Appendix II Cultural Heritage ... - Zero Emission Peoplezeroemissionpeople.com/wp-content/uploads/projects/skyway126/08… · Potential negative impacts have been identified for BHR

Skyway 126 Wind Energy Design and Operations Report

M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. Appendix June 14, 2013

Appendix II

Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

FINAL REPORT

Heritage Assessment, Proposed

Skyway 126 Wind Energy,

Municipality of Grey Highlands,

Grey County, ON

Prepared for:

Cloudy Ridge Wind Park LP

346 Waverly St.

Ottawa, ON K2P 0W5

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Ltd

2791 Lancaster Rd., Suite 200

Ottawa, ON K1B 1A7

August 22, 2012 Last Revised January 21, 2013

FIT Contract No.: F-000606-WIN-130-601

Project No.: 122510652

Project No.: 122510652 i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Specific sections of the Ontario Regulation 359/09, Renewable Energy Approvals Under Part

V.0.1 Of The Environmental Protection Act pertain to Heritage Resources, specifically heritage

resources and cultural heritage landscapes. In order to meet the conditions of the regulation,

Stantec Consulting Ltd was retained by M.K. Ince & Associates on behalf of their client, Cloudy

Ridge Wind Park LP, to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the location of a

proposed wind project in the Municipality of Grey Highlands, Grey County, Ontario.

The assessment included a review of historic period maps, aerial imagery and Census data as

well as records and inventories held by the Municipality of Grey Highlands, the Ontario Ministry

of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and the Ontario Heritage Trust.

A visual survey of the Study Area was completed on February 9, 2012 to determine the

existence of any built heritage resources within and adjacent to the Study Area. During the site

visit the Study Area was also assessed for any groupings of resources that might constitute a

cultural heritage landscape.

A total of 34 cultural resources were identified and recorded during the windshield survey. The

resources were evaluated against the criteria outlined under O.Reg 9/06 Criteria for Determining

Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and a total of eleven (11) built resources have been identified

by this study as being of heritage value. One cultural heritage landscape, the Village of

Badjeros, was identified within the Study Area.

In July, 2012 an additional nine built resources and two cultural heritage landscapes were

identified along the Project electrical line.

For each resource and landscape of heritage value, a heritage impact assessment (HIA) was

undertaken in order to identify potential Project-related negative impacts. Impacts evaluated

include: destruction; alteration; shadows; isolation; direct or indirect obstruction of significant

views; and changes in land use.

Potential negative impacts have been identified for BHR 5 and for the Badjeros Union Cemetery

(a component of CHL 1). The following recommendations have been made:

It is recommended that the proponent work with the South Line Cemetery Board and the

Municipality of Grey Highlands to install an appropriate visual barrier around the

Badjeros Union Cemetery to protect views from within the cemetery (e.g., fencing,

shrubbery or trees).

In order to mitigate the potential for construction vibrations to have a negative impact on

269377 South Line (BHR 5), it is recommended that construction activities be prohibited

within a 50 m bufferzone of the farmhouse.

Project No.: 122510652 ii

In the event that a 50 m buffer is not feasible due to other Project constraints, it is

recommended that pre and post construction inspection of BHR 5 be undertaken by a

qualified engineer in order to confirm their capacity to withstand Project-related

vibrations. It is further recommended that maximum acceptable vibration, or peak

particle velocity (PPV), levels be determined by a qualified engineer prior to Project

construction and that construction activities be monitored to ensure that maximum PPV

levels are not exceeded.

It is further recommended that the final Project Description Report document which

option was chosen to mitigate the potential impact of construction vibrations, a

description of how the recommendation will be implemented, and a discussion of the

Project factors that determined that decision.

As a general recommendation, the use of Road 63, Concession 4 and South Line in the

immediate vicinity of the communities of McIntyre and Badjeros should be avoided to the

greatest extent practicable when transporting heavy machinery and turbine components to the

Project location in order to minimize the potential for accidental or indirect damage to the high

concentration of cultural heritage resources and landscapes within those communities.

Project No.: 122510652 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. I

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 O.Reg. 359/09 Requirements, Heritage Assessment ....................................... 1

1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................ 2

1.3 Project Methodology ......................................................................................... 2

2 PROJECT CONTEXT ................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 10

2.2 Pre-contact Cultural Context ........................................................................... 14

2.3 Euro-Canadian Settlement .............................................................................. 16

3 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ........................................................................ 19

3.1 Methodology .................................................................................................... 19

3.2 Existing Heritage Designations, Easements and Conservation Districts .... 19

3.3 Significant Built Heritage Resources ............................................................. 19

3.4 Cultural Heritage Landscapes ......................................................................... 38

4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................... 39

4.1 Impact Assessment Methodology .................................................................. 39

4.2 309167 Centre Line B, BHR 1 .......................................................................... 42

4.3 309366 Centre Line B, BHR 2 .......................................................................... 43

4.4 309766 Centre Line B, BHR 3 .......................................................................... 44

4.5 269252 South Line, BHR 4 ............................................................................... 44

4.6 269377 South Line, BHR 5 ............................................................................... 45

4.7 269504 South Line, BHR 6 ............................................................................... 46

4.8 269513 South Line, BHR 7 ............................................................................... 46

4.9 269547 South Line, BHR 8 ............................................................................... 47

4.10 358091 10th Line, BHR 9 ................................................................................... 48

4.11 673164 Road 67A, BHR 10 ............................................................................... 48

4.12 673211 Road 67A, BHR 11 ............................................................................... 49

4.13 Badjeros Cultural Heritage Landscape, CHL 1 .............................................. 50

4.14 349655 Concession 4, BHR 12 ........................................................................ 51

Project No.: 122510652 iv

4.15 349485 Concession 4, BHR 13 ........................................................................ 51

4.16 347442 Concession 4, BHR 14 ........................................................................ 52

4.17 McIntyre United Church and Cemetery, CHL 2 .............................................. 52

4.18 349427 Concession 4, BHR 15 ........................................................................ 53

4.19 349423 Concession 4, BHR 16 ........................................................................ 54

4.20 349422 Concession 4, BHR 17 ........................................................................ 54

4.21 McIntyre Pioneer Cemetery, CHL 3 ................................................................. 55

4.22 633812 Road 63, BHR 18 ................................................................................. 56

4.23 633683 Road 63, BHR 19 ................................................................................. 56

5 STUDY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 58

5.1 Recommended Mitigation ............................................................................... 59

6 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................... 1

7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 2

7.1 Literature Cited .................................................................................................. 2

7.2 Literature Consulted .......................................................................................... 3

7.3 Personal Communications ................................................................................ 4

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 2: Location of Built Heritage Resources, Project Layout ................................................................... 5

Figure 3: Location of Built Heritage Resources, Project Area North............................................................. 6

Figure 4: Location of Built Heritage Resources, Project Area South ............................................................ 7

Figure 5: Lot and Concession Numbers, Project Area North ........................................................................ 8

Figure 6: Lot and Concession Numbers, Project Area South ....................................................................... 9

Figure 7: Project Location as Shown on the 1880 Belden Map of the Township of Osprey ...................... 18

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources and Landscapes ....................................................... 21

Project No.: 122510652 v

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: Typical farm complex configuration (309710 Centre Line B) and roadscape characterized by gravel roads and overhead transmission lines. ..................................... 11

Plate 2: Trees planted along road and property lines, Centreline B ........................................................... 11

Plate 3: Entrance to low-lying Osprey Wetlands (Area 2) ........................................................................... 12

Plate 4: Example of narrowly set-back farm complex on Sideroad 67A. .................................................... 12

Plate 5: Narrowly set back structures, Badjeros ......................................................................................... 13

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Site Photographs

Appendix B Correspondence

Appendix C Cameos, Select Project Personnel

Project No.: 122510652 1

1 INTRODUCTION

M.K. Ince & Associates was retained by Cloudy Ridge Wind Park LP, to prepare a Renewable

Energy Approval (REA) Application, as required under Ontario Regulation 359/09 – Renewable

Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (O.Reg. 359/09).

According to subsection 6.(3) of O.Reg. 359/09, the Project is classified as a Class 4 Wind

Facility and will follow the requirements identified in O.Reg.359/09 for such a facility.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained to undertake a Heritage Assessment as part of

the REA Application for the Project. The study was conducted by Christienne Uchiyama, M.A.,

Archaeologist and Heritage Planning Consultant with Stantec. A visual survey was conducted

on February 9, 2012 by Christienne Uchiyama. Colin Varley, M.A., R.P.A., Senior Archaeologist

and Heritage Planning Consultant, acted as Senior Reviewer.

1.1 O.Reg. 359/09 Requirements, Heritage Assessment

This Heritage Assessment Report has been conducted in accordance with O.Reg. 359/09, s.23

(1) and (3). O. Reg.359/09 s.23 (1) states that:

23. (1) If, as a result of the consideration mentioned in subsection 20 (1), a person concludes

that engaging in the renewable energy project may have an impact on a heritage resource

described in paragraph 2 of subsection 20 (1), the person shall,

(a) conduct a heritage assessment consisting of,

(i) an evaluation of whether there are any heritage resources at the project

location, applying the criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Criteria for Determining Cultural

Heritage Value or Interest) made under the Ontario Heritage Act

Section 3 of this report satisfies the requirements of O.Reg.359/09, s.23(1)(a)(i).

The Regulation further states that:

(ii) if any heritage resources are identified as a result of the evaluation under

subclause (i), an evaluation of any impact of the renewable energy project on the heritage

resources and proposed measures to avoid, eliminate or mitigate the impact, which may include

a heritage conservation plan.

In order to satisfy O.Reg.359/09, s.23(1)(a)(ii), an assessment of potential Project-related

negative impacts was carried out for each significant built heritage resource within the Study

Area. This assessment, conducted as per InfoSheet #5 in Heritage Resources in the Land Use

Project No.: 122510652 2

Planning Process, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy

Statement, 2005 (MTCS, 2006a), is presented in Section 4.

1.2 Project Description

Cloudy Ridge Wind Park LP proposes to develop, construct and operate an up to 10 megawatt

(MW) Wind Energy Generation Facility consisting of up to five wind turbines near the community

of Badjeros in the Municipality of Grey Highlands (formerly Osprey Township), Grey County,

Ontario (Figure 1).

The Project Study Area is generally bounded on the north by South Line C, on the south and

east by Grey Road 9, and on the west by existing agricultural properties (Figures 2 through 4).

The Study Area is comprised of part or all of: Lots 60 and 61, Concessions 1 and 2 South of

Durham Road; Lots 60 and 61, Concessions 1 through 3 North of Durham Road; Lots 30

through 37, Concessions 4 and 5; Lots 49 through 71, Concession 3; and Lots 2 and 3,

Concession A in Osprey Township; and Lots 31 and 32, Concession 3; Lots 31 and 32,

Concession 4, Lots 26 through 28, Concession 11; Lots 27 through 29, Concession 10; Lots 29

and 30, Concession 9 in Melancthon Township (Figures 5 and 6).

The proposed Project Location and Project Components are shown in Figure 2. The Project

electrical line, which is proposed to be installed underground unless otherwise requested by the

Municipality, runs northward along Road 63 and turns east at McIntyre, travelling along

Concession 4 towards the Point of Common Coupling (Figures 3 and 4).

Six potential wind turbine locations have been assessed in this study. The hub height of each

wind turbine will be approximately 100 m. Additional Project components include: a step-up

transformer at the base of each wind turbine, a 44kV transmission line, a substation, temporary

crane pads and laydown areas, and temporary and permanent access roads (Figure 2). The

system will ultimately connect to the provincial electrical grid at the Stayner Transformer Station.

1.3 Project Methodology

The Heritage Assessment study was composed of a program of archival research and visual

assessment of potential built heritage resources and potential components of cultural heritage

landscapes within the vicinity of the Study Area. To familiarise the study team with the Study

Area, local histories were consulted, archival documents were reviewed and a summary

historical background of the local area was prepared. Listings of provincially and locally

designated built heritage sites, districts and easements and buildings of architectural or

historical interest for each municipality were reviewed in order to compile a catalogue of existing

identified heritage resources.

Project No.: 122510652 3

A visual survey was conducted on February 9, 2012. The Study Area was surveyed for extant

buildings, outbuildings and/or other built heritage remains. During the site visit built heritage

resources which might satisfy criteria outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 and components of potential

cultural heritage landscapes were photographed and their locations recorded. Where municipal

addresses were not available locations were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning

System (GPS).

In general, buildings and structures of more than forty years of age were evaluated during the

survey for their potential to satisfy O.Reg. 9/06 criteria. The use of the forty year threshold is

generally accepted by both the federal and provincial authorities as a preliminary screening

measure for heritage interest or values. This practice does not imply that all buildings and

structures more than forty years of age are inherently of cultural heritage value, nor does it

exclude exceptional examples constructed within the past forty years of being of cultural

heritage value.

The Study Area was assessed for groupings of resources and environs that might potentially

constitute cultural heritage landscapes as defined by the Ministry of Culture’s InfoSheet #2

Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process:

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005

(MTCS, 2006b).

Evaluation of potential cultural heritage resources was performed using criteria set out under

O.Reg.9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). Resources meeting one or more of the criteria

under O.Reg.9/06 are considered by this study to be of cultural heritage value.

Identification of potential impacts on cultural heritage resources and landscapes considered the

proposed site plan for the layout of turbines and other Project infrastructure (Figures 2 through

4). Layout of Project components was undertaken separately from this study with the

understanding that negative impacts on cultural heritage resources identified by this study might

require mitigative measures, up to and including the relocation of Project infrastructure.

500000

500000

550000

550000

600000

600000

4850

000

4850

000

4900

000

4900

000

4950

000

4950

000

Notes

February, 2012Project No. 122510652

Client/ProjectCLOUDY RIDGE WIND PARK LPSKYWAY 126 WIND ENERGY

Figure No.1

Title1:700,000

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N2. Data Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queens Printer Ontario, 2011.3. Imagery Source: NRCAN Toporama

0 10,000 20,000m

Revis

ed: 2

012-0

2-29 B

y: sa

rogers

V:\01

225\a

ctive

\1225

106X

X\122

5106

52_Z

ero Em

ission

Peo

ple_H

eritag

e Ass

ess._

7_W

ind F\

drawi

ng\m

xd\SK

Y\122

5106

52_d

ft_SK

Y_Fig

1_Pr

ojectL

ocati

on.m

xd

Lake Ontario

O t t a w a

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

Ot ta waOt ta wa

To rontoTo ronto

Project Location_̂

Project Location

_̂

Project Location

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

#*!(

5TH LINE

GREY ROAD 9

SOUTH LINE C

Badjeros; CHL 1

269294S Line

269344S Line

269378S Line

269252 S Line; BHR 4


S2T1

T2

T3

T5

T4

556000

556000

557000

557000

4899

000

4899

000

4900

000

4900

000

Legend

Notes

January, 2013Project No. 122510652


Figure No.

Location of Built Heritage ResourcesProject Layout

Title

1:10,000

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N2. Data Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queens Printer Ontario, 2012.3. Imagery Source: First Base Solutions Inc. Imagery Date: 2008

0 100 200m

!( Built Heritage Resource#* Cultural Heritage Landscape!( Evaluated Resource Proposed Turbine Location"/ Point of Common Coupling

Electrical Line120 m Project Location BufferBladesweptCrane PadRotor AssemblyProject RoadTemporary Construction RoadSubstationParticipating PropertyStudy Area

Revis

ed: 2

013-0

1-22 B

y: sa

rogers

V:\01

225\a

ctive

\1225

106X

X\122

5106

52_Z

ero Em

ission

Peo

ple_H

eritag

e Ass

ess._

7_W

ind F\

drawi

ng\m

xd\SK

Y126

\1225

1065

2_dft

_SKY

_Fig2

_Proj

ectLa

yout.

mxd

Lake Ontario

O t t a w a

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

Ot ta waOt ta wa

To rontoTo ronto

Project Location_̂

2

"/

!(

!(!(!(#* #*

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

ROAD 63

3RD CONCESSION

GREY ROAD 4

4TH CONCESSION B

PCC1

McIntyre PioneerCemetery; CHL 3

McIntyre United Churchand Cemetery; CHL 2

633683 Road 63; BHR 19

349427 Concession 4; BHR 15349423 Concession 4; BHR 16

349422 Concession 4; BHR 17

633812 Road 63; BHR 18



349485 Concession 4;BHR 13

349565 Concession 4 349674 Concession 4

556000

556000

557000

557000

558000

558000

559000

559000

560000

560000

4905

000

4905

000

4906

000

4906

000

4907

000

4907

000

4908

000

4908

000

Legend

Notes



Figure No.

Location of Built Heritage ResourcesProject Area North

Title

1:23,000


0 250 500m



Revis

ed: 2

013-0

1-22 B

y: sa

rogers

V:\01

225\a

ctive

\1225

106X

X\122

5106

52_Z

ero Em

ission

Peo

ple_H

eritag

e Ass

ess._

7_W

ind F\

drawi

ng\m

xd\SK

Y126

\1225

1065

2_dft

_rev1

_SKY

_Fig3

-4_He

ritage

Reso

urces

.mxd

Lake Ontario

O t t a w a

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

Ot ta waOt ta wa

To rontoTo ronto

Project Location_̂

3

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

#* !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

TOWNLINE MELANCTHON

OSPREY

COUNTY ROAD 9

5TH LINE

ROAD 63

SOUTHVIEWLANE

SOUTH LINE C

SIDEROAD

240

TOWNLINE MELANCTHON OSPREY

4TH LINE

30TH SIDEROAD

10TH LINENORTH EAST

ROAD 57B

3RD CONCESSION

3RD LINE

COUNTY ROAD 124

GREY ROAD 9

ROAD 67A

ROAD 57A

CENTRE LINE B

Badjeros; CHL 1

309710 CentreLine B

309345 CentreLine B

309346 CentreLine B

309314 CentreLine B

309265 CentreLine B

309252 CentreLine B309186 Centre

Line B

309158 CentreLine B

309120 CentreLine B

309563 CentreLine B

35811210th Line

673027Road 67A

633303Road 63

269294S Line

269344S Line

269378S Line

269454S Line

269465S Line

269554S Line

269556S Line

673012Road 67A

269589S Line

269668S Line

269677S Line

309766 CentreLine B; BHR 3



358091 10thLine; BHR 9

St. Andrews; BHR 10

673211 Road67A; BHR 11


269377 S Line; BHR 5 269504 S Line; BHR 6



S2T1

T2

T3

T5

T4

554000

554000

555000

555000

556000

556000

557000

557000

558000

558000

559000

559000

560000

560000

561000

561000

4898

000

4898

000

4899

000

4899

000

4900

000

4900

000

4901

000

4901

000

4902

000

4902

000

4903

000

4903

000

4904

000

4904

000

4905

000

4905

000 Legend

Notes



Figure No.

Location of Built Heritage ResourcesProject Area South

Title

1:40,000


0 440 880m



Revis

ed: 2

013-0

1-22 B

y: sa

rogers

V:\01

225\a

ctive

\1225

106X

X\122

5106

52_Z

ero Em

ission

Peo

ple_H

eritag

e Ass

ess._

7_W

ind F\

drawi

ng\m

xd\SK

Y126

\1225

1065

2_dft

_rev1

_SKY

_Fig3

-4_He

ritage

Reso

urces

.mxd

Lake Ontario

O t t a w a

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

Ot ta waOt ta wa

To rontoTo ronto

Project Location_̂

4

OSPREY CON A,LOT 2

OSPREY CON A,LOT 4

OSPREY CON A,LOT 1

OSPREY CON A,LOT 3

OSPREY CON 5,LOT 36

OSPREY CON 5,LOT 35

OSPREY CON 5,LOT 30

OSPREY CON 4,LOT 36

OSPREY CON 4,LOT 30

OSPREY CON 5,LOT 34

OSPREY CON 4,LOT 35

OSPREY CON 5,LOT 31

OSPREY CON 4,LOT 34

OSPREY CON A,LOT 5

OSPREY CON 6,LOT 31

OSPREY CON 5,LOT 32

OSPREY CON 5,LOT 33

OSPREY CON 5,LOT 37

OSPREY CON 4,LOT 33

OSPREY CON 4,LOT 32

OSPREY CON 4,LOT 31

OSPREY CON 4,LOT 37

OSPREY CON 6,LOT 32

OSPREY CON 6,LOT 33

OSPREY CON 6,LOT 30

OSPREY CON 6,LOT 34

OSPREY CON 4,LOT 29

OSPREY CON 6,LOT 35

OSPREY CON 6,LOT 36

OSPREY CON 3 NDR,LOT 70























OSPREY CON 6,LOT 37








OSPREY CON 5,LOT 29




OSPREY CON 2 NDR,LOT 78OSPREY CON 3 NDR,LOT 79

PCC1

556000

556000

557000

557000

558000

558000

559000

559000

560000

560000

4905

000

4905

000

4906

000

4906

000

4907

000

4907

000

4908

000

4908

000

Legend

Notes



Figure No.

Lot and Concession NumbersProject Area North

Title

1:23,000


0 250 500m

Lot & Concession!( Built Heritage Resource

#* Cultural HeritageLandscape

!( Evaluated Resource

Proposed TurbineLocation

"/ Point of CommonCouplingElectrical Line120 m Project LocationBufferProject RoadTemporary ConstructionRoad

BladesweptCrane PadRotor AssemblySubstationParticipating PropertyStudy Area

Revis

ed: 2

013-0

1-22 B

y: sa

rogers

V:\01

225\a

ctive

\1225

106X

X\122

5106

52_Z

ero Em

ission

Peo

ple_H

eritag

e Ass

ess._

7_W

ind F\

drawi

ng\m

xd\SK

Y126

\1225

1065

2_dft

_SKY

_Fig5

-6_Lo

tCon

c.mxd

Lake Ontario

O t t a w a

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

Ot ta waOt ta wa

To rontoTo ronto

Project Location_̂

5

MELANCTHON CON 4,LOT 31









OSPREY CON 3 SDR,LOT 48




















OSPREY CON 3 SDR,LOT 57OSPREY CON 3 SDR,LOT 58
















MELANCTHON CON 9 NET&SR,LOT 30















































OSPREY CON 3 NDR,LOT 49 OSPREY CON 1 NDR,LOT 71





















OSPREY CON 1 NDR,LOT 46 OSPREY CON 2 SDR,LOT 68







OSPREY CON 1 SDR,LOT 74 OSPREY CON 2 SDR,LOT 79






































OSPREY CON 2 NDR,LOT 46OSPREY CON 2 SDR,LOT 44




























554000

554000

555000

555000

556000

556000

557000

557000

558000

558000

559000

559000

560000

560000

561000

561000

4898

000

4898

000

4899

000

4899

000

4900

000

4900

000

4901

000

4901

000

4902

000

4902

000

4903

000

4903

000

4904

000

4904

000

4905

000

4905

000

Legend

Notes



Figure No.

Lot and Concession NumbersProject Area South

Title

1:40,000


0 440 880m

Lot & Concession!( Built Heritage Resource

#* Cultural HeritageLandscape

!( Evaluated Resource

Proposed TurbineLocation

"/ Point of CommonCouplingElectrical Line120 m Project LocationBufferProject RoadTemporary ConstructionRoad

BladesweptCrane PadRotor AssemblySubstationParticipating PropertyStudy Area

Revis

ed: 2

013-0

1-22 B

y: sa

rogers

V:\01

225\a

ctive

\1225

106X

X\122

5106

52_Z

ero Em

ission

Peo

ple_H

eritag

e Ass

ess._

7_W

ind F\

drawi

ng\m

xd\SK

Y126

\1225

1065

2_dft

_SKY

_Fig5

-6_Lo

tCon

c.mxd

Lake Ontario

O t t a w a

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

Ot ta waOt ta wa

To rontoTo ronto

Project Location_̂

6

Project No.: 122510652 10

2 PROJECT CONTEXT

2.1 Study Area

The Study Area is located near the community of Badjeros in the Municipality of Grey Highlands

(formerly Osprey Township), Grey County, Ontario (Figure 1). The Project Study Area is

generally bounded on the north by South Line C, on the south and east by Grey Road 9, and on

the west by existing agricultural properties (Figures 2 through 4).

The Study Area is located in the Horseshoe Moraines physiographic region of Ontario. The

Horseshoe Moraines physiographic region is characterised by irregularly stony knobs and

ridges composed largely of till with some sand and gravel terraces, swampy valley floors, and

pitted sand or gravel terraces. Osprey Township is generally covered by a complex of till ridges,

kame moraines, outwash plains and spillways (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). Watercourses

and small wetlands characterize the Study Area and two wetlands are located in the vicinity of

the Study Area, the Osprey Wetlands to the north and east and the Hatherton Wetlands to the

north and west of the Study Area. The Niagara Escarpment passes to the east and north of the

Study Area (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). As a result of topography of the Horseshoe

Moraines physiographic region, farms tend to be larger than average for Southern Ontario

(Plate 1).

Streetscapes within the Study Area are bucolic and are a mix of gravel and paved roads.

Overhead transmission infrastructure can be found along some of the roads (Plate 1). Sections

of mature tree-plantings along the road allowance are scattered throughout the Study Area

(Plate 2).

The general area is composed of primarily agricultural and residential land use and

undeveloped wetland and forested areas (Plate 3). Farm complexes are generally widely

setback from the road and agricultural outbuildings are located in fairly close proximity to

farmhouses (Plate 1); however some examples exist of more narrowly setback complexes

(Plate 4). For the most part, structures are located on flat terrain adjacent to roadways, or

widely set back on areas of slightly elevated topography (Plates 1, 4 and 5). Narrowly set-back

buildings are particularly prevalent near crossroad communities such as Badjeros and McIntyre

(Plates 5 and 6).

Project No.: 122510652 11

Plate 1: Typical farm complex configuration (309710 Centre Line B) and roadscape characterized by gravel roads and overhead transmission lines.

Plate 2: Trees planted along road and property lines, Centreline B

Project No.: 122510652 12

Plate 3: Entrance to low-lying Osprey Wetlands (Area 2)

Plate 4: Example of narrowly set-back farm complex on Sideroad 67A.

Project No.: 122510652 13

Plate 5: Narrowly set back structures, Badjeros

Project No.: 122510652 14

2.2 Pre-contact Cultural Context

The Study Area is located in the vicinity of the Niagara Escarpment and Nottawasaga Bay, both

important features for land-use and occupation in the history of Southern Ontario. Although

archaeological resources have been dealt with more specifically within the Stage 1

Archaeological Assessment for the Project, First Nations land-use has had, and continues to

have, an impact on the landscape in the region, particularly along the Niagara Escarpment and

surrounding bodies of water. The following summary of the pre-contact occupation of Southern

Ontario is based on syntheses in Archaeologix (2008), Ellis and Ferris (1990) and Jacques

Whitford (2008) and focuses on activities and settlement patterns which may have resulted in,

or be linked to, cultural heritage landscapes.

The first identified human occupation of Ontario begins just after the end of the Wisconsin

Glacial period. The first human settlement can be traced back 11,000 years, when the area was

settled by Native groups that had been living to the south of the emerging Great Lakes. This

initial Native occupation is referred to as the "Palaeo-Indian" archaeological culture.

Early Paleo-Indian (EPI) (11,000-10,400 years Before Present (BP)) settlement patterns

suggest that small groups, or “bands”, followed a pattern of seasonal mobility extending over

large territories. Many (although by no means all) of the EPI sites were located on former beach

ridges associated with Lake Algonquin, the post-glacial lake occupying the Lake

Huron/Georgian Bay basin, and it is likely that the vegetative cover of these areas would have

consisted of open spruce parkland, given the cool climatic conditions. Sites tend to be located

on well-drained loamy soils, and on elevations in the landscape, such as knolls. EPI sites have

been found in the general vicinity of the Study Area and there is also a major outcrop of tool

stone near Collingwood that was used extensively by EPI tool makers (Storck, 1983).

The Late Palaeo-Indian (LPI) period (10,400-10,000 BP) is poorly understood compared to the

EPI, the result of less research focus than the EPI. As the climate warmed the spruce parkland

was gradually replaced and the vegetation of Southwestern Ontario began to be dominated by

closed coniferous forests. As a result many of the large game species that had been hunted in

the EPI period either moved north with the more open vegetation, or become extinct. Like the

EPI, LPI peoples covered large territories as they moved around to exploit different resources.

Large LPI sites have been documented in southern Simcoe County, east of the Study Area.

Although there may have been some reduction in the degree of seasonal movement, it is still

likely that population density during the Early Archaic (10,000-8,000 BP) was low, and band

territories large. An Early Archaic site, the McKean site, is located to the north of the Study

Area, along the Nipissing Bluffs overlooking Nottawasaga Bay (Lennox, 2000). The appearance

of the first true cemeteries occurs during the Late Archaic. Prior to this period, individuals were

Project No.: 122510652 15

interred close to the location where they died. However, with the advent of the Late Archaic and

local cemeteries individuals who died at a distance from the cemetery would be returned for

final burial at the group cemetery. The emergence of local group cemeteries has been

interpreted as being a response to both increased population densities and competition between

local groups for access to resources in that cemeteries would have provided symbolic claims

over a local territory and its resources.

The Early Woodland period (2,900-2,200 BP) is distinguished from the Late Archaic period

primarily by the addition of ceramic technology. Other than the introduction of this rather limited

ceramic technology, the life-ways of Early Woodland peoples show a great deal of continuity

with the preceding Late Archaic period. The trade networks which were established in the

Middle and Late Archaic also continued to function, although there does not appear to have

been as much traffic in marine shell during the Early Woodland period.

It is at the beginning of the Middle Woodland period (2,200 B.C.-1,100 BP) that rich, densely

occupied sites appear along the margins of major rivers and lakes. While these areas had been

utilized by earlier peoples, Middle Woodland sites are significantly different in that the same

location was occupied off and on for as long as several hundred years. Because this is the

case, rich deposits of artifacts often accumulated. Unlike earlier seasonally utilized locations,

these Middle Woodland sites appear to have functioned as base camps, occupied off and on

over the course of the year. There are also numerous small upland Middle Woodland sites,

many of which can be interpreted as special purpose camps from which localized resource

patches were exploited. This shift towards a greater degree of sedentism continues the trend

witnessed from at least Middle Archaic times, and provides a prelude to the developments that

follow during the Late Woodland period.

The relatively brief period of the Transitional Woodland period is marked by the acquisition of

cultivar plants species, such as maize and squash, from communities living south of the Great

Lakes. The appearance of these plants began a transition to food production, which

consequently led to a much reduced need to acquire naturally occurring food resources. Sites

were thus occupied for longer periods and by larger numbers of people.

The Late Woodland period in southern Ontario is associated with societies referred to as the

Ontario Iroquois Tradition. This period is often divided into three temporal components; Early

(2,950-2,400 BP), Middle (2,400-1,400 BP) and Late Iroquoian (600-350 BP).

Early Iroquoian peoples continued to practice similar subsistence and settlement patterns as the

Transitional Woodland. Villages tended to be small, with small longhouse dwellings that housed

either nuclear or, with increasingly, extended families. Smaller camps and hamlets associated

with villages served as temporary bases from which wild plant and game resources were

acquired. Horticulture appears to have been largely a supplement to wild foods, rather than a

Project No.: 122510652 16

staple. No Early Iroquoian period sites have been documented in Simcoe County, and it

appears that Iroquoian presence in Simcoe County first occurred in the Middle Iroquoian period

(Sutton, 1996 and 1999).

The Middle Iroquoian period marks the point at which a fully developed horticultural system

(based on corn, bean, and squash) emerged, and at which point cultivars became the staple

food source. In this period villages become much larger than in the Early Iroquoian period.

Longhouses also become much larger, housing multiple, though related, nuclear families.

Horticultural food production resulted in the abandonment of seasonal mobility that had

characterised aboriginal life for millennia. While hunting, fishing, and gathering of wild foods

continued to occur at satellite camps, for the most part Iroquoian people inhabited large,

sometimes fortified, villages.

During the Late Iroquoian period longhouses became smaller again, although villages became

even larger. Most, if not all, of the Iroquoian communities along the north shore of Lake Ontario

had moved by about 1600 either northward, joining with other groups in Simcoe County to form

the Petun and Huron, or westward to join other ancestral groups of the Neutral, situated at the

west end of Lake Ontario and the Niagara Peninsula. The Study Area is located in a transitional

zone between the traditional homelands of the Huron in peninsular and northern Simcoe County

and the Petun territory along the south-western shore of Nottawasaga Bay (Garrad and

Heidenreich, 1978). In 1649 Iroquois warriors from the area of Upper New York State invaded

the Huron and Petun settlements, driving them out of their homelands and then leaving the area

essentially empty of settlement. This situation persisted for a long time and no Aboriginal

settlements were recorded in the Township of Osprey when it was settled in the 1850s (Marsh,

1931).

2.3 Euro-Canadian Settlement

The historical Township of Osprey was first surveyed in 1849-50 by Charles Rankin, although

settlers had arrived by way of Simcoe County prior to the official survey. The majority of these

settlers squatted along the boundary of the Townships of Osprey and Nottawasaga (Marsh,

1931). The majority of the township was settled in the 1850s by families from York and Peel

Counties. As reflected in the modern name of the region, many of the early settlers to the area

were Irish Highlanders, particularly in the southeastern portion of the township.

The 1851 Agricultural Census indicates that settlement of the township was relatively slow and

difficult. The census taker noted, “The land of the township where dry is good for all kinds of

crop. The soil to the south part is the strongest but not well watered (LAC, 1851).” A number of

the lots within the Study Area, particularly those along the two southernmost concessions, had

been recently granted at the time of the 1851 Census. In settled lots, only a small portion of the

land had been cleared and was under crops in almost every instance. The majority of settlers

Project No.: 122510652 17

were, at the time, still living in temporary shanties or had constructed small, one storey log

houses (LAC, 1851). In fact, the majority of permanent structures built as the area was being

settled were simple log buildings (Marsh, 1931). By 1861 the population of the Township of

Osprey was 2,201 (Smith, 1865).

The Durham Road (present day Centre Line) was a major route of transportation in the second

half of the 19th century as the Township of Osprey developed. Farms along that route were

some of the earliest and most prosperous. Lots on either side of the Durham Road were

surveyed at 50 acres and were originally granted for free to settlers (Marsh, 1931). The

community of Badjeros does not appear in the 1865-1866 Gazetteer for Grey County, although

occupants of many of the lots in the Study Area are listed (Smith, 1866). By 1875, the

population had grown large enough for a post office to be granted to Badjeros (LAC, 1875).

Belden’s 1880 map of the Township of Osprey in the Grey County supplement of the Dominion

of Canada Illustrated Atlas shows detail in and around the Study Area. A church is shown in Lot

70, and a schoolhouse is shown in Lot 65 on Concession 3 South of Durham Road (Figure 3).

A steam saw mill in Lot 56, Concession 2 South of Durham Road meant that local farmers no

longer need to spend days travelling to mills in nearby villages. A store, tavern and cemetery

are also shown in Badjeros Post Office Village at the intersection of present day Road 63 and

South Line. The map also identifies a spring in Lots 68 and 69, Concession 2 South of Durham

Road (Figure 7).

The McIntyre Post office was established sometime before 1880 and is shown on the Belden

map. The Belden map also shows two churches, the McIntyre cemetery, a schoolhouse, a

tavern, and a store at McIntyre (Figure 7).

Illustrated atlases produced after 1880 only show public and religious buildings and the names

and residences of subscribers to the Dominion Atlas and the lack of detail in the Study Area

does not reflect a lack of settlement.

Figure 7: Project Location as Shown on the 1880 Belden Map of the Township of Osprey

1000 m

Project Location

Project No.: 122510652 19

3 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES

3.1 Methodology

As per O.Reg. 359/09, evaluation of potentially significant built heritage resources in the Study

Area was performed using criteria set out under O.Reg 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA).

A property or resource meeting one or more of the following criteria is considered to have

cultural heritage value or interest.

1. The property has design value or physical value because it,

i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression,

material or construction method,

ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or

iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,

i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization

or institution that is significant to a community,

ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an

understanding of a community or culture, or

iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder,

designer or theorist who is significant to a community.

3. The property has contextual value because it,

i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,

ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or

iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2).

3.2 Existing Heritage Designations, Easements and Conservation Districts

There are no protected properties as outlined in the table in Section 19, O.Reg.359/09 located

within or adjacent to the Study Area (Fraser, 2010 pers.comm.; Cifuentes, 2010 pers. comm.;

Robertson, 2012 pers. comm.)

3.3 Significant Built Heritage Resources

Built heritage resources are defined as "one or more significant buildings, structures,

monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political,

Project No.: 122510652 20

economic or military history and identified as being important to a community. These resources

may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario

Heritage Act (OHA), or listed by local, provincial or federal jurisdictions” (MTCS, 2006c).

During the February, 2012 site visit, 34 built resources that might potentially satisfy the criteria

outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 were documented and recorded during the windshield survey. All

34 of the built resources recorded during the visual survey were evaluated against O.Reg.9/06

criteria (Table 1). A total of eleven (11) of the evaluated resources meet the criteria for

determining cultural heritage value or interest as outlined under O.Reg. 9/06. The 11 resources

meeting criteria are, as follows:

309167 Centre Line, BHR 1;



269252 South Line, BHR 4;





359091 10th Line, BHR 9;

673164 Road 67A, BHR 10; and

673211 Road 67A, BHR 11.

An additional nine (9) built heritage resources have been identified along the Project Electrical

line, including:

349655 Concession 4, BHR 12;






633812 Road 63, BHR 18; and

633683 Road 63, BHR 19.

Table 1: Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources and Landscapes

Built

Heritage

Resource

Number

Property O.Reg. 9/06 Criteria Justification Rating Thumbnail (full-size photos in Appendix A)

Design or Physical

One and a half storey Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse

and associated agricultural outbuildings. Covered porch and

balcony over front door. Does not meet physical or design

criteria under O.Reg.9/06.

Historical or Associative No known associations which would satisfy O.Reg.9/06

Contextual

Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, but

does not contribute or maintain character of surrounding

area in an integral way. Not physically, functionally, visually

or historically linked to its surroundings in a demonstrable

way. Not a landmark.

Design or Physical

One and a half storey residential building. Likely built in

frame in the Gothic Revival Cottage style based on eastern

elevation. Does not meet physical or design criteria under

O.Reg.9/06.

Historical or Associative No known associations which would satisfy O.Reg.9/06

Contextual






Design or Physical

One and a half storey dichromatic brick Gothic Revival

Cottage style farmhouse. Red with white painted decorative

brickwork (likely yellow brick) in a cross motif frieze below the

eaves, above windows and doors and diamond motif quoins

along corners. Consistent patterns with other dichromatic

brick examples in the general Study Area.

Historical or Associative No known associations which would satisfy O.Reg.9/06.

Contextual






Plate 1

Plate 2

BHR 1

309158 Centre

Line B

309120 Centre

Line B

does not

meet

criteria

does not

meet

criteria

meets

criteria

309167 Centre

Line B

Plate 3


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or PhysicalOne and a half storey verticle vinyl clad residential building.

Does not meet design or physical criteria under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






Design or Physical

One and half storey vinyl clad Gothic Revival Cottage style

farmhouse and associated agricultural buildings. Widely

setback from road. Does not meet design or physical criteria

under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






Design or Physical

Two storey vinyl clad Dutch Revival style farmhouse. Design

features include gambrel roof, attic dormer with balcony

door, six-over-two pane windows on the first storey, and

moulded soffit. Does not meet design or physical criteria

under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






309252 Centre

Line B

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 5

Plate 6

309265 Centre

Line B

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 4

309186 Centre

Line B

does not

meet

criteria


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or PhysicalTwo storey vernacular farmhouse with second storey balcony

and associated agricultural outbuildings. Does not meet

design or physical criteria under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






Design or PhysicalOne and a half storey vinyl clad Gothic Revival Cottage style

residential building. Narrowly setback from road. Does not

meet design or physical criteria under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






Design or Physical

One and a half storey frame Gothic Revival Cottage style

farmhouse with more recent red brick Dutch Revival style

addition fronting the road. Does not meet design or physical



Contextual






Plate 7

309346 Centre

Line B

does not

meet

criteria

does not

meet

criteria

309314 Centre

Line B

309345 Centre

Line B

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 8

Plate 9


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or Physical

One and a half storey dichromatic brick farmhouse. Highly

ornate example of local dichromatic brickwork patterns.

Character-defining elements include diamond pattern quoins

along corners, diamonds below gable peaks, friezes around

the first and second storeys, and headers above windows and

doors.


Contextual






Design or PhysicalOne and a half storey Gothic Revival Cottage style residence

with closed-in front porch. Does not meet design or physical



Contextual






Design or PhysicalTwo storey yellow brick vernacular farmhouse. Design

features include decorative border around attic pediment.

Does not meet design or physical criteria under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






does not

meet

criteria

309563 Centre

Line B

Plate 11

Plate 12

309710 Centre

Line B

does not

meet

criteria

BHR 2

Plate 10

meets

criteria

309366 Centre

Line B


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or Physical

One and a half storey board and batten Gothic Revival

Cottage style residence. Narrowly set back from road.

Character-defining elements include: decorative woodwork

along front gable, moulded frieze along eaves, spindle at the

peak of the front gable, sunburst decoration above second

storey window, and wide wooden frames around windows

and doors. Rare example of board and batten cladding and

unique woodworking techniques for the general area.

Historical or AssociativeNo known associations which would satisfy O.Reg.9/06.

Contextual






Design or Physical


Cottage style farmhouse and associated agricultural

outbuildings. Yellow brick with red brick border along

corners, cross motif band across the second storey and

rounded header over windows. Representative of local

dichromatic brickwork patterns.


Contextual






309766 Centre

Line B

meets

criteria

Plate 13

BHR 3

BHR 4

Plate 14

269252 South

Line

meets

criteria


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or Physical

One and a half storey red brick Gothic Revival Cottage style

farmhouse and associated agricultural outbuildings. Widely

setback from road and partially obscured by tree cover. Does

not meet design or physical criteria under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






Design or PhysicalTwo storey vinyl clad vernacular farmhouse with irregular

roof and associated agricultural outbuildings. Does not meet



Contextual






Design or Physical

One and a half storey Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse.

Composite stone construction. Rare example of composite

stone construction in the general vicinity. Composite stone

came into use in Ontario around 1870 when settlement

increased in the area (contemporaneous with dichromatic

brick construction).


Contextual






Plate 16

269294 South

Line

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 15

BHR 5269377 South

Line

meets

criteria

Plate 17

269344 South

Line

does not

meet

criteria


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or PhysicalTwo storey grey brick vernacular farmhouse and associated

agricultural outbuildings. Does not meet design or physical



Contextual






Design or Physical

Two storey red brick vernacular farmhouse on square plan.

Mature trees lining the laneway. Dormer window, hipped

roof, three-over-three openings on front and two-over-two

on side elevations. Does not meet design or physical criteria

under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






Design or Physical

Two storey red brick vernacular farmhouse and associated

agricultural outbuildings. Covered porch with decorative

along the front and side elevations, triangular dormer window

with shingles, hipped roof, three-over-three openings on

front, central doors on the first and second storey. Does not



Contextual






269454 South

Line

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 19

269465 South

Line

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 20

269378 South

Line

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 18


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or Physical

Vernacular farmhouse with several additions from various

time periods. The scale, massing and pitch of roof of one of

the rear additions suggests log construction. Likely an early

example of local construction methods and use of materials.


Contextual






Design or Physical

One and a half storey dichromatic brick farmhouse.

Representative of local brickwork including diamond motif

along corners and frieze around second storey. Placement of

door is off-centre and may not be original.


Contextual






Design or Physical

Two storey wood-clad Georgian farmhouse with associated

agricultural outbuildings. Six-over-six pane windows with

thick wooden frames. Rare and early example of Georgian

architecture for the general area.


Contextual






BHR 8269547 South

Line

meets

criteria

Plate 23

BHR 6269504 South

Line

meets

criteria

Plate 21

BHR 7269513 South

Line

meets

criteria

Plate 22


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or Physical

Two storey red brick Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse

and associated agricultural outbuildings. Key design features

include dripmoulds above windows and rounded arch window

below front gable. Does not meet design or physical criteria

under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






Design or Physical

Two storey wood-clad vernacular farmhouse. Covered porch

and balcony along the front elevation, triangular dormer

window, hipped roof, three-over-three openings on front and

two-over-two on side elevations. Does not meet design or

physical criteria under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






Design or Physical

Two storey Dutch Revival style farmhouse with associated

outbuilding. Cinderblock construction, six-over-one pane

windows on first storey and attic dormer. Does not meet



Contextual






269556 South

Line

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 25

269589 South

Line

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 26

269554 South

Line

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 24


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or Physical

Two storey red brick vernacular farmhouse. Covered porch

with balcony above front door. Triangular dormer window

with shingles and hipped roof.Does not meet design or

physical criteria under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






Design or PhysicalOne and a half storey Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse

and associated agricultural outbuildings. Does not meet



Contextual






Design or Physical


Cottage style farmhouse with protruding bay windows

flanking the front entrance. Two storey wooden addition at

rear and associated agricultural outbuildings. Representative

of local dichromatic decoration including checkerboard motif

border around second storey, triangular quoins and headers

above windows. Similar to other local examples, brick

decoration is painted white.


Contextual






BHR 9 358091 10th Linemeets

criteria

Plate 29

269668 South

Line

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 27

269677 South

Line

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 28


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or Physical

Two storey red brick vernacular farmhouse. Yellow brick

decoration around first and second storey are relatively plain

and do not represent local dichromatic brick decorative

motifs. Does not meet design or physical criteria under

O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






Design or Physical

One and a half storey vinyl clad Gothic Revival Cottage style

farmhouse and associated agricultural outbuildings. Covered

porch with balcony above front door. Does not meet design

or physical criteria under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






Design or Physical

One and a half storey red brick Gothic Revival Cottage style

residence with moulded soffit. Narrowly setback from the

road. Does not meet design or physical criteria under

O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual






373012 Road 67A

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 31

373027 Road 67A

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 32

358112 10th Line

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 30


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or Physical

St. Andrews church. Red brick Gothic Revival style rural

church. Constructed in 1904. Character-defining elements of

the building include: lancet arch windows along sides of

building, two front entrances with lancet arch windows

above, round window below front gable, moulded soffits, and

ornate stained glass designs.

Historical or AssociativeAssociated with the development of the Badjeros community

and the Presbyterian congregation in the area.

Contextual Landmark.

Design or Physical

One and a half storey vernacular farmhouse and associated

agricultural outbuildings and fields. Vinyl cladding and metal

roof. Scale, massing and pitch of roof suggest that the

substructure may be log construction, which is a rare

construction method and use of materials for the general

Study Area.


Contextual






BHR 11 673211 Road 67Ameets

criteria

Plate 34

BHR 10 673164 Road 67Ameets

criteria

Plate 33


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or Physical

The former Post Office Village of Badjeros includes a number

of buildings of individual design value near the intersection of

South Line and Road 63. The CHL includes examples of late

19th century commercial architecture (c. 1885 General Store),

residential architecture, a cemetery, a United Church dating

to 1935, and a community centre building (former

schoolhouse) dating to 1905.

Historical or Associative

Associated with the early settlement of Osprey Township and

development of Badjeros community. The Badjeros Union

Cemetery, which dates back to 1849, yields a great deal of

information about the community and the Badgero family

who donated the land for the cemetery and after whom the

postal village derived its name.

Contextual

Comprises a designed landscape which represents a late 19th

to early 20th century post office village. Although residential

buildings have been added throughout the history of the

community, they are generally compatible with their

surrounding landscape and represent the continuing

evolution of the CHL.

Design or Physical

Vernacular one and a half storey simple rectangular plan

farmhouse. Upright construction suggests frame rather than

log construction. The associated large vertical-boarded barn

with stone foundations and saltbox roof is not uncommon in

this area.


Contextual






349674

Concession 4

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 39

CHL 1 Badjeros Villagemeets

criteria

Plates 35-38


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or Physical

The one and a half storey board and batten farmhouse is a

unique example of this type of construction in the Study Area.

The retention of the early farmhouse, despite the

construction of a modern residence directly north

demonstrates locally perceived value of the structure.

Character-defining features include: nine-over-nine windows,

returning gables and the attic dormer.


Contextual






Design or PhysicalVernacular one and a half storey farmhouse. Likely frame

construction based on the height of the building. Does not



Contextual






Design or Physical

Representative of local dichromatic brick construction in red

with yellow quoins and double cross border below eaves.

Other character-defining elements of the farmhouse include

the hourglass shaped chimney on the west side of the

building, transom window above the front door and yellow

brick headers above windows and doors.

Historical or Associative Associated with early settler John McIntyre.

ContextualVisually and historically linked to its surroundings, the

community of McIntyre.

BHR 13349485

Concession 4

meets

criteria

Plate 42

BHR 12349655

Concession 4

meets

criteria

Plate 40

349565

Concession 4

does not

meet

criteria

Plate 41


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or PhysicalTwo storey vernacular construction. Not an early, unique or

rare form, use of materials or construction methods. Does not



McIntyre Farms. Associated with the Euro-Canadian

settlement of the community of McIntyre at the intersection

of Road 63 and Concession 4. Was originally Donald

McIntyre's farm.



Design or Physical

The one storey red brick church is representative of rural

church construction towards the second half of the 19th

century. The cultural landscape is composed of the church

and cemetery. Character-defining elements of the church

include the simple rectangular plan; gabled roof with

decorative bargeboard along the eaves and spire at the peak;

lancet arch gothic windows with yellow brick headers; worn

date plaque above the front door; and wide double entrance.

Headstones in the cemetery date to as early as 1887 (one

inscription dating to 1867 may be a re-interment based on the

20 year gap between it and next interment).

Historical or AssociativeYields information that contributes to an understanding of the

community.



Design or Physical

One and a half storey Gothic Revival Cottage style residence

in dichromatic brick work in red with yellow brick quoins and

headers above windows. There is also a double-cross border

below the eaves on the side elevations.


ContextualVisually linked to its surroundings, the community of

McIntyre.

BHR 15349427

Concession 4

meets

criteria

Plate 45

BHR 14347442

Concession 4

meets

criteria

Plate 43

CHL 2

McIntyre United

Church

(Presbyterian)

and Cemetery

meets

criteria

Plate 44


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or Physical

The one and a half storey Gothic Revival Cottage style

residence at 349423 Concession 4 is not a rare or unique

architectural style, use of materials or construction method.

It is a common residential buildings styles for the area, and

across Ontario, in the second half of the 19th century and

early 20th century. Does not meet design or physical criteria

under O.Reg.6/06.


Contextual

Located at the intersection of Concession 4 and Road 63,

opposite the McIntyre Pioneer Cemetery. The house is

visually linked to its surroundings, the community of

McIntyre. Its scale and massing are proportional to 349423

and 349423 Concession 4 as well as to the McIntyre United

Church. The style of the building is reflective of the

predominant style in the 1860s to 1880s, when McIntyre was

settled.

Design or PhysicalThe building at 349422 Concession 4 is built in a simple

vernacular style. The form and massing suggest early

construction.

Historical or Associative Former General Store and Post Office from 1861 to 1926.

Contextual

Visually linked to its surroundings, the community of

McIntyre. The residence is located at the crossroads of

McIntyre and is reflective of vernacular architectural styles

during the early settlement of the area.

Design or Physical

A church is shown adjacent to the cemetery on the 1880 map

of the Township of Osprey. The building no longer exists.

Designed components of the cemetery are limited to the

headstones located across the property, dating to the 1854

settlement of McIntyre.


Associated with the early settlement of McIntyre. Yields

information that contributes to an understanding of the

community.



CHL 3McIntyre Pioneer

Cemetery

meets

criteria

Plate 48

BHR 16349423

Concession 4

meets

criteria

Plate 46

BHR 17349422

Concession 4

meets

criteria

Plate 47


Built

Heritage

Resource

Number


Design or Physical

Although there have been several additions to the residence

at 633812 Road 63, the earliest structure is discernible. The

simple, one and a half storey, rectangular construction with

central chimney and two small second storey windows is

likely log construction dating to the settlement of Osprey in

the 1850s.

Historical or AssociativeLikely constructed as the home of Duncan McIntyre, the

1850s - 1860s settler of the property.

Contextual






Design or Physical

S.S. No. 2. One and a half storey yellow brick public building,

constructed on a square plan with entrances (boys and girls)

flanking a large central room and a bell tower on the roof. No

date plaque was visible from the road. Example of public

school construction to replace wood frame or log school

houses in the area, built circa 1908. Operated as school until

1965 (Brownridge et. al. , 1975).


Associated with the development of the community and the

need for larger, more permanent public school buildings in

the early 20th century. Replaced earlier log school located

across the road. Closed in 1965.

Contextual Landmark.

BHR 18 633812 Road 63meets

criteria

Plate 49

BHR 19 633683 Road 63meets

criteria

Plate 50

Project No.: 122510652 38

3.4 Cultural Heritage Landscapes

Cultural Heritage Landscapes for the purposes of this study are: “a defined geographical area of

heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a

community. A landscape involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as

structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant

type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts” (MTCS, 2006b).

There are three widely accepted types of cultural heritage landscapes (better known

internationally as cultural landscapes). This typology was adopted by the United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Committee in the

1992 revisions to their Operational Guidelines which defines cultural landscapes as the

“combined works of nature and of man” (UNESCO, 2008). The Operation Guidelines identify

the three types as:

Designed Landscapes: those which have been intentionally designed and created by

man. (e.g., historic gardens and parks);

Evolved Landscapes: this type includes both relict and continuing landscapes resulting

from social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed

into its present form as a result of its natural environmental context; and

Associative Landscapes: those with powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations

of the natural element rather than material or built cultural evidence.

During the site visit in February, 2012 the Study Area was assessed for groupings of resources

and environs that might potentially constitute cultural heritage landscapes as defined by the

Ministry of Tourism and Culture. One cultural heritage landscape, the former Post Office Village

of Badjeros, was identified during the visual survey. An additional two cultural heritage

landscapes have been identified along the Project electrical line: the McIntyre United Church

and Cemetery (CHL 2); and the McIntyre Pioneer Cemetery (CHL 3).

Project No.: 122510652 39

4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

A total of 34 resources were recorded as a result of desktop research and the February, 2012

visual survey. Of those, eleven (11) were determined to be of cultural heritage value or interest

as per criterion outlined under O.Reg. 9/06. One cultural heritage landscape, the former Post

Office Village of Badjeros, was identified. An additional nine built resources and two cultural

heritage landscapes have been identified along the Project electrical line. Potential Project-

related negative impacts have been assessed for each of the resources that have been

evaluated as meeting the criteria for cultural value or interest.

4.1 Impact Assessment Methodology

Assessment of potential direct or indirect impacts of the project on identified built heritage

resources in the Study Area considered Ministry of Tourism and Culture guidelines concerning

Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MTCS, 2006a).

The Ministry of Tourism and Culture outlines seven potential negative impacts on heritage

resources:

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;

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; and

Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns

that adversely affect an archaeological resource.

Identification of potential impacts considered the proposed site plan in relation to identified

cultural heritage resources (Figures 2 through 4).

This assessment considered potential Project-related negative impacts related to obstruction of

views or shadows. This includes: shadows that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or

change the visibility of a natural feature; or, obstruction of significant views from or of a built

Project No.: 122510652 40

heritage resource or a cultural heritage landscape. Project components, particularly the wind

turbines, are likely to be visible from a number of vantage points within the Study Area. The goal

of this assessment is to identify instances in which the addition of wind turbines will detract from

heritage attributes or features from which the CHVI of specific built heritage resources or

cultural heritage landscapes are derived. This might include instances where the location or

relative scale of a wind turbine is such that it directly obstructs views of a heritage resource or

prevents the interpretation of visible remains of settlement patterns. Assessment of potential

visual impacts considered the setback of built features and tree cover; narrowly setback

features can be effective in shielding views of wind turbines, whereas trees or buildings set

farther away from the viewer are not.

Documentation of built resources and landscapes in the field was undertaken from public

property and included, as applicable: principle elevations of built resources; perspective views of

the surrounding landscape; and views from cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage

resources where significant vistas could potentially be obstructed by the Project.

In order to perform a preliminary evaluation of potential visual impact of the proposed turbines,

general topographical conditions and land-use recorded during the site visit, aerial imagery, and

comparative examples from similar projects were reviewed, particularly those projects within

and around the Study Area.

The preliminary assessment of potential visual impacts considered the distance of visible

Project components in relation to built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. A

visual rendering was used to inform the evaluation with respect to assessing the scale of new

turbines relative to existing built features. Visual Aid 1 presents the scale of a turbine with a

similar hub height at a distance of 550 m and 1000 m from a typical two storey residential

building. Visual Aid 2 presents that same model with trees at various locations and distances in

order to evaluate the effectiveness of existing tree-cover as a potential mitigative measure.

Land disturbances related to the Project are being addressed in separate Stage 1 and 2

Archaeological Assessments.

Potential negative Project-related impacts were considered with respect to isolation and change

in land use, including: reduced accessibility to a landmark, monument, or public site; change in

contextual relationships or isolation of a cultural heritage attribute, feature or resources from its

surrounding environment; obstruction through the re-routing of traffic or alteration of roadways

or gateways near a cultural heritage resource that might limit access to that resource or

property; or change in land use or neglect of a heritage resource which may result in

deterioration of heritage attributes.

Project No.: 122510652 41

Visual Aid 1: Wind Turbine Scale Schematic

Visual Aid 2: Wind Turbine Scale Schematic, with trees

Project No.: 122510652 42

In addition to direct impacts, this assessment also evaluated the potential for indirect impacts

resulting from the vibrations of construction and the transportation of Project components and

personnel. Although the effect of traffic and construction vibrations on historic period structures

is not fully understood, negative effects have been demonstrated on buildings with a setback of

less than 40 m from the curbside (Crispino and D’Apuzzo, 2001; Ellis, 1987; Rainer, 1982; Wiss,

1981). State agencies applying screening distances for potential vibration effects from

construction on historic buildings in the United States generally apply a distance of 200 feet

(60.96 m) (Wilson, Ihrig & Associates et. al., 2012). The initial screening for potential impacts

related to construction vibration, for this assessment, included structural resources located

within or adjacent to Project locations, in particular those resources identified within 60 m of

construction and/or laydown areas (e.g., access roads, underground collector lines).

One consideration of interventions on resources and landscapes of heritage value is the

reversibility of any new features. English Heritage (officially known as the Historic Buildings and

Monuments Commission for England), a governmental statutory adviser on the historic

environment in the United Kingdom, has prepared guidance on the assessment of impacts of

renewable energy projects on the Historic Environment which addresses reversibility. English

Heritage states that, as a best practice, “consideration should always be given to the

reversibility of wind energy projects” (English Heritage, 2005). Their 2005 guidance document

further states that,

Planning authorities should therefore make provision, as part of any

planning permission, for the long-term protection of the landscape by requiring legal

agreements for the remediation and restoration of wind farm sites and their

infrastructure when they are decommissioned.

A Decommissioning Plan Report has been prepared for the Project, in accordance with O.Reg.

359/09, which sets out specific content requirements for the Decommission Plan Report in

Table 1, Item 3 of the Ministry of Environment’s (MOE’s) draft guidance document “Technical

Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals” (MOE, March 2012). The Decommission Plan Report

provides the following information with respect to plans for site rehabilitation or restoration

following the lifespan of the Project.

4.2 309167 Centre Line B, BHR 1

The one and a half storey dichromatic brick Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse at 309167

Centre Line B (BHR 1) was identified during the visual survey of the Study Area as a building of

potential heritage value. The white painted decorative brickwork (likely yellow) is representative

of locally popular dichromatic brickwork patterns. Dichromatic brickwork became popular in

Ontario in the 1870s and represents, in the vicinity of the Study Area, the era in which many of

the log constructions in the area were replaced with brick structures. The building meets the

Project No.: 122510652 43

criteria of design value as outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 and is considered by this study to be of

cultural heritage value.

No Project components are located within 2000 m of BHR 1 (Figure 2 - South).

Destruction – BHR 1 will not be destroyed or removed by the proposed Project.

Alteration - No Project-related negative impacts are expected with respect to alteration.

Shadows - No Project-related negative impacts are expected with respect to shadows.

Isolation – No Project-related negative impacts are expected with respect to isolation.

Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – No significant views will be directly or

indirectly obstructed by the proposed Project.

Change in land-use - No change in land-use will occur as a direct result of the Project.


The one and a half storey dichromatic brick farmhouse and associated outbuildings at 309366

Centre Line B (BHR 2) were identified during the visual survey of the Study Area as a property

of potential cultural heritage value. The farmhouse is an exemplary representation of local

dichromatic brickwork patterns as well as the local variant of painting decorative brick elements

white. The building meets the criteria of design value as outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 and is

considered by this study to be of cultural heritage value.

No turbines are located within 2000 m of BHR 2 (Figure 2 - South). No other Project

components which might be expected to have a negative impact on BHR 2 are located within

close proximity (Figure 2 – South).

Destruction – BHR 2 will not be demolished or removed by the proposed Project.




Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – No significant views will be directly or

indirectly obstructed by the proposed Project.


Project No.: 122510652 44


The one and a half storey board and batten Gothic Revival farmhouse at 309766 Centre Line B

(BHR 3) was identified during the visual survey as being of potential heritage value. The

farmhouse is a rare example of board and batten cladding and woodworking techniques in the

general Study Area. The building meets the criteria of design value as outlined under O.Reg.

9/06 and is considered by this study to be of cultural heritage value.

BHR 3 is more than 2000 m from any Project components (Figure 2 - South).





Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – No significant views of BHR 3 will be directly

or indirectly obstructed by the Project.


4.5 269252 South Line, BHR 4

The one and a half storey dichromatic brick farmhouse and associated agricultural outbuildings

at 269252 South Line (BHR 4) were identified during the visual survey of the Study Area as a

being of potential heritage value. The farmhouse is an example of yellow brick construction with

red brick decorative elements which are representative of local patterns and the popularity of

the architectural design technique at the time when a number of farmhouses were being

constructed in the Study Area. The building meets the criteria of design value as outlined under

O.Reg. 9/06 and is considered by this study to be of cultural heritage value.

Project components situated in the vicinity of 269252 South Line include turbines south of South

Line and west of Road 63. The turbines are between 600 m and 1250 m east of BHR 4 (Figure

2 - South).




Project No.: 122510652 45


Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – View of BHR 4 will not be directly obstructed

by the proposed Project. It is possible that three turbines will be visible when viewing BHR 4

from certain vantage points. However, given the relative scale of the Turbines at distances of

750 m, 1000 m and 1250 m from the structures on the property (Visual Aid 1) coupled with the

rolling topography of the property, such views will not detract greatly from value-defining

features of the property. Furthermore, the impact is reversible and temporary and will only last

for the projected lifespan of the turbines.



The two storey composite stone farmhouse at 269377 South Line (BHR 5) was identified during

the visual survey of the Study Area as a building of potential heritage value. The Gothic Revival

Cottage style residence was the only example of composite stone construction in the general

vicinity. Use of composite stone in Ontario started in the 1870s. The building meets the criteria

of design value as outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 and is considered by this study to be of cultural

heritage value.

Project components situated in the vicinity of BHR 5 include the turbine locations south of South

Line and west of Road 63. All of the turbine locations are between 750 m to 1250 m from BHR

5 (Figure 2 - South). A substation is also proposed south of South Line, opposite BHR 5 (Figure

2 - South).

Destruction – BHR 5 will not be demolished or removed by the proposed Project; however,

there is a potential for project activities within 50 m of the farmhouse (i.e., construction and use

of access road, transportation of large components and heavy machinery) to have an indirect

impact on the value-defining features and structural integrity of the building as a result of

vibrations from Project activities.




Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – Views of BHR 5 will not be directly obstructed

by the proposed Project. 269377 South Line is situated on the north side of the road and all of

the turbines in the vicinity are located on the south side of the road. Views of BHR 5 from public

property are towards the north, with the proposed substation and turbines to the south. The

Project No.: 122510652 46

project will not obstruct significant views of BHR 5.



The vernacular farmhouse at 269504 South Line (BHR 6) was identified during the visual survey

of the Study Area as a building of potential heritage value. It is likely that the substructure of at

least part of the residence is log construction based on the locations of windows, scale,

massing, and the pitch of the roof. The extant structure, if in fact of log construction, would be a

rare example of log construction which was once prevalent in the general area. The building

meets the criteria of design value as outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 and is considered by this study

to be of cultural heritage value.

BHR 6 is situated approximately 1300 m to 2250 m east of the seven possible turbine locations

(Figure 2 - South).

Destruction – The farmhouse at 269504 South Line will not be removed or demolished by the

proposed Project.





by the proposed Project. It is possible that the turbines to the west of BHR 6 will be visible

when viewing the farmhouse from certain vantage points. However, given the relative scale of

the Turbines at distances of 1300 m to 2250 m from the structures on the property (Visual Aid 1)

coupled with the rolling topography of the property, such views will not detract greatly from

value-defining features of the property. Furthermore, the impact is reversible and temporary

and will only last for the projected lifespan of the turbines.



The one and a half storey dichromatic brick farmhouse at 269513 South Line (BHR 7) was

identified during the visual survey of the Study Area as a building of potential heritage value. As

a representative example of local dichromatic brick patterns the building meets the criteria of

design value as outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 and is considered by this study to be of cultural

heritage value.

Project No.: 122510652 47

Project components situated in the vicinity of 269513 South Line include the seven turbine

locations ranging from 1750 m to 2500 m to the southwest (Figure 2 - South).






by the proposed Project. Views of the farmhouse from public property are towards the north

with the turbines to the southwest at the viewer’s back.



The two storey wood-clad Georgian residence at 269547 South Line (BHR 8) was identified

during the visual survey of the Study Area as a building of potential heritage value. The

farmhouse is the sole example of Georgian architecture in the general vicinity. The building

meets the criteria of design value as outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 and is considered by this study

to be of cultural heritage value.

Project components situated in the vicinity of BHR 8 include the seven possible turbine locations

between 1900 m and 2750 m southwest (Figure 2 - South).

Destruction - BHR 8 will not be demolished or removed by the proposed Project.





by the proposed Project. Views of the farmhouse from public property are towards the north

with the turbine locations to the southwest at the viewer’s back.


Project No.: 122510652 48

4.10 358091 10th Line, BHR 9

The farmhouse and associated outbuildings at 358091 10th Line (BHR 9) were identified during

the visual survey of the Study Area as a property of potential heritage value. The dichromatic

brickwork of the Gothic Revival Cottage style portion of the farmhouse is characteristic of the

general area, particularly the use of white paint. The wooden portion of the farmhouse may

predate the brick portion. The building meets the criteria of design value as outlined under

O.Reg. 9/06 and is considered by this study to be of cultural heritage value.

Project components in the vicinity of 358091 10th Line include the seven possible turbine

locations approximately 1250 m to 1750 m north of the property (Figure 2 - South).

Destruction – No structures at 358091 10th Line will be demolished or removed by the proposed

Project.





by the proposed Project. It is possible that the turbines to the north of the property may be

visible when viewing BHR 9 from certain vantage points. However, given the relative scale of

the Turbines at distances of 1250 m to 1750 m from the structures on the property (Visual Aid 1)

coupled with the rolling topography and treed nature of the Study Area, such views will not

detract greatly from value-defining features of the property. Furthermore, the impact is

reversible and temporary and will only last for the projected lifespan of the turbines.


4.11 673164 Road 67A, BHR 10

St. Andrews Church at 673164 Road 67A (BHR 10) was identified during the visual survey of

the Study Area as a building of potential heritage value. Built in 1904, the red brick rural church

meets the criterion of design value as an example of rural church architecture in a late Gothic

Revival style. The church, in the same location as an earlier church shown on Belden’s 1880

map of Grey County, also meets the criterion of associative value for its connection with the

development of the Township of Osprey and the community of Badjeros.

The seven possible turbine locations are situated approximately 2500 m and 3500 m to the west

(Figure 2 - South).

Project No.: 122510652 49

Destruction – St. Andrews Church will not be demolished or removed by the proposed Project.




Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – Views of St. Andrews Church will not be

directly obstructed by the proposed Project. It is possible that the turbines will be visible when

viewing BHR 10 from certain vantage points. However, given the relative scale of the turbines

distances of greater than 2500 m (Visual Aid 1) coupled with the rolling topography of the

general Study Area such views will not detract greatly from value-defining features of the

property. Furthermore, the impact is reversible and temporary and will only last for the

projected lifespan of the turbines.


4.12 673211 Road 67A, BHR 11

The one and a half storey vernacular farmhouse and associated agricultural outbuildings at

673211 Road 67A (BHR 11) were identified during the visual survey of the Study Area as being

of potential heritage value. It is likely that part of the substructure of the residence is log

construction based on the locations of windows and doors, scale, massing, and the pitch of the

roof. The extant structure, if in fact of log construction, would be a rare example of log

construction in the general area. The building meets the criteria of design value as outlined

under O.Reg. 9/06 and is considered by this study to be of cultural heritage value.

No Project components are located within 2000 m of of BHR 10 (Figure 2 - South).

Destruction – The proposed Project will not demolish or remove structures at 673211 Road 67A.




Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – Significant views of BHR 11 will not be

obstructed by the proposed Project.


Project No.: 122510652 50

4.13 Badjeros Cultural Heritage Landscape, CHL 1

The former Post Office Village of Badjeros was identified during the visual survey of the Study

Area as a potential cultural heritage landscape. It is a designed landscape, which has evolved,

and continues to evolve, as settlement patterns in the community change. The cultural

landscape of Badjeros is composed of primarily residential buildings but also includes several

agricultural buildings, commercial buildings, a church, a former schoolhouse/community centre,

and a cemetery dating back to 1849. The landscape is generally centered at the crossroads of

Road 63 and South Line (Figure 2 - South). The Badjeros cultural landscape meets the criterion

of design value under O.Reg. 9/06 as a result of the collection of representative, and in some

cases rare, architectural styles. The overall landscape yields information about the

development of Badjeros specifically, but also the settlement and development of Township of

Osprey more generally. In particular, the Badjeros Union Cemetery, where members of the

Badgero family were interred, yields a great deal of information regarding the residents of the

community. Finally, the components of the landscape are functionally and visually linked in

such a way that the landscape, as a whole, is more valuable than its component parts. This

landscape also supports, visually and functionally, surrounding rural properties.

At its closest point, the Badjeros Cultural Landscape (CHL 1) is approximately 750 m to 1250 m

northeast of the seven possible turbine locations and the Project electrical line runs through the

community along Road 63 (Figure 2 - South).

Destruction – No components of CHL 1 will be demolished or removed by the proposed Project;

however, there is a potential for project activities within 50 m of buildings along Road 63 to

result in an indirect impact on the value-defining features and structural integrity of cultural

resources in the community of Badjeros as a result of vibrations.




Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – No significant views of CHL 1 will be directly

obstructed by the proposed Project. CHL 1 is situated approximately 750 m to 1250 m

northeast of the turbine locations, at its closest point (Figure 2 - North). Structures within the

landscape are generally narrowly setback from the road and based on the minimum distance of

750 m the expected scales of the turbines will not be such that they will greatly detract from

views of the structures in the village (Visual Aids 1 and 2).

Views from the cemetery were also considered as part of this assessment. The Badjeros Union

Cemetery is situated at the west end of the Badjeros CHL, approximately 750 m to 1250 m from

Project No.: 122510652 51

the turbines to the south (Figure 2 - South). The turbines will be visible from certain vantage

points within the cemetery, particularly in months when trees surrounding the cemetery have no

leaves (Appendix A, Plate 36). Although this visual impact is reversible, the nature of the use of

the space might be altered by visual interruptions to the serenity of the cemetery. It is

recommended that the proponent work with the South Line Cemetery Board and the

Municipality of Grey Highlands to install an appropriate visual barrier around the cemetery to

protect views from within the cemetery (e.g., fencing, shrubbery or trees).


4.14 349655 Concession 4, BHR 12

The one and a half storey vernacular farmhouse at 349655 Concession 4 was identified during

the visual survey of the Study Area as a building of potentially significant heritage value (Plate

40). As the sole visible example of board and batten residential architecture in the Study Area

and immediate vicinity, the building meets the criterion of design value as outlined under O.Reg.

9/06 and is considered by this study to be of cultural heritage value.

The Project electrical line runs along Concession 4, in the vicinity of 349655 Concession 4

(Figure 2 - North).

Destruction - BHR 12 will not be demolished or removed by the proposed Project.




Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – The proposed Project will not obstruct

significant views of BHR 12.



The one and a half storey Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse and associated barn were

identified during the visual survey as a property of potential cultural heritage value (Plate 42).

As a representative of dichromatic brick decoration in the local area, the farmhouse meets the

criterion of design value as outlined under O.Reg.9/09. The farmstead is also visually linked to

the community of McIntyre, being situated at the eastern edge of the former Post Office Village

and historically linked to the McIntyre family. The farmstead is located in Lot 32, Concession 5

where John McIntyre settled as early as the 1860s (Smith, 1865).

Project No.: 122510652 52

The proposed electrical lines run along Concession 4, in front of the property. The farmhouse

and associated outbuildings are setback approximately 225 m from the road centerline (Figure 2

– North).

Destruction - No Project-related negative impacts are expected with respect to destruction.




Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – Significant views will not be obstructed by the

Project.



The two storey farmhouse at 347442 Concession 4, McIntyre Farms, was identified during the

visual survey as a property of potential cultural heritage value (Plate 43). The building meets

the criteria as outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 for its association with the McIntyre family, the early

settlement of the area, and as a farmstead visually and historically linked to its surroundings.

The proposed electrical lines run along Concession 4, in front of the property. The farmhouse is

situated approximately 100 m north of the road centerline (Figure 2 - North).





Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – No significant views of BHR 14 will be

obstructed by the Project.


4.17 McIntyre United Church and Cemetery, CHL 2

The McIntyre United Church and Cemetery were identified during the visual survey as a

landscape of potential cultural heritage value (Plate 44). The church and cemetery meet the

Project No.: 122510652 53

criteria of design value and historical value as outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 and are considered

by this study to be a cultural landscape of cultural heritage value. CHL 2 is an evolved

landscape and both the church and cemetery are active. Components of CHL 2 include the red

brick McIntyre United Church building and the cemetery interments, landscaping and

headstones. The church is included in the Municipality of Grey Highlands’ Heritage Inventory,

which lists its date of construction as 1879 (Municipality of Grey Highlands, 2012). The date

plaque on the church states 1925. This likely refers to the year the church was bricked. The

municipality’s inventory is currently pending council approval for inclusion on the Heritage

Register which would, under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, place restrictions on

demolition or removal of the building.

The proposed electrical lines run along Concession 4, in front of the property (Figure 2 – North).

The church is narrowly setback from the road (less than 10 m).

Destruction – No components of CHL 2 will be demolished or removed by the proposed Project;

however, there is a potential for project construction along the road to have an indirect impact

on the value-defining features and structural integrity of the church as a result of vibrations from

Project activities.




Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – Significant views of CHL 2 will not be

obstructed by this Project.



The one and a half storey dichromatic brick residence at 349427 Concession 4 was identified

during the visual survey of the Study Area as a building of potential cultural heritage value (Plate

9). The building meets the criteria of design value and contextual value as outlined under

O.Reg. 9/06 and is considered by this study to be of cultural heritage value as an example of

local dichromatic brickwork and for its visual links to the former Post Office Village of McIntyre.

The proposed electrical lines run along Concession 4, in front of the property (Figure 2 - North).

The property is narrowly setback from the road (less than 10 m).

Destruction - BHR 15 will not be demolished or removed by the proposed Project; however,

Project No.: 122510652 54

there is a potential for the Project to have an indirect impact on the value-defining features and

structural integrity of BHR 15 as a result of vibrations from Project activities along Concession 4.




Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – Significant views of BHR 15 will not be

obstructed by the Project.



The one and a half storey Gothic Revival Cottage style residence at the intersection of

Concession 4 and Road 62 was identified during the visual survey of the Study Area as a

building of potential cultural heritage value (Plate 46). The building meets the criterion of

contextual value as outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 and is considered by this study to be of cultural

heritage value as an example of local architecture which is visually linked to the settlement of

the former Post Office Village of McIntyre.

The proposed electrical lines run along Concession 4, in front of the property (Figure 2 – North).

The residence is narrowly setback from the road (less than 10 m).



structural integrity of BHR 16 as a result of vibrations from Project activities.





Project.



The one and a half storey vernacular residence at 349422 Concession 4 was identified during

Project No.: 122510652 55

the visual survey of the Study Area as a building of potential cultural heritage value (Plate 11).

The building meets the criteria of design value and contextual value as outlined under O.Reg.

9/06 and is considered by this study to be of cultural heritage value as an example of

architectural design and construction methods during the settlement of the area and for its

visual links to the former Post Office Village of McIntyre.

The proposed electrical lines run along Road 63 and Concession 4, in front of the property

(Figure 2 – North). The building is narrowly setback from both roads (less than 5 m).








Project.


4.21 McIntyre Pioneer Cemetery, CHL 3

Although the original church structure is no longer extant, a cemetery is located in Lot 30,

Concession 5 (Figure 2 - North). The McIntyre Pioneer Cemetery dates to the 1854 Euro-

Canadian settlement of the community at the crossroads of Concession 4 and Road 63. The

cemetery meets the criterion of historical value as outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 and is of cultural

heritage value. CHL 2 can be classified as a designed landscape, characterized by rows of

headstones, interments, and a landscaped tree-line along the northern and western boundaries

of the cemetery grounds.

The proposed electrical lines run along Road 63, in front of the property (Figure 2 - North).





Project No.: 122510652 56

Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views – Significant views of and from the cemetery

will not be obstructed by this Project.


4.22 633812 Road 63, BHR 18

The residence at 633812 Road 63 was identified during the visual survey of the Study Area as a

building of potential cultural heritage value. The building, an early example of settlement-era

construction with associated historic orchard, meets the criteria of design value as outlined

under O.Reg. 9/06 and is considered by this study to be of significant heritage value.

The proposed electrical lines run along Road 63, in front of the property (Figure 2 - North). The

residence is widely setback from the road (approximately 60 m from the centerline).






Project.


4.23 633683 Road 63, BHR 19

The former schoolhouse at 633683 Road 63 was identified during the visual survey of the Study

Area as a building of potential cultural heritage value. The building is an example of early 20th

century schoolhouse construction and is associated with the development of the community and

need for larger, more permanent public school buildings in the early 20th century. The building

meets the criteria of design value and associative value as outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 and is

considered by this study to be of cultural heritage value.

The proposed electrical lines run along Road 63, in front of the property (Figure 2 - North). The

schoolhouse is located approximately 10 m from the western edge of the roadway.




Project No.: 122510652 57





Project.


Project No.: 122510652 58

5 STUDY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A total of 34 built resources of potential cultural heritage value have been identified and

evaluated based on the criteria outlined under O.Reg.9/06. Of those properties evaluated, a

total of eleven (11) have been identified which meet the criteria for determining cultural value or

interest:



309766 Centre Line, BHR 3






359091 10th Line, BHR 9;

673164 Road 67A, BHR 10; and

673211 Road 67A, BHR 11.

An additional nine (9) built heritage resources have been identified along the Project Electrical

line, including:







633812 Road 63, BHR 18; and

633683 Road 63, BHR 19.

Project No.: 122510652 59

One cultural heritage landscape, the former Post Office Village of Badjeros (CHL 1), was

identified during the visual survey. An additional two cultural heritage landscapes have been

identified along the Project electrical line: the McIntyre United Church and Cemetery (CHL 2);

and the McIntyre Pioneer Cemetery (CHL 3).

5.1 Recommended Mitigation

Potential negative impacts have been identified for six built heritage resources and components

of all three cultural heritage landscapes.

In order to minimise the potential visual impact on views from the Badjeros Union Cemetery (a

component of CHL 1), it is recommended that the proponent work with the South Line Cemetery

Board and the Municipality of Grey Highlands to install an appropriate visual barrier around the

cemetery to protect views from within the cemetery (e.g., fencing, shrubbery or trees).

Potential negative impacts, with respect to construction vibrations, have been identified for

269377 South Line (BHR 5), which is adjacent to one of the proposed access roads, and for

349427 Concession 4 (BHR 15), 349423 Concession 4 (BHR 16), 349422 Concession 4 (BHR

17), 633683 Road 63 (BHR 19), Village of Badjeros Post Office (CHL 1), and McIntyre United

Church and Cemetery (CHL 2), which are adjacent to the proposed electrical line.

In order to mitigate the potential for construction vibrations to negatively affect the structural

integrity of these resources, the following mitigative alternatives are recommended.

It is recommended that any below-grade construction Project activities be prohibited

within a 50 m bufferzone of the structures (i.e., through changes to Project layout or

installation of above-ground lines). Although the effect of traffic and construction

vibrations on historic period structures is not fully understood, negative effects have

been demonstrated on buildings with a setback of 40 m or less from the curbside (Ellis,

1987; Crispino and D’Apuzzo, 2001; Rainer, 1982).

In the event that a 50 m buffer is not feasible due to other Project constraints, it is

recommended that pre and post construction inspection of the buildings be undertaken

by a qualified engineer in order to confirm its capacity to withstand Project-related

vibrations. It is further recommended that maximum acceptable vibration, or peak

particle velocity (PPV), levels be determined by a qualified engineer prior to Project

construction and that construction activities be monitored to ensure that maximum PPV

levels are not exceeded.

It is further recommended that the final Construction Plan Report document which option

was chosen to mitigate the potential impact of construction vibrations, a description of

Project No.: 122510652 60

how the recommendation will be implemented, and a discussion of the Project factors

that determined that decision.

As a general recommendation, the use of Road 63, Concession 4 and South Line in the

immediate vicinity of the communities of McIntyre and Badjeros should be avoided to the

greatest extent practicable when transporting heavy machinery and turbine components to

the Project location in order to minimize the potential for accidental or indirect damage to the

high concentration of cultural heritage resources and landscapes within those communities.

Project No.: 122510652 2

7 REFERENCES

7.1 Literature Cited

Archaeologix, 2008. Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1) Shell Proposed Refinery Project, St. Clair Township, Lambton County, Ontario. Report prepared for Jacques Whitford Limited, Markham, Ontario

Belden & Co., 1880, Grey supplement in Illustrated atlas of the Dominion of Canada. Toronto:

H. Belden & Co..

Brownridge, Jean, Glenda Davidson, Barbara Turner and Margaret Turner, 1975. Peace, plent

and progress: a history of Osprey Township. Osprey Township: Corporation of the Township of

Osprey.

Chapman, L.J., and D.F. Putnam, 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario (3rd Edition).

Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Crispino, M. and M. D’Apuzzo, 2001, Measurement and Prediction of Traffic-induced Vibrations in a

Heritage Building. Journal of Sound and Vibration. 246, 2: 319-335.

Ellis, Chris J., and Neal Ferris (eds.), 1990. The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.

Ellis, Patricia, 1987, Effects of Traffic Vibration on Historic Buildings. The Science of the Total

Environment. 59, 37-45.

Garrad, Charles, and Conrad Heidenreich, 1978. Khionontateronon (Petun), in Handbook of

North American Indians, Volume 15: Northeast, Bruce G. Tigger (ed.). Pp:394-397 Washington:

Smithsonian Institution.

Jacques Whitford, 2008. Stage 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment - Interconnecting and

Third Party Pipelines. Report prepared for Shell Canada Products, Sarnia, ON.

Lennox, Paul A., 2000. The Rentner and McKean Sites: 10,000 Years of Settlement on the

Shores of Lake Huron, Simcoe County, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology. No.70:16-65.

Library and Archives Canada (LAC)

1851 Agricultural Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia

1851, Microfilm C-11723

1875 Application for the establishment of a post office at Badjeros, RG3-D-3.

Marsh, Edith Louise, 1931. A History of Grey County. Owen Sound: Fleming Publishing

Company, Limited.

Ministry of Culture (MTCS), 2006a. InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and

Conservation Plans. Sheet No. 5, Information Sheet Series from Heritage Resources in the Land

Project No.: 122510652 3

Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial

Statement, 2005. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

---, 2006b. InfoSheet #2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Sheet No. 2, Information Sheet

Series from Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and

Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Statement, 2005. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for

Ontario.

---, 2006c. InfoSheet #1 Built Heritage Resources. Sheet No. 1, Information Sheet Series

from Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

Policies of the Ontario Provincial Statement, 2005. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, Under the

Ontario Heritage Act, 2006.

Ontario Regulation 359/09, Renewable Energy Approvals Under Part V.0.1 Of The Environmental

Protection Act, 2009.

Rainer, J.H., 1982, Effect of Vibrations on Historic Buildings. The Association for Preservation

Technology Bulletin. XIV, No. 1: 2-10.

Smith, William Wye, 1865. Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Grey for 1865-6. Toronto:

Globe Steam Press.

Storck, Peter, 1983. The Fisher Site, Fluting Techniques, and Early Paleo-Indian Cultural

Relationships. Archaeology of Eastern North America, Vol. 11.

Sutton, Richard E., 1996. The Middle Iroquoian Colonization of Huronia. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, McMaster Univerity, Hamilton, Ontario.

---, 1999. “The Barrie Site: A Pioneering Iroquoian Village Located in Simcoe County, Ontario.”

Ontario Archaeology. No. 67:40-87.

UNESCO, 2008. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage

Convention. Accessed online at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf#annex3 last

accessed September, 2011.

Wiss, J.F., 1981. Construction Vibrations: State-of-the-Art. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division 107:167-181.

7.2 Literature Consulted

CanadaGenWeb, 2011. Cemetery Project.

http://www.geneofun.on.ca/db.php?database=cgwcems&template=cgwcems-

showON.html&sort=CEMETERY&search=ASSIGNED&find=ONZ11598.

Centennial Book Committee, 1978. Norwood: Then and Now. Peterborough: Village of Norwood.

Clarke, Simon, 2009. Balancing Environmental and Cultural Impact against the Strategic Need for

Wind Power, International Journal of Heritage Studies 15:175-191.

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf#annex3

http://www.geneofun.on.ca/db.php?database=cgwcems&template=cgwcems-showON.html&sort=CEMETERY&search=ASSIGNED&find=ONZ11598

http://www.geneofun.on.ca/db.php?database=cgwcems&template=cgwcems-showON.html&sort=CEMETERY&search=ASSIGNED&find=ONZ11598

Project No.: 122510652 4

Jerspasen, Gro B. and Kari C. Larsen, 2011. Visual impact of wind farms on cultural heritage: A

Norwegian case study, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31: 206-215.

Library and Archives Canada (LAC)

1851 Nominal Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia

1851, Microfilm C-11723

1871 Federal Census of 1871 (Ontario Index). Microfilm C-9932

1881 Federal Census of 1881 (Ontario Index). Microfilm C-13273

M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd., 2010. Grey Highlands Zero Emissions People & Skyway 126

Wind Energy Project Description Report, Draft. Report prepared for Zero Emissions People.

MTCS, 2006. Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating

Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities. Toronto: Queen’s Printer.

Ontario Genealogical Society, 2011. OGS Cemetery Search.

http://ogs.andornot.com/CemeteryIndex.aspx.

Parks Canada, 2011. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in

Canada.

Ritchie, T., 1979. Notes on Dichromatic Brickwork in Ontario. The Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin. XI, No. 2: 60-75. Tremaine, George C., 1861. Tremaine’s map of the County of Durham, Upper Canada. Toronto: Geo. C Tremaine. NMC 11474. Wiss, J.F., 1981. Construction Vibrations: State-of-the-Art. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division 107:167-181.

7.3 Personal Communications

Cifuentes, Alejandro, Heritage Planner, Cultural Services Unit, Ministry of Tourism and Culture.

Letter dated August 4, 2010.

Fraser, Sean, Manager, Conservation Services, Ontario Heritage Trust. Letter dated August 6,

2010.

Robertson, Debbie, Clerk and Director of Corporate Services, Municipality of Grey Highlands. Email

and phone, February, 2012.

http://ogs.andornot.com/CemeteryIndex.aspx

Documents

Appendix II Cultural Heritage ... - Zero Emission Peoplezeroemissionpeople.com/wp-content/uploads/projects/skyway126/08… · Potential negative impacts have been identified for BHR