environmental study report for the phase 2 connecting 17...

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT FOR THE PHASE 2 CONNECTING 17 REMOTE FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES PROJECT SECTION 7.0: SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION AND EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

November 2018 Report No. 18102677 GAL-005-REP-V1 7-44

7.2 Heritage Resources This section describes and summarizes a preliminary screening and assessment of the effects of the Phase 2 Connecting 17 Remote First Nation Communities Project (the Project) on built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. As defined in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS 2014:39), built heritage resources are “a building, structures, monuments, installations, or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Aboriginal [Indigenous] community.” A cultural heritage landscape is “a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Aboriginal [Indigenous] community” (PPS 2014:40). The area “may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites, or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association” (PPS 2014: 40). Examples of cultural heritage landscapes include: heritage conservation districts designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods; cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities, such as a National Historic Site or a UNESCO World Heritage Site (PPS 2014:40).

The Province of Ontario, through the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS), has developed a series of products to advise municipalities, organizations, and individuals on heritage protection and conservation. Identifying the presence of heritage resources within a project area is aided by the MTCS Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: A Checklist for the Non-Specialist (2016), while more detailed guidance on other aspects of heritage evaluation and conservation provided in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit series.

The screening for this Project also considers the Class EA for RSFD and the Class EA for PPCR. This process is managed by the MNRF, which provides guidance for the assessment of Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes through their Technical Guideline for Cultural Heritage Resources for Projects Planned Under the Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects and the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (2006). Further guidance from the MNRF in Forestry Management areas comes from their Forest Management Guide for Cultural Heritage Values (2007).

If the potential for cultural heritage resources in a project area is identified when completing the MTCS Checklist, further investigation as part of a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) or Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is required. In both a CHER and HIA the cultural heritage value or interest of listed properties or newly identified resources is evaluated using the Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (O. Reg. 9/06 and O.Reg. 10/06). The effects of a development or site alteration on known or newly identified built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes are assessed as part of a HIA. In this Environmental Study Report (ESR) heritage resources are represented by two key indicators: known heritage resources (resources already protected under formal or informal government policy or legislation), and potential heritage resource (resources which could be considered for protection under formal or informal government policy or legislation).



Since the Draft ESR was issued, Wataynikaneyap has adjusted the Project to improve design; and has identified

potential aggregate pits for Project use and potential long-term use. These Project design changes include:

Refinements to the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment (and in some cases adjacent Project

infrastructure such as substations, camps and laydown areas);

Refinements to access roads; and

Addition of potential aggregate pits.

These Project changes are assessed in Section 3.11 Project Refinements from Draft ESR in comparison to the Project footprint considered in the Draft ESR and within this section of the Final ESR. The

potential effects of the Project, which include these Project changes are predicted to reach the same conclusions

for the EA criteria in this section; in consideration of implementation of the commitments and monitoring in

Section 12.0 and the environmental and social management plan in Section 9.0.

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 Record of Engagement Summary Report and Appendix 2.4A, Stakeholder Record of 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

There are three monuments to lost lives along the length of the road to Pikangikum that need to be respected when the line is built.

The community provided locations of the monuments to Wataynikaneyap. Wataynikaneyap has located the Project to avoid known grave sites.

The baseline and potential effects assessment conducted for cultural heritage resources included consideration of 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 that 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.

Round 2 Engagement Session with Pikangikum First Nation



Information Sources

Information for the heritage resources baseline was collected based on guidance outlined in the MTCS checklist in the Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (2016) and from review of the following sources:

municipal heritage registers and planning department from the following municipalities:

Township of Pickle Lake; and

Municipality of Red Lake.

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

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 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).

There are no known previously completed cultural heritage studies that have been undertaken as part of this project to date.



7.2.2 Criteria and Indicators The criteria 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

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

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.

Built heritage consists of all aspects of the man-made environment such as residences, factories, places of worship, cemeteries, monuments and built infrastructure (i.e., roads, bridges and railways). Cultural Heritage Landscapes consist of a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity. These resources become significant resources once they have been identified as having cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) as defined under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and/or 10/06.



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 Assessment Boundaries 7.2.3.1 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 4 to 5 years).

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 mitigation measures undertaken as required, prior to the construction stage. This period is sufficient to capture the effects of the Project.

7.2.3.2 Study Areas Study areas for the assessment are provided ion Table 7.2-3 and shown on Figures 7.2-1 and 7.2-2.

Table 7.2-3: Heritage Resources Study Areas

Criteria Study Areas Area (ha) Description Rationale

Heritage Resources Project footprint 6,890 Includes the Project footprints for the 40-m-wide transmission line alignment ROW, substations, temporary laydown areas, temporary construction camps and new and existing access roads within both subsystems.

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

Local study area

458,163 Includes a 500-m buffer around the 2-km-wide corridor and a buffer of 500 m around substations, temporary laydown areas, temporary construction camps, and new and existing access roads within both subsystems.

Designed to capture potential local direct and indirect effects of the Project on heritage resources that may extend beyond the Project footprint.

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



This page intentionally left blank

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

"S"S

"S

"S

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

Finger Lake

Larus Lake

Carillon Lake

ShabumeniLake

ThicketwoodLake

Trout Lake

Seagrave LakeBerthaLake

OkanseLake

ConfederationLake

Red Lake

Knox Lake

SesikinagaLake

Perrigo Lake

JeanetteLake

RangerLake

Bluffy Lake

LongleggedLake

KishikasLake

McCoyLake

HawleyLakes

SandyLake

Deer Lake

Meddick Lake

Buckett Lake

KakapitamLake

CherringtonLake

KamungishkamoLake

WhitestoneLake

Keeper Lake

Cobham Lake

FavourableLake

PalsenLake

BlackBirchLake

Berens RiverSharpstone

Lake

SabourinLake

CarrollLake

HaggartLake

OchekLake

PetownikipLake

Whiteloon Lake

Goose Lake

Birch Lake

LittleTroutLake

WhitemudLake

BulgingLake

OldShoesLake

NorthwindLake

MacDowellLake

MedicineStone Lake

Cobham River

WarwickLake

Meandrine Lake

SlateLake

MusclowLake

Woman Lake

North SpiritLake

Margot Lake

Orono Lake

Stout Lake

Severn River

GullLake

Wahshaykahmeesheeng/Kirkness Lake

HornbyLake

SpoonbillLake

JoyceLake

DonaldLake

UchiLake

Upper MedicineStone Lake

BigshellLake

Springpole Lake

NarrowLake

Irregular Lake

Mamakwash Lake

PeekahchekahmeeweeSahkaheekahn/Pikangikum

LakeKeechewahshaykahmeeshek/Cairns Lake

PeekwatahmaeweeSahkaheekahn/Berens

Lake

SheshepaeseeweeSahkaheekahn/Barton

Lake

MahkahtahkahmaekooSahkaheekahn/Sampson

Lake

LittleVermilion

Lake

Gullrock Lake

Keg Lake

OoooweeSahkaheekahn/McInnes

Lake

KeecheneekeeSahkaheekahn/Upper

Goose Lake

OoshkahtahkahweeSahkaheekahn/Nungesser

Lake

Wahshaykahmeesheseek/Roderick Lake

Keechewahweeyaykahmahk/McCusker Lake

KeewaywinFirst Nation

SandyLake FirstNation

Deer LakeFirst Nation

PoplarHill First

Nation

PikangikumFirst Nation

McDowell LakeFirst Nation

North SpiritLake First

Nation

WOODLAND CARIBOUPROVINCIAL PARK

(WILDERNESS CLASS)

PAKWASHPROVINCIAL PARK

OPASQUIAPROVINCIAL

PARK

TROUT LAKEPROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE

MANITOBA

HIGHWAY 105

P INE RIDGE ROAD

NUNGESSER ROAD

!

WHITEMUDCONSERVATION

RESERVE

!

HAMMELL LAKECONSERVATION

RESERVETROUT LAKE

CONSERVATIONRESERVE

!

BRUCE LAKECONSERVATION

RESERVE

!

HARTH LAKECONSERVATION

RESERVE

!

BROKENMOUTH RIVERCONSERVATION

RESERVE

!

GULL-CHRISTINACONSERVATION

RESERVE

CASUMMIT LAKE

UCHILAKE

MADSEN

MCKENZIE ISLAND

RED LAKE

SNAKEFALLS

STARRATT-OLSEN

COCHENOUR

OPASQUIA

SWAIN POST

NARROWLAKE

SOUTH BAY

SANDY LAKE

DEERLAKE

POPLAR HILL

PIKANGIKUM

BALMERTOWN

MACDOWELL

NORTH SPIRIT LAKE

CLIENTWATAYNIKANEYAP POWER L.P.

REFERENCE(S)1. BASE DATA - MNR LIO, OBTAINED 2016/2017, NTDB2. TRANSMISSION ROUTES - PROVIDED BY WATAYNIKANEYAP POWER L.P.3. FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES FROM INDIGENOUS AND NORTHERNAFFAIRS CANADA (WWW.AADNC-AANDC.GC.CA)4. PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROMONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 20165. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATESYSTEM: UTM ZONE 15

PROJECT

TITLEPOTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCES LOCATED WITHIN THELOCAL STUDY AREA - RED LAKE

S:\Clients\Wataynikaneyap_Power\Phase2_Transmission_Line\99_PROJ\1544751_Phase 2_EA\40_PROD\0004_Baseline\Cultural_BuiltHeritage\1544751-0004-HC-0001_Phase2_B.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

0 15 30

1:800,000 KILOMETERS

1544751 GAL-005 1 7.2-1

2018-10-17 JMC/MMJMC/MMBTAE

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DDDESIGNEDPREPAREDREVIEWEDAPPROVED

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

NOTE(S)LEGEND")

Wataynikaneyap PowerCommunity(First Nation Community)Preliminary 40-m-wide TransmissionLine Alignment Right-of-wayPotential New Access RoadsExisting Access Roads to Upgrade

")Substation (Preliminary Location)

#*Temporary Laydown Area (Preliminary Location)

#*Temporary Construction Camp (Preliminary Location)Heritage ResourcesLocal Study Area

!. City/Town") First Nation Community

RailwayMajor Roads / HighwayLocal RoadsWinter RoadsExisting ElectricalTransmission LineNatural Gas PipelineWaterbodyCheemuhnuhcheecheekuhtaykeehn (Dedicated Protected Areas)Provincial ParkConservation ReserveFirst Nations Reserve

"SPotential Built HeritageResources: Abandoned MineSitesEnhanced Management Area

PHASE 2: CONNECTING 17 REMOTE FIRST NATIONCOMMUNITIES

")

"S

"S

MAY SHAFT;KRL 41784

ALEXANDERNO.2

SHEAR

"SLEEMAC

"S

MACBUCK-NORTHSHOWIN

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

"S#*

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

Fry Lake

BigTroutLake

CarillonLake

SeagraveLakeBertha

LakeOkanse

Lake

Sesikinaga LakePerrigo Lake

Zionz Lake

NorthBamaji Lake

BlackstoneLake

LakeSt.

Joseph

GraceLake

OpapimiskanLake

PeeagwonLake

Reeb Lake

NibinamikLake

Redpath Lake UpturnedrootLake

Maria Lake

Pipestone River

MuchmoreLake

TotoganLake

WrightLake

KapkichiLake

Williams Lake

NeawagankLake

WigwascenceLake

Meen Lake

OzhiskiLake

ObaskakaLake

KishikasLake

McCoyLake

Windigo Lake

UpperWindigo Lake

SandyLake

PonaskLake

OchigLake

CoucheemoskogLake

KamungishkamoLake

Osnaburgh Lake

WhitestoneLake

KasagiminnisLake

Cat Lake

Achapi Lake

KeezhikLake

Doran Lake

KabaniaLake

Swan Lake

IgelstromLake

LittleSachigo Lake

BugLake

PikeLake

BearboneLake

GarrettLake

AsheweigRiver

ShibogamaLake

KasabonikaLake

KingfisherLake

GhostLake

Stull Lake

Bamaji Lake

SakwasoLake

EyapamikamaLake

Big NorthLake

Senia LakeNikip

Lake

OchekLake

MuskratDamLake

Petownikip Lake

Birch Lake

DobieLake

AlbanyRiver

ObustigaLake

MisquamaebinLake

WeeseLake

TroutflyLake

Fat Lake

Long DogLake

Makoop Lake

East Pashkokogan Lake

ForesterLake

TwoRiverLake

Seeseep Lake

MacDowell Lake

ObabiganLake

Kezik Lake

MamiegowishLake

BowLake

AgutuaLake

WithersLake

NorthCaribou

Lake

HorseshoeLake

MisikeyaskLake

WunnumminLake

Weagamow Lake

BearskinLake

ShabuskwiaLake

PineimutaLake

MorrisLake

GullLake

SkinnerLake

KnifeLake

McVicarLake

Kapikik Lake Gitche

Lake

AnnimwashLake

DinwiddieLake

Kinloch Lake

Sachigo Lake

SchadeLake

Uchi Lake

FawcettLake

BlackbearLake

Severn Lake

Magiss Lake

MuhekunLake

OpakopaLake

OtoskwinRiver

Severn RiverFawn River

MiminiskaLake

Whiteclay Lake

PetawangaLake

WapikopaRiver

SachigoLake FirstNation

North CaribouLake FirstNation

WunnuminLake FirstNation

KingfisherLake FirstNation

Cat LakeFirstNation

KasabonikaLake First

Nation

Muskrat DamFirst Nation

Slate FallsNation

WawakapewinFirst Nation

KitchenuhmaykoosibInninuwug

WapekekaFirst NationBearskin

Lake FirstNation

WABAKIMIPROVINCIAL

PARK

ALBANY RIVERPROVINCIAL

PARK

OPASQUIAPROVINCIAL

PARK

PIPESTONE RIVERPROVINCIAL

PARK

SEVERN RIVERPROVINCIAL

PARK

FAWN RIVERPROVINCIAL

PARK

OTOSKWIN-ATTAWAPISKATRIVER PROVINCIAL PARK

SOUTH PIPESTONE RIVERPROVINCIAL

PARK

HIGH

WAY

599

HIGHWAY 808

!

ATTWOOD RIVERCONSERVATION

RESERVE

BROKENMOUTHRIVER CONSERVATION

RESERVE

!

GULL-CHRISTINACONSERVATION

RESERVE

CASUMMIT LAKE

SUMMER BEAVER

UCHI LAKE

WUNNUMMINLAKE

BIGBEAVERHOUSE

CAT LAKE

PICKLE CROW

SLATE FALLS

KASABONIKA

ANGLING LAKE

BIG TROUTLAKEKITCHENUHMAYKOOSIB

NEWOSNABURGH

BEARSKIN LAKE

OSNABURGHHOUSE

SACHIGO LAKE

MUSKRATDAM

PICKLE LAKE

WEAGAMOWLAKE

CENTRALPATRICIA

KINGFISHER LAKE

MishkeegogamangFirst Nation

NibinamikFirst

Nation

CLIENTWATAYNIKANEYAP POWER L.P.

REFERENCE(S)1. BASE DATA - MNR LIO, OBTAINED 2016/2017, NTDB2. TRANSMISSION ROUTES - PROVIDED BY WATAYNIKANEYAP POWER L.P.3. FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES FROM INDIGENOUS AND NORTHERNAFFAIRS CANADA (WWW.AADNC-AANDC.GC.CA)4. PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROMONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 20165. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATESYSTEM: UTM ZONE 15

PROJECT

TITLEPOTENTIAL HERITAGE RESOURCES LOCATED WITHIN THELOCAL STUDY AREA - PICKLE LAKE

S:\Clients\Wataynikaneyap_Power\Phase2_Transmission_Line\99_PROJ\1544751_Phase 2_EA\40_PROD\0004_Baseline\Cultural_BuiltHeritage\1544751-0004-HC-0002_Phase2_B.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

0 20 40

1:1,100,000 KILOMETERS

1544751 GAL-005 1 7.2-2

2018-10-17 JMC/MMJMC/MMBTAE

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DDDESIGNEDPREPAREDREVIEWEDAPPROVED

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

NOTE(S)LEGEND")

Wataynikaneyap PowerCommunity(First Nation Community)Preliminary 40-m-wide TransmissionLine Alignment Right-of-wayPotential New Access RoadsExisting Access Roads to Upgrade

")Substation (Preliminary Location)

#*Temporary Laydown Area (Preliminary Location)

#*Temporary Construction Camp (Preliminary Location)Heritage ResourcesLocal Study Area

!. City/Town") First Nation Community

RailwayMajor Roads / HighwayLocal RoadsWinter RoadsExisting ElectricalTransmission LineWaterbodyCheemuhnuhcheecheekuhtaykeehn (Dedicated Protected Areas)Provincial ParkConservation ReserveFirst Nations Reserve

"SPotential Built HeritageResources: Abandoned MineSites

#* Potential Built HeritageResourcesEnhanced Management Area PHASE 2: CONNECTING 17 REMOTE FIRST NATION

COMMUNITIES

")")

"S#*

CENTRALPATRICIA;

DONA LAKE "A"Roman

CatholicChurch



7.2.4 Description of the Existing Environment 7.2.4.1 Data Collection Methods This existing environment or baseline 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 2016). 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. All processes to address the cultural heritage aspects of the Project must conform to the MTCS Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Heritage Properties.

A Preliminary Screening was completed, per the MTCS checklist, to identify the baseline 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 inform a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) for the project. A CHAR is intended to identify the existing cultural heritage conditions of the project area and identify preliminary impact assessment.

A CHAR includes:

A description of the existing conditions: a brief description of the (known and potential) cultural heritage resources within the study area, including a summary table and map depicting those resources;

Identification and assessment of potential impacts (direct and indirect);

Description of proposed mitigation measures for any negative impacts;

Community engagement;

Description of clear commitments for future work (implementation and monitoring).

The CHAR will determine whether any subsequent CHERs or HIAs are required for the Project.



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

7.2.4.3 Known Heritage Resources in the Local Study Areas 7.2.4.3.1 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 August 2017 found no recognized sites in the LSAs. The closest federally recognized heritage resource is a Canadian National Railway (CNR) station located in the Town of Sioux Lookout approximately 200 km southwest from the LSA.

7.2.4.3.2 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 Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport also has the authority to designate properties of cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act. 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. Provincial parks are administrative areas set aside as 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 cultural heritage resources within their boundaries, which are to be protected by implementing administrative controls carried out by each park’s staff and the MNRF.

Management of cultural heritage resources on provincially owned land is guided by the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (MTCS 2010). Provincially-recognized cultural 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 for information on heritage resources designated under the Ontario Heritage Act in the vicinity of the Project. The OHT informed that it does not have any concerns in the Project area.



Three provincial parks and one dedicated protected area regulated under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act are located within the Heritage Resources LSA. Specifically, Pipestone River (Waterway), Fawn River (Waterway), and Otoskwin-Attawapiskat River (Waterway) Provincial Parks and the Beekahncheekahmeeng Deebahncheekayweehn Eenahohnahnuhn Dedicated Protected Area (DPA) (unclassified). All of these protected areas are created with the recognition to protect cultural resources; however, only the Beekahncheekahmeeng Deebahncheekayweehn Eenahohnahnuhn DPA has defined cultural heritage attributes.

The desktop review of provincial cultural heritage inventories, indicated that several cultural heritage landscapes are crossed by the LSA. Four cultural heritage landscapes are within the Beekahncheekahmeeng Deebahncheekayweehn Eenahohnahnuhn DPA, which follow waterbodies crossed by the Project footprint. Additionally, two cultural landscape waterways are crossed by the Project footprint, one along Critchell Lake and another along a series of creeks and lakes between McInnes Lake and Dolphin Lake identified within the Enhanced Management Areas of Keeping the Land, A Land Use Strategy for the Whitefeather Forest and Adjacent Areas (Pikangikum First Nation and MNR 2006).

Beekahncheekahmeeng Deebahncheekayweehn Eenahohnahnuhn DPA was created in 2011. This DPA was created from part of the cultural landscape area identified within the Keeping the Land, A Land Use Strategy for the Whitefeather Forest and Adjacent Areas, which is a planning document created through collaboration between the Pikangikum First Nation and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in 2006. The DPA was part of the UNESCO World Heritage Nomination completed for the area, which Pikangikum First Nation is no longer pursuing (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

The following is a brief summary of the Pikangikum First Nation understanding of their cultural heritage landscapes. The following description of the cultural landscape is taken primarily from Keeping the Land, A Land Use Strategy for the Whitefeather Forest and Adjacent Areas (Pikangikum First Nation and MNR 2006) and the UNESCO World Heritage Nomination (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

Cultural Landscapes as Defined by Pikangikum First Nation The Pikangikum First Nation have defined their cultural heritage landscapes as “the living result of Pikangikum people’s historical customary stewardship role” (Pikangikum First Nation and MNR 2006). This stewardship role is expressed through the spiritual beliefs of the Anishinaabeg people:

“Anishinaabeg understand the Creator put them on the land, providing them with all the physical and spiritual resources they need to survive and prosper. In acknowledgement of the gift of life, Anishinaabeg uphold a sacred trust with the Creator to care for aki, the land and all its life. This sacred trust entails a duty to work with other beings in a respectful way, a way that honours creation, with the understanding that all beings are united under the Creator, Gaa-debenjiged or Gizhe-Manidoo (Great Spirit). (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).



The Anishinaabeg people uphold their sacred trust through Ji-ganawendamang Gidakiiminann:

“Ji-ganawendamang Gidakiiminaan is a set of beliefs, values, knowledge, and practices that guide relations with the land and all life placed on the land by the Creator; these are the aadizookewin (“teachings”) passed down through the generations through oral traditions in Anishinaabemowin (the Ojibwe language). (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

The Anishinaabe tradition of Ji-ganawendamang Gidakiiminaan is not about transforming the landscape, it is about living within the opportunities and limits presented by the boreal forest environment of Pimachiowin Aki. Anishinaabe akiing ondaaji’idizowin (customary livelihood practices) entail the harvest of plants, animals, and other forms of life in a manner that ensures the continuity of the Creator’s gifts. Every being, every thing on the land, has a purpose for being and its own relationship with the Creator that must be respected, even if that relationship is not well understood by human beings. (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

The cultural landscapes crossed by the LSA are said to be:

“an exceptional expression of the cultural tradition of Ji-ganawendamang Gidakiiminaan. A complex network of interlinked sites, routes and areas make up the attributes that span the nominated area, providing testimony to the beliefs, values, knowledge, and practices that constitute Keeping the Land. While the material remains of Anishinaabe use and occupation are generally impermanent and often difficult to observe for an untrained eye, the evidence of Ji-ganawendamang Gidakiiminaan is pervasive within the nominated area and can be understood through Anishinaabe knowledge and oral traditions. (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

Key attributes with the cultural landscapes, which reflect the cultural tradition of Ji-ganawendamang Gidakiiminaan include harvesting sites, habitation and processing sites, travel routes, named places, sacred and ceremonial sites and trapline areas:

At harvesting sites, Anishinaabeg of Pimachiowin Aki honour the Creator’s gifts through the harvest of plants, animals, and other forms of life in a manner that ensures continuity of all life on the land. Habitation and processing sites in Pimachiowin Aki enable Anishinaabeg to focus harvesting efforts in areas where resources are most abundant. Travel routes, especially waterways, and the named places that serve as landmarks along those travel routes, support the shifting use of this vast landscape as people respond to the uneven and changing distribution of resources. Sacred and ceremonial sites are important nodes on the Pimachiowin Aki cultural landscape where Anishinaabeg acknowledge dependence on the Creator and observe respectful behaviour toward other beings. Trapline areas within Pimachiowin Aki enable shared use of the land while also acknowledging that extended family groups are responsible for stewardship of specific areas, based on their established histories of trapping, hunting, and fishing. (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).



Nungesser River (Ohshkahtohkahweeseebee) – Cultural Heritage Landscape The Nungesser River connects Nungesser Lake with Little Vermillion Lake. This landscape is defined within the Beekahncheekahmeeng Deebahncheekayweehn Eenahohnahnuhn DPA, which is crossed by the LSA. The former UNESCO World Heritage Nomination notes a number of important features in association with this cultural heritage landscape:

habitation sites at the mouth of the Nungesser River on Nungesser Lake approximately 3 km from the Project footprint crossing of the Nungesser River. Archaeological sites data states that a site is located there under Borden number EiKk-1 (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

Extensive hunting and trapping sites along its route (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

A significant waterway travel route (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

Kirkness Creek/Stormer Lake – Cultural Heritage Landscape Kirkness Creek connects Kirkness Lake/Stormer Lake with Shining in the Distance Lake/Nungesser Lake. This landscape is defined within the Beekahncheekahmeeng Deebahncheekayweehn Eenahohnahnuhn DPA, which is crossed by the LSA. The Project footprint crossing of this location is at the mouth of Kirkness Creek on Stormer Lake. Stormer Lake is directly connected with Kirkness Lake to the west. Kirkness Lake (Wahshaygahmesshiing) is an important lake as a historical location of a summer village for the Pikangikum people and a historical crossroads for the Pikangikum people and the fur trade (Pikangikum First Nation and MNR 2006).

Important aspects noted near the LSA within the cultural heritage landscape include:

An important significant waterway travel route (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

Extensive hunting and trapping sites (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

Manoomin (Northern Wild Rice) harvest area identified more than 500 m to the east of the LSA (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

Berens Lake/Berens River (Kitchee Zeebee) – Cultural Heritage Landscape Berens Lake/Berens River represents a major watercourse north of Red Lake, which drains into Lake Winnipeg to the west. The LSA including the Project footprint crosses the Berens River at the outlet of Berens Lake. Pikangikum Lake is located to the west along the waterway and numerous significant areas are located up river including Silcox Lake, Throat River, Owl River and Mamakwash Lake.

Keeping the Land, A Land Use Strategy for the Whitefeather Forest and Adjacent Areas describes the Berens River as the “heart of the Pikangikum cultural landscape” (Pikangikum First Nation and MNR 2006). Important aspects noted near or in the LSA within the cultural heritage landscape include:

1) A significant waterway travel route (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

2) Extensive hunting and trapping sites (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).



3) A number of cabins and campsites are located within Berens Lake but all noted locations are not in close proximity to the LSA (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

4) A set of rapids are located within the LSA (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

Dolphin Creek (Kahpahsaykahnahgooshkahg) – Cultural Heritage Landscape Dolphin Creek is an east-west traversing system of creeks and ponds between Bullrush Lake (exiting at the southeast corner) and McInnes Lake (connecting to the southern tip). This cultural landscape is part of Beekahncheekahmeeng Deebahncheekayweehn Eenahohnahnuhn DPA. The LSA and Project footprint crosses the cultural heritage landscape along a section of Dolphin Creek. Important aspects noted near or in the LSA within the cultural heritage landscape include:

1) A significant waterway travel route (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

2) Extensive hunting and trapping sites (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

3) A Manoonmin (wild rice) stand in close proximity to the LSA (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

4) Cabin and campsites along the route but not at the crossing location (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation 2016).

Creek System between Bullrush Lake and McInnes Lake – Cultural Landscape Waterway This creek system between Bullrush Lake (exiting at its northeast corner) and McInnes Lake (traversing into its central area) is shown as a cultural landscape waterway on the Keeping the Land, A Land Use Strategy for the Whitefeather Forest and Adjacent Areas (Pikangikum First Nation and MNR 2006), as part of the Enhanced Management Area. It is not specifically referenced in the text of the document further; therefore, there are not specific attributes documented for this location; apart from the characteristics of all cultural heritage landscapes defined by Pikangikum First Nation described above. The Project footprint crosses the Enhanced Management Area containing this landscape in two locations as the line splits to continue north and traverse west towards Poplar Hill.

Critchell Lake – Cultural Landscape Waterway Critchell Lake is an 8-km long lake that drains north into the Severn River, and forming part of the McInnes River system. The McInnes Rivers system was a transitway from the Pikangikum area to the Deer Lake, Sandy Lake and Big Trout Lake areas. The LSA crosses over the western tip of the lake. Critchell Lake is identified as a cultural heritage waterway within the Keeping the Land, A Land Use Strategy for the Whitefeather Forest and Adjacent Areas (Pikangikum First Nation and MNR 2006), as part of the Enhanced Management Area. It is not specifically referenced in the text of the document further; therefore, there are not specific attributes documented for this location, apart from the characteristics of all cultural heritage landscapes defined by Pikangikum First Nation described above. The Project footprint crosses the Enhanced Management Area containing this landscape.



7.2.4.3.3 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 LSA crosses two municipalities, the Township of Pickle Lake and the Municipality of Red Lake. The remaining LSA includes First Nation reserve lands and Crown land. In November 2016, the Pickle Lake municipal planning department was contacted to determine if municipally recognized heritage resources were present within the LSA. No formally designated properties were identified. The Official Plan of the Municipality of Red Lake indicates that there are currently no identified built heritage or cultural heritage landscapes within the Municipality (Red Lake 2015).

7.2.4.4 Potential Heritage Resources in the Local Study Areas 7.2.4.4.1 Aboriginal Communities Heritage Resources Engagement with Aboriginal communities has occurred in support of the EA. Section 7.2.1, Table 7.2-1 summarizes potential heritage resources identified through engagement. Potential effects of the Project on Aboriginal heritage resources are addressed as part of the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests assessment (Section 8.0).

7.2.4.4.2 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.

Three forest management unit are crossed by the LSA, all of them along the Red Lake subsystem; the Whitefeather Forest, the Red Lake Forest and the Trout Lake Forest. The 2012-2022 Forestry Management Plan for the Whitefeather Forest refers to the land use strategy document Keeping the Land, A Land Use Strategy for the Whitefeather Forest and Adjacent Areas (Pikangikum First Nation and MNR 2006) as the guiding document for the cultural heritage values within the management unit (WFMU 2012). No Euro-Canadian potential built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes were identified within these areas.



The Red Lake Forest Management Plan (Partridge 2016) and the Trout Lake Forest Management Plan (Lane 2016) describe traditional uses of the land including hunting and trapping by Aboriginal communities and archeological potential within the LSA; no specific cultural heritage values or sites within the LSA.

7.2.4.4.3 Potential Heritage Resources Associated with Transportation Potential heritage resources related to transportation include the access road itself as well as the temporary construction camps and laydown that support the construction of roads. Minimal transportation infrastructure is present within the LSA. Winter roads are present throughout the area but the all-weather road infrastructure lies between Pickle Lake and the Musselwhite Mine and Pickle Lake north to North Caribou Lake First Nation.

There is also all-season road access from Red Lake to Taxi Bay along Nungesser Road on the Red Lake subsystem.

7.2.4.4.4 Potential Heritage Resources Associated with Mining Potential heritage resources associated with mining include buildings, machines, tramways, roads, dams and other features. The MNDM maintains a system called AMIS, a database of abandoned mine sites, which in some cases includes information on potential heritage resources at mining sites. The AMIS database only uses point coordinates for most abandoned hazards from 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. Also, these mines indicate the final stage of a long process of prospecting and geological survey over a very large area. These points indicate hotspots of activity, which could include further sites of prospecting activity within the Project footprint.

An AMIS database search returned five former mines with an unknown or initial use date of over 40 years old in the LSA. None of these AMIS points are located in the Project footprint. Details about these former mines are provided in Table 7.2-4.

Table 7.2-4: Former Mines in the Local Study Area

Mine Name Date of Operation AMIS # MDI Identifier

Distance from AMIS Point to

Proposed Project Footprint

(m)

Central Patricia No. 1 Mine, Dona Lake ‘A’

1929-2006 04680 MDI52O08NE00008 291 (Pickle Lake subsystem)

Alexander No. 2 Shear 1945-2011 02936 MDI52N04SE00036 915 (Red Lake subsystem) KRL 41784 1945-1979 02937 MDI52N04SE00037 555 (Red Lake subsystem) Leemac Occurrence 1940-1946 03872 MDI52N04SE00006 276 (Red Lake subsystem) Macbuck-North Showin Unknown 03976 MDI52N04NE00011 670 (Red Lake subsystem)

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



7.2.4.4.5 Other Potential Heritage Resources Additional sites with potential cultural heritage value were identified in the Township of Pickle Lake crossing or near the LSA. These include the Central Patricia mine site 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 LSA, but outside the Project footprint; however, the proximity to the footprint indicates that some of the mine operation was likely within the Project footprint. The Roman Catholic Church is within Central Patricia within the LSA, but outside of the Project footprint. The church is not listed in the Ontario’s Places of Worship online database (Ontario Heritage Trust 2016b).

7.2.4.4.6 Heritage Resources Summary Table 7.2-5 provides a summary of known and potential heritage resources identified within the LSA.

Table 7.2-5: Summary of Heritage Resources

Resource Name Distance to Project Footprint (m)

Known Heritage Resource Nungesser River Crossing 0 m Kirkness Creek/Stormer Lake Crossing 0 m Berens River Crossing 0 m Dolphin Creek Crossing 0 m Critchell Lake Crossing 0 m Creek System between Bullrush Lake and McInnes Lake 0 m (crossed twice) Potential Heritage Resources – Abandoned Mines Information System Central Patricia No. 1 Mine, Dona Lake ‘A’ 291 m Alexander No. 2 Shear 915 m KRL 41784 555 m Leemac Occurrence 276 m Macbuck-North Showin 670 m Potential Heritage Resources Roman Catholic Church (unknown construction date) 330 m



7.2.5 Potential Project-Environment Interactions Potential Project-environment interactions were identified through a review of the Project Description and existing environmental conditions. The interactions between Project components and activities and potential effects to Heritage Resources are identified in Table 7.2-6.

Table 7.2-6: Project-Environment Interactions for Heritage Resources

Criteria Indicator

Project Stage

Description of Potential Project-Environment

Interaction

Construction (includes

access road and ROW

preparation, installation,

and reclamation activities)

Operation (includes

operation and maintenance

activities)



- 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, substations, access roads and other construction areas.

= A potential Project-environment interaction could result in an environmental or socio-economic effect. _ = No plausible interaction was identified. ROW = right-of-way.



7.2.6 Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Net Effects This section presents the potential effects, appropriate mitigation measures, and predicted net Project effects for heritage resources. Unless otherwise noted, the discussion of potential effects, mitigation measures and net effects apply to the Project footprint. A summary of the potential effects, mitigation measures and net effects are presented in Table 7.2-7.

7.2.6.1 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 Other Construction Areas

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

The Project footprint crosses the Beekahncheekahmeeng Deebahncheekayweehn Eenahohnahnuhn DPA, which contains the known cultural heritage landscapes. The heritage resources described for the DPAs within the LSA include the presence of significant waterway travel routes. It is not expected that the effects of vibration can affect the heritage value of these travel routes. These findings would be confirmed through evaluation as part of a HIA.

As currently mapped, none of the potential heritage resources are within 60 m of the Project footprint and expected effects from blasting and vibration; however, there is uncertainty around the exact locations of the potential resources (i.e., extent of abandoned mines). Field survey, research, and evaluation as part of a CHAR 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 CHAR will characterize the potential heritage resources and also confirm the geographic extent of the potential resources in the LSA that could be affected by blasting and vibrations from project activities, for example there may be additional features related to the resources 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, the CHAR will identify the specific effects the Project may have on the heritage attributes of newly identified built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, and recommend mitigation measures to make sure the heritage attributes of the resources are conserved. The CHAR will be submitted to the MTCS for review. MTCS will provide a letter with recommendations to ensure the project proponent appropriately considers cultural heritage resources as part of the Environmental Assessment process and to ensure consistency with appropriate provincial legislation and policies as it relates to cultural heritage. The recommendations from MTCS will be followed.



Mitigation Measures If Project design changes, known and potential heritage resources identified in this report will be avoided to the extent practical. Should mitigation measures additional to those identified above be required, these will be discussed with applicable Aboriginal 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 Aboriginal communities, municipality, a cultural heritage resource specialist and the MTCS.

Net Effects With effective implementation of the mitigation summarized in Table 7.2-7 and Section 7.2.7.1, the magnitude of the Project on potential heritage resources is predicted to be negligible. The net effect is direct and will primarily occur in the LSA. The net effect is predicted to be permanent, infrequent and unlikely.



Table 7.2-7: Potential Effects and Mitigation Measures to Heritage Resources

Project Component or Activity Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effect

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 other construction areas; and

foundation and conductor installation.

Alteration or destruction 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, substations, access roads and temporary construction areas.

Heritage resources studies will be completed, the heritage resource sites identified and the associated mitigation 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 will be used where possible. A Cultural Heritage Management Plan 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 mitigation measures plan in engagement with Wataynikaneyap, applicable First Nation and the MTCS.

Alteration or destruction 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, substations, access roads and temporary construction areas.

MTCS = Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport



7.2.7 Net Effects Characterization 7.2.7.1 Net Effects Characterization Approach The effects assessment approach followed the general process described in Section 4.0 (methods section).

Potential effects with no predicted net effect after implementation of mitigation measures identified in Table 7.2-8 are not carried forward to the net effects assessment.

Net effects are described using the significance factors identified in Table 7.2-10. Effects levels are defined for the magnitude of effects characteristics for heritage resources in Table 7.2-9.

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

Direct effects:

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 effects:

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.

Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource.

Although the MTCS guidance identifies types of effects and net effect, it does not advise on how to describe the magnitude. In the absence of a Canadian source of guidance, the ranking provided in the UK Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Volume 11, HA 208/07 (2007) is used here. This guidance addresses a wide range of contexts and is the only assessment method to be published by a UK government department (Bond & Worthing 2016). Similar ranking systems have been adopted as best practice by agencies and groups across the world, such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS 2011).



Table 7.2-8: Magnitude Effect Levels for Heritage Resources

Indicator/ Net Effect

Magnitude Level Definition

No Effect Negligible Minor Moderate High


No change to fabric or setting

Slight changes to a cultural heritage resource or setting that hardly affect it

Change to key elements of a cultural heritage resource, such that the asset is slightly different.

Change to the setting of a cultural heritage resource, such that it is noticeably changed

Change to many key elements of a cultural heritage resource, such that the resource is significantly modified.

Changes to the setting of cultural heritage resource, such that it is significantly modified(a)

Change to key elements of a cultural heritage resource, such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting. (a)

a) An effect that poses a management concern may require actions such as research, monitoring or recovery initiatives.

7.2.7.2 Net Effects Characterization A summary of the characterization of net effects of the Project on heritage resources is provided in Table 7.2-10. Net effects are described after the implementation of effective mitigation measures, and summarized according to direction, magnitude, geographic extent, duration/reversibility, frequency, and likelihood of the effect occurring following the methods described in Section 4.0. Effective implementation of mitigation measures summarized in Table 7.2-7 is expected to reduce the magnitude and duration of net effects on heritage resources.

7.2.7.3 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 Other Construction Areas

With effective implementation of the mitigation measures summarized in Table 7.2-8 and Section 7.2.7.1, the magnitude of the Project on potential heritage resources is predicted to be negligible. The net effect is direct and will primarily occur in the LSA. The net effect is predicted to be permanent, infrequent and unlikely.



Table 7.2-9: Characterization of Predicted Net Effects for Heritage Resources

Criteria Indicators Net Effect Direct/ Indirect

Significance Factors Significance

Direction Magnitude Geographic Extent

Duration/ Irreversibility Frequency Likelihood of

Occurrence



Alteration or destruction 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 other construction areas.

Direct Negative No effect to Negligible

LSA Permanent – Irreversible

Infrequent Unlikely Not Significant



7.2.8 Assessment of Significance The assessment of significance of negative net effects of the Project is informed by the interaction between the significance factors, with magnitude, duration and geographic extent being the most important factors. Consideration is also given to concerns of interested agencies, groups and individuals raised during engagement and through review comments on the EA reporting. Implementation of proven mitigation measures is expected to avoid or reduce the duration and magnitude of net effects on heritage resources. The magnitude of the net effects on heritage resources are predicted to have no to negligible effect (slight changes to a cultural heritage resource or setting that hardly affect it), direct, and extend to the LSA.

Net effects to a criterion would be considered to be significant if the majority of the net effects are assessed as high magnitude, long-term or permanent duration, at any geographic extent and represent a management concern. The predicted net effects on heritage resources are not anticipated to result in a change to the criteria that will alter the sustainability of the criterion beyond a manageable level and the net effects do not result in changes that are not in accordance with provincial and federal guidelines. Therefore, the predicted net effects on heritage resources are assessed as not significant.

7.2.9 Cumulative Effects Assessment The magnitude of the net effects was predicted to be no to negligible effect; therefore, a cumulative effects assessment with future projects was not completed.

7.2.10 Prediction Confidence in the Assessment Confidence that there will be no predicted net effects on heritage resources is moderate based on the identification of heritage resources that may interact with the Project footprint. A CHAR 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. The CHAR will also determine what effect the Project will have on the known heritage resources and recommend mitigation measures to minimize the effect from the Project. The CHAR will also determine if additional site specific CHERs and/or HIAs are required for the Project.

7.2.11 Monitoring This section identifies any recommended effects monitoring to verify the prediction of the effects assessment and to verify the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and compliance monitoring to evaluate whether the Project has been constructed, implemented, and operated in accordance with the commitments made in the ESR. If the CHAR identifies specific effects, 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.



7.2.12 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).

7.2.13 Criteria Summary Table 7.2-10 presents a summary of the assessment results for the heritage resources criteria.

Table 7.2-10: Heritage Resources Assessment Summary

Criteria Project


Net effects are assessed to be not significant. The Project is not predicted to contribute to cumulative effects.



7.2.14 References

Bond and Worthing. 2016. Managing Built Heritage: The Role of Cultural Heritage Values and Significance. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, UK.

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.

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.

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

Hamilton, Scott and Taylor-Hollings, Jill. 2010. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Berens River Bridge Crossing at Dog Rib Falls and Associated Road Extensions in the Whitefeather Forest, Northwest Ontario. Consultant’s Report Submitted to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. CIF # P276-010-2010.

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.

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/.

ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites). 2011. Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. ICOMOS, Paris.

Jarrett, Stephen. 2017. Golder Associates Ltd. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Wataynikaneyap Power L.P. Pikangikum Distribution Line Project, District of Kenora, Ontario. Submitted to Wataynikaneyap Power L.P. November 3, 2017. PIF # P385-0031-2017

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



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

Lane, Janet. 2016. Year Seven Annual Report for the Trout Lake Forest. Domtar Inc.

Macfie, John and Johnston, Basil. 1991. Hudson Bay Watershed. Dundurn Press, Toronto.

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.

Forest Management Plan for the Whitefeather Forest Management Unit 2012-2022. 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 (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). 2015. Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: A Checklist for the Non-Specialist. Toronto, ON

MTCS. 2010. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Available at: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage_s_g.shtml

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

Municipality of Red Lake 2015. Official Plan. Prepared for Council by Fotenn Consultants Inc.

Nelson, Brian. 2002. Report on a Prospecting and Sampling Program, Anaconda Gold Corporation, Borthwick Lake Property, Setting Net Lake Area (G-1879), Red Lake Mining Division, Ontario. Consulting Report on file at the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Online Resource, http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/afri/data/imaging/53C13SE2004/53C13SE2004.pdf. Accessed August 28, 2017.

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.

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.

Partridge, Robert. 2016b. Red Lake Forest 2008-2018 FMP Year Seven Annual Report. Red Lake Forest Management Company Ltd.

Pikangikum First Nation and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006. Keeping the Land: A Land Use Strategy for the Whitefeather Forest and Adjacent Areas.

Pimachiowin Aki Corporation. 2016. Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage Project: Nomination for Inscription on World Heritage List.

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.

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.

Wood, John. 1977. Geology of North Spirit Lake Area, District of Kenora (Patricia Portion). Ontario Div. Mines, GR150. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto.

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

environmental study report for the phase 2 connecting 17...

Documents