NextEra Energy Canada, ULC Jericho Wind Energy Centre ...€¦ · 1999 Topographic Map Sheet 40 0/1: Brights Grove (Edition 7). Centre for Topographic Information, Natural Resources

October 11, 2012

STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

NextEra Energy Canada, ULCJericho Wind Energy CentreLambton and Middlesex Counties, Ontario

FIT Number: FIT-FRZYKJA

Licensee: Jim Wilson

License Number: P001

PIF Number: P001-607-2010

ORIG

INAL

REP

ORT

Report Number: 10-1151-0201-1300-R01Distribution:

1 Hard Copy + 1 PDF Copy - AECOM Canada Ltd.1 Hard Copy + 1 PDF Copy - Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport2 Hard Copies - Golder Associates Ltd.

Submitted to:Marc RoseAECOM Canada Ltd.300 Town Centre Blvd., Suite 300Markham, ON L3R 5Z6Tel: (905) 477-8400 Fax: (905) 477-1456

STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTJERICHO WIND ENERGY CENTRE, LAMBTON AND MIDDLESEX COS., ON

October 11, 2012Report No. 10-1151-0201-1300-R01

Executive Summary

A Stage 1 archaeological background study was conducted by Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) on behalf of AECOM Canada Ltd. for NextEra Energy Canada’s proposed Jericho Wind Energy Centre. This assessment was undertaken in order to meet the requirements for an application for a Renewable Energy Approval, as outlined in Ontario Regulation 359/09 section 22(3) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The objective of the Stage 1 assessment was to compile all available information about the known and potential archaeological resources within the study area and to provide specific direction for the protection, management and/or recovery of these resources. As this assessment was initiated and conducted in 2010, background research and property inspection activities were conducted consistent with the Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines (Government of Ontario 1993); however prior to the current submission of the final report the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2012) were reviewed to ensure recommendations moving forward are consistent with current Ministry standards.

Golder applied archaeological potential criteria commonly used by the MTCS to determine areas of archaeological potential within the study area. The archaeological potential for Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian sites was deemed to be moderate to high on these properties. For pre-contact Aboriginal sites this assessment is based on the presence of nearby potable water sources, areas of level topography, glacial strandlines, agriculturally suitable soils, and known archaeological sites. For post-contact Aboriginal sites this assessment is based on the presence of nearby potable water sources, level topography, oral tradition, and historic documentation. The determination of historic Euro-Canadian archaeological potential is based on the documentation indicating occupation from the middle of the 19th century onwards as well as the presence of historic transportation routes. As a result, Stage 2 archaeological assessment is recommended for potential wind turbine sites and their associated infrastructure.

The MTCS is asked to review the results presented and to accept this report into the Provincial Register of Archaeological Reports. Additional archaeological assessment is still required; hence the archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork remain subject to Section 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Actand may not be altered, or have artifacts removed, except by a person holding an archaeological licence.

The Executive Summary highlights key points from the report only; for complete information and findings, as well as the limitations, the reader should examine the complete report.


October 11, 2012Report No. 10-1151-0201-1300-R01 i

Table of Contents

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

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................................3

3.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH...........................................................................................................................................5

3.1 The Natural Environment.....................................................................................................................................5

3.2 Pre-contact Aboriginal Archaeological Resources and Surveys ..........................................................................8

3.3 Post-contact Aboriginal Archaeological Resources and Surveys....................................................................... 10

3.4 Historic Euro-Canadian Archaeological Resources and Surveys ...................................................................... 13

3.4.1 Survey and Early Settlement........................................................................................................................ 13

3.4.1.1 Bosanquet Township ................................................................................................................................ 13

3.4.1.2 Warwick Township.................................................................................................................................... 20

3.4.1.3 West Williams ........................................................................................................................................... 25

3.4.1.4 McGillivray ................................................................................................................................................ 26

3.4.2 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 27

4.0 PROPERTY INSPECTION .............................................................................................................................................. 30

5.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 34

5.1 Potential for Pre-contact Aboriginal Archaeological Sites .................................................................................. 34

5.2 Potential for Historic Archaeological Sites ......................................................................................................... 36

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................................... 37

7.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION ........................................................................................................ 38

8.0 REFERENCES CITED.................................................................................................................................................... 39

9.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT ......................................................................... 43

TABLESTable 1: Properties within the Jericho Wind Energy Centre, Lambton and Middlesex Counties ................................................3

Table 2: Cultural Chronology for Middlesex County ...................................................................................................................8

Table 3: Cultural Chronology for Lambton County .....................................................................................................................9

Table 4: Historic Properties with Potentially Significant Structures According to the Map of Bosanquet Township in the 1880 Lambton County Supplement to the Illustrated Atlas of Canada .................................................................... 16


October 11, 2012Report No. 10-1151-0201-1300-R01 ii

Table 5: Historic Properties with Potentially Significant Structures According to the Map of Warwick Township in the 1880 Lambton County Supplement to the Illustrated Atlas of Canada .................................................................... 21

Table 6: Historic Properties with Potentially Significant Structures According to the Maps of West Williams and East Williams Townships in the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Middlesex.......................................... 26

Table 7: Historic Properties with Potentially Significant Structures According to the Map of McGillivray Township in the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Middlesex.................................................................................... 27

FIGURESFigure 1: Location of Study Area................................................................................................................................................2

Figure 2: Soils of the Study Area within Lambton and Middlesex Counties ...............................................................................7

Figure 3: Treaty Boundaries Based on Morris 1943................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 4: A Portion of the 1835 Map of Bosanquet Township .................................................................................................. 14

Figure 5: A Portion of the 1880 Map of Bosanquet Township .................................................................................................. 15

Figure 6: A Portion of the 1832 Map of Warwick Township...................................................................................................... 22

Figure 7: A Portion of the 1880 Map of Warwick Township...................................................................................................... 23

Figure 8: A Portion of the 1832 Map of West Williams and McGillivray Townships.................................................................. 28

Figure 9: A Portion of the 1878 Map of West Williams and McGillivray Townships.................................................................. 29

Figure 12: Photograph Key ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 13: Archaeological Potential of the Study Area ............................................................................................................. 35

PLATES Plate 1: Ausable River, Running Along the Eastern Portion of the Study Area ..........................................................................6

Plate 2: Streetscape of Arkona, Looking South on Arkona Road............................................................................................. 17

Plate 3: Former School House located on Lot 12, Concession 12, Bosanquet Township, in Kinnaird ..................................... 19

Plate 4: Streetscape of Thedford, Looking West ...................................................................................................................... 20

Plate 5: Warwick General Store, Main Street of Warwick......................................................................................................... 24

Plate 6: Flat Landscape and Woodlot Looking East from Jericho Road................................................................................... 31

Plate 7: Woodlot Looking South from Jericho Road................................................................................................................. 31

Plate 8: Aggregate Extraction Looking Southeast From Wisbeach Road ................................................................................ 32

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Registered Archaeological Sites within the Study Area



Project Personnel

Project Director James E. Anderson, M.A.Sc., M.B.A., P.Eng., Principal

Project Manager Carla Parslow, Ph.D. (P243)

Licensed Field Director Tracie Carmichael, B.A., B.Ed. (R140)

Report Production Jeff Muir, B.A. (R304), Jamie Davidson, B.A. (R305)

Graphics Production Jamie Davidson, B.A. (R305)

Senior Review Carla Parslow, Ph.D. (P243)

Acknowledgments

Proponent Contact Marc Rose, M.E.S., MCIP, RPP, AECOM Canada Ltd.

Ministry of Natural Resources Lisa Casselman

Ailsa Craig Museum Sarah Nirta

Ministry of Tourism, Culture And Sport Robert von Bitter, Shari Prowse, M.A.


October 11, 2012Report No. 10-1151-0201-1300-R01 1

1.0 INTRODUCTIONA Stage 1 archaeological background study was conducted by Golder on behalf of AECOM Canada Ltd. for NextEra Energy Canada’s proposed Jericho Wind Energy Centre (Figure 1). This assessment was undertaken in order to meet the requirements for an application for a Renewable Energy Approval, as outlined in Ontario Regulation 359/09 section 22(3) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The objective of the Stage 1 assessment was to compile all available information about the known and potential archaeological resources within the study area and to provide specific direction for the protection, management and/or recovery of these resources. As this assessment was initiated in 2010 background research and property inspection activities were conducted consistent with the Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines(Government of Ontario 1993); however prior to the current submission of the final report the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2012) were reviewed to ensure recommendations moving forward are consistent with current Ministry standards.

The objectives of the Stage 1 archaeological overview/background study were as follows:

To provide information about the study area’s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land conditions;

To evaluate in detail the study area’s archaeological potential to support recommendations for Stage 2 survey for all or parts of the property; and

To recommend appropriate strategies for Stage 2 survey.

To meet these objectives Golder archaeologists employed the following research strategies:

A review of relevant archaeological, historic and environmental literature pertaining to the study area;

A review of the land use history, including pertinent historic maps;

An examination of the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (ASDB) to determine the presence of known archaeological sites in and around the project area; and

A property inspection.

In addition to the property inspection of the study area, background research was conducted at the MTCS Office in Toronto, the Crown Land Survey Records Office at the Ministry of Natural Resources in Peterborough, the University of Western Ontario Map and Data Library, and Golder’s corporate library. The site visit component of the Stage 1 assessment was conducted on August 12th, 2010 under archaeological consulting licence P001, issued to Jim Wilson, M.A., by the MTCS.



2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUNDThe Green Energy Act (2009) enabled legislation governing project assessments and approvals to be altered to allow for a more streamlined Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process. Under Section 22(1) of the REA, an archaeological assessment must be conducted if the proponent concludes that engaging in the project may have an impact on archaeological resources. It was previously determined that archaeological potential for the recovery of pre-contact Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian historic archaeological resources exists within the study area (ASI 2010). Currently, Ontario Regulation 359/09 of the Environmental Protection Act governs the REA process for renewable energy projects such as wind, anaerobic digestions, solar and thermal treatment facilities. This assessment was undertaken in order to meet the requirements for an application for a REA, as outlined in Ontario Regulation 359/09 section 22(3) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The study area is an approximate 45,300 hectare parcel located in the Geographic Townships of Bosanquet and Warwick, Lambton County, Ontario and the Geographic Townships of West Williams and McGillivray, Middlesex County, Ontario. Table 1 outlines the various lots and concessions within each township that the study area encompasses.

Table 1: Properties within the Jericho Wind Energy Centre, Lambton and Middlesex Counties

County Geographic Township Concession Lot

Lambton

Bosanquet

1 to 2 A, 1 to 283 A, 1 to 294 1 to 295 1 to 306 2 to 287 2 to 268 3 to 249 3 to 2310 to 11 4 to 2212 5 to 2113 5 to 20West of Lake Road 50 to 54East of Lake Road 37 to 59South Boundary 1 to 35

Warwick

1 NER (North of Egremont Road) 7 to 24

2 NER 7 to 243 to 6 NER 7 to 277 NER 7 to 208 NER 5 to 12



County Geographic Township Concession Lot

Middlesex

West Williams

Broken Front 1 to 279 (West of Centre Road) 18 to 2510 WCR 18 to 2011 WCR 2112 to 13 WCR 1714 to 16 WCR 17 to 1817 WCR 21 to 2318 WCR 21 to 2419 WCR 16 to 2420 WCR 16 to 2521 WCR 1 to 27West Side of Centre Road 5 to 227 WCR 23 to 24

McGillivray5 WCR (West of Centre Road) 16 to 206 to 9 WCR 16 to 20



3.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH3.1 The Natural EnvironmentThe study area is situated within four physiographic regions: the St. Clair Clay Plains, the Horseshoe Moraines, the Ekfrid Clay Plains and the Huron Slope (Chapman and Putnam 1984).

The St. Clair Plains physiographic region:

…is one of little relief, lying between 575 and 700 feet a.s.l., except for the moraine at Ridgetown and Blenheim which rises 50 to 500 feet higher….Glacial Lake Whittlesey, which deeply covered all of these lands, and Lake Warren which subsequently covered nearly the whole area, failed to leave deep stratified beds of sediment on the underlying clay till except around Chatham, between Blenheim and the Rondeau marshes, and in a few other smaller areas. Most of Lambton and Essex Counties, therefore, are essentially till plains smoothed by shallow deposits of lacustrine clay which settled in the depressions while the knolls were being lowered by wave action.

Chapman and Putnam 1984:147

The Horseshoe Moraines physiographic region begins at:

…the edge of the escarpment in the Town of Caledon [and] the moraines trend somewhat west of the Niagara Escarpment forming a belt of moderately hilly relief…. Associated with the moraines is a system of old spillways with broad gravel terraces and swampy floors…. Good cross-sections of this landscape may be seen along Highway 7 from Rockwood to Georgetown.

Chapman and Putnam 1984:128

The Ekfrid Clay Plain physiographic region consists of:

Stratified clays appear[ing] in Ekfrid and parts of nearby townships...making up an area of 360 squaremiles. The surface is nearly level except where cut by gullies…. Here and there, knolls or low smooth ridges of sand and gravel are superimposed on the clay…. The silty sediments give rise to particularly good soil, being fairly pervious and easy to till. Slow drainage is their main limitation. More than half the land is in corn, soybeans and wheat…. The plain is highly cleared with only 7% of land taken up by woodlots.

Chapman and Putnam 1984:146-147

The Huron Slope physiographic region is considered to be:

Occupying an area of about 1,000 sq miles along the eastern side of Lake Huron, the land between the Algonquian shorecliff and the Wyoming moraine slopes gently upward from 600 feet to 850 or 900 feet a.s.l. It is essentially a clay plain modified by a narrow strip of sand, and by the twin beaches of glacial Lake Warren which flank the moraine….Farmers generally emphasize the raising of livestock, grazing is featured, and grass farms…are common.

Chapman and Putnam 1984:160-161



Figure 2 illustrates the study area overlaid on soil maps from Lambton and Middlesex Counties. The study area has one major soil series present: the Perth series (Perth clay). The Perth soils are well suited to growing modern day crops with the exception of fruit trees and early vegetable crops (Matthews et al. 1957:45). They are imperfectly drained and tend to produce fair crop yields even during dry seasons due to the soil’s reserve supply of moisture. Drainage practices are usually undertaken by farmers with this soil type in order to have greater fall crop yields (Matthews et al. 1957:45). The Perth series would be suitable for pre-contact Aboriginal practices, but not ideal given the drainage issues.

There are many potable water sources associated with the study area (Figure 1). Numerous small creeks transect the study area at various locations including Shashawandah Creek and Jericho Creek. The Ausable River (Plate 1) runs within the central part of the study area. Lake Huron is located just over three kilometres to the north of the study area (Figure 1).

Plate 1: Ausable River, Running Along the Eastern Portion of the Study Area



3.2 Pre-contact Aboriginal Archaeological Resources and Surveys In order that an inventory of archaeological resources could be compiled, the registered archaeological site records kept by the MTCS were consulted. In Ontario, information concerning archaeological sites is stored in the ASDB maintained by the MTCS. This database contains archaeological sites registered according to the Borden system. Under the Borden system, Canada is divided into grid blocks based on latitude and longitude. A Borden Block is approximately 13 kilometres east to west and approximately 18.5 kilometres north to south. Each Borden Block is referenced by a four-letter designator and sites within a block are numbered sequentially as they are found. The study area under review is located in Borden Blocks AgHk, AhHk and AhHl.

According to the ASDB (personal communication, Robert von Bitter 2010; Government of Ontario n.d.), there are 77 sites located within the study area. Appendix A summarizes the nature of these sites. The majority of the sites are pre-contact Aboriginal (74 in total), one is historic Euro-Canadian and two are multi component sites.

Table 2 provides a general outline of the culture history of Middlesex County and Table 3 provides a general outline of the culture history of Lambton County (both based on Ellis and Ferris 1990). Although the Paleo-Indian and Archaic archaeological cultures are similar throughout the study area, Woodland cultures grade from Iroquoian to Western Basin archaeological assemblages as one travels from east to west within the study area(Ferris and Wilson 2009). Previous archaeological assessments and research surveys have demonstrated that Lambton and Middlesex Counties were extensively utilized by pre-contact Aboriginal peoples.

Table 2: Cultural Chronology for Middlesex County

Period Characteristics Time Comments

Early Paleo-Indian Fluted Projectiles 9000 - 8400 B.C. spruce parkland/caribou huntersLate Paleo-Indian Hi-Lo Projectiles 8400 - 8000B.C. smaller but more numerous sites

Early Archaic Kirk and Bifurcate Base Points 8000 - 6000 B.C. slow population growth

Middle Archaic Brewerton-like points 6000 - 2500 B.C. environment similar to presentLate Archaic Lamoka (narrow points) 2000 - 1800 B.C. increasing site size

Broadpoints 1800 - 1500 B.C. large chipped lithic toolsSmall Points 1500 - 1100 B.C. introduction of bow hunting

Terminal Archaic Hind Points 1100 - 950 B.C. emergence of true cemeteriesEarly Woodland Meadowood Points 950 - 400 B.C. introduction of pottery

Middle Woodland Dentate/Pseudo-Scallop Pottery 400 B.C. - A.D. 500 increased sedentism

Princess Point A.D. 550 - 900 introduction of corn Late Woodland Early Ontario Iroquoian A.D. 900 - 1300 emergence of agricultural villages

Middle Ontario Iroquoian A.D. 1300 - 1400 long longhouses (100m +)Late Ontario Iroquoian A.D. 1400 - 1650 tribal warfare and displacement

Contact Aboriginal Various Algonkian Groups A.D. 1700 - 1875 early written records and treaties

Historic Euro-Canadian A.D. 1796 - present European settlement



Table 3: Cultural Chronology for Lambton County

Period Characteristics Time Comments

Early Paleo-Indian Fluted Projectiles 9000 – 8400 B.C. spruce parkland/caribou huntersLate Paleo-Indian Hi-Lo Projectiles 8400 – 8000 B.C. smaller but more numerous sites

Early Archaic Kirk and Bifurcate Base Points 8000 – 6000 B.C. slow population growth

Middle Archaic Brewerton-like points 6000 – 2500 B.C. environment similar to presentLate Archaic Lamoka (narrow points) 2500 - 1800 B.C. increasing site size

Broadpoints 1800 - 1500 B.C. large chipped lithic toolsSmall Points 1500 - 1100 B.C. introduction of bow hunting

Terminal Archaic Hind Points 1100 - 950 B.C. emergence of true cemeteriesEarly Woodland Meadowood Points 950 - 400 B.C. introduction of potteryMiddle Woodland Couture Corded Pottery 400 B.C. - A.D. 600 increased sedentism

Riviere au Vase Corded Pottery A.D. 600 - 1000 seasonal hunting and gathering

Late Woodland Younge Phase Pottery A.D. 1000 - 1200 incipient agricultureSpringwells Phase Pottery A.D. 1200 - 1400 agricultural villagesWolf Phase Pottery A.D. 1400 - 1550 earthworked villages, warfare

Contact Aboriginal Various Ojibwa Groups A.D. 1550 - present early written records and treatiesHistoric French/Euro-Canadian A.D. 1749 - present European settlement

A number of well-known sites fall within the study area, such as the Adder Orchard Site (AgHk-16), a Late Archaic “broad point” campsite which provides the type artifact description for the Adder Orchard projectile point (Fisher 1997); and the Crawford Site (AhHk-48), a Late Woodland site along the eastern edge of the study area (Jury 1948). A number of noteworthy site clusters also occur within the study area, including the Thedford Cluster and the Arkona Cluster.

The Thedford Cluster of 10 sites is a concentration of Paleo-Indian sites located east of the modern village of Thedford (Deller 1979). These sites have been investigated in part due to their location on strandlines that were once the beaches of glacial lakes Algonquin and Nipissing at various times in the past, prior to the configuration of the Great Lakes today (Deller et al. 1986). Thedford II (AgHk-6) in particular has been the subject of extensive study (Deller and Ellis 1992). Although the Thedford sites have been investigated and are in known locations, there is still high archaeological potential within the surrounding area to recover sites related specifically to Paleo-Indian occupation in the area. In addition, the tendency of pre-contact Aboriginal groups to settle along strandlines such as the former Lake Nipissing strandline near Thedford or the Lake Warren strandline to the south – Wyoming Rapids (AgHk-4), a Middle Woodland site, being one such example – lends further potential to the study area for pre-contact Aboriginal archaeological resources.

The Arkona Cluster of 22 sites appears to represent a local Late Woodland population just east of Arkona. Seven sites date to the Younge Phase of the Western Basin Tradition spanning approximately 1000 A.D. to 1300 A.D. (Ferris and Wilson 2009). The other sites in the Arkona Cluster with temporally undiagnostic artifacts probably date to the same time period. The Arkona Cluster is currently the focus of academic research at the



University of Western Ontario and a number of the sites will be the subject of forthcoming Stage 4 archaeological assessment reports by Golder (Golder n.d.a; Golder n.d.b). These sites have also been previously investigated and documented by Archaeologix Inc. (which is now merged with Golder) in earlier stages of archaeological assessment (Archaeologix Inc. 2003; Archaeologix Inc. 2004; Archaeologix Inc. 2007a; Archaeologix 2007b). The other sites in the cluster have already been excavated and documented too (Archaeologix Inc. 1998; Archaeologix Inc. 2003; Archaeologix Inc. 2004; Archaeologix Inc. 2006; Archaeologix Inc. 2007a; Archaeologix 2007b). Two notable sites are Younge Phase village sites: the Bingo Village Site (AgHk-42) and the Figura Site(AgHk-52). Although the Arkona sites have been excavated, there is still high archaeological potential within the surrounding area to recover sites related specifically to this occupational sequence or generally to the Western Basin Tradition cultural sequence.

Immediately to the east of the Jericho Wind Energy Project is the Bornish Wind Energy Project study area. This area has previously been subject to Stage 1 archaeological assessment (ASI 2009); the Stage 1 assessment of the Bornish study area found the area to exhibit archaeological potential due to the presence of soils well-drained by numerous tributaries and the minimal previous disturbance of the rural landscape. A Stage 2 archaeological assessment was recommended for the study area prior to any ground disturbing activities (ASI 2009).

3.3 Post-contact Aboriginal Archaeological Resources and SurveysThe post-contact Aboriginal occupation of Southern Ontario was heavily influenced by the dispersal of various Iroquoian-speaking peoples by the New York State Iroquois and the subsequent arrival of Algonkian-speaking groups from northern Ontario at the end of the 17th century and beginning of the 18th century (Schmalz 1991). The nature of their settlement size, population distribution, and material culture shifted as European settlers encroached upon their territory. However, despite this shift, “written accounts of material life and livelihood, the correlation of historically recorded villages to their archaeological manifestations, and the similarities of those sites to more ancient sites have revealed an antiquity to documented cultural expressions that confirms a deep historical continuity to Iroquoian systems of ideology and thought” (Ferris 2009:114). As a result, First Nation peoples of Southern Ontario have left behind archaeologically significant resources throughout Southern Ontario which show continuity with past peoples, even if they have not been recorded in historical Euro-Canadian documentation.

Using Euro-Canadian documentation, the study area first enters the historic record when the Ojibwa and Chippewa First Nations entered into Treaty 27½,

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

Morris 1943:26-27

While it is difficult to exactly delineate treaty boundaries today, Figure 3 provides an approximate outline of the limits of Treaty Number 27½.



As described above, the majority of the study area falls within Treaty Number 27½ which was land ceded by the modern day Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point. Just to the northwest of the study area lays their current reserve lands, Kettle Point # 44 and Stony Point # 43. Neither of these lands was ceded to the Crown and they are the residence of the Ojibwa that have been present in the area since the 1700s, according to both historic documents and community tradition (Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants Inc. n.d.). The land designated as Stony Point # 43 has been the subject of dispute between the Canadian government and the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point (Gulewitsch 1995; Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants Inc. n.d.) in the 20th and 21st

centuries. Not only are the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point active in their communities today, there is evidence for their activity in the study area stretching back into the 1700s (Gulewitsch 1995:5-13), which means that there could be post-contact Aboriginal archaeological resources within the study area.



3.4 Historic Euro-Canadian Archaeological Resources and Surveys3.4.1 Survey and Early SettlementThe Euro-Canadian creation and settlement of the townships within the study area was facilitated by two major events. The first event was the Canada Company (itself formed in 1824) purchasing a large parcel of land known as the Huron Tract and preparing it for settlement by British settlers. The township of Bosanquet in Lambton County was included in the Huron Tract purchase. The Huron Tract was mostly surveyed by Deputy Provincial Surveyor John McDonald on behalf of the Canada Company. West Williams was also surveyed in the early 19th century as part of Euro-Canadian expansion into the region. The second event was Sir John Colborne, Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, deciding to run a road through territory covered neither byHuron Road nor by Talbot Road. This road was to eventually become known as Egremont Road. Egremont Road was mostly surveyed by Peter Carroll in the 1830s and is the main artery through Warwick Township. In addition to these townships, a small section of McGillivray Township is included in the study area, north of West Williams Township. All four townships are discussed separately below.

3.4.1.1 Bosanquet TownshipBosanquet Township was originally surveyed in 1829 by Samuel Smith (Elford 1982:32) and was finished in 1835 by John McDonald using the 1000 acre section system where lots were divided into 100 acres (Figure 4). Although the survey was not complete at the time, settlers came to the area anyway, and in 1832 Benjamin Brewster opened a saw mill (Elford 1982:32). Other early settlers to the township were Henry Utter as well as the Eastman and Smith families (Elford 1982:32). It was with the improvement of transportation that immigrants started arriving in Bosanquet Township. For example, in 1859 the Great Western Railway built a line going from St. Mary’s to Point Edward running through Thedford and Forest which was used by many immigrants. The linewas abandoned in the late 1980s (Andreae 1997). In 1873 the Canada Company was running out of land to sell and because of this they decided to drain Lake Burwell and Lake George to create new land lots (Elford 1982:33).

A good resource for identifying potential historic Euro-Canadian archaeological sites is the 1880 Lambton County Supplement to the Illustrated Atlas of Canada (Belden and Company 1880). The Bosanquet Township map illustrates the majority of notable structures as they were located on properties in the last half of the 19th

century (Figure 5). The structures noted include brickyards, cemeteries, churches, gravel pits, hotels, manufactories, mills and schools. However, only property owners who subscribed to the 1880 Illustrated Atlas of Canada have their names and homes illustrated on the maps. Therefore, not all domestic structures are depicted on this map. Table 4 lists those lots within the study area that held a structure other than a house,along with the current status of that structure. Even though locations are only approximate on these maps, they do give an idea of potential for significant archaeological historic remains that could be impacted within the study area. Typically these locations no longer exhibit any visible evidence of their former structure and if they are to be impacted by a wind turbine placement the location would need to be archaeologically assessed to see if there are any archaeological remains.



Table 4: Historic Properties with Potentially Significant Structures According to the Map of Bosanquet Township in the 1880 Lambton County Supplement to the Illustrated Atlas of Canada

Structure Lot Concession Status

Hotel 16 1 No longer standing

School House 4 2 No longer standing

School House 13 and 14 2 No longer standing

Cemetery 15 and 16 2 Still existing

School House 20 2 Still standing, now a home

Cemetery 21 2 Still existing

Gravel Pit 14 3 No longer in use

Brick Yard 23 3 No longer in use

Brick Yard 21 4 No longer in use

Tile Yard 25 4 No longer in use


Church 26 5 No longer standing

Cemetery 28 5 Still existing

Cheese Factory 14 6 No longer standing


Saw Mill 28 6 No longer standing


School House 22 7 Still standing, now a home



Saw Mill 13 8 No longer standing

Gravel Pit 13 9 and 10 No longer in use

Blacksmith 12 11 No longer standing


School House 12 12 Still standing, no longer in use


Grist Mill 3 South Boundary No longer standing

Cemetery 3 and 4 South Boundary Still existing

Church 54 West of Lake Road Still existing



ArkonaArkona is located on Lots 5 and 6, South Boundary Concession, Bosanquet Township and Lots 24 and 25, Concession 6, Warwick Township (Figure 1). The first settler of the community was Henry Utter in 1833 and in1839 he built a grist mill. The community began to grow rapidly by 1851. A few stores, a hotel and a post office all opened in that year. When the track for the Grand Trunk Railway was laid, the railway ran north of the community which could have been a blow to development in Arkona (Elford 1967:32). Nevertheless, the community continued to thrive with the railway not far to the north, and by 1864 there was over 50 businesses and a few churches (Elford 1967:32-33). According to the 1880 map of Bosanquet Township (Figure 5), therewas a grist mill on Lot 3, South Boundary Concession which is no longer standing today as well as a cemetery on Lots 3 and 4, South Boundary Concession which still exists. The village of Arkona still remains along with asmall portion of the former structures (Plate 2). Given the abandonment and removal of former village buildings over time, significant archaeological resources could exist.

Plate 2: Streetscape of Arkona, Looking South on Arkona Road

JerichoJericho is located on Lot 14, Concession 8, Bosanquet Township (Figure 1). Jericho was originally expected to be a stop on the Grand Trunk Railway line but due to trouble securing the necessary land from local famers, the station was moved to Thedford, located northwest of Jericho (Johnston 1925:35). The Jericho post office opened in 1880, just after the publication of the historical atlas (Belden and Company 1880) meaning that it wasnot recorded on the Bosanquet Township map (Figure 5). The first postmaster was Robert Campbell. The post



office remained open until 1913 (Elford 1982:34). The community was never very large, especially after the post office closure, but significant archaeological resources could exist in the area related to the post office.

JuraJura is located on Lot 4, Concession 8, Bosanquet Township (Figure 5). In 1866 the post office opened with James McCordie as the first postmaster (Johnston 1925:35). According to the 1880 historic map of Bosanquet Township (Figure 5), there was a church on Lot 4, Concession 7, as well as a church and a school house on Lot3, Concession 8, which are all no longer standing. The community has contracted in size over the last century. Given the abandonment and removal of former village buildings over time, significant archaeological resources could exist.

KinnairdKinnaird is located on Lot 12 Concession 11, Bosanquet Township (Figure 5). Kinnaird was a community centred on a saw mill and is also the site of one of the area’s schools (Elford 1967:70). A blacksmith is indicated on the 1880 historic map of Bosanquet Township (Figure 5) on the same lot as the Kinnaird post office, Lot 12 Concession 11, which is no longer standing. On the other side of the road there was a church and a school house on Lot 12 Concession 12. The church is no longer standing and the school house is still standing but no longer used as a school house (Plate 3). The community has contracted in size over the last century. Given the abandonment and removal of former village buildings over time, significant archaeological resources could exist.

Pine Hill/WidderPine Hill is located on Lots 17 and 18 Concession 1 and 2, Bosanquet Township (Figure 5). The post office was opened in 1852 under the name Pine Hill but was later renamed Widder after Frank Widder, a Canada Company official. The first postmaster was Uriah Chester (Elford 1982 34). In 1856 the settlement had a church, three stores, a steam grist mill, two sawmills, two taverns, two blacksmith shops, three shoe shops, a tannery and a wagon making establishment (Elford 1982:34). It was supposed to become a railway station, but the Grand Trunk decided to route the rail line two kilometres north (Figure 5) where Widder Station opened in 1862. As a result, people left the community for Widder Station (later Thedford). Since that time, the community has contracted in size. Given the abandonment and removal of former village buildings over time, significant archaeological resources could exist.



Plate 3: Former School House located on Lot 12, Concession 12, Bosanquet Township, in Kinnaird

RavenswoodRavenswood is located on Lots 54 and 55, Lake Road East Concession, Bosanquet Township (Figure 5). The second post office to open in Bosanquet Township was at Ravenswood in 1855. John Rawlings was the first postmaster (Elford 1982:34). The post office was originally located on Lot 61, Lake Road East Concession but was later moved to the community’s current location (Johnston 1925:45). The community was never very large, especially after the post office closure, but significant archaeological resources could exist in the area related to the post office.

Widder Station/ThedfordWhen the Grand Trunk Railway ran its rail line through Bosanquet Township, Widder Station was established in 1862. The stop was originally supposed to be at Widder, two kilometres to the south, explaining the similar names for the two communities. When the community was incorporated as a village in 1877 it was renamed Thedford, which can be seen on Lots 20 and 21 of Concessions 3 and 4 (Figure 5) (Andreae 2000:8). There is still evidence of mid-19th century structures as well as homes in Thedford (Plate 4). However, significant archaeological resources related to the development of the community could still exist on the outskirts of Thedford.



Plate 4: Streetscape of Thedford, Looking West

3.4.1.2 Warwick TownshipWarwick Township was originally surveyed by Peter Carroll in 1832 (Elford 1829:92) using the 2,400 acre section system (Figure 6), creating rectangular 200 acre lots, with the lots fronting on to road allowances. Carroll used the Egremont Road as a dividing line and from that road the concessions in the northern portion are numbered from one to eight and those in the southern portion from one to six (Elford 1982:92). Some of the early Euro-Canadian settlers in Warwick Township were the Hume, Burwell, Thomas, Rees, Hamilton, Donelley and McKenna families. Many retired British soldiers and their families, who were entitled to 200 acres of land,also settled within the township (Elford 1982:92). The Great Western Railway came through the township in 1858 running from Komoka to Sarnia. In later years it was bought by the Grand Trunk and in 1905 a second track was added (Andreae 1997). This line is owned by CN Railway and is still in use today (Andreae 1997).

A good resource for identifying potential historic Euro-Canadian archaeological sites is the 1880 Lambton County Supplement to the Illustrated Atlas of Canada (Belden and Company 1880). The Warwick Township map illustrates the majority of notable structures as they were located on properties in the last half of the 19th

century (Figure 7). The structures noted include brickyards, cemeteries, churches, gravel pits, hotels, manufactories, mills and schools. However, only property owners who subscribed to the 1880 Illustrated Atlas of Canada have their names and homes illustrated on the maps. Therefore, not all domestic structures are depicted on this map. Table 5 lists those lots that hold a structure other than a house, along with the current status of that structure. Even though locations are only approximate on these maps, they do give an idea of potential for significant archaeological historic remains that could be impacted within the study area. Typically



these locations no longer exhibit any visible evidence of their former structure and if they are to be impacted by a wind turbine placement the location would need to be archaeologically assessed to see if there are any archaeological remains.

Table 5: Historic Properties with Potentially Significant Structures According to the Map of Warwick Township in the 1880 Lambton County Supplement to the Illustrated Atlas of Canada


Hall 15 1 North of Egremont Road (N.E.R.) No longer standing

School House 15 1 N.E.R. No longer standing, plaque in front of new home marking former location of school house

Church 16 1 N.E.R. No longer standing

Carding and Fulling Mill 13 2 N.E.R. No longer standing

Brick Yard 13 2 N.E.R. No longer standing

Brick Yard 14 2 N.E.R. No longer standing


School House 24 3 N.E.R. Still standing, now a home


Church 15 4 N.E.R. No longer standing, new home at location



Cemetery 15 5 N.E.R. Still existing

School House 16 5 N.E.R. No longer standing

Cheese Factory 18 5 N.E.R. No longer standing

Blacksmith 19 5 N.E.R. No longer standing

Gravel Pit 19 5 N.E.R. No longer in use

School House 25 5 N.E.R. No longer standing

School House 9 6 N.E.R. Still standing, now a home or storage

Friends Meeting House 21 6 N.E.R. No longer standing


Cabinet Factory 22 6 N.E.R. No longer standing

Donley’s Hotel 23 6 N.E.R. No longer standing

Fairground 25 6 N.E.R. No longer existing

Blacksmith 9 7 N.E.R. No longer standing



BirnamBirnam is located on Lot 18, Concession 5 N.E.R., Warwick Township (Figure 7). The historic map illustrates a cheese factory on Lot 18, Concession 5 N.E.R.; and a blacksmith shop and a gravel pit on Lot 19, Concession 5 N.E.R. None of these places exist on the landscape today. The community has contracted in size over the last century. Given the abandonment and removal of former village buildings over time, significant archaeological resources could exist.

Warwick VillageThe village of Warwick is located on Lot 10 straddling Concession 1 N.E.R. and Concession 1 S.E.R., Warwick Township (Figure 7). Warwick Village was surveyed in 1836 by Peter Carroll, following on his 1832 survey work for Egremont Road which formed the northern boundary of the original town plot (Nielsen 1993:32-34). Earlysettlers near the Warwick town plot included Arthur Freear, William Burwell and Oscar Cleverly (Elford 1982:96and Nielsen 1993:34). The first post office opened in 1837 and remained open until 1969 (Elford 1982:96). There are still numerous houses within Warwick Village and its vicinity but only one store remains (Plate 5).

Plate 5: Warwick General Store, Main Street of Warwick

Two industries of note associated with Warwick Village were the dairy and salt industries. The Warwick Cheese Factory was opened in 1870 on Lot 12, Concession 1 S.E.R. and was in operation until the middle of the 20th

century. The building was eventually abandoned and then torn down in 1955 (Nielsen 1993:105-106). The salt industry also flourished at roughly the same time. Oil drilling had been attempted nearby in 1864 but a salt bed



had been discovered instead. The Warwick Salt Well was being prepared for exploitation in 1870 and by the mid-1870s the Elarton Salt Works was in operation on Lot 6, Concession 1 S.E.R. (Nielsen 1993:102; Andreae 2000:16) (Figure 7). It largely produced salt for the local population and as a result operated for only a few months of each year. The operation eventually closed down in 1958. A wooden tramway ran between Elarton Salt Works and the Great Western (later Grand Trunk) Railway and was known as the Kingstone Tram Road. The tramway was named after the Kingstone family who owned the property and the salt works. The junction between the tramway and the railway was also known as Kingscourt in honour of the Kingstone family (Johnston 1925:37). The right-of-way for the tramway is still visible, although today nothing else is visible of the salt works or the wooden tramway (Nielsen 1993:102).

The community has contracted in size over the last century. Given the abandonment and removal of former village buildings over time, and the disappearance of businesses such as the cheese factory or the salt works, significant archaeological resources could exist.

3.4.1.3 West WilliamsWest Williams and East Williams Townships were surveyed in 1832 by John McDonald using the 1000 acresection system where lots were divided into 100 acres (Figure 8). The Township of Williams was not separated into East and West portions in 1860 (Miller 1964:56). The first settler in the township was John McLeod, aScottish Highlander (Miller 1964:56). In 1849 a large number of settlers came to the area the majority being Highlanders (Miller 1964:56). They worked together to clear the land in order to provide lumber to a growingtimber industry which shipped the lumber to India via Quebec (Miller 1964:56). A large number of the original Euro-Canadian settlers migrated to other parts of Canada or the United States when the depression hit in the 1880’s and 90’s (Miller 1964:56). In years following immigrants from Holland and Belgium bought the farmland that was vacated by the earlier settlers (Miller 1964:56).

A good resource for identifying potential historic Euro-Canadian archaeological sites is the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Middlesex (Page and Company 1878). The West Williams Township map illustrates both the names of the landowners and the majority of structures as they were located on properties in the last half of the 19th century (Figure 9). The structures noted include brickyards, cemeteries, churches, gravel pits, hotels, manufactories, mills and schools. However, only property owners who subscribed to the 1878 atlas have their names and homes illustrated on the maps. Therefore, not all domestic structures are depicted on this map. Table 6 lists those lots within the study area that held a structure other than a house, along with the current status of that structure. Even though locations are only approximate on these maps, they do give an idea of potential for significant archaeological historic remains that could be impacted within the study area. Typically these locations no longer exhibit any visible evidence of their former structure and if they are to be impacted by a wind turbine placement the location would need to be archaeologically assessed to see if thereare any archaeological remains.



Table 6: Historic Properties with Potentially Significant Structures According to the Maps of West Williams and East Williams Townships in the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Middlesex







SylvanSylvan is located on Lots 16 and 17, Concession 21, West Williams Township (Figure 9). The small community of Sylvan and surrounding farms consisted of 60 inhabitants in 1888 (Goodspeed Publishing Company 1889:598). By the late 19th century Sylvan was home to a post office, general store, sawmill and blacksmith. The community today consists of a small cluster of residential homes, but significant archaeological resources could exist in the area related to the 19th century commercial establishments.

3.4.1.4 McGillivrayMcGillivray Township was named after Simon McGillivray, the founding director of the aforementioned Canada Company. As with other townships in the area, McGillivray was surveyed by John McDonald in 1836 (Figure 8).McDonald’s survey notes reveal McGillivray to be an exceptionally flat area that in the early 19th century was dotted with beech, elm, oak and cherry trees (McDonald 1936).

A good resource for identifying potential historic Euro-Canadian archaeological sites is the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Middlesex (Page and Company 1878). The McGillivray Township mapillustrates both the names of the landowners and the majority of structures as they were located on properties in the last half of the 19th century (Figure 9). The structures noted include brickyards, cemeteries, churches, gravel pits, hotels, manufactories, mills and schools. However, only property owners who subscribed to the 1878 atlas have their names and homes illustrated on the maps. Therefore, not all domestic structures are depicted on this map. Table 7 lists those lots within the study area that held a structure other than a house, along with the current status of that structure. Even though locations are only approximate on these maps, they do give an idea of potential for significant archaeological historic remains that could be impacted within the study area. Typically these locations no longer exhibit any visible evidence of their former structure and if they are to be impacted by a wind turbine placement the location would need to be archaeologically assessed to see if there are any archaeological remains.



Table 7: Historic Properties with Potentially Significant Structures According to the Map of McGillivray Township in the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Middlesex


School House 16 7 WCR No longer standing

Church 16 5 WCR No longer standing

Church 19 8 WCR No longer standing

3.4.2 SummaryEuro-Canadian settlement extends back to the early 19th century within the study area. All four townships –Bosanquet, Warwick West Williams and McGillivray – retain evidence of the historic 19th century road grid and lot system. Larger settlements outside the study area such as Forest are still vibrant communities today. Numerous communities within the study area have existed since the middle of the 19th century and have contracted over time in many cases. These contractions indicate that significant archaeological resources from abandoned and now disappeared structures could exist.



4.0 PROPERTY INSPECTIONThe study area was visually evaluated on August 12th, 2010. Overall the property inspection revealed the study area to be a relatively undisturbed, rural agricultural landscape. Like most of rural southern Ontario, small to medium sized bush lots exist amongst the large areas of agricultural fields, which are also bisected by rivers and smaller creeks. In most instances, properties continue to conform to the lots sizes and divisions from the 19th

century. Figure 10 illustrates where each photograph was taken and if necessary which direction the photograph was taken within the study area. Visibility was excellent and the weather was sunny and bright when the photographs were taken. The plates illustrate flat landscape typical of where turbines could be sited (Plate 6),an example of a woodlot in the study area (Plate 7) and the occasional area of disturbance such as an aggregate pit (Plate 8).



Plate 6: Flat Landscape and Woodlot Looking East from Jericho Road

Plate 7: Woodlot Looking South from Jericho Road



Plate 8: Aggregate Extraction Looking Southeast From Wisbeach Road



5.0 RESULTS5.1 Potential for Pre-contact Aboriginal Archaeological SitesArchaeological potential is established by determining the likelihood that archaeological resources may be present on a subject property. Archaeological potential criteria commonly used by the MTCS were applied to determine areas of archaeological potential within the study area. These variables include: distance to various types of water sources, soil texture and drainage, glacial geomorphology, and the general topographic variability of the area.

Distance to modern or ancient water sources is generally accepted as the most important determinant of past human settlement patterns and, considered alone, may result in a determination of archaeological potential. However, any combination of two or more other criteria, such as well-drained soils, or topographic variability, may also indicate archaeological potential. Finally, extensive land disturbance can eradicate archaeological potential (Wilson and Horne 1995).

In archaeological potential modeling, a distance to water criterion of 300 metres is generally employed for primary water courses, including lakeshores, rivers and large creeks, and secondary water sources, including swamps and small creeks. For the present project, there are numerous creeks within the study area and Lake Huron is located just greater than three kilometres to the north of the study area (Figure 1).

Soil texture can be an important determinant of past settlement, usually in combination with other factors such as topography. The study area is fairly level with no areas of steep slope that would not be suitable for settlement. With respect to soil texture, Aboriginal groups preferred well drained lighter (sandy) soils to heavier soils. The soils of the study area are imperfectly to poorly drained soils that are primarily clay. Although some areas might have been swampy in the past due to the imperfect drainage and relatively level topography, the rest of the study area would have been suitable for pre-contact Aboriginal agriculture, although not ideal. Therefore, these soils provide further archaeological potential for aboriginal sites within the study area.

In regards to glacial geomorphology, several strandlines from glacial lakes, specifically Lake Warren, Lake Algonquin, and Lake Nippissing, run through the study area. In fact, these strandlines have documented archaeological sites located along those former beach lines.

There are 72 previously registered pre-contact Aboriginal sites within the study area, a number of which require further archaeological assessment. The sites range in date from the Paleo-Indian to Late Woodland time periods. Their presence establishes the possibility for other pre-contact Aboriginal activity within the study area and the surrounding environment.

When the above noted archaeological potential criteria are applied to the study area, the archaeological potential for pre-contact Aboriginal sites is deemed to be moderate to high (Figure 11). This assessment is due to the presence of water sources and previously known archaeological sites; the stretches of level land without areas of steep slope; the glacial strandlines; and the agriculturally suitable soils. While some areas of modern disturbance exist (for example, Plate 8), they can be further evaluated during any Stage 2 archaeological assessment of areas that have been generally deemed to retain archaeological potential.



5.2 Potential for Historic Archaeological SitesThe criteria used by the MTCS to determine potential for historic archaeological sites include the presence of: 1) particular, resource-specific features that would have attracted past subsistence or extractive uses; 2) areas of initial, non-Aboriginal settlement; 3) early historic transportation routes; and 4) properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The study area has been the location of generalized agricultural practices in the past and is still used in that fashion today. There is evidence of Euro-Canadian settlement extending back to the early 19th century, during the initial settlement of Bosanquet, Warwick, McGillivray, West Williams and East Williams Townships. The 19th

century road grid is still in use. Small communities located within the study area have decreased in size since the 19th century and may have left behind significant archaeological remains. Two more substantial historic communities, Forest and Alvinston are located in close proximity to the study area. In addition, there is historical evidence that First Nations people were living in the area during the initial phase of European settlement and to the present day. On account of these factors the post-contact Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian historic archaeological potential for the study area is judged to be moderate to high (Figure 11). While some areas of modern disturbance exist (for example, Plate 8), they can be further evaluated during any Stage 2 archaeological assessment of areas that have been generally deemed to retain archaeological potential.



6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Golder applied archaeological potential criteria commonly used by the MTCS to determine areas of archaeological potential within the study area. The archaeological potential for Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian sites was deemed to be moderate to high on these properties. For pre-contact Aboriginal sites this assessment is based on the presence of nearby potable water sources, areas of level topography, glacial strandlines, agriculturally suitable soils, and known archaeological sites. For post-contact Aboriginal sites this assessment is based on the presence of nearby potable water sources, level topography, oral tradition, and historic documentation. The determination of historic Euro-Canadian archaeological potential is based on the documentation indicating occupation from the middle of the 19th century onwards as well as the presence of historic transportation routes. As a result, Stage 2 archaeological assessment is recommended for potential wind turbine sites and their associated infrastructure.

The MTCS is asked to review the results presented and to accept this report into the Provincial Register of Archaeological Reports. Additional archaeological assessment is still required; hence the archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork remain subject to Section 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Actand may not be altered, or have artifacts removed, except by a person holding an archaeological licence.



7.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATIONThis report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development.

It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

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

Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork or protection remain subject to Section 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed from them, except by a person holding an archaeological licence.



8.0 REFERENCES CITED

Andreae, Christopher1997 Lines of Country: An Atlas of Railway and Waterway History in Canada. The Boston Mill Press, Erin.

2000 A Guide to Lambton County’s Industrial Heritage. Society for Industrial Archaeology, Petrolia.

Archaeologix Inc.1998a Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 and 2), Greenway Environmental Management Pit, Warwick

Township, Lambton County, Ontario. Report on file with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto.

1998b Archaeological Assessment (Stage 3), Greenway Environmental Management Pit, Warwick Township, Lambton County, Ontario. Report on file with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto.

1998c Archaeological Assessment (Stage 4), AgHk-32, Greenway Environmental Management Pit, Warwick Township, Lambton County, Ontario. Report on file with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto.

2003 Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 & 2), Bingo West Pit, Part Lot 2, South Boundary Concession, Township of Bosanquet, County of Lambton, Ontario. Report on file with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto.

2004 Archaeological Assessment (Stage 3), Bingo West Pit, Part Lot 2, South Boundary Concession, Township of Bosanquet, County of Lambton, Ontario. Report on file with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto.

2006 Archaeological Assessment (Stage 4), Bingo West Pit AgHk-40, AgHk-41, AgHk-47, Part Lot 2, South Boundary Concession, Township of Bosanquet, County of Lambton, Ontario. Report on file with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto.

2007a Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1 & 2), Inland West Pit, Part of Lots 28 & 29, Concession 5 N.E.R., Township of Warwick, Lambton County, Ontario. Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto.

2007b Archaeological Assessment (Stage 3), Inland West Pit, Part of Lots 28 & 29, Concession 5 N.E.R.,Township of Warwick, Lambton County, Ontario. Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto.

Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI)2009 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, Canadian Greenpower Wind Project, Counties of Huron, Middlesex

and Lambton, Ontario. Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.

Belden, H. and Company1880 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Lambton. 1973 reprint. Edward Phelps, Sarnia.

Carroll, Peter1832 Warwick Township. Map on file with the Ministry of Natural Resources Crown Land Survey Records

Office, Peterborough.

Chapman, Lyman John and Donald F. Putnam1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. 3rd ed. Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto.



Deller, D. Brian1979 “Paleo-Indian Reconnaissance in the Counties of Lambton and Middlesex, Ontario”. Ontario

Archaeology 32:3-20.

Deller, D. Brian and Chris J. Ellis1992 Thedford II: A Paleo-Indian Site in the Ausable River Watershed of Southwestern Ontario. Memoir of

the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 24.

Deller, Brian, Chris Ellis and Ian Kenyon1986 “The Archaeology of the Southeastern Huron Basin”. In Studies in Southwestern Ontario Archaeology.

Occasional Publications No. 1 of the London Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society (Inc.). pp. 2-12.

Elford, Jean Turnbull1967 A History of Lambton County. Lambton County Historical Society, Sarnia.

1982 Canada West’s Last Frontier: A History of Lambton. Lambton County Historical Society, Sarnia.

Ellis, Chris J. and Neal Ferris (editors)1990 The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter,

Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.

Ferris, Neal2009 The Archaeology of Native-Lived Colonialism: Challenging History in the Great Lakes. University of

Arizona Press, Tucson.

Ferris, Neal and Jim Wilson2009 The Archaeology of a Late Woodland Borderland in Southwestern Ontario. Electronic document:

http://uwo.academia.edu/NealFerris/attachment/504151/full/The-Archaeology-Of-A-Late-Woodland-Borderland-In-Southwestern-Ontario. Last accessed on September 25th, 2010.

Fisher, Jacqueline A.1997 The Adder Orchard Site: Lithic Technology and Spatial Organization in the Broadpoint Late Archaic.

Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, OAS, Number 3.

Golder Associates Ltd.n.d.a Stage 4 Archaeological Assessment, Inland West Pit Locations 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12, Part of Lots 28 and

29, Concession 5 N.E.R., Township of Warwick, Lambton County, Ontario. Report in preparation for the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto

n.d.b Bingo West Pit, Location 10 (AgHk-42), Part of Lot 2, South Boundary Concession, Twp. of Bosanquet, County of Lambton, Ontario. Report in preparation for the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto

Goodspeed Publishing Company1889 History of the County of Middlesex, Canada, Goodspeed Publishing Company, London.

Government of Canada1891 Indian Treaties and Surrenders. From 1680 to 1890. Volume II. Brown Chamberlin, Ottawa.

1999 Topographic Map Sheet 40 O/1: Brights Grove (Edition 7). Centre for Topographic Information, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa.



2000 Topographic Map Sheet 40 P/4: Parkhill (Edition 8). Centre for Topographic Information, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa.

Government of Ontario1993 Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines. Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation,

Archaeology and Heritage Planning Unit, Toronto.

2012 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto.

n.d. Ontario Archaeological Sites Database Files. Heritage Operations Unit, Ministry of Culture, Toronto.

Gulewitsch, Victor1995 The Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point: a Brief History. Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point

Historical Claims Research Office, Forest.

Hagerty, T.P. and M.S. Kingston1992 The Soils of Middlesex County. Report Number 56 of the Ontario Centre for Soil Resource Evaluation.

2 volumes. Resources Management Branch, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Guelph.

Johnston, Albert J.1925 Lambton County Names and Places. Lambton County Council, Sarnia.

Jury, Wilfrid1948 Crawford Prehistoric Village Site. Bulletin of the Museum No. 7. Museum of Indian Archaeology, The

University of Western Ontario, London.

Mack, Susan Muriel1992 The History of Stephen Township. The Corporation of the Township of Stephen, Crediton.

Matthews, B.C., N.R. Richards and R.E. Wicklund1957 Soil Survey of Lambton County. Report Number 12 of the Ontario Soil Survey. Experimental Farms

Service, Canada Department of Agriculture and the Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph.

McDonald, John1832 West Williams Township. Map on file with the Ministry of Natural Resources Crown Land Survey

Records Office, Peterborough.

1835 Bosanquet Township. Map on file with the Ministry of Natural Resources Crown Land Survey Records Office, Peterborough.

1836 McGillivray Township. Map on file with the Ministry of Natural Resources Crown Land Survey Records Office, Peterborough.

Morris, J.L.1943 Indians of Ontario. 1964 reprint. Department of Lands and Forests, Government of Ontario.

Nielsen, Eleanor1993 The Egremont Road: Historic Route from Lobo to Lake Huron. Lambton Historical Society, Sarnia.

Page, H.R. and Company1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Middlesex, Ontario. 1972 reprint. Edward Phelps, Sarnia.



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

Smith, Samuel1833 Brooke Township. Map on file with the Ministry of Natural Resources Crown Land Survey Records

Office, Peterborough.

Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants Inc.n.d. A Brief History of the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation and the Aboriginal Occupation of Stoney Point:

a Teaching Document. Manuscript on file with the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, Kettle Point.

Wilson, J.A. and M. Horne1995 City of London Archaeological Master Plan. City of London, Department of Planning and Development,

London.



9.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT Golder has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the archaeological profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made.

This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, developments and purpose described toGolder by AECOM (the Client). The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location.

The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client. No other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder’s express written consent. If the report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then upon the reasonable request of the Client, Golder may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved User for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. Any other use of this report by others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as electronic media prepared by Golder are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of Golder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Client and Approved Users may not give, lend, sell or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any other party without the express written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledges that electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the Client cannot rely upon the electronic media versions of Golder’s report or other work products.

Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project.

Special risks occur whenever archaeological investigations are applied to identify subsurface conditions and even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain archaeological resources. The sampling strategies incorporated in this study comply with those identified in the Ministry of Culture’s 1993 Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines.



Report Signature Page

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

Jamie Davidson, B.A. Carla Parslow, Ph.D.Project Archaeologist Senior Archaeologist

JLD/CP/gf

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

\\mis1-s-filesrv1\data\active\2010\1151\10-1151-0201 nextera -3 wind farms archaeology - on\reports\final\stage 1 reports\jericho\p001-607-2010_11oct2012_re_st1_nexterajericho.docx



APPENDIX A Registered Archaeological Sites within the Study Area


October 5, 2012Project No. 10-1151-0201-1300-R01 1/4

Borden Number Site Name Site Type Culture Year Found

AgHk-1 Holmes Lithic Scatter Late Woodland 1972 N/A

AgHk-4 Wyoming Rapids Campsite/Village Middle Woodland 1978 N/A

AgHk-5 Young Undetermined Pre-contact Aboriginal 1980 N/A

AgHk-6 Thedford 2 Undetermined Pre-contact Aboriginal 1980 N/A

AgHk-7 Wyoming Reach Undetermined Pre-contact Aboriginal 1980 N/A

AgHk-8 Wight 1 Undetermined Pre-contact Aboriginal 1980 N/A

AgHk-9 Wight 2 Undetermined Pre-contact Aboriginal 1980 N/A

AgHk-10 June 28-8-1 Campsite Pre-contact Aboriginal 1978 N/A

AgHk-11 June 28-8-2 Campsite Pre-contact Aboriginal 1978 N/A

AgHk-12 June 21-1 Campsite Pre-contact Aboriginal 1978 N/A

AgHk-16 Adder Orchard Campsite Late Archaic 1981/1989 Adder Orchard point type site

AgHk-18 Stragglin Goose Campsite Early Woodland 1993

11 lithic artifacts including one Meadowood projectile point

AgHk-19 One Red Flake Findspot Pre-contact Aboriginal 1993 1 projectile point

AgHk-20 Arkona 3 Campsite Pre-contact Aboriginal 1993 1 scraper and 5 chipping detritus

AgHk-21 Arkona 4 Findspot Pre-contact Aboriginal 1993 1 core and 6 chipping detritus

AgHk-22 Arkona 5 Campsite Pre-contact Aboriginal 19931 biface, 3 utilized flakes, 3 cores, 18 chipping detritus; further work recommended

AgHk-23 Arkona 6 Findspot Pre-contact Aboriginal 1993 1 biface, 1 scraper, 2 chipping detritus

AgHk-24 Arkona 7 Findspot Pre-contact Aboriginal 1993 4 chipping detritus

AgHk-25 Arkona 8 Findspot Pre-contact Aboriginal 1993 chipping detritus

AgHk-26 Arkona 9 Findspot Late Archaic 19931 Crawford Knoll point, 1 biface, 2 utilized flakes and 2 chipping detritus

AgHk-27 Arkona 10 Findspot Pre-contact Aboriginal 1993 diffuse scatter of 8 chipping detritus

AgHk-28 - Lithic Scatter Pre-contact Aboriginal 1999 166 chipping detritus, 2 biface fragments

AgHK-29 - Lithic Scatter Pre-contact Aboriginal 1998 7 chipping detritus

AgHk-30 - Lithic Scatter Pre-contact Aboriginal 1998128 pieces of chipping detritus, 1 biface; no further work recommended

AgHk-32 Van Bree Campsite Ontario Iroquoian/Younge Phase Western Basin 1998 Pottery and lithics; no further

work recommended

AgHk-39 Green Hill Campsite Late Archaic 2003 fire cracked rock, tools, preforms, chipping detritus

AgHk-40 - Campsite Middle Woodland 2003

39 arti facts includinng chipping detritus, pottery, faunal remains, scraper, utilized flake; Stage 4 complete




AgHk-41 - Campsite Woodland 2003

44 arti facts incluidingchipping detritus, pottery, hammer stone; Stage 4 complete

AgHk-42 - Village Younge Phase Western Basin 2003

Scatter of chipping detritus, pottery and fire cracked rock; Stage 4 complete

AgHk-43 - Campsite Pre-contact Aboriginal 20036 chipping detritus - Stage 3 done and location contiguous with AgHk-42

Aghk-44 - Campsite Pre-contact Aboriginal 200335 arti facts - Stage 3 done and location contiguous with AgHk-42

AgHk-45 - Lithic Scatter Pre-contact Aboriginal 20033 chipping detritus - Stage 3 done, no further work recommended

AgHk-46 - Campsite Woodland 2003 1 chipping detritus, 2 pottery

AgHk-47 - Campsite Pre-contact Aboriginal 2003/2005 2 faunal remains, 3 chipping detritus; Stage 4 complete

AgHk-52 Figura Village Younge Phase Western Basin 2009 village site completely

excavated; Stage 4 complete

AgHk-53 Location 2 Campsite Pre-contact Aboriginal 200736 chipping detritus, 1 wedge, 1 biface, 1 projectile point

AgHk-54 Location 3 Campsite Younge Phase Western Basin 2009 Campsite completely


AgHk-55 Location 4 Lithic Scatter Pre-contact Aboriginal 200712 chipping detritus, 2 bifaces; Stage 3 complete, no further work recommended



AgHk-57 Location 7 Lithic Scatter Pre-contact Aboriginal 200734 chipping detritus Stage 3 complete, no further work recommended

AgHk-58 Locationi 9 Campsite Younge Phase Western Basin 2009 Campsite completely


AgHk-59 Location 10 Lithic Scatter Pre-contact Aboriginal 200727 chipping detritus, 1 biface; Stage 3 complete, no further work recommended



AhHk-48 Crawford Village Late Woodland n.d. N/A

AhHk-50 Thedford 1 Undetermined Paleo-Indian 1979 15 projectile points

AhHk-53 Crawford 2 Undetermined Paleo-Indian/Archaic 1979 25 Paleo-Indian points and 100 plus Archaic points

AhHk-54 George Davidson Campsite Late Archaic 1977 5 projectile points and

chipping detritus

AhHk-70 Sadler 1 Campsite Late Archaic 1978 Genesee points

AhHk-71 Glenn 1 CampsiteArchaic/Late Woodland/Historic Euro-Canadian

1978 Pottery and historic artifacts in a 742m x 251m scatter




AhHk-72 Davidson's Barn Campsite Archaic/Late Woodland 1978 N/A

AhHk-75 Thedford Marsh 1 Undetermined Pre-contact Aboriginal n.d. N/A

AhHk-78 Saddler 2 Lithic Scatter Pre-contact Aboriginal 1978 N/A

AhHk-79 Sadler 3 Lithic Scatter Pre-contact Aboriginal 1978 N/A

AhHk-80 Sadler 4 Lithic Scatter Pre-contact Aboriginal 1978 N/A

AhHk-81 Glenn 3 Campsite Woodland/historic Euro-Canadian 1978 scatter of chipping detritus

and historic artifacts

AhHk-82 - Campsite Pre-contact Aboriginal 1978 N/A

AhHk-83 - Campsite Historic Euro-Canadian 1978 19th century Euro-Canadian artifacts

AhHk-84 Glenn 2 Campsite Pre-contact Aboriginal 1979 Lithic scatters

AhHk-85 Crawford Village Pre-contact Aboriginal 1978 N/A

AhHk-87 Harm Undetermined Pre-contact Aboriginal n.d. N/A

AhHk-88 F. MacDonald Undetermined Pre-contact Aboriginal n.d. N/A

AhHl-4 Van Heyst Campsite Archaic 1972/1993/1994 further work recommended

AhHl-20 Wilf Campsite Early Woodland 1974 25 pieces of chipping detritus and one Meadowood point

AhHl-21 Sawmill Sawmill Historic Euro-Canadian 1976 Historic scatter and evidence of outbuilding

AhHl-28 85-2-2 Lithic Scatter Pre-contact Aboriginal 1985 2 scrapers, 6 cores, 14 chipping detritus

AhHl-29 - Campsite Middle Woodland 19773 chipping detritus, 1 pottery and 23 bones; further work recommended

AhHl-30 Gibbs Undetermined Middle Woodland 1992 Lithics, pottery, fire cracked rock

AhHl-31 Russell Campsite Late Archaic/Late Woodland 1993/1994

Pottery, chipping detritus, projectile point tip, Lamoka and Crawford Knoll type projectile points; site extends further than study area therefore the portion to the south of the site boundary will need further work

AhHl-35 Brown-Walden Campsite Early Woodland 1994/1999

646 artifacts; further work recommended if the area is unavoidable by golf course construction

AhHl-36 Hegler Campsite Late Archaic/Early Woodland 1994

1069 arti facts; site extends further than study area therefore the portion to the south of the site boundary will need further work

AhHl-37 Joseph Paisley Homestead Lithic Scatter

Archaic/Early Woodland/Middle Woodland

1993/1994/1999

489 artifacts; further work recommended if the area is unavoidable by golf course construction




AhHl-38 Northville Cresent Campsite

Archaic/Early Woodland/Middle Woodland

1993/1997

12,500 arti facts; no further work recommended unless future construction impacts near site

AhHl-39 Mud Creek Undetermined Pre-contact Aboriginal 1994 Further work recommended

AhHl-40 Brent Undetermined Archaic/Middle Woodland 1994Scatter of chipping detritus and pottery; further work recommended

AhHl-41 Lorelyn Campsite Middle Archaic 1999

22 arti facts including Brewerton Corner Notched point, scraper, wedge and biface

AhHl-42 Andrea Campsite Middle Archaic 1999

177 artifacts; no further work because site is being avoided, further work is recommended if unavoidable

AhHl-43 Kristy Campsite Early Woodland/Middle Woodland 1999

819 lithic arti facts including a Meadowood point and a Saugeen point; no further work recommended

\\mis1-s-fi lesrv1\data\active\2010\1151\10-1151-0201 nextera -3 wind farms archaeology - on\reports\draft\stage 1 reports\jericho\1011510201-1300-r01 oct 5 2012 - (draft) appendix

a.docx

Golder Associates Ltd.309 Exeter Road, Unit #1London, Ontario, N6L 1C1CanadaT: +1 (519) 652 0099

Documents

NextEra Energy Canada, ULC Jericho Wind Energy Centre ...€¦ · 1999 Topographic Map Sheet 40 0/1: Brights Grove (Edition 7). Centre for Topographic Information, Natural Resources