: History. http://www.mishkeegogamang.ca/about-history.html. Accessed November 24, 2016.

MNDM (Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines). 2016. Mines and Minerals Division, Abandoned Mines Information System (AMIS) database. http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth/abandoned-mines. Accessed November 24, 2016.

MNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2007. Forest Management Guide for Cultural Heritage Values. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, ON.

Morantz, T. 2001. Plunder or Harmony? On Merging European and Native Views of Early Contact. In Decentering the Renaissance: Canada and Europe in Multidisciplinary Perspective, 1500-1700. Germaine Warkentin and Carolyn Podruchny. Pp. 48-67. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON.

MTCS. 2011. Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto, ON.

MTCS. 2006. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto.

Newton, B.M and J.A. Mountain. 1980. Gloucester House: A Hudson Bay Company Inland Post (1777-1818). In C.S. Paddy (ed.), Northern Ontario Fur Trade Archaeology: Recent Research. Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Archaeological Research Report 12, pp. 51-90.

Old Post Lodge. 2016. About Us: Old Post History. http://www.oldpost.com/about-us/history.php. Accessed November 24, 2016.

Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. Available at: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18?search=heritage+act.

Ontario Heritage Trust. 2016a. Online Plaque Guide. http://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/Resources-and-Learning/Online-Plaque-Guide.aspx. Accessed November 24, 2016.

Ontario Heritage Trust. 2016b. Ontario’s Places of Worship. http://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/Ontario-s-Places-of-Worship/Home.aspx. Accessed December 19, 2016.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-63


Parks Canada Agency. 2014. Directory of Designated Heritage Railway Stations. http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/clmhc-hsmbc/pat-her/gar-sta.aspx. Accessed November 24, 2016.

Parks Canada Agency. 2012. Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/search-recherche_eng.aspx). Accessed November 24, 2016.

Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 12. Available at: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06p12.

Rogers, E.S. and D.B. Smith, eds. 1994. Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Dundurn Press Limited, Toronto, ON.

Stuart, I.T. 2003. The Organization of the French Fur Trade, 1650-1760. In J. Morrison (ed.), Lake Superior to Rainy Lake, Three Centuries of Fur Trade History. Pp. 15-22. Thunder Bay Historical Museum Society, Thunder Bay, ON.

University of Toronto. 2010. Historical Atlas of Canada Online Learning Project. Available at: http://www.historicalatlas.ca/website/hacolp/ about.htm. University of Toronto Department of Geography. Accessed: July 4, 2011.

Voorhis, E. 1930. Historic Forts and Trading Posts of the French Regime and of the English Fur Trading Companies. Department of the Interior, Ottawa, ON.

Vyvyan, R.P. 1980. An Analysis of Artefacts from Martin’s Falls Hudson’s Bay Company Post, EjIp-1. In C.S. Paddy (ed.), Northern Ontario Fur Trade Archaeology: Recent Research. Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Archaeological Research Report 12, pp. 139-188.

Wilson, Ihrig and Associates, Inc., ICF International and Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., 2012. NCHRP 25-25/Task 72, Current Practices to Address Construction Vibration and Potential Effects to Historic Buildings Adjacent to Transportation Projects. http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3115. Accessed January 30, 2016.

Wynn, G. 2007. Canada and Arctic North America: An Environmental History. ABC Clio, Santa Barbara, CA.

June 2017 Project No. 1535751 7-64

7.2 heritage resourcesspatialim.golder.ca/draft_ea/docs/phase1_draftea... · funeral, burial and...

Documents