birtle transmission project environmental assessment · pdf filereviewed by: roberta connon,...

Birtle Transmission Project

Appendix F

Heritage Technical Report

-----------------------------------------------

Transmission Planning & Design Division

Licensing & Environmental Assessment

January 2018

Prepared for:

Environmental Approvals Branch

PROPOSALTITLE

Heritage Permit A33-17

ManitobaHydro

LicencingandEnvironmentalAssessment

Preparedby:

InterGroupConsultantsLtd.

500‐280SmithStreet

Winnipeg,MBR3C1K2

December22,2017

BIRTLETRANSMISSIONPROJECTHERITAGERESOURCESIMPACTASSESSMENT

TECHNICALREPORT

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 December 22, 2017

i

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

InterGroup Consultants Ltd. (InterGroup) conducted a Heritage Resource Impact Assessment (HRIA) for the proposed Birtle Transmission Project on behalf of Manitoba Hydro.

The objective of the HRIA was to determine if heritage resources are situated within the development area and assess any potential impacts to heritage resources during development activities. The assessment occurred over two field programs August 21-24 and October 10-13, under Manitoba Heritage Permit A33-17, 2017. A total of 45 quarter sections were selected for heritage survey, of these 15 were unable to be assessed due to lack of landowner permission or access issues.

The results of the HRIA of the proposed Birtle Transmission Project resulted in the discovery of two new archaeological sites within the proposed transmission right-of-way; however these are small, delimited sites that are of low significance. Mitigation measures and Environmental Protection Plans during construction will ensure the sites are protected from subsurface damage.

InterGroup makes the following recommendations:

1. The study area property is highly modified by agricultural activity with additional potential impacts from nearby infrastructure development and therefore has low heritage potential in the majority of the proposed line;

2. Assessment of the 15 remaining quarter sections that were unable to be included in the 2017 field program should occur either prior to or concurrent with construction activities;

3. Deep testing via excavator or auger at major waterways, as requested by Manitoba’s Historic Resources Branch, Department of Sport, Culture and Heritage, is recommended to occur at tower locations situated within 100 metres of the Assiniboine River, Snake Creek and Birdtail River; and

4. It is recommended that an archaeologist monitor tower footing excavations within 100 metres of major waterways as well as at the two identified registered archaeological sites, EcMh-66 and EdMi-7.


ii

Project Personnel

Project Archaeologist (Aug 21-24 and Oct 10-13)

Lisa C. Bobbie, M.A.

Archaeologist (Aug 21-24) Amber Flett, M.A.

Archaeologist (Aug 21-24) Luther Sousa, M.A.

Archaeologist (Oct 10-13) Tamas Farkas, M.A.

Community Assistant (Aug 21-24) Roy Sanderson, Gambler FN

Report Preparation: Lisa C. Bobbie, M.A.

Reviewed By: Roberta Connon, MBA

GIS Mapping: Lisa C. Bobbie, M.A.; Manitoba Hydro

Acknowledgements:

The 2017 archaeological monitoring of the Birtle Transmission Line Project was undertaken with the cooperation of Manitoba Hydro along who arranged landowner access permission and Indigenous community contribution agreements.

We gratefully acknowledge Gambler First Nation for providing valuable local knowledge information and appreciate the contributions of Mr. Roy Sanderson, who assisted and supported the heritage resources fieldwork program.


iii

GLOSSARYOFTERMS

Archaeology – The study of past human behavior and culture through the analysis of material remains.

Archaeological Site – Any location at which there are material remains, including artifacts, features, or ecofacts, proving evidence of the human past.

Archaeological Site Survey – The systematic process archaeologists use to locate, identify, and record the distribution and nature of archaeological sites on the landscape.

Artifact – Any portable object used, manufactured, or modified by humans that includes stone, ceramic, metal, wood, bone, or objects of other materials.

Borden Number - The Borden system divides Canada up into sections based on lat/long coordinates to provide a way of designating a unique site name and location to archaeological sites. Each site is given a set of letters and a corresponding number which is the order that the site was found.

Complex – A grouping of related and/or linked traits features and artifacts which comprise a complete process, activity or cultural unit.

Isolated Artifact – A single artifact, unassociated with other artifacts or features, usually recovered from the surface during archaeological survey; usually not considered by itself sufficient evidence of an archaeological site.

Lithic – made of stone

Paleo – a prefix meaning ‘old’ or ‘ancient’. From an archaeological perspective, a term referring to the earlier inhabitants of North America and includes Clovis, Folsom and Plano complexes.

Pedestrian Survey – Also called surface survey, involves walking the surface of an archaeological site or large region in stratified patterns.

Scraper – An artifact used to remove the fat from the underside of a hide or to smooth wood.

Shovel Test Pit (STP) – A small pit excavation into areas in which the surface is obscured by vegetation or when cultural materials are believed to lie buried in sediments; used to find sites or establish the extent of buried deposits.

Site Type – A site that is the first or the best example of a particular cultural phase or tradition; reference to the characteristics of the type site helps define the cultural historical unit.

Woodland Period – A cultural period recognized in areas south of the Subarctic and east of the Rockies in which agriculture, settled villages, pottery, and burial mounds usually were found; usually follows the Archaic period and begins 3000 to 2000 years ago. The Woodland Period is subdivided into two phases, Initial Woodland (e.g. Laurel) culture ca. 2500-1000 years ago and Terminal Woodland (e.g. Blackduck, Selkirk) Cultures ca. 1000 years ago prior to European contact.

YRA – ‘Years ago’


iv

TABLEOFCONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECTOVERVIEW...................................................................................................1

2.0 APPROACHANDMETHODOLOGY.................................................................2

3.0 CHARACTERIZATIONSTUDY..........................................................................3

3.1 NATURALENVIRONMENT.........................................................................................3

3.2 PALEO‐ENVIRONMENT...............................................................................................4

3.3 CULTURALANDHISTORICALBACKGROUND.....................................................5

3.3.1 EarlyPrecontactPeriod(Palaeo)10,000–6,000BP.......................5

3.3.2 MiddlePrecontactPeriod(IntensiveDiversification)6000–2000BP.........................................................................................................6

3.3.3 LatePrecontactPeriod(Woodland)2000–350BP........................6

3.3.4 ContactPeriod...............................................................................................7

3.3.5 SettlementPeriod......................................................................................10

4.0 PREDICTIVEMODEL.......................................................................................10

5.0 HERITAGERESOURCEIMPACTASSESSMENT........................................15

5.1 PREINVESTIGATION.................................................................................................15

5.1.1 PreviouslyRegisteredHeritageResources......................................15

5.1.2 HeritageResourcesInProximitytoPreliminaryPreferredRoute..............................................................................................................16

5.1.3 Land‐basedSelectionofAreasofPotentialAlongPPR................18

5.2 METHODOLOGY&OBJECTIVES............................................................................20

5.3 PHASEI–AUGUST21TO24,2017......................................................................21

5.3.1 SE and NE‐24‐16‐28W Snake Creek (New ArchaeologicalSite,EcMh‐66“DoubleBuckle”)...........................................................21

5.3.2 SWandNW‐36‐16‐28WCanolaField.................................................25

5.3.3 SE‐2‐17‐28WWheatField.......................................................................25

5.3.4 SW‐22‐16‐27WandSEandSW‐21‐16‐27WBirdtailRiver.........25

5.3.5 NE andNW‐3‐18‐29WUpperRidgesofAssiniboineRiverWest................................................................................................................26


v

5.4 HRIAPHASEII–OCTOBER10TO13,2017......................................................27

5.4.1 NE‐18‐16‐26WBirtleTransformerStation......................................27

5.4.2 SW‐19‐16‐26WFlaxField.......................................................................27

5.4.3 SE‐23‐16‐27WCanolaField/TreedArea...........................................28

5.4.4 SE‐22‐16‐27WWheatField....................................................................29

5.4.5 SEandSW‐20‐16‐27WCanolaField....................................................29

5.4.6 NE‐25‐16‐28WWheatField/Pastureland/SnakeCreek..............29

5.4.7 NE‐2‐17‐28WCanolaField.....................................................................30

5.4.8 NEandNW‐3‐18‐28WCanolaField.....................................................30

5.4.9 SE‐11‐17‐28WPasture............................................................................30

5.4.10 NE‐11‐17‐28WCanolaField/Marsh....................................................31

5.4.11 NE‐14‐17‐28WWheatField/RelictChannel....................................31

5.4.12 SEandNE‐23‐17‐28WCanolaField/RelicChannel.......................31

5.4.13 NE‐26‐17‐28WWheatField...................................................................31

5.4.14 NE‐and NW‐1‐18‐29W Assiniboine River – East (NewArchaeologicalSiteEdMi‐7“AssiniboineOverlook”)...................31

5.4.15 NEandNW‐2‐18‐29WAssiniboineRiverValleyWest.................32

6.0 RESULTSANDRECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................35

7.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................36

APPENDICES

APPENDIXA HERITAGEPERMITA33‐17

APPENDIXB LISTOFARCHAEOLOGICALSITESINPROJECTSTUDYAREA

APPENDIXC SHOVELTESTFORMS

APPENDIXD ARTIFACTCATALOGUE


vi

LISTOFTABLES

Table 1: Feature Classes of Five Land-based Attributes for the BTP Predictive Model ........................... 12 Table 2: Overall Weighted Ranking of Each Factor Layer (out of 100%) .............................................. 13 Table 3: List of Centennial Farms in Project Study Area ..................................................................... 15 Table 4: List of Plaques in Project Study Area ................................................................................... 15 Table 5: Listing of Registered Archaeological Sites within 600 metres of the PPR ................................. 17 Table 6: Listing of Registered Plaques within 500 metres of the PPR .................................................. 17 Table 7: List of Quarter Sections Selected for Heritage Assessment .................................................... 19

LISTOFFIGURES

Figure 1: Maximum Extent of Glacial Lake Agassiz .............................................................................. 5 Figure 2: Western Canada’s Established Trails .................................................................................... 8 Figure 3: A sketch of Fort Ellice by P. H. Dumais, June 1882 ................................................................ 9 Figure 4: Oxford School Plaque (MHS 2017) ..................................................................................... 18 Figure 5: Testing the North Side of Snake Creek ............................................................................... 22 Figure 6: Exposing Rock Feature ..................................................................................................... 22 Figure 7: Artifacts from EcMh-66 ..................................................................................................... 23 Figure 8: Location of New Archaeological Site, EcMh-66 and extent of investigations ........................... 24 Figure 9: Crew Conducting Pedestrian Survey in Harvested Canola Field ............................................. 25 Figure 10: Birdtail River Crossing ..................................................................................................... 26 Figure 11: Shovel Testing along Upper Terraces on West Side of Assiniboine Valley ............................. 27 Figure 12: Shovel Testing along Small Ridges in SW-19-16-26W ........................................................ 28 Figure 13: Natural Treed area in SE-23-16-27W ................................................................................ 29 Figure 14: Snake Creek Valley; View from Upper Terrace .................................................................. 30 Figure 15: Upper Edge of Assiniboine River Terrace (testing along edge of treeline) ............................ 32 Figure 16: Artifacts Found from EdMi-7; amethyst bottle glass, lead and animal bone .......................... 33 Figure 17: Location of Archaeological Site, EdMi-7 ............................................................................ 34 Figure 18: Shovel Testing Along West Bank of Assiniboine River ........................................................ 35

LISTOFMAPS

Map 1: Birtle Transmission Project Study Area and Final Preferred Route .............................................. 2 Map 2: Heritage Predictive Model .................................................................................................... 14


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Manitoba Hydro is proposing to construct a new 230 kilovolt (kV) AC transmission line from Birtle to the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border. The Birtle Transmission Project (‘the Project’) is needed to fulfill a 20-year agreement to provide 100 megawatts of renewable hydroelectricity to Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower) beginning in 2020-2021. The project will include the construction of a new substation near Birtle, Manitoba along with a 46.2 kilometer long and 40 to 60 metre wide transmission right-of-way. SaskPower is partnering with Manitoba on this project and will be responsible for that portion of the transmission line in Saskatchewan. The project is classified as a Class 2 development under the Environment Act (Manitoba).

This heritage resources technical report provides an assessment of the proposed project relating specifically to cultural and archaeological resources. These resources can be defined as the tangible materials of past peoples and provide a cultural link between past and present. Heritage resources are protected under Manitoba’s Heritage Resources Act (1986) and are defined as:

A heritage site;

A heritage object; and

Any work or assembly of works of nature or of human endeavour that is of value for its archaeological, palaeontological, pre-historic, historic, cultural, natural, scientific or aesthetic features, and may be in the form of sites or objects or a combination thereof (Government of Manitoba 1986).

Changes to the physical environment that may result from the construction of the Birtle Transmission Project have the potential to cause negative effect to known or unknown cultural or heritage resources. A Heritage Resource Impact Assessment is required to assess the project for archaeological potential, determines the types of cultural or archaeological resources that may be encountered and ground-truth areas of moderate to high potential to determine the presence of heritage resources. There is potential for known or undiscovered heritage resources to be effected by the project and these fragile, non-renewable resources will require careful consideration and preservation for future generations.

A multi-disciplinary environmental assessment (EA) report for the Birtle Transmission Project will be developed and submitted to the Environmental Approvals Branch of Manitoba Sustainable Development for review.

1.1 PROJECTOVERVIEW

An environmental assessment (EA) report will be developed and submitted to the Environmental Approvals Branch of Manitoba Sustainable Development for review. The project is classified as a Class 2 Project under the Environment Act.

The Birtle Transmission Project consists of development of a new right-of-way (ROW) to be constructed. The ROW will be 40 metres wide and will run from the Birtle Station to the Saskatchewan Border – an


2

approximate distance of approximately 46 km in length (Map 1). The project has undergone a route selection process from which a number of variables from three alternative routes were refined into a single Preliminary Preferred Route.

Map1:BirtleTransmissionProjectStudyAreaandFinalPreferredRoute

2.0 APPROACHANDMETHODOLOGY

The technical report for cultural and heritage resources will take consideration of the existing environment of the study area including Indigenous, Euro-Canadian records and current and ancient land use to provide a comprehensive understanding of the types of heritage resources are present and which may be found within the study area. This report will also provide an assessment of potential effects on cultural and heritage resources and provide recommendation on mitigation measures to minimize negative effects on these resources.

Heritage resources are considered a Valued Component (VC) that helps characterize the effects of a Project. Heritage resources include tangible material culture such as artifacts or animal remains as well as the intangible which may be linked to the physical remains left behind or natural landscape of an area.


3

The Project is located in an area that is traditional territory to First Nation and Métis communities who have a deep connection to the land. These connections include ‘heritage, historic, cultural and sacred sites’. Since all heritage resources are protected under The Act, all are considered under a single VEC.

A public engagement and route selection process has been developed and implemented by Manitoba Hydro and included several rounds of engagement with Indigenous groups, local municipal councils, conservation districts, non-government organizations, affected landowners and several provincial departments, and identified areas of concern including heritage resources.

3.0 CHARACTERIZATIONSTUDY

An examination of the natural and cultural factors that have shaped the Project area provides evidence of human occupation and the heritage and cultural resources that may be encountered during assessment and construction phases of the project. Archaeologists have created broad cultural groupings based on changing technologies and subsistence patterns found in the archaeological record and these are sometimes referred to as a ‘complex’. The following presents an overview of the natural environment and the cultural chronology of the Birtle Transmission Project area.

3.1 NATURALENVIRONMENT

The Project is situated about 150 kilometres north of the Canada-United States boundary and extends from the Saskatchewan border east to the town of Birtle, MB. There is one First Nation community directly in the study area Gambler First Nation, with Waywayseecappo First Nation, Birdtail Sioux Dakota Nation, Canupawakpa Dakota First Nation and Sioux Valley Dakota Nation located nearby.

The study area is located in the Aspen Parkland ecoregion, part of the Prairies ecozone, which extends in a broad arc from southwestern Manitoba, northwestward through Saskatchewan to its northern apex in central Alberta. The climate is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover. The ecoregion is classified as having a transitional grassland ecoclimate, which most is now farmland but in its native state, the landscape was characterized by trembling aspen, oak groves, mixed tall shrubs and intermittent fescue grasslands. This broad plains region, underlain by Cretaceous shale, is covered by undulating to kettled, calcareous, glacial till with significant areas of level lacustrine and hummocky to ridged fluvioglacial deposits. Soils dominant soils in the area are Chernozems characterized by a generally thick surface horizon rich in organic material (Smith, et al 1998:218-219). Due to cultivation, the organic matter content and/or the thickness of the organic-rich surface layer has been reduced in most soils. This area is some of the most productive agricultural lands in the Prairies (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995:93-94). However a portion of the study area located west in the upland Assiniboine River and Qu’Appelle River Valleys are composed of Deltaic sand dunes which are partially to fully vegetated (Hamel & Reimer 2004:2). The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) has been managing the Spy Hill-Ellice Community Pastureland since 1941.

The ecoregion provides a major breeding habitat for waterfowl and includes habitat for white-tailed deer, coyote, snowshoe hare, cottontail, red fox, northern pocket gopher, ground squirrel and bird species like


4

sharp-tailed grouse, black-billed magpie. Major waterways include the Assiniboine and Qu’Appelle rivers, Birdtail Creek, Snake Creek, Silver Creek and Beaver Creek.

The final route is located primarily on or adjacent to agricultural lands in southwest Manitoba, and passes through a community pasture prior to crossing the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border.

3.2 PALEO‐ENVIRONMENT

The last great Ice Age, known as “Wisconsinan”, was responsible for creating the topography of Manitoba as it is known today. At its highest extent, it formed a glacier over two kilometres thick over the study region (Ledohoski 2009:10). By 18,000 years ago (yra) the glacier began to melt and by 10,000 yra had fully retreated from what is now known as southwestern Manitoba. As the glacier retreated, it left behind a thick layer of mixed sands, gravels to stones, to boulders. The glacial melt waters collected along the portions of the ice fronts, forming huge lakes, the largest of these glacial lakes was called Glacial Lake Agassiz (Figure 1). The Manitoba Escarpment forms the edge of the extent of Glacial Lake Agassiz and separated the Agassiz basin from the elevated areas to the west (Teller & Last, 1981). The high elevation of the study area has made this one of relatively few regions in Manitoba which was not submerged and first to become occupied by human inhabitation.

There are four remnant glacial spillway channels located in the study area and the wide deep wooded valleys show the scale of glacial outwash. Qu’Appelle River valley is the longest former spillway found on the Canadian prairies. It was formed approximately 12,500 yra as water drained meltwater lakes which developed in what is now central Saskatchewan, and merged with the Assiniboine spillway near present-day St. Lazare. The Assiniboine spillway was fed by melt waters from Glacial Lake Assiniboine which was created by a large mass of remnant ice that was left on Porcupine Mountain. The Shell and Birdtail river valleys are smaller former meltwater channels, created as water drained from similar large blocks of stagnant ice left by the receding glacier on Duck and Riding Mountains (Ledohowski: 12-18).


5

Figure1:MaximumExtentofGlacialLakeAgassiz

Source: University of Notre Dame, 2007.

3.3 CULTURALANDHISTORICALBACKGROUND

3.3.1 EarlyPrecontactPeriod(Palaeo)10,000–6,000BP1

The Precontact Period in Manitoba dates back to at least 10,000 BP (Before Present) with the earliest evidence of human occupation from the southwest corner of the Province coinciding with the melting of the last glaciers and the draining of Glacial Lake Agassiz. After deglaciation, the first peoples in the study area would likely have arrived after the local ecology emerged from under the meltwater and animal life reoccupied the area. The confluence of the Assiniboine and Qu’Appelle rivers, along with a number of smaller tributaries located within the study area would have acted as a central hub for the congregation of people, animals and resources.

1 BP – “Before Present”


6

The earliest evidence of human occupation at this time is associated with the archaeological period known as the Palaeo Period. Consisting of Clovis, Folsom and Plano complexes, these first two of these cultures are generally characterized by hunting technology based on large fluted spear points, while the Plano culture are represented by large non-fluted stemmed points. These large points were used by Palaeo peoples to hunt Ice Age megafauna such as mammoth, extinct species of camels and horses and as the climate fluctuated, a focus on bison. A small number of Palaeo sites have been recovered in Manitoba but all are from surface collections located west of the Manitoba Escarpment.

3.3.2 MiddlePrecontactPeriod(IntensiveDiversification)6000–2000BP

The natural environment began to change around 7,500 BP in what is called the Altithermal climatic period, when the temperature gradually rose to levels higher than at present (Antevs 1955:326). This period dates from 7500 BP-4000 BP and it is suggested that open grasslands expanded as much as 70 km north of present day boundaries (Sheehan 2002; Ritchie 1976, 1978). Human adaptive response to this warmer/more arid climate can be seen in the changes to the archaeological record. This Middle Precontact Period, also known as the Intensive Diversification Period, is characterized by a complete shift in technology from spear to the use of an Atlatl and large side-notched darts, as well as the use of boiling pits, bison jumps, increasing trade and the construction of the earliest medicine wheels (SAS 2012:10; Peck 2011). Cultural complexes include Mummy Cave, Oxbow, McKean and Pelican Lake (Playford 2015:27-28). The subsistence pattern changed to adopt a wider variety of resources and more reliance on plants and smaller animals, although bison and large game continued to be a major source of food. There is also more evidence of extensive trade networks with groups in the Eastern Woodland based on the recovery of shell and copper from a burial in Saskatchewan (Nicholson and Webster 2011:92-93).

3.3.3 LatePrecontactPeriod(Woodland)2000–350BP

The Late Precontact period exhibited climate similar to today with a mixture of cooler/moist and warm/arid episodes (SAS 2010). Expansion in populations and changing technologies is evident with the number of Late Precontact sites in the study area. The key technology that characterizes this period is the appearance of clay ceramics and widespread bow and arrow technology.

The first ceramic complex appeared in the Initial Woodland period with its main cultural complexes known as Laurel and Besant were introduced to the study area around 2,000 BP. These two complexes ranges bordered each other along the forest transition in the parkland ecoregion. Laurel and Besant are characterized by a conical thin pottery with designs typically a pseudo-scallop or a line of punctates or bossing decoration around the rim of the pot.

About 1,000 years later ceramic technology changed to the Terminal Woodland period which contains various style types such as Selkirk, as Blackduck and Clearwater Lake Punctate which were globular vessels with a thick out flaring lip formed within a mesh or fibre bag. Both Laurel and Blackduck subsistence patterns focused on hunting of available medium to small mammals and birds as well as fishing based on seasonal rounds whereas Laurel were based in the plain and Blackduck utilizing more forest resources. Blackduck sites in the Parkland deviate in a number of respects from sites in the forests.


7

Not only was bison the major source of food, but certain tool categories are more typically of the Plains proper and there appears to be some form of relationship with the Middle Missouri farming populations (Gibbon: 77).

3.3.4 ContactPeriod

The strategic location and varied geography of the region resulted in a rich history of Indigenous land use during the Precontact Period and well after the first contact. Ray (1974) examined historical evidence regarding the movements and activities of the Assiniboine, Cree and Ojibway. Overlapping economic systems would see the coming together of the boreal forest and Parkland groups and exchanging of ideas and trade would occur. The multi-cultural aspect of the region was attested to in many fur trade era journals and accounts. For example James Settee, an Aboriginal schoolmaster was sent out to determine the need for a school in the Fort Ellice area. Settee reported that “Fort Ellice is a very desirable locality for the establishment of a new station. The Missionary might have access to the Sioux, the Assiniboine, the Mandans, the Crees and the Chippeways” (Ledohowski:25).

The first European to reach the Parkland was Henry Kelsey in 1691, seeing for the first time the massive herds of bison and was guided through the interior by the Assiniboine who were living in the Touchwood Hills region of the Parklands (Ray 1974:12). Other early explorers who travelled through the study area included Palliser in 1857-60 and Henry Youle Hind in 1857-58 sent to create maps of the interior. They came at a time of drought and declared the open prairie ‘nothing but a desert’ (Hind 1971:234). Pierre Gaultier de Varennes Sieur de La Verendrye explored southern Manitoba in the mid-1700s, he found it inhabited by the Assiniboine or ‘Stone Indians’ to the south and west and the Plains Cree to the north and west. The Assiniboine and Cree were close allies during the early period of the fur trade and both would regularly travel to posts on Hudson Bay. At the time Verendrye noted that their territory expanded south and west of the Assiniboine River. Another major cultural group that came to reside in the Project area was the Saulteaux, also known as the Ojibwa, who migrated west from the Sault Ste Marie regions during the early 1700s. By the 1840s the Saulteaux were residing in the Riding Mountain area and were frequently trading at Fort Ellice.

The Birtle study area was part of a larger trade and exploration network that interconnected parts of Canada, the United States and Europe. The fur trade expanded from the shores of Hudson Bay into the interior by the 1780s. Intense competition between Hudson’s Bay Company and the Northwest and XY companies resulted numerous posts being established in close proximity to each other. The earliest trade posts were established in 1780s along the Qu’Appelle River and Assiniboine Rivers.

The fur trade played a major role in this region from the late 1700s to late 1800s and while most major fur trade posts were located strategically on waterways overland access was just as important. This was manifested in an extensive network of cart trails and overland transportation routes that criss-crossed the southern Prairies, connecting various trade posts and communities (Figure 2). These trails typically followed more ancient Indigenous travel and trade routes. One of the main trails was known as the Carleton Trail, an approximately 1,400 km long overland route which connected Fort Garry (now Winnipeg) and Fort Edmonton (Kermoal 2007). By the mid-1800s, a number of Métis freighters in Red


8

River Carts would routinely travel long distances transporting goods and furs. Fort Ellice was one of the major trade posts in the region located just south of the junction of the Qu’Appelle and Assiniboine on Beaver Creek. The post located at the on the upper plateau of the junction of Beaver Creek and Assiniboine River was in operation from 1831 to 1890 (Figure 3).

By the 1890s, the Carlton Trail stopped being used for transportation, as sections of the Canadian Pacific railway began to extend further north. The first transcontinental railroad from the east reached Birtle in 1886 (Bird 1961:32) and gradually replaced carts as a means of transportation.

Figure2:WesternCanada’sEstablishedTrails

Courtesy of Atlas of Alberta Press, 2005.


9

Figure3:AsketchofFortEllicebyP.H.Dumais,June1882

Source: Archives of Manitoba, Fort Ellice 15.

The Ojibwa of this region maintained a highly complex combination of plains and parkland-oriented bands utilizing both forest and parkland zones. The trade and ecological conditions benefitted the Ojibwa in this region between 1837 and 1857. Despite the concentration of trade posts and missionary incursions, the Ojibwa were able to maintain traditional lifestyle and religious practices. The Midiwiwin continued to be held at Fort Ellice and other nearby areas along with other aspects of traditional religious practice, including healing and divination ceremonies as recorded in post journals (Peers 1994:175 and 197).

A large Métis population in the region dates back to the earliest days of the fur trade in the study area especially around the Fort Ellice area. The ethno genesis of the Métis Nation was firmly established between 1790-1820 A.D. and at this time were intrinsically liked with the fur trade (Teillet 2010). The historic Métis society was a large highly mobile network that sprawled across the North West using bases of operations such as Sault Ste Marie, Red River, Fort Edmonton, Qu’Appelle Valley, Green Lake etc. (Teillet 2010). One of these bases was situated nearby the Hudson Bay Company Fort Ellice where casual labourers and craftsmen lived in temporary and semi-permanent Métis camps usually along the region’s waterways and overland trails. It was only after the turn of the twentieth century that a permanent settlement came to be established at Ste. Madeleine located in Township 18 Range 29. The Métis were still living a largely subsistence lifestyle of hunting and raising small numbers of horses and cattle. As the railways continued to be built upon the Prairies and Anglo-Ontario settlers began purchasing homesteads, the Metis were pushed to the fringes of society. A Catholic mission was set up in St. Lazare in 1895 and an auxiliary mission was set up in Ste. Madeleine as a result of the local community building a small log chapel on SW 32-18-29W. The church became the focus of the community. However, by the 1930s the Great Depression made life extremely difficult in Ste. Madeleine and even a bare subsistence was difficult.


10

The sandy soils and draught conditions caused little or no pasture and wild game and berries were scarce. In 1935, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act (PFRA) was passed in Ottawa and land to the northwest and southwest of St. Lazare was identified as land that never should have been homesteaded and by 1935-1938 it was systematically converted to farmland.

3.3.5 SettlementPeriod

In 1870, formal acquisition of lands governed by the Hudson Bay Company was granted to the Federal government and the building of the transcontinental railway was underway, causing a boom in settlement. The region attracted several different cultural groups during the pioneer-settlement period which occurred between 1878 to 1914. The first group included the dominant Anglo-Ontario group who were first to arrive and occupied the majority of the region. Smaller groups of Francophone, Romanian and Ukrainian settlers also established permanent settlements in the area.

4.0 PREDICTIVEMODEL

A predictive model has been designed to provide an auxiliary understanding of the study area from an archaeological perspective. The objective of a predictive model is to identify areas which have moderate to high potential for heritage resources or areas and attempt to avoid these during the preliminary route selection process. The assumption is that ancient peoples had preferences for certain types of environments and selected certain land-based features over others for habitation, resource procurement, or protection. The model employs natural and cultural variables to predict the locations that have the potential to contain archaeological evidence. Using data from public sources such as GeoBase, Manitoba Land Initiative (MLI) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) as well as Manitoba’s Historic Resources Branch Archaeological Site Inventory, a high-level predictive model was created for the Birtle Transmission Project Study area focused around the Round 1 Alternative Route segments (version October 4, 2016). The study area was refined on December 22, 2016 and features were clipped to overlap with the modified extent.

Transmission line sighting and route evaluation requires analysis of many inputs including the consideration of unverified phenomena having a potential presence based on predictive modelling. Archaeological sites are one of these considerations and through predictive modelling, it is possible to identify potential areas of interest or greater probability of archaeological artifact presence and thus less desirable routeing options. The archaeological site predictive model is derived from several weight inputs and is intended to help identify areas of archaeological site potential and thus avoidance of areas of least preference when considering transmission line routing.

A number of land-based features were selected based on review of contemporary predictive models (Petch et al. 2001; Historic Resources Branch 2015). Each of these features were converted into raster pixels (10m size) ensuring coverage of the study area to compare results between all feature classes. These features included:

Proximity to known archaeological sites;


11

Ground slope;

Proximity to waterways;

Soil drainage; and

Land cover.

The variables (also known as Factors) of proximity to lakes and rivers, ground slope, soil fertility and drainage, and proximity to known archaeological sites were chosen as the most likely to be preferred. Each feature was subdivided into three to five subcategories and assigned a value from 1 to 100 with one being the least preferable and 100 being the most preferred (Table 1). Where variables intersected the added values of these variables was given as the new value.


12

Table1:FeatureClassesofFiveLand‐basedAttributesfortheBTPPredictiveModel

Archaeological Site Distance from (metres)

Valuation (based out of 1 to 100)

High Potential 0‐100 60 Medium Potential 101‐500 30 Low Potential 501‐1000 9 Lowest Potential >1001 1

Sum 100

Slope Degree Valuation (based out of 1 to 100)

High Potential 0‐2 60 Medium Potential 3‐5 39 Low Potential >5 1

Sum 100

Water body - River Distance from (metres)

Valuation (based out of 1 to 100)

High Potential 0‐100 50

Medium Potential 101‐500 35

Low Potential 501‐1000 14

Lowest Potential >1001 1

Sum 100

Soil Drainage Classification Valuation (based out of 1 to 100)

High Potential Rapid/Well 55 Medium Potential Imperfect 35 Low Potential Poor/Very poor 9 Lowest Potential Water 1

Sum 100

Land Cover Classification Valuation (based out of 1 to 100)

High Potential Forest 45 Medium Potential Agricultural 25 Medium Potential Shrub and grassland 20 Low Potential Urban 9 Lowest Potential Water/Wetland 1

Sum 100


13

Where variables intersected, the combined added values was totalled and then normalized based on a weighted ranking. The attribute categories were ranked out of 100% and are as follows: Proximity to Archaeological site (40%), proximity to water (30%); slope (10%), soil drainage (10%); land cover (10%) and a weighted value for each class was determined (Table 2). Normalization of the segment values was performed by dividing the sum of pixel values over the segments length by the length of segment. Classification was arbitrarily performed using 4 classes utilizing a Jenks (natural breaks) classification methodology.

Table2:OverallWeightedRankingofEachFactorLayer(outof100%)

Factor Layer Percentage

Archaeological Site 40%Slope 10%Water body 30%Soil Drainage 10%Land Cover 10%

Total 100

The results of the predictive model showed certain segments had preference over others (Map 2). The results were provided to Manitoba Hydro to utilize in the route selection process. Known heritage sites were avoided during the routing process, and Manitoba Hydro has developed measures to manage previously un-discovered cultural or heritage resources during clearing and construction processes.

While predictive models provide a technical and quantitative analysis of an area, it should not be considered definitive source on the cultural or historical use of an area. It is a tool to supplement the understanding of the past and is limited to the material remains left behind by a cultural group. It is imperative that a ground-truthing field program is implemented to test the validity of the model and refine it for ongoing use through construction of the project.

Much of the Aspen Parkland has been modified by agricultural practices and the marshes, natural sloughs, tall grass prairie and tree groves have been replaced with pasturelands or farmlands and extensive road and rail networks.


14

Map2:HeritagePredictiveModel


15

5.0 HERITAGERESOURCEIMPACTASSESSMENT

5.1 PREINVESTIGATION

5.1.1 PreviouslyRegisteredHeritageResources

The archaeological record provides physical and documented evidence the many different cultural occupations that have occurred over millennia. Archaeological site information is held by the Province of Manitoba in an archaeological site inventory database. In addition to the Provincial archaeological site inventory there are official federal, provincial and municipally-designated sites that are of historical significance for their contribution to the growth of the nation, province and local environment (centennial farms, commemorative plaques and monuments).

The archaeological assessment began with a review of existing registered archaeological sites in the general region. A request was sent to the HRB’s Heritage Resources Registrar to review the archaeological site inventory for earlier archaeological investigation and previously registered sites in proximity to the property area. For the entire Study Area, 85 registered archaeological sites (Appendix B), 12 Centennial Farms (Table 3) , and 13 Plaques have been recorded (Table 4).

Table3:ListofCentennialFarmsinProjectStudyArea

Centennial Farm Original Date Legal Description Barteaux Family Farm 1907 S 18‐16‐27 W

Nettle Family Farm 1904 E 14‐17‐27 W

Prescott Family Farm 1887 SE 30‐17‐27 W

Falloon Family Farm 1881 NW 28‐17‐28 W

Laycock Family Farm 1891 SE 36‐17‐28 W

Hamilton Family Farm 1881 SW 6‐18‐27 W

Falloon Family Farm 1882 SW 10‐18‐28 W

Falloon Family Farm 1885 SE 10‐18‐28 W

Pizzey Family Farm 1904 NE 16‐18‐28 W

Bradshaw Family Farm 1908 SW 12‐19‐29 W

Lyon Family Farm 1903 E 17‐19‐28 W

Joyce Family Farm 1889 NW 16‐19‐28 W

Table4:ListofPlaquesinProjectStudyArea

Plaque ID Plaque Name Legal Description

PLAQ1119 St. Albans Church and Blenheim Cemetery SW13‐15‐27W

PLAQ890 Oxford Schools SE19‐16‐27W

PLAQ1366 Fort Ellice NW33‐16‐28W

PLAQ812 Morseby School NW31‐17‐27W


16

PLAQ1747 Falloon Family NE32‐17‐28W

PLAQ2389 Foxwarren Memory Garden SW4‐18‐27W

PLAQ1751 Hamilton Farm SW6‐18‐27W

PLAQ2486 Memory Garden, Foxwarren School Bell NW of NW 4‐8‐27

PLAQ418 Foxwarren School Bell NE5‐18‐27W

PLAQ1172 Ste. Madeleine SE32‐18‐29W

PLAQ55 Baldwin School NW5‐19‐28W

PLAQ1438 Wayside Store NE18‐19‐29W

PLAQ1430 Crosby School SW20‐19‐29W

Limited formal archaeological investigations have occurred in the Study Area; however local collectors Pierre Huberdeau and Omar Foulliard extensively searched the district over decades from the mid to late 20th century and have found impressive and rare archaeological sites and artifacts. Pierre Huberdeau has worked directly with the Province to register many of these sites.

Limited formalized archaeological surveys have been conducted in the area. In the 1980s, provincial archaeologists were granted access to investigate the former Hudson Bay Company property on the west side of the Assiniboine immediately south of St. Lazare. A short survey consisting of pedestrian surveys near the fur trade posts Fort Ellice I and II found several pre-contact archaeological sites, these were assigned Borden numbers by the Historic Resources Branch. Artifacts from these sites indicated that the landscape had been used for thousands of years before the establishment of the forts by First Nation peoples. More recently the Hudson Bay Reserve lands were obtained by the Nature Conservancy of Canada who funded a heritage investigation and inventory (North Shore Archaeology 2013).

5.1.2 HeritageResourcesInProximitytoPreliminaryPreferredRoute

The results of the inventory review showed six archaeological sites within 500 metres of the PPR. Two additional sites were identified by the HRB immediately prior to the 2017 field program, EcMh-23 and EcMh-63 at a distance of 600 metres from the PPR, and were included in the assessment. However, one of these sites EcMh-63 was recently recorded and would not have been captured in earlier datasets nor in the predictive model. All of these eight sites within 600 metres of the PPR were of disturbed context found in open agricultural fields (Table 5).

The six of the eight sites date to the Precontact period. One of these, found by Pierre Huberdeau EcMh-24, is a rich but disturbed site that contained artifacts from all three cultural periods extending including the rarely represented Paleo period and also includes evidence of clay ceramics from the Woodland period. The Archaic period is well-represented in four of the sites date to this period, EcMh-19, EcMh-26, EcMh-28 and EcMh-63. One site can only be dated to the general Precontact period due to the presence of lithic flakes. The two remaining sites have undetermined cultural affiliation and it is not known what types of artifacts were recovered or who originally found and recorded the sites.


17

Table5:ListingofRegisteredArchaeologicalSiteswithin600metresofthePPR

Borden Number Name Site Type Period

Distance to PPR

EcMg‐2 N/A H.UNINTERPRETED UNDETERMINED PRECONTACT 101 m

EcMh‐19 N/A H.UNINTERPRETED MIDDLE PRECONTACT 481 m

EcMh‐23 N/A H.UNINTERPRETED UNDETERMINED 582 m

EcMh‐24 HUBERDEAU CACHE SITE A.CAMPSITE

PALEO; OXBOW; AVONLEA; PELICAN LAKE; WOODLAND 197 m

EcMh‐26 N/A A.CAMPSITE PELICAN LAKE (3300 to 1850 BP) 456 m

EcMh‐27 N/A H.UNINTERPRETED UNDETERMINED 314 m

EcMh‐28 N/A A.CAMPSITE OXBOW; PELICAN LAKE; AVONLEA 397 m

EcMh‐63 N/A H.UNINTERPRETED MIDDLE PRECONTACT (specifically 3000 BC to 1 AD) 399 m

One Provincial Plaque is recorded within 500 metres of the PPR (Table 6). Plaque 890 is related to Oxford School in Section SE 19-16-27W located 103 metres north of the PPR (Figure 4). This is a monument to the site of the former Oxford School which was operated from 1882 to 1901. The school was then relocated half a mile to the north in NE19-16-27W and it remained open until 1960. The school building was relocated and renovated into a private residence (MHS 2017).

Table6:ListingofRegisteredPlaqueswithin500metresofthePPR

Plaque ID Plaque Name Legal Description

PLAQ890 Oxford Schools SE19‐16‐27W


18

Figure4:OxfordSchoolPlaque(MHS2017)

5.1.3 Land‐basedSelectionofAreasofPotentialAlongPPR

A second phase of the pre-investigation was to review the results of the predictive model as well as examine orthoimagery to identify physical land features that may be conducive to the presence of heritage resources. Both methods were focused around the PPR route. The results of the predictive model indicated that areas in proximity to known archaeological sites as well as those near waterways have the highest potential. In relation to the PPR, those route segments specifically around Snake Creek and Wattsview Plains contained moderate potential. One small segment three miles west of the Birtle Station had high value due to the presence of a previously registered archaeological site EcMg-2 located 100 metres north of the PPR.

Using ESRI ArcMap 10.2, areas identified as heritage points of interest (POI) included former drainage systems (also known as paleodrainage), prairie potholes (slough), intact groves of trees which have not been affected by agriculture, and lands in proximity to registered archaeological sites.

In July 2017, a total of 32 quarter sections were identified along the PPR and were provided to the HRB for review and comment. The HRB requested an additional 13 quarter sections to be included in the 2017 field program. This brought the total number of quarter sections to 45 parcels of land which correlates to coverage of 36 km length along the 45 km long PPR. Manitoba Hydro implemented the landowner contact process and provided those parcels where permissions had been granted.


19

A list of the quarter sections that were determined to have moderate to high heritage potential are provided in Table 7.

Table7:ListofQuarterSectionsSelectedforHeritageAssessment

SECTION POI_NAME ASSESSED RESULT

NE18‐16‐26W Substation YES NEGATIVE

SW19‐16‐26W Point 18 YES NEGATIVE

SE20‐16‐27W Point 13 YES NEGATIVE





SW22‐16‐27W Point 15 and Near Registered Archaeological NO N/A

SE23‐16‐27W YES NEGATIVE

SW23‐16‐27W NO N/A

SE24‐16‐27W Point 17 NO N/A

NE24‐16‐28W Near Registered Archaeological Site EcMh‐28 YES POSITIVE New Site

SE24‐16‐28W Near Registered Archaeological Site EcMh‐28 YES NEGATIVE

NE25‐16‐28W Point 11 YES NEGATIVE

SE25‐16‐28W Near Registered Archaeological Site EcMh‐26 NO N/A

NE35‐16‐28W Near Registered Archaeological Site EcMh‐23 NO N/A

NW36‐16‐ YES NEGATIVE

SW36‐16‐28W Point 9 & 10 YES NEGATIVE

NE2‐17‐28W YES NEGATIVE

SE2‐17‐28W Near Registered Archaeological Site EcMg‐63 YES NEGATIVE

NE11‐17‐28W Near Registered Archaeological Site EcMh‐19 YES NEGATIVE

SE11‐17‐28W Poly 4 YES NEGATIVE


SE14‐17‐28W Poly 4 NO N/A


SE23‐17‐28W YES NEGATIVE

NE26‐17‐28W Point 22 YES POSITIVE MODERN

SE35‐17‐28W NO N/A

NE2‐18‐28W Point 21 NO N/A

NW2‐18‐28W Point 5 NO N/A

SE2‐18‐28W Point 2 & 3 NO N/A


NW3‐18‐28W Point 20 YES NEGATIVE


NW5‐18‐28W Point 4 & 1 NO N/A


NW1‐18‐29W Poly 3 YES POSITIVE New Site


20

SECTION POI_NAME ASSESSED RESULT

NE2-18-29W Poly 3 YES NEGATIVE

NW2-18-29W Poly 3 YES NEGATIVE

NE3-18-29W Poly 2 YES NEGATIVE

NW3-18-29W Poly 2 YES NEGATIVE

NE4-18-29-W Poly 2 NO N/A

NW4-18-29W Poly 1 NO N/A

NE5-18-29W Poly 1 NO N/A

NW5-18-29W NO N/A

5.2 METHODOLOGY & OBJECTIVES

An archaeological assessment determines presence of heritage or cultural resources that may be adversely affected by the Project. The assessment occurred over two separate field trips, the first trip occurred between August 21 to 24 and the second was from October 10 to 13. Dividing the assessment into summer and fall programs allowed for the opportunity for local Indigenous participation and also to account for crop harvesting across an extensive number of lands within the study area. The HRIA occurred under Manitoba Heritage Permit A33-17. Investigation methods followed provincially mandated requirements of the HRB and Section 12(2) of The Heritage Resources Act (1986).

General methodology to assess the 45 selected parcels of land within the development area consisted of pedestrian survey, subsurface testing and vehicular survey. Prior to accessing a property, attempts were made to secure landowner permissions. This was carried out by Manitoba Hydro’s landowner liaison prior to each of the two field programs. Requests included noting any special requirement or considerations as directed by land owners. Access was gained for a large majority of sections; however, not all areas identified for the heritage assessment were granted permission and therefore 15 parcels were not assessed. These parcels are listed in Table 7. On the east side of the Assiniboine, the majority of the proposed Birtle Transmission ROW will border existing mile roads or Provincial Highways. On the west, the line crosses difficult-to-access community pasture.

Pedestrian survey transects were thinly spaced, approximately 10 metres apart, and examined the exposed ground surface in the cultivated agricultural portions. Subsurface shovel testing was implemented in areas judiciously selected as having favourable landscape features conducive to locating heritage resources such as hillocks, ridges, or near existing waterways, ponds or sloughs. Test pits measured 50 cm by 50 cm and were excavated to depths between 35 and 65 cm below ground surface to locate in situ2 artifacts or buried cultural horizons. Shovel tests were recorded on detailed shovel test forms which include relevant information such as vegetation, landmarks, proximity to water (Appendix C). Additional notes were recorded in notebooks and the fieldwork was photo-documented. Pedestrian survey tracks were recorded using handheld GPS units (Garmin 78S) in geodetic reference system NAD 83. Deep testing was unable to be conducted due to a number of reasons such as biosecurity, environmental considerations or lack of access.

2 In Situ – in archaeology means an artifact that has not been moved from its original place of deposition.


21

5.3 PHASEI–AUGUST21TO24,2017

At the outset of the field program the heritage team conducted a vehicular reconnaissance of the line to determine access, crop status and confirm a property had heritage potential. Based on the vehicular survey the majority of heritage POIs were under crop (canola, wheat, alfalfa/clover) and therefore could not be accessed and would have to be deferred to the fall field program. A community member from Gambler First Nation assisted the heritage team during the first phase of the assessment.

5.3.1 SEandNE‐24‐16‐28WSnakeCreek(NewArchaeologicalSite,EcMh‐66“DoubleBuckle”)

The Preferred Route crosses a small branch of Snake creek in Sections SE and NE-24-16-28. Shovel testing occurred on the south bank in a pasture along the upper terrace spaced 10 metres apart beginning at fence line and extending westward. Cow bones were found in one test at a depth of 40 cm, however these are modern and would not trigger a site designation. A second transect was setback five metres from the first transect and shovel tests were spaced every 10 metres. Shovel testing continued along an elevated ridge located approximately 100 metres south of the creek. The soils consisted of sandy silt and gravel. The crew examined the creek bed and embankment which was dry at the time of survey and criss-crossed with many cow trails. The survey also encompassed the surrounding pasture which included a registered archaeological site. EcMh-28 is located 600 m to the west of the ROW and the general pasture consisted of small knolls and depression.

The assessment continued on the north side of Snake creek in Section NE 24-16-28 with testing implemented along the upper terrace and downslope of the ridge (Figure 5). The north bank is steeper and more elevated than the southern bank with an extensive poplar sapling understory. Testing resulted in finding square machine-cut nails, chinking and a possible retouched quartzite flake. A second shovel test was placed near the first positive test and three more square machine-cut nails were recovered. Testing around these positive locations also returned positive results and included artifact such as historic refined white earthenware, calcined animal bone and two horse harness buckles and a possible Precontact lithic flake (Figure 7). The artifacts indicate that there may have been a historic farm building or barn in this location due to the presence of architectural materials (chinking and nails). The nails predate 1900 due to their manufacture. Archival research at the Manitoba Archives has found the property was first purchased in 1885 by John H Bartley but plans did not show the location of buildings or barns in the vicinity of the finds.

A pedestrian survey examined the general area within the ROW and noted an unusual landscape feature to the north and west of the testing locations. A channel depression extended approximately 10 metres towards the creek. On the top the one end a stone cobble pile was noted (Figure 6). Vegetation was cleared away from the rock feature and a shovel test was excavated in gully below the rock feature. Relatively modern materials were found in the gully (insect poison spray, plastic button, pig tooth, small glass fragment, tin can fragments but were not collected. The rock pile and linear depression is likely modern and may be used for drainage.


22

Figure5:TestingtheNorthSideofSnakeCreek

Figure6:ExposingRockFeature


23

Figure7:ArtifactsfromEcMh‐66


24

Figure8:LocationofNewArchaeologicalSite,EcMh‐66andextentofinvestigations


25

5.3.2 SWandNW‐36‐16‐28WCanolaField

The next parcels identified as having heritage potential were two quarter sections along a diagonal branch of the Preferred Route. The ROW crosses two canola fields and a small relict channel that is surrounded by an understory of willow and poplar. The pedestrian survey examined the recently harvested canola field and did not result in the discovery of heritage resources.

5.3.3 SE‐2‐17‐28WWheatField

The next section was an agricultural field that had been recently harvested (Figure 9). The ground surface had fair visibility and a pedestrian survey covered the extent of the ROW which borders highway PTH 568.

Figure9:CrewConductingPedestrianSurveyinHarvestedCanolaField

5.3.4 SW‐22‐16‐27WandSEandSW‐21‐16‐27WBirdtailRiver

The Birdtail River is a major waterway that had high heritage potential. The river is crossed by PTH 568. Upon arrival at the crossing, it was noted that the banks are incredibly steep and forested. The elevation goes from 450 metres Asl3 to 490 metres Asl in a distance of 300 metres. Access down to the river’s edge

3 Asl – “above sea level”


26

was difficult due to the berms created by the highway construction and bridge crossing. There was no appreciable shoreline with a border of willow and the river is shallow and very rocky (Figure 10). Shovel testing occurred on both sides of the river with negative results. The survey also continued up along the upper terrace on the east side of the Birdtail with negative results. A gravel extraction borrow pit is located in the section is located east of the crossing which halted the survey in that direction. The quarter section of SW-21-16-27W was examined via vehicular survey and the area did not contain areas of potential.

Figure10:BirdtailRiverCrossing

5.3.5 NEandNW‐3‐18‐29WUpperRidgesofAssiniboineRiverWest

Access to the west side of the Assiniboine River proved difficult. There are no organized mile roads, only circuitous roads leading to various residences or pastures. The section of land that was closest to the Assiniboine River was still under crop and therefore deferred. The two adjoining sections heading west were assessed. The first quarter section NE-3-18-29W contained a large treed area and marsh. Shovel tests (n=3) were excavated along the tree line and a pedestrian survey within the tree grove did not result in the discovery of heritage resources. The survey continued up a steep slope of a ridge leading to the roadway. At the top of the ridge, the area is comprised of sandy ridges and has an expansive vista. Testing (n=3) were placed along this ridge overlooking the Assiniboine River Valley (Figure 11).


27

The survey continued past the road into section NW-3-18-29W where the elevation increased drastically and the area is considerably sandier. The ground surface has excellent visibility with small pockets of jack pine and oak.

Figure11:ShovelTestingalongUpperTerracesonWestSideofAssiniboineValley

5.4 HRIAPHASEII–OCTOBER10TO13,2017

5.4.1 NE‐18‐16‐26WBirtleTransformerStation

The transmission line will originate at an existing transformer station in Section NE18-16-26W. The existing Birtle South Electrical Station is located 4.8 km south of the Town of Birtle on Highway 83 at the junction with PTH 568. The area has undergone impact from the development of the station and the surrounding land is currently pasture. A pedestrian survey was carried out within the proposed ROW; however it was noted that the pasture contained large pockets of marsh that had to be skirted around during the survey. A shovel test was placed on a slightly elevated area within the field. The soils were gravelly dense clays and had negative results.

5.4.2 SW‐19‐16‐26WFlaxField

The next quarter section contained a small waterway approximately 230 metres north of the proposed ROW. The area consisted of a harvested flax field. The pedestrian survey of the entire ROW and shovel


28

tests (n=2) were placed on a series of small ridges in the southwest corner of the field with negative results (Figure 12).

5.4.3 SE‐23‐16‐27WCanolaField/TreedArea

The next section available for survey consisted of a harvested canola field intersected in the middle by a fallow area which contained a grove of white and black poplar trees and tall grasses. The pedestrian survey of the exposed soils in the field occurred within the ROW. Testing (n=2) was conducted in the undisturbed treed area (Figure 13). Black organic soils and lots of tree roots were encountered in the tests.

Figure12:ShovelTestingalongSmallRidgesinSW‐19‐16‐26W


29

Figure13:NaturalTreedareainSE‐23‐16‐27W

5.4.4 SE‐22‐16‐27WWheatField

The parcel consisted of a harvested wheat field with fair visibility of the ground surface. Pedestrian survey examined the length of the ROW. In the extreme southwest corner of the field a grove of poplar trees next to an open fallow area with a relict streambed and a small dug-out slough. Two shovel tests (n=2) were excavated on the west upper edge of the slough with negative results.

5.4.5 SEandSW‐20‐16‐27WCanolaField

The survey covered two adjoining quarter sections consisting of harvested canola fields. The field had fair surface visibility and oil derricks were located across the SW parcel. Shovel tests (n=2) were placed on an elevation change at the 480 metre contour revealing hard-packed gravelly soils.

5.4.6 NE‐25‐16‐28WWheatField/Pastureland/SnakeCreek

This section was accessed from PTH 568 turning east on mile road 96N and then walking across a harvested wheat field towards the Snake Creek valley. Fencing separated the field from the edge of the terrace overlooking a steep embankment leading down to Snake Creek (Figure 14). Testing (n=2) occurred along the edge of the terrace and soils were sandy and very gravelly. The embankment was too


30

steep to traverse. Testing could not be completed on the south side of this water crossing due to lack of landowner permission.

Figure14:SnakeCreekValley;ViewfromUpperTerrace

5.4.7 NE‐2‐17‐28WCanolaField

The transmission ROW would run diagonally pedestrian survey of the harvested canola field did not result in the discovery of heritage resources nor any landscape features of potential that would warrant testing.

5.4.8 NEandNW‐3‐18‐28WCanolaField

These two quarter sections were accessed immediately off of PTH 41 and mile road 103N. Two POI area were identified as having potential and the area was covered via pedestrian survey. The field was a harvested canola field with fair visibility. No heritage resources were noted and testing was not warranted due to the relict creek has undergone modification.

5.4.9 SE‐11‐17‐28WPasture

Assessment method consisted of pedestrian survey of the fallow pastureland which had limited visibility of the ground surface. Shovel testing (n=2) occurred on small hillocks in the pasture but did not result in the discovery of heritage resources.


31

5.4.10 NE‐11‐17‐28WCanolaField/Marsh

The survey of this section was divided by a large marsh and pond which runs diagonally from southeast to northwest. Pedestrian survey of the plowed areas examined the ground surface. Shovel testing (n=2) occurred in the treed and grassy area bordering the south side of the pond. It was noted that a large berm had been created on this side of the pond comprised of felled trees, boulders and soils giving evidence that some disturbance had occurred to this area. On the north side of the pond, testing on this side (n=2) had to be pushed a bit further back because of marshy and saturated ground closer to the waterway.

5.4.11 NE‐14‐17‐28WWheatField/RelictChannel

Pedestrian survey in this harvested canola field had fair visibility but did not identify landscape feature of potential from which to place shovel tests. A relict channel was noted during the ortho-image review but when on-site no trace of the former channel or stream bed could be seen.

5.4.12 SEandNE‐23‐17‐28WCanolaField/RelicChannel

The pedestrian survey continued from the last quarter section and ground surface in this harvested canola field had fair visibility. Once again, there were no landscape features that would warrant shovel testing. The survey expanded into the NE quarter section and where another relict channel was noted from imagery, modern road infrastructure has impacted where the channel may have been and there was no traces in this section where the ROW is situated.

5.4.13 NE‐26‐17‐28WWheatField

The area consists of a plowed wheat field with excellent visibility. A pedestrian survey covered the ROW which runs along the south side of the quarter section. A small area with a slightly lower depression was examined and modern debris such as bottle glass fragments, plastics, and metal were noted but not collected.

5.4.14 NE‐andNW‐1‐18‐29WAssiniboineRiver–East(NewArchaeologicalSiteEdMi‐7“AssiniboineOverlook”)

The investigation on the east side of the Assiniboine River occurred on October 12. The landowner had provided permission to access the quarter section parcels leading towards the upper terrace edge of the Assiniboine River Valley. A pedestrian survey examined the area beginning with the first section of land in the NE consisting of dense forest and understory of shrubs. The area has also seen modification to the landscape with various cut trails and a dug-out slough for cattle. The second quarter section consisted of open agricultural field that had excellent visibility. The landowner is currently installing sub-surface irrigation system across both of these parcels.


32

5.4.15 NEandNW‐2‐18‐29WAssiniboineRiverValleyWest

The NE quarter located on the east side of the Assiniboine River in Section 2-18-29W could only undergo survey at its extreme eastern boundary close to the division with Section NW-1-18-29W due to the start of the steep embankment leading down to the Assiniboine River valley. The embankment drops 70 metres in elevation in less than 500 metres. Testing occurred along this edge of the upper terrace and a new archaeological site was found.

At the edge of the upper terrace in NE-2-18-29W, a thin strip of grass divided the plowed field and the forested downslope (Figure 15). Testing along this edge, within the ROW, resulted in the discovery of historic materials in all three shovel tests excavated. Bottle glass, animal bone, ferrous metal and lead were recovered at depths between 10 and 15 cm below surface. One piece of glass was amethyst colour indicating a manufacture date of pre-1914 (Figure 16). Archival research was undertaken for this parcel of land and the owner of the NE quarter in 1891 was Antoine Desjarlais. The archival materials did not note buildings, trails or other indicators of which the artifacts could be associated.

Figure15:UpperEdgeofAssiniboineRiverTerrace(testingalongedgeoftreeline)


33

Figure16:ArtifactsFoundfromEdMi‐7;amethystbottleglass,leadandanimalbone


34

Figure17:LocationofArchaeologicalSite,EdMi‐7


35

The survey continued in the NW quarter section which lay across the river at the bottom of the Assiniboine River valley. Evidence of former oxbow channels were noted in the harvested wheat field and soils remained saturated in areas despite drainage efforts of the landowner. A total of four shovel tests were distributed on either side of the relict oxbow and another two tests were placed at the edge of the current bank of the river (Figure 18). The height of the bank on this side of the river is approximately 3 metres.

Figure18:ShovelTestingAlongWestBankofAssiniboineRiver

6.0 RESULTSANDRECOMMENDATIONS

The Birtle Transmission Project HRIA consisted of a review of the historical and cultural background of the general study area, creation of a predictive model to assist Manitoba Hydro in determining a preferred route selection and implementing two separate field surveys to locate heritage and cultural resources which may be affected by the Project. The results of the assessment led to the recording of two new archaeological sites, EcMh-66 and EdMi-7, both small sites dating to the Late Historic period (1870-1930 A.D.).

These two sites, along with 17 additional locations of moderate to high heritage potential have been added to the Environmental Protection Plan for avoidance and mitigation measures have been developed to manage these areas during construction. A Culture and Heritage Protection Plan will be developed to outline key actions in the case of newly discovered culture or heritage resources during clearing or construction.


36

7.0 REFERENCES

Antev, E. 1955 Geologic Climatic Dating in the West. American Antiquity 20:317-335. Bird. R. 1961 Ecology of the Aspen Parkland of Western Canada in Relation to Land Use. Contribution no. 27, Research Station. Research Branch Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa. Accessed Nov 21, 2016 http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/aac-aafc/agrhist/A43-1066-1961-eng.pdf Ecological Stratification Working Group (Canada) 1995 A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa/Hull. Accessed Nov. 21, 2016 http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/ecostrat/index.html Gibbon, G. K. Ames (eds.) 1998 Archaeology of Prehistoric Native America: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis, New York. Historic Resources Branch 2015 GIS Model for Archaeological Potential in the Manitoba Prairies. Prepared by E. Graham. Unpublished report on file at the Historic Resources Branch, Winnipeg, MB. Hamel, C. and E. Reimer 2004 St. Lazare Area of Manitoba: A Biodiversity Hotspot. Blue Jay vol 62:203-210. Online document accessed Nov 18, 2017. https://www.gov.mb.ca/sd/cdc/pdf/stlazare.pdf Hind, H. Y. 1971 Narrative of the Canadian Red River Exploring Expedition of 1857 and of the Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition of 1858. M.G. Hurtig Ltd., Edmonton. Kermoal, N. 2007 Métis Trails of Western Canada. Encyclopedia of French Cultural Heritage in North America. Accessed Oct 31, 2017 http://www.ameriquefrancaise.org/en/article-488/M%C3%A9tis_Trails_of_Western_Canada_.html Ledohowski, E. 2009 The Heritage Landscape of the West Riding Mountain Study Region of Southwestern Manitoba.

Unpublished manuscript, Historic Resources Branch, Manitoba Culture, Heritage & Tourism. Ms on file Manitoba Historic Resources Branch, Wpg, MB.


37

Manitoba Historical Society 2017 Historic Sites of Manitoba: Oxford School No. 257 (Municipality of Prairie View). Accessed Nov 20, 2017 http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/sites/oxfordschool.shtml Nicholson, B. and S. Webster 2011 Human Ecology of the Canadian Prairie Ecozone ca 3000 BP: Post Hypsithermal Adaptations to the Canadian Prairie Ecozone. In Human Ecology of the Canadian Prairie Ecozone 11,000-300 BP, edited by B.A. Nicholson, pp 81-98, CPRC Press, Regina, SK. North Shore Archaeology 2013 Archaeological Investigations of Fort Ellice and other Archaeological Sites near the St. Lazare Region of Manitoba. For the Nature Conservancy of Canada. Heritage Permit A30-13. MS on file Historic Resources Branch, Winnipeg, MB. Peck, Trevor 2011 Light from Ancient Campfires: Archaeological Evidence for Native Lifeways on the Northern Plains. AU Press, Athabasca University. Peers, Laura 1994 The Ojibwa of Western Canada, 1780-1870. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, MB. Playford, T. 2015 An Examination of Species Diversity and Bison Processing Intensity Contextualized within an Aboriginal Seasonality Framework for Late Precontact Sites on the Canadian Northeastern Plains. Doctoral Thesis, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba. Ray, A. 1974 Indians in the Fur Trade: Their Role as Trappers, Hunters, and Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay, 1660-1870. University of Toronto Press Inc. Ritchie, J. C. 1976 The Late-Quaternary Vegetation History of the Western Interior of Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany 54:1793-1818. 1978 Postglacial Vegetation of Canada. Cambridge University Press. Saskatchewan Archaeological Society 2012 A Guide to Saskatchewan Archaeology. Compiled by K. Steuber and D. Huynh. Accessed Nov 20, 2017 http://thenhier.ca/sites/default/files/2012GuideToSaskArchaeology.pdf 2010 A Teaching Guide to Saskatchewan Archaeology: Companion Document to Incorporating Archaeology into Lesson Plans: Educational Outcomes from the Saskatchewan Curriculum – Grades Four through Nine. Saskatoon, SK. Accessed Sept 29, 2017. http://thenhier.ca/sites/default/files/TheArchaeologyofSaskatchewan.pdf


38

Sheehan, M.S. 2002 Dietary Responses to Mid-Holocene Climatic Change. North American Anthropologist 40(153):117-143. Smith, R.E., H. Veldhuis, G.F. Mills, R.G. Eilers, W.R. Fraser and G. W Lelyk 1998 Terrestrial Ecozones, Ecoregions, and Ecodistricts of Manitoba, An Ecological Stratification of Manitoba’s Landscapes. Technical Bulletin 98-9E. Land Resource Unit, Brandon Research Centre, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Winnipeg, MB. Petch, V., L. Larcombe, D. Ebert, K.D. McLeod, G. Senior, M. Singer 2001 End of Field Season Report Testing the F1 Archaeological Predictive Model. Manitoba Model Forest. Accessed Jan 19, 2017 http://www.manitobamodelforest.net/publications/Archaeological%20Predictive%20Model%20-%20Final%20Report%20on%20Field%20Testing.pdf Teillet, J. 2010 The People and Territory of the Metis Nation. Presentation at the The Powley Legacy: Mapping the History of Métis Nation Rights July 16-17, 2010, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Accessed Oct 31, 2017. http://metisportals.ca/MetisRights/wp/wp-content/uploads/The-People-and-Territory-of-the-Metis-Nation-2010.pdf Teller, J. T. and W. M. Last, 1981 Late Quaternary history of Lake Manitoba, Canada: Quaternary Research vol. 16 pp 97-116. University of Alberta Press 2005 Western Canada’s Established Trails. Settlement of Western Canada: Before the Railway: Trails, Canoes and York Boats, Atlas of Alberta Railways. The University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Alberta. Accessed Jan 11, 2017. http://railways.library.ualberta.ca/Maps-2-1-2/ University of Notre Dame. 2007 Depositional Landforms. Course Lab Notes. Accessed Oct 31, 2017. https://www3.nd.edu/~cneal/PlanetEarth/Lab-Glaciation/10.6.jpg


APPENDIXA:

HeritagePermitA33‐17


APPENDIXB:

ListofArchaeologicalSitesinProjectStudyArea


BORDEN_NO

COMMON_NAM SITE_TYPE CULTURAL_AFFILIATION CONDITION

EcMg‐1 CLEGHORN HILL A.CAMPSITE ARCHAIC; WOODLAND DISTURBED

EcMg‐2 Name Not Available H.UNINTERPRETED PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMg‐5 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE WOODLAND DISTURBED

EcMg‐6 Name Not Available H.UNINTERPRETED PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMg‐8 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE ARCHAIC DISTURBED

EcMg‐9 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMh‐1 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE UNDETERMINED DISTURBED

EcMh‐10 FORT ELLICE 2 SITE B.PERMANENT SETTLEMENT

HISTORIC DISTURBED

EcMh‐11 PLANTE SITE A.CAMPSITE ARCHAIC; WOODLAND DISTURBED

EcMh‐12 Name Not Available H.UNINTERPRETED ARCHAIC DISTURBED

EcMh‐13 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMh‐14 Name Not Available H.UNINTERPRETED UNDETERMINED DISTURBED



EcMh‐17 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE WOODLAND DISTURBED

EcMh‐19 Name Not Available H.UNINTERPRETED ARCHAIC DISTURBED

EcMh‐2 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE UNDETERMINED DISTURBED





EcMh‐24 HUBERDEAU CACHE SITE

A.CAMPSITE PALEO; ARCHAIC; WOODLAND

DISTURBED


EcMh‐26 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE ARCHAIC DISTURBED



EcMh‐29 Name Not Available E.WORKSHOP PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMh‐3 FORT ELLICE I M.FUR TRADE POST; A.CAMPSITE

ARCHAIC; HISTORIC DISTURBED

EcMh‐30 Name Not Available H.UNINTERPRETED PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMh‐31 BROKEN SHOCK TRAIL

A.CAMPSITE PRECONTACT DISTURBED


EcMh‐33 JUNCTION H.UNINTERPRETED PALEO; ARCHAIC; WOODLAND

DISTURBED

EcMh‐34 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE LATE WOODLAND DISTURBED


EcMh‐35 H. LAFERRIER SITE A.CAMPSITE PALEO; ARCHAIC; WOODLAND

DISTURBED

EcMh‐36 D. SIMARD SITE H.UNINTERPRETED PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMh‐37 FLUTED SITE A.CAMPSITE PALEO DISTURBED

EcMh‐38 AXE SITE A.CAMPSITE ARCHAIC DISTURBED

EcMh‐39 PARALLEL SITE A.CAMPSITE PALEO; ARCHAIC DISTURBED

EcMh‐4 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE WOODLAND; HISTORIC DISTURBED

EcMh‐40 Name Not Available I.ISOLATED FIND PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMh‐41 LITTLE BEAUTY I.ISOLATED FIND PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMh‐42 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE PALEO; ARCHAIC; WOODLAND

DISTURBED

EcMh‐43 ASSINIBOINE HEARTH

I.ISOLATED FIND UNDETERMINED DISTURBED

EcMh‐46 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMh‐47 MIDSECTION SITE I.ISOLATED FIND PALEO DISTURBED

EcMh‐48 SCRAPER A.CAMPSITE PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMh‐5 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE WOODLAND; HISTORIC DISTURBED

EcMh‐53 Dune Track Site I.ISOLATED FIND PRECONTACT SLIGHTLY DISTURBED

EcMh‐54 Edge of Dune Site I.ISOLATED FIND PRECONTACT SLIGHTLY DISTURBED

EcMh‐55 Texas Gate Site I.ISOLATED FIND PRECONTACT SLIGHTLY DISTURBED

EcMh‐56 Farmer Field Site A.CAMPSITE PRECONTACT SLIGHTLY DISTURBED

EcMh‐57 Farmer Field Site 2 I.ISOLATED FIND PRECONTACT SLIGHTLY DISTURBED

EcMh‐58 Beaver Creek Cultivation 1

I.ISOLATED FIND PRECONTACT SLIGHTLY DISTURBED


A.CAMPSITE PRECONTACT SLIGHTLY DISTURBED



I.ISOLATED FIND HISTORIC DISTURBED

EcMh‐61 Cross Alignment G.PETROFORM PRECONTACT NONE

EcMh‐7 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE HISTORIC DISTURBED

EcMh‐8 JACKSON MEDAL BURIAL SITE

F.BURIAL HISTORIC VERY DISTURBED

EcMh‐9 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE ARCHAIC; WOODLAND; HISTORIC

DISTURBED

EcMi‐10 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE UNDETERMINED DISTURBED

EcMi‐11 PETER LEPINE SITE A.CAMPSITE UNDETERMINED PARTLY DISTURBED



EcMi‐13 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE WOODLAND DISTURBED

EcMi‐14 PUMPKIN PLAIN H.UNINTERPRETED PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMi‐15 GRASSHOPPER SITE A.CAMPSITE PRECONTACT PARTIALLY DISTURBED

EcMi‐16 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMi‐17 CHIP STOP E.WORKSHOP PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EcMi‐18 PICTURE PERFECT H.UNINTERPRETED PRECONTACT PARTIALLY DISTURBED

EcMi‐19 HUBERDEAU PASTURE

A.CAMPSITE PALEO; ARCHAIC; WOODLAND

DISTURBED

EcMi‐2 HAYDEN FARM SITE I.ISOLATED FIND UNDETERMINED DISTURBED

EcMi‐3 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE UNDETERMINED SLIGHTLY DISTURBED


EcMi‐5 Name Not Available I.ISOLATED FIND UNDETERMINED SLIGHTLY DISTURBED

EcMi‐6 Name Not Available A.CAMPSITE UNDETERMINED UNDISTURBED

EcMi‐7 Name Not Available I.ISOLATED FIND UNDETERMINED DISTURBED


EcMi‐9 THE FOUILLARD SITE A.CAMPSITE UNDETERMINED DISTURBED

EdMh‐58 Beaver Creek Cultivation 1

I.ISOLATED FIND UNDETERMINED UNKNOWN

EdMi‐1 SMART SITE A.CAMPSITE WOODLAND DISTURBED

EdMi‐2 DEERHORN VALLEY #1

H.UNINTERPRETED WOODLAND PARTIALLY DISTURBED


H.UNINTERPRETED PRECONTACT DISTURBED


H.UNINTERPRETED PRECONTACT DISTURBED

EdMi‐5 STE. MADELEINE CEMETERY

F.BURIAL LATE TO RECENT HISTORIC

MOSTLY UNDISTURBED

EdMi‐6 COX SITE A.CAMPSITE ARCHAIC DISTURBED


APPENDIXC:

ShovelTestForms


APPENDIXD:

ArtifactCatalogue


Site CatNo Unit DBS Cult_Affil Category Subcat Object Name Object Type Object Portion Material Colour Quant Wgt_g

EcMh‐66 1 STP LS02 5‐15 cm Historic ‐ Late Architectural Nail Square Machine Complete Ferrous Brown/rust 1 8.00

EcMh‐66 2 STP LS02 5‐15 cm Historic ‐ Late Architectural Nail Square Machine Shank Ferrous Brown/rust 1 12.70

EcMh‐66 3 STP LB03 20 cm Historic ‐ Late Architectural Chinking Clay Brown/rust 2 1.40

EcMh‐66 4 STP LB06 6‐12 cm Historic ‐ Late Clothing Fasteners Buckle Incomplete Brass Brown 1 31.20

EcMh‐66 5 STP LB06 6‐12 cm Historic ‐ Late Kitchen Tableware Plate Rim Earthenware White 1 3.40

EcMh‐66 6 STP LB06 6‐12 cm Undetermined Faunal Mammalia‐large >55 lbs Undetermined Long Bone Incomplete Bone Black/brown 2 10.00

EcMh‐66 7 STP LB06 6‐12 cm Undetermined Faunal Mammalia‐large >55 lbs Undetermined Long Bone Incomplete Bone White/grey 9 8.80

EcMh‐66 8 STP LS05 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Late Clothing Fasteners Buckle Complete Ferrous Grey/brown 1 10.30

EcMh‐66 9 STP LS05 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Late Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Plastic Black/brown 5 10.90

EcMh‐66 10 STP LS05 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Late Architectural Chinking Clay Brown/rust 2 7.00

EcMh‐66 11 STP LS05 10‐15 cm Undetermined Faunal Mammalia Undetermined Long Bone Incomplete Bone White/grey 1 4.00

EcMh‐66 12 STP LS05 10‐15 cm Pre‐European Contact Lithic Tool ‐ possible Uniface Tip Quartzite Grey 1 2.40

EcMh‐66 13 STP LS10 15 cm Historic ‐ Late Architectural Chinking Clay Brown/rust 3 34.20

EdMi‐07 1 STP 18 10 cm Undetermined Faunal Mammalia Undetermined Incomplete Bone Brown 1 2.60

EdMi‐07 2 STP 20 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Undetermined Kitchen Container Bottle Undetermined Incomplete Glass Colourless 3 4.00

EdMi‐07 3 STP 20 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Pre‐1914 Kitchen Container Bottle Undetermined Incomplete Glass Amethyst 1 0.80

EdMi‐07 4 STP 19 10‐15 cm Undetermined Faunal Mammalia Undetermined Incomplete Bone Brown 1 3.80

EdMi‐07 5 STP 19 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Incomplete Ferrous Rust 1 1.20

EdMi‐07 6 STP 19 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Incomplete Lead Grey 1 3.40

Available in accessible formats upon request

birtle transmission project environmental assessment · pdf filereviewed by: roberta connon,...

Documents