A Technical Guideline for Cultural Heritage Resources

for Projects Planned Under the

Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects

and the

Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves

Approved June 28, 2006

2

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................................................................3

1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................4

1.1 Importance of Cultural Heritage Resources ......................................................................................................4 1.2 Defining Cultural Heritage Resource Types ......................................................................................................4 1.3 Determining Heritage Value...................................................................................................................................5 1.4 Purpose of the Guideline........................................................................................................................................5 1.5 Application of the Guideline ..................................................................................................................................6

2.0 Identifying and Assessing Cultural Heritage Resources and Managing Impacts .................................6

2.2 Identifying Known Cultural Heritage Resources and/or Potential for Cultural Heritage Resources..8 2.2.1 Identifying Known Cultural Heritage Resources ..............................................................................9 2.2.2 Assessing Potential for Cultural Heritage Resources ...................................................................10

2.3 Conditions for Proceeding With Projects in High Potential Areas.............................................................12 2.4 Considering Project Redesign ............................................................................................................................12 2.5 Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment and Evaluation of the Heritage Value of Identified Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................12 2.6 Preparing a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report .......................................................................................12

2.6.1 Determining Negative Impacts to Cultural Heritage Resources ...................................................13 2.6.2 Determining an Appropriate Mitigation Strategy............................................................................14

2.7 The Importance of Documenting Known and Potential Cultural Heritage Resources .........................18

3.0 Documenting MNR Class EA Decisions on Cultural Heritage Resources.............................................18

4.0 Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................................18

4.1 Proceeding With Projects Within Five Years of Approval ...........................................................................18 4.2 Proceeding With Projects After Five Years of Approval ..............................................................................19 4.3 Future Activities .....................................................................................................................................................19 4.4 Contingency Planning...........................................................................................................................................19

5.0 Project Monitoring................................................................................................................................................19

6.0 Guideline Review and Amendment..................................................................................................................20

3

List of Figures

Figure 1: Process for Identification, Assessment of Significance, and Mitigation Techniques for Cultural Heritage Resources…pg 7

Figure 2: Draft Checklist for Determining High/Low Potential for Cultural Heritage Resources …pg 11

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 – Glossary of Terms Appendix 2 - Determining Heritage Value Appendix 3 – Steps to Determine the Existence of Known Cultural Heritage Resources Appendix 4 - Clarification of Draft Checklist for Determining Cultural Heritage Potential Appendix 5 - Conditions for Proceeding with Projects in Areas Having High Potential for Cultural Heritage

Resources Appendix 6 - Cultural Heritage Consultants Appendix 7 - Contingency Planning if Cultural Heritage Resources or Human Remains are Discovered During

Project Implementation Appendix 8 - Stages of an Archaeological Assessment (Source: A Comprehensive Guide to Conserving

Ontario’s Archaeological Heritage) Appendix 9 - Parks Policy PM11.05, Treatment of Human Burial Sites in Provincial Parks and Procedure PM

11.05, The Discovery of a Burial Site Appendix 10 – References and Links Acknowledgements Ministry of Natural Resources’ (MNR) Land Use & Environmental Planning Section (LUEPS) and the Planning & Research Section of Ontario Parks wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following towards the development of this Guideline: Ministry of Culture (MCL), the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), MNR District/Regional staff, MNR Legal Services, MNR Lands and Waters Branch, MNR Forest Management Planning Section, Forest Policy Section, Native Affairs Unit (NAU), Ontario Parks Operations and Development Section, and Ontario Parks Zone staff.

4

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Importance of Cultural Heritage Resources Simply defined, our heritage is everything that we value that we want to preserve and pass on to future generations. Cultural heritage is the portion of our heritage that retains the evidence of human activity. One uses the term “cultural heritage resources” (CHR) to describe elements of cultural heritage because they are a source of information or a tangible means to understand and appreciate what people value. Cultural heritage resources in the form of buildings or structures, landscapes, and archaeological sites are non-renewable and irreplaceable – once they are lost, they are lost forever. The provincial interest in cultural heritage and its conservation is expressed in the Ontario Heritage Act, which provides the legislative framework for heritage conservation in Ontario. The conservation of heritage resources is also clearly identified as a matter of provincial interest under the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement. The Environmental Assessment Act, which binds the Crown in right of Ontario, provides for the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. This Act includes cultural heritage resources in its definition of “environment”. The provincial interest in cultural heritage is further expressed through its participation in the Historic Places Initiative, a federal-provincial-territorial partnership with the objective of encouraging heritage conservation across Canada. 1.2 Defining Cultural Heritage Resource Types Both the Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects (Class EA-RSFD) and Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (Class EA-PPCR) address the following types of cultural heritage resources: archaeological resources (including terrestrial and marine archaeological resources); built heritage resources; and cultural heritage landscapes. Cultural Heritage Resource Types:

• Archaeological resources (incl. terrestrial and marine) • Built Heritage Resources • Cultural Heritage Landscapes

Traditional Use Sites are not specifically mentioned in this Guideline although defined in the Class EA-RSFD/PPCR glossaries (pg. 46 and pg. 50 respectively). Consideration of term Traditional Use Sites have been included in the three cultural heritage resource types listed above. Refer to Glossary of Terms (Appendix 1) for definitions, and examples of CHR types used in this Guideline.

5

1.3 Determining Heritage Value As defined in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, a document developed cooperatively between federal, provincial and territorial governments across Canada, heritage value identifies a resource’s “aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past, present or future generations.” Criteria for determining cultural heritage value are established under the Ontario Heritage Act. Criteria for determining cultural heritage value of built heritage resources and cultural landscapes are established under O.Reg. 11/06, and include design of physical value, historical or associative value, and contextual value. Heritage value criteria for terrestrial and marine archaeological resources are currently available in draft form, and include information value, value as a public resource, and value to a community. Refer to Appendix 2 for an outline of heritage value criteria. This criteria is to be used in the preparation of a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) by a qualified expert when determining significance. 1.4 Purpose of the Guideline This Guideline has been developed to satisfy conditions of approval for two MNR class environmental assessments:

• Class Environmental Assessment for Resource Stewardship & Facility Development (Class EA-RSFD), and

• Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks & Conservation Reserves (Class EA-PPCR).

Each of the screening tables in the Class EAs requires that projects be assessed for their potential net effects, i.e. after also considering the application of proposed mitigation techniques, on CHRs (archaeological resources, built heritage resources, and cultural heritage landscapes). The Class EAs do not provide detailed guidance on the identification, assessment of significance and mitigation techniques for these resources. Therefore, the purpose of the Cultural Heritage Technical Guideline is to address:

a) how cultural heritage resources should be identified; b) how to assess the significance of identified cultural heritage resources; and c) how to develop mitigation techniques regarding identified cultural heritage

resources, when proposals for projects are being considered under MNR’s Class EA-RSFD or Class EA-PPCR. Under both Class EAs, MNR is required to develop, in consultation with the Ministry of Culture, the Guideline described above.

6

1.5 Application of the Guideline The process outlined in this Guideline applies to:

(a) all projects that require screening under the Class EA-RSFD/PPCR; (b) Those pre-screened Category A projects (refer to Section 3.1.1 of Class EA-

RSFD and Tables 1 through 3 in Appendix 2 of the Class EA-PPCR) that MNR considers will involve significant ground disturbances (including disturbances to Crown owned beds of waterbodies), or impacts to existing buildings/structures that may have cultural heritage significance (e.g. 40 years or more old).

Pre-screened Category A projects which do not involve either significant ground disturbances or alterations to existing buildings and structures are unlikely to impact CHR. In addition, for all projects, the contingency planning provisions in Section 4.4 of the Guideline should be applied when previously unidentified CHR are discovered during project implementation. Consultation provisions of this Guideline may fulfill some or all Aboriginal consultation requirements with regard to fulfillment of the Crown’s constitutional obligations. For further guidance on the Crown’s obligation to consult with Aboriginal communities, MNR staff may wish to contact their assigned District Resource or Policy/Liaison Officers. This Guideline does not supersede any legislation, regulation or order in council developed by the MCL (e.g. MCL Provincial Standards and Guidelines, Part III.1). 2.0 Identifying and Assessing Cultural Heritage Resources and Managing

Impacts One important point to note is that MNR staff are not expected to undertake the evaluation of the significance of a cultural heritage resource. This would be the role of a qualified expert.

The general process of identifying and assessing cultural heritage resources and managing impacts includes the following:

• Project screening (Section 2.1); • Identifying known cultural heritage resources and/or potential for

cultural heritage resources (Section 2.2); • Cultural heritage resource assessment and evaluation of the

heritage value of identified resources (Section 2.5); • Preparing a cultural heritage assessment report (Section 2.6) • Determining potential impacts to CHR (Section 2.6.1); • Determining an appropriate mitigation strategy (Section 2.6.2)

Figure 1 outlines this process in more detail.

7

UnknownAssess potential for presence of CHR (s. 2.2.2)

Yes

High

Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (by qualified expert)

Assesses the sensitivity and significance of CHR and likelihood of project impacts – recommends appropriate mitigation techniques (s. 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2). MCL must review report for Archaeological Resources

Report recommends modification,

mitigation, and/or relocation of project

or resources

Report recommends

that project not proceed

Accept recommendationsIf CHR are discovered

after/during implementation

No further consideration of proposal

MNR review of Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Low

Request further info.

Contingency planning after project

implementation if required (section 4.4)

Note: At any point during this process, MNR or a disposition applicant may decide not to proceed with consideration of the proposed project.

No (previous study completed)

Determine presence of known CHR (include areas within a minimum of 250m of known CHRs) (s. 2.2, 2.2.1)

Figure 1: Process for Identification, Assessment of Significance, and Mitigation Techniques for Cultural Heritage Resources for Projects Planned under Class EAs

Determine if Class EA screening required (s. 2.1)

Project redesign (s. 2.4)

Class EA screening required (includes assessment of potential net effects on CHR)

Class EA pre-screened Category A project with no significant ground disturbances, or impacts to significant buildings/structures (Appendix 1)

Rating of potential net effect of project on CHR under

Class EA

Proceed if specific conditions apply (s. 2.3)

8

2.1 Project Screening IN THE CONTEXT OF CHR, this section describes the process of determining:

a) whether the project could proceed without any screening, evaluation or

consultation (per MNR’s Class EAs) or, b) whether the project should be subject to the screening process outlined

in MNR’s Class EAs, based upon criteria relating to potential significant ground disturbances (including disturbances to Crown owned beds of waterbodies) or impacts to existing buildings/structures of cultural heritage significance.

1. Define the boundaries of the land area (“the property”) associated with or

affected by the project. Note: a project may comprise one or more discrete components. If so, all of the land areas should be defined at the inception of the project and considered as part of the property involved in the project.

2. If the project is listed as a pre-screened Category A project in MNR’s Class EA-RSFD/PPCR and, MNR considers it will not involve significant ground disturbances (including disturbances to Crown owned beds of waterbodies) or impacts to existing buildings/structures of cultural heritage significance, the project may proceed without requirements for screening, evaluation and consultation per MNR’s Class EAs.

3. If the project requires a screening as defined under MNR’s Class EA-RSFD/PPCR or is listed as a pre-screened Category A project and MNR considers it will involve either significant ground disturbances (including disturbances to Crown owned beds of waterbodies) or impacts to existing buildings/structures of cultural heritage significance, follow the project screening process outlined in the applicable Class EA. CHR are included in the “Social, Cultural, and Economic” screening criteria to be considered when determining a proposed project category under MNR’s Class EAs. Refer to Table 3.1 of the Class EA-RSFD and Table 4.1 of the Class EA-PPCR.

2.2 Identifying Known Cultural Heritage Resources and/or Potential for Cultural

Heritage Resources

This section outlines the process to be followed if Project Screening (Section 2.1) determines that a screening of net effects of the project is required. It is important to note that if there are known cultural heritage resources, it is still necessary to assess potential, because there may be additional resources that have not been identified. Therefore, this Section includes outlines for both:

o Identifying Known Cultural Heritage Resources and, (Section 2.2.1) o Assessing Potential for Cultural Heritage Resources (Section 2.2.2)

Property with known or potential CHRs generally fall into one or more of the following classifications (not mutually exclusive):

9

1. Areas with known CHR may include registered, designated or identified (existing evidence) sites.

2. Areas with high potential for the discovery of CHR are, based on current modeling and existing screening criteria, thought to have the greatest probability of containing CHR.

3. Areas with low potential for the discovery of CHR generally include areas that either exhibit extensive ground disturbances or areas which, due to their remoteness and/or unfavourable site conditions, would likely not have been inhabited or used by humans.

2.2.1 Identifying Known Cultural Heritage Resources Considering cultural heritage in development proposals/projects involves researching and assembling comprehensive data about CHR from a variety of sources. In order to move forward in this process, information is required on the three main CHR types: archaeological resources (terrestrial and marine); built heritage resources; and cultural heritage landscapes. To determine the existence of known cultural heritage resources the following three sources should be consulted:

1. Consult MNR’s Natural Resource Values Information System (NRVIS) 2. Consult the Ministry of Culture sources 3. Consult other sources such as Aboriginal communities, local heritage

organizations and nearby municipalities Consideration should also be given to obtaining oral evidence of CHRs. For example, in many Aboriginal communities, an important means of maintaining knowledge of cultural heritage resources is through oral communications. For more detailed information on the steps to be taken in this consultative process, refer to Steps to Determine the Existence of Known Cultural Heritage Resources (Appendix 3) of this Guideline. As information for CHR types is assembled, it is advisable to review it for completeness and accuracy, identifying gaps in the available data, noting specific issues surrounding data sensitivity or the significance of specific resources and providing the appropriate data to the planning teams for incorporation into the project plan. When information on CHR is collected it should be made available (e.g. through NRVIS) for use in other planning processes (e.g. FMP planning, park management planning, land use planning, etc.). Although there may not be any references to known or potential CHR in management planning documents for provincial parks and conservation reserves (such as cultural heritage inventories and background information documents), these heritage resources may still be present.

10

2.2.2 Assessing Potential for Cultural Heritage Resources Where a project involves or affects a building or structure that is 40 years or more old, the property should be considered to have potential cultural heritage value. The identification of other potential CHRs is somewhat more challenging, often because these resources may not be readily visible. Since CHRs involve the evidence of past human activity and settlements (long-term and short-term), predicting the potential for such resources requires an understanding of where these activities and settlements may have or did occur. While general trends can be observed, it isn’t always possible to determine exactly where CHR may actually be located, but rather where there is a higher probability for discovery. Determining the potential for CHR to be discovered in a specific area is based on developing a better understanding of an area’s characteristics and past human activities that may have occurred there. Area characteristics are identified on the basis of a wide range of physical attributes such as slope, hydrology, proximity to surface water bodies and water courses, surficial geology, bedrock geology, proximity to wetlands and site moisture to name a few; as well as cultural-historic features which would have directly influenced past use and settlement patterns. Thus the presence and absence of these features can provide a preliminary indicator of the probability of past human uses for the purpose of screening projects and determining the likelihood of discovering CHR during project implementation. It is important to note that oral evidence of CHR from Aboriginal communities may provide important additional information. For guidance on Aboriginal and First Nation’s consultation obligations, MNR staff may wish to contact their assigned District Resource or Policy/Liaison Officers. Where MNR considers high potential for the discovery of CHR in a particular area and where a project redesign is not being considered, and, where specific conditions per Section 2.3 do not apply, further evaluation by a qualified expert is required to determine significance and vulnerability, appropriate decisions on implementation, and possible mitigation techniques. This determination in conjunction with the consideration of other screening criteria discussed in Section 2.1 (3) may have a bearing on how a project is ultimately categorized under MNR’s Class EAs. The summary checklist, shown below, should be used as part of the screening documentation process to determine potential for terrestrial archaeological resources. Refer to Clarification of Draft Checklist for Determining Cultural Heritage Potential (Appendix 4) for additional information on the questions shown in the summary checklist.

11

Figure 2: Draft Checklist for Determining High/Low Potential for Cultural Heritage Resources1 (Refer to Appendix 4 for further discussion)

Potential Feature Yes No Unk Comment

Known Cultural Heritage Resources

1. Known cultural heritage resources within 250 m If Yes, high potential determined.

Physiographic Features 2. Water – any within 300 metres? If Yes, proceed to questions 2a to 2c

2a. Primary water source (within 300 m) (lakeshore, river, large creek) If Yes, and yes for any of 3-9, high potential determined.

2b. Secondary water source (200 m) (stream, spring, marsh, swamp) If Yes, and yes for any of 3-9, high potential determined.

2c. Ancient water source (300 m) (beach ridge, river bed) If Yes, and yes for any of 3-9, high potential determined.

3. Elevated topography (knolls, drumlins, eskers, plateaux) If Yes, and Yes for any of

4-9, high potential determined.

4. Extensive Pockets of sandy soil in a clay or rocky area If Yes, and Yes for any of

3 or 5-9, high potential determined.

5. Unusual land formations (mounds, caves, waterfalls) If Yes, and Yes for any of 3-4 or 6-9, high potential

determined.

Historic Cultural Features 6. Extractive area (for food or scarce

resources) If Yes, and Yes for any of 3-5 or 7-9, high potential determined.

7. Aboriginal and/or Non-Aboriginal settlement (monuments, cemeteries, villages, etc.)

If Yes, and Yes for any of 3-6 or 8-9, high potential determined.

8. Historic transportation route (road, rail, Heritage River, portage route, rapids, shipping route)

If Yes, and Yes for any of 3-7 or 9, high potential determined.

9. Designated property If Yes, and Yes for any of 3-8, high potential determined.

10. Heritage trail, buildings, or ruins that cannot be found through site visit or other means (e.g. flooded area)

If Yes, and Yes for any of 2-8, or 10-12, high potential determined.

11. Building or structure over 40 years of age If Yes, and Yes for any of

2-10, or 12, high potential determined. Application Specific Information

12. Local knowledge of cultural heritage resources If Yes, high potential determined.

13. Recent disturbance (confirmed extensive and intensive) If Yes, low potential.

If High potential for Cultural Heritage Resources is determined to be present, proceed to Section 2.3 of this Guideline 1 While this table contains criteria that are relevant to all Cultural Heritage Resource types, the checklist was developed to determine potential for terrestrial archaeological sites. Similar criteria are being developed by the Ministry of Culture to determine potential for other Cultural Heritage Resource types and will be incorporated into this checklist when completed. See Appendix 3 for more detailed information on determining CHR potential and for clarification of the checklist.

12

2.3 Conditions for Proceeding with Projects in High Potential Areas If a proposed project is in an area that is determined to have high potential for the discovery of a CHR one of three options which may be considered is to determine if certain specific conditions apply to the project which would enable the project to proceed through the Class EA process without the need for a CHAR as outlined in Section 2.5 below. Refer to Appendix 5 - Conditions for Proceeding with Projects in Areas Having High Potential for Cultural Heritage Resources for further details. 2.4 Considering Project Redesign If either a known CHR or high potential for the discovery of CHR has been determined, a project redesign could be considered. Project redesign measures may include alternatives such as avoiding areas identified to have high potential for the discovery of CHR by relocating the project, modifying or revising certain components of the project to avoid potential impacts like soil sub-surface disturbances. If project redesign is considered, a re-assessment of the project in terms of determining an appropriate Category per the Class EA-RSFD/PPCR and screening of net affects should be completed. If a project redesign is not being considered and conditions for proceeding with projects in high potential areas cannot be applied (in the case of high potential areas) then, if the project is to proceed, a qualified expert should be engaged to confirm the existence of resources and assess their significance via a CHAR as discussed in Section 2.5 below. 2.5 Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment and Evaluation of the Heritage

Value of Identified Resources Once a known or high potential for the discovery of CHR has been identified and documented within the project area and neither project redesign nor application of conditions for proceeding with projects in high potential areas are alternatives which can/will be considered, a qualified expert should be engaged to confirm the existence of CHR and assess their significance via a CHAR. For archaeological resources, work should be undertaken by a licensed consultant archaeologist (licensed by MCL). 2.6 Preparing a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Known CHR and features should be evaluated and documented by appropriate qualified experts. Archaeological fieldwork should only be undertaken by licensed consultant archaeologists. These experts should provide a heritage assessment report which includes the following:

1. Historical research, site analysis and evaluation (Identifying the CHR) 2. Identification of the significance and heritage attributes of any cultural heritage

resources (refer to Determining Heritage Value - Appendix 2 for further details)

13

3. Description of the proposed development or site alteration 4. Assessment of the development or site alteration impact (refer to Section 2.5.1

for further details) 5. Consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods (refer to

Section 2.5.2 for further details) 6. Recommendations

Known CHR and features are usually identified and documented by qualified experts working with private consultant firms, federal or provincial agencies, municipalities, Municipal Heritage Committees, formerly known as Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committees, (LACAC) or other equivalent local heritage groups, and local or regional Aboriginal communities. Refer to Appendix 6 - Cultural Heritage Consultants for further details. It is important to note that Aboriginal communities may retain their own expertise through elders and other community members as part of their culture. Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists Consultant archaeologists conduct their work under a Professional archaeological license issued by the Ministry of Culture, following standards and guidelines specifically developed for consultant archaeologists. Refer to Draft Standards & Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists - July 2004 and August 2005 (Appendix 10 – References and Links) for further information on current standards and guidelines. The Ontario Heritage Act prohibits anyone from undertaking archaeological fieldwork or altering an archaeological site without a license issued by the Ministry of Culture. 2.6.1 Determining Negative Impacts to Cultural Heritage Resources Negative impacts on a cultural heritage resource can include, but are not limited to:

• Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features • Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric or

appearance • Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the

viability of a natural feature or plantings • 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 • Land disturbances such as grading, soil removal, construction, shoreline

stabilization, alteration of watercourses, extraction of aggregates, and the clearing of woodlots or forested areas that may compromise the integrity of an archaeological resource.

Significant cultural heritage resources should always be conserved as part of any proposed project. “Conserved” means that “the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources are undertaken in such a way that their heritage values, attributes, and integrity are retained.”

14

2.6.2 Determining an Appropriate Mitigation Strategy Mitigation techniques may be employed to eliminate or reduce the potential negative impacts of the proposed undertaking. In certain cases, CHR may have predictable and well known characteristics (i.e., degree of vulnerability to specific project activities is known). Generally, when applying mitigation techniques, any identification of the boundaries or location of archaeological resource should be considered as highly confidential and should not draw attention to the purpose for which the area or point has been identified. Furthermore, if more than one type of CHR is identified as part of a particular project; it may require prescriptions that apply to all types. For example, a cultural heritage landscape may also contain an identified archaeological site and therefore mitigation techniques for both types will need to be applied. Finally, it is advisable that mitigation techniques involving CHR important to Aboriginal communities be developed and implemented through consensus with the affected community. General techniques for mitigating negative effects on known or suspected cultural heritage resources include: A. Avoidance of Impact / Change of Project Design

An effective way of mitigating the adverse impacts of a proposed undertaking on a heritage resource is by modifying or abandoning the project, or implementing changes in the design. With respect to buildings and structures, changes in design may involve modifications to the scale, location, massing, materials and/or details.

In the case of in-use buildings and structures, where these are of cultural value, project proponents shall use their best efforts to retain their use, particularly where the use itself is of cultural heritage value. Uses, either existing or proposed, which affect heritage value shall be avoided. Uses of heritage buildings and structures that require minimal or no change to its heritage attributes or character-defining elements should be sought. Where an in-use heritage property becomes surplus to the needs of a proponent, the property should be secured and, if necessary, stabilized until any subsequent use is found.

In the case of landscapes and archaeological sites (terrestrial or marine); this would most often involve changing the location of the project. Avoidance and changes in design are always the preferred mitigation measures, as they ensure complete conservation of resources on their original site and are also often the least costly measures to implement.

With respect to landscapes and archaeological sites, the impact of a proposed action may be reduced by decreasing the amount of development and by using construction

15

practices that minimize ground disturbances. Examples include restricting the use of heavy machinery on a site and designing structures without subsurface foundations.

B. Protection

Heritage resources can often be protected through the use of hoarding, fences, protective coverings, and the imposition of a buffer zone, hostile plantings (e.g. thorn bushes, poison ivy) and other physical barriers that will isolate them from the direct impact of human traffic or construction activity and thereby prevent damage or destruction. Protective measures should always be temporary and reversible.

Resources should also be protected from the indirect impacts of activity, which may occur from redirected traffic, drainage, erosion or slope failure. In the case of drainage-related impacts, temporary drainage paths, water-diversion channels or dykes may provide appropriate solutions.

Protective interventions that are done in response to disasters (e.g. fire or storm damage) are referred to as emergency protection. They are mitigative measures in that they react to an immediate threat to prevent further deterioration or collapse. Emergency protection involves the intervention called stabilization, and may include structural reinforcing, protective coverings or any other measures necessary to protect both the resource and the people who are working in or near it. This should be as reversible as is feasible.

Another indirect impact may be vandalism, which is encouraged by either the attention cast on the project or through reduced supervision. Vandalism may be addressed by means of barriers, patrolling and/or public education. C. Monitoring

Monitoring is undertaken to ensure that adverse impacts that cannot be predicted or evaluated prior to project activities are addressed. It will assess whether protective measures are adequate. This may take the form of scheduled site visits and/or on-call availability during a long-term project. For buildings and structures, this may include monitoring for movement caused by adjacent excavation, blasting or the movement of heavy equipment; this is usually done by installing “tell-tales” (mechanical devices that indicate whether there is movement in the structure). For archaeological sites, monitoring requires the presences of a licensed consultant archaeologist.

D. Documentation

If it is likely that an undertaking will have an adverse impact on a heritage resource, despite the initiation of other mitigative measures, it is important that the resource be properly documented, so as to ensure a complete record of its state before changes are made.

E. Salvage

16

In situations where the adverse impact will include partial or complete demolition of a cultural heritage resource, salvage may be indicated. This is a less desirable mitigation option than the previously described ones, since the process itself is destructive and irreversible. It should be considered only as a last resort when avoidance and protection are insufficient. The guidelines for salvage differ for the various types of resources.

1. Archaeological sites Salvage archaeology (also called “rescue archaeology”) consists of the systematic investigation and recovery of data from the site by a licensed consultant archaeologist. This is a time-consuming and expensive process that will inevitably lose a considerable amount of information and precludes future opportunities for research. The systematic data recovery from archaeological sites involves:

• A complete or partial systematic surface collection, excavation, or both; • A comparative analysis and interpretation of content and contextual

information; and • Production of an investigative report.

All recovered data must be analyzed, interpreted and reported. Arrangements for the curation of artifacts should be made beforehand. Materials and records of the investigation should be available and accessible to future researchers. With aboriginal sites, consultation with appropriate local or regional aboriginal communities or individuals should be held prior to any work being undertaken. Aboriginal concerns should be solicited on a project-specific basis. Detailed guidelines for salvage archaeology and for cataloguing and curation can be found in the Ministry of Culture’s archaeological standards and guidelines. 2. Built Heritage The salvage of buildings and structures takes a number of forms. All of them destroy the intrinsic heritage quality and context of a building, and are acceptable only as an alternative to total demolition. These interventions should be considered a last resort, and only after real efforts have been made to use less destructive kinds of intervention and those efforts have failed. In each situation, careful documentation should precede the intervention. Four alternatives are described here:

• Facadism • Moving or relocation • Dismantling and reassembly • Salvage of individual components (fragmentation)

17

“Facadism” is the name given to the removal of the structure and interior fabric of a building and retention of all or part of its façade, primarily as a decorative component, in a new development. This violates much of the material value of the heritage resource, reducing it to the status of an artifact without context. Moving involves relocating a building to a new site. This destroys much of a building’s intrinsic quality and all of its relationship to its setting. The process is difficult and expensive and, once moved, a building may be unstable and subject to further deterioration. In situations when a building must be moved, its existing location should be documented in detail. The new location should evoke the historical setting as much as possible, but any interpretation should clearly indicate the original site and context. Moving should be done only by an experienced moving contractor. As little intervention should be done to the building as is feasible for a safe move along available routes. If it is necessary to divide the building into multiple pieces, the cuts should be made in areas that will have relatively little impact on the components with the most heritage significance. Another “last-resort” action is dismantling and reassembly at a new location. This is usually done when moving is the intervention of choice but is impracticable for technical or cost reasons. Reassembly has even a greater impact than moving on the integrity of the heritage resource. Reassembly is sometimes undertaken out of structural necessity, to repair deteriorated material, in which case reassembly may be on the original site. The salvage of individual components (or fragmentation) for display as building fragments should be considered only for research, commemorative or aesthetic reasons. It, too, results in the loss of the original resource. The displayed components become sculptural artifacts and acquire an entirely new context. Work should be directed by a qualified conservation professional who will ensure that as little damage as possible occurs to the salvaged components. 3. Cultural Heritage Landscapes The salvage of historical material from threatened landscapes should include documentation and the recovery of sample plant materials. The methods of analysis and collection are similar to those for archaeological sites.

Note: For proposed projects that are in areas that meet the definition of low cultural heritage potential as set out in the chart in Figure 2 and in Clarification of Draft Checklist for Determining Cultural Heritage Potential (Appendix 4) no further cultural heritage assessment is required unless CHRs are discovered during project implementation. Refer to Contingency Planning if Cultural Heritage Resources or Human Remains are Discovered During Project Implementation (Appendix 7) for further information on the steps to be taken in this event.

18

2.7 The Importance of Documenting Known and Potential Cultural Heritage Resources

It is important to consistently document known and potential CHR, possible negative impacts and mitigation measures. A standard template for recording this information may be developed in consultation with MCL. In addition, it is important to document the decision-making process in the project file for the record that outlines the results and rationale of designating either high/low CHRs potential to a specific project. Refer to Section 3.0 for further guidance on documenting the decision-making process. 3.0 Documenting MNR Class EA Decisions on Cultural Heritage Resources This section on MNR decision-making should be considered in the context of Sections 3.0 – RSFD and 4.0 - PPCR (Project Categories and Screening Mechanisms), Sections 4.0 – RSFD and 5.0 - PPCR (Evaluation and Consultation Processes for Category B and C Projects), and Sections 5.0 – RSFD and 6.0 - PPCR (Class EA Administrative Practices and Procedures). More specifically: • MNR decisions addressing CHRs on a project-by-project basis should be made

within the context and timeframe of the associated Class EA process; and • a decision to proceed with a project will be based on a broader spectrum of

considerations than just cultural heritage. Those broader considerations are identified in both Class EA – RSFD/PPCR and include environmental, social, and economic factors.

Given public expectations on government to ensure accountability for decisions on expenditures and transparency of decisions affecting public resources; it is important that the project manager ensures clear documentation and communication of MNR decisions. This also applies if, during project implementation after an initial decision has been made, there is a discovery of previously unknown CHR resulting in the need to proceed with contingency planning. MNR decisions revised on the basis of new information and that leads to subsequent changes in approvals or project conditions should be subject to an appropriate level of documentation. Documentation requirements for MNR decisions related the cultural heritage assessment process is provided for in the relevant Class EA. 4.0 Project Implementation 4.1 Proceeding with Projects within Five Years of Approval If MNR proceeds with project implementation within five years of filing a “Statement of Completion” (Refer to Section 4.2 – RSFD or Section 5.2 – PPCR) through the relevant Class EA process, all approval conditions identified during the project decision-making process should be followed.

19

In the event there is a discovery of human remains, burials, or significant CHR, contingency planning will need to be immediately initiated resulting in triggering emergency protocols, CHR re-evaluations, subsequent changes to project conditions and approvals as appropriate. Refer to Contingency Planning if Cultural Heritage Resources or Human Remains are Discovered During Project Implementation (Appendix 7) for further information. 4.2 Proceeding with Projects After Five Years of Approval According to the Class EA – RSFD/PPCR, MNR may proceed with project implementation within five years of filing a “Statement of Completion”. If project implementation for Category B or C projects does not proceed within the five year timeframe, MNR shall review and document any changes that may have taken place since the initial approval to ensure that the project and its associated approval conditions are still valid. In this case, changes may include environmental conditions, new policies, new engineering standards or technologies, new approaches to mitigation techniques, or new information based on revised inventories. Refer to Section 5.7 – Class EA -RSFD and Section 6.7 – Class EA-PPCR for further information and Class EA direction on the provision of an MNR notice of intention to proceed with a project after the initial five-year timeframe. 4.3 Future Activities Once a project is complete, MNR will ensure that future maintenance and operational plans, research and minor developments associated with the area will continue to protect the significant CHRs associated with the site on an ongoing basis. Any major redevelopments or projects will be subject to Class EA procedures and will thereby re-engage this process. It will be important to retain original project files and documentation for the consideration of future project managers and planning staff. 4.4 Contingency Planning As a general condition of approval, if during project implementation, MNR or the applicant2 discovers previously unknown CHR, a contingency plan should be prepared which will address appropriate steps to be taken to protect the CHR from negative impacts. Refer to Appendix 7 for further information on the steps to be taken in this event. 5.0 Project Monitoring 2 The “applicant” in this Guideline may be the recipient of the disposition by MNR or delegates of certain or all rights to Crown resources through such means as permits, land sales, licences, approval, permissions, or consents. Dispositions may be in response to an application request by another government agency; a private group, individual, or business; or it may be initiated by MNR. In some cases, the applicant identifies a proposed project, for which a disposition is required for the proposal to proceed. The Class EA-PPCR defines “Partnerships” in Section 3.4 and the Class EA-RSFD discusses Partnership projects in Section 2.5.1. In both cases, partners may also be considered as “applicants” in terms of this Guideline.

20

Monitoring can assist MNR in determining whether predictions on high versus low potential areas were accurate and whether conditions for implementation, and mitigation techniques were effective. The results of effective monitoring can: • support future phases of individual projects; • assist other project managers and planners working on similar projects in other

parts of the province; and • enable an adaptive management approach to project planning and implementation

thereby resulting in appropriate considerations for significant CHRs in the future. Development of a heritage committee during the implementation phase is one approach that may be considered. Monitoring requirements associated with Class EA-RSFD/PPCR are identified in Sections 4.4 and 5.4 of those documents respectively. 6.0 Guideline Review and Amendment The Guideline may be amended by MNR, in consultation with the Ministry of Culture, from time to time as MNR considers appropriate. In particular, this Guideline may need to be amended in light of any policies, standards and guidelines prepared by the Minister of Culture and approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under s.25.2 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

21

Appendix 1

Glossary of Terms

Definition of Cultural Heritage Resources Types Both the Class EA-RSFD and Class EA-PPCR define CHR generally, as any resource or feature of archaeological, historical, cultural or traditional use significance. This may include terrestrial or marine archaeological resources, built heritage or cultural heritage landscapes. Key elements of traditional use sites are included in these cultural heritage resource types, however, it is important to note that Traditional Use Sites are generally assessed through the appropriate aboriginal consultation. It should be noted that there may be some overlap in the types of CHR being assessed amongst the different CHR types. The definitions below are based upon the definitions provided for in MNR’s Class EAs. Built Heritage Resources refers to one or more buildings, structures, monuments, installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• a cabin • a road • stone fences • a dam • a mining headframe • a river crossing structure • a bridge • Aboriginal structures (e.g. fish weir, deadfall trap, hunting blind) • a cairn • a timber chute • a trading post

Cultural Heritage Landscapes are areas of heritage significance that have been modified by human activities. Such an area is valued by a community and is of significance to the understanding of the history of a people or place. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• abandoned mine sites • farmsteads • ghost towns • historic pathways • portages • culturally modified trees • canoe routes

22

• spiritual sites • old villages • places of worship • cemeteries • railways, spur lines and roadways that have been or continue to be used • a collection of mining shafts and associated structures • a group of pictographs in a given site and landscape • a complex of recreational structures • a river modified for driving wood • remnants of a fur trade operation • logging camps, depots and abandoned sawmills

Terrestrial archaeological resources are defined as the remains of any building, structure, activity, place or cultural feature, which because of the passage of time is on or below the surface of the land or water. Significant archaeological resources are those which have been identified and evaluated, and determined to be significant to the understanding of the history of a people or place. The identification and evaluation of this resource is based upon an archaeological assessment. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• pictographs • cemeteries and burial sites (the requirements of the Cemetery Act must be

followed) • aboriginal villages • seasonal camps or habitation sites • litchi scatters • fur trading post site • midden (ancient refuse heap) • former logging camp • prisoner of war camp • railway construction camp

Marine archaeological sites are archaeological sites that are fully or partially submerged or that lie below or partially below the high-water mark of any body of water. Examples of marine archaeological sites include, but are not limited to:

• shipwrecks • derelict vessels • aircraft crash sites • remains of historic piers and wharves • submerged prehistoric sites

Traditional Use Sites are geographically defined areas supporting current or past human use as a gathering area, spiritual site, place of worship or cemetery. It is important to note that key elements of Traditional Use Sites have been included in the three defined cultural heritage resource types in this Guideline.

23

Contingency Planning in this Guideline refers to a type of planning which would be triggered by an unexpected discovery of a previously unknown CHR. In these cases, a contingency plan would be engaged to address appropriate steps to be taken. Qualified Expert in this Guideline refers to a qualified cultural heritage expert: For built heritage/cultural heritage landscapes Qualified experts may include a heritage conservation architect, an architectural conservator, an architectural or landscape historian, an historic landscape architect, or a member of another discipline with specialized training in preservation/historic materials (e.g. structural or mechanical engineer specializing in heritage conservation). It should be understood that in heritage conservation, experience resides with individuals, not necessarily with their parent firm, practice or organization. The expert should have a minimum of five years experience in the heritage conservation field and be able to demonstrate relevant, recent, successful personal experience working on projects of similar scope and scale. For Archaeological Resources Qualified experts must be a registered, practicing archaeologist with a license from the Ministry of Culture Significant Ground Disturbances in this Guideline refers to ground disturbances on Crown Land, both above or below water which may be caused by significantly altering (removing, adding to, or replacing) the naturally existing sub-soil surface structure outside of the footprint of existing development. Impacts to Existing Buidlings/Structures of Cultural Heritage Significance refers to negative impacts caused to buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, 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, or listed by local, provincial or federal jurisdictions.

24

Appendix 2

Determining Heritage Value The Ontario Heritage Act, Regulation 9/06 identifies criteria to be used in determining the cultural heritage value or interest of built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Similar criteria are under development for terrestrial and marine archaeological resources and these are currently available in draft form (see below) Heritage Value Criteria for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Any defined area of land (“the property”) may be determined to be of cultural heritage value or interest if it meets one or more of the following criteria. The property has design value or physical value because it,

• is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method,

• displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

The property has historical value or associative value because it,

• has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community,

• yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or

• demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.

The property has contextual value because it,

• is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, • is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • is a landmark.

For built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, the consultant report should include a summary statement of the cultural heritage value or interest of the resource and a description of its heritage attributes. For archaeological resources, heritage value criteria should include the following (excerpt from the MCL draft Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists): Information Value:

• Cultural historic value affiliated to particular community or group • Scientific value with potential value to paleo-environmental studies • Rarity or frequency which can be unique locally, regionally, provincially or

nationally • Productivity related to the quantities of artifacts identified

25

• Integrity or how well preserved or intact the site is containing original material

Public Resource Value: • Public use for education, recreation or tourism

Value to a Community:

• Has traditional, social or religious importance to a particular community, First Nation or group.

Draft Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Terrestrial Archaeological Sites Criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest of terrestrial archaeological sites are currently under development. The following draft criteria are subject to revision. Land-based archaeological sites as having at least one of the following characteristics are considered to be of cultural heritage value or interest. 1. The site is a pre-contact site and contains diagnostic artifacts and/or a concentration of artifacts: In a pedestrian survey, this is defined as finding in a 10 x 10 metre area:

o at least one diagnostic artifact or fire-cracked rock in addition to 2 or more non-diagnostic artifacts

o or more non-diagnostic artifacts In a test pit survey, this is defined as finding:

o one test pit or combined test pit/test unit yielding 2 or more artifacts or o two or more positive test pits in the 10 x 10 metre area of intensified test

pitting 2. The site contains single examples of resources of special interest:

• Aboriginal ceramics • exotic or period-specific cherts • human remains.

3. The site is a post-contact archaeological site predating 1900, containing 10 datable artifacts in a 10 x 10 metre area. Further guidance for evaluating the heritage value of Euro-Canadian domestic sites post-dating 1830 is provided in the Draft Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists: Archaeological Fieldwork. 4. The site is a 20th century archaeological site where background documentation or archaeological features indicate possible heritage value.

26

Draft Heritage Value Criteria for Marine Archaeological Sites

Information Value

The marine archaeological site contributes to local, regional, provincial, or national archaeological history.

Criteria Examples of Indicators

Cultural historic value

Information from the marine archaeological site advances understanding of:

• Cultural history locally, regionally, or nationally

• Past material culture manufacture, trade, use, and disposal

Historic value The marine archaeological site is:

• 50 years of age or older (based on date of loss)

The marine archaeological site is associated with:

• Exploration, settlement, trade, or other aspects of Ontario’s history

• The life or activities of a historic figure, group, organization, or institution

• A significant historic event (cultural, economic, military, religious, social, or political)

• A distinctive way of life, custom, or practice

Scientific value The marine archaeological site contains important evidence that contributes to understanding of:

• Palaeo-environmental studies

• Site formation processes, including physical, chemical, biological and human factors affecting marine archaeological sites

• Technical advances in vessel construction (innovative or evolutionary construction or engineering)

Rarity or representativeness

The marine archaeological site is:

• A unique example of a type, style, class or association of vessel or site

• Of comparative value in relation to similar archaeological sites

• Representative of a type, style, class, or association of vessel or site

• A type of site that has not been or rarely been studied

Productivity The marine archaeological site is characterized by:

• Large quantities of artifacts

27

• Exotic or rare artifacts or cargo reflecting trade or other patterns

• Physical association with other vessels or sites, such as a shipwreck graveyard

Integrity The marine archaeological site is characterized by:

• Intactness of the vessel, cargo, or site

• A significant amount of remaining material or fabric of a vessel, cargo, or site.

• Intact decorative elements (figureheads, carvings, etc.)

Value as a Public Resource

The marine archaeological site contributes to enhancing the public’s understanding and appreciation for Ontario’s past.

Criteria Examples of Indicators

The marine archaeological site has potential for public use for education, recreation, or tourism.

The marine archaeological site:

• Is or can be accessible to divers, local residents, or other interested members of the public

• Increases or has the potential to increase public knowledge of marine heritage and marine archaeological sites

• Is or can be incorporated into local education, recreation, or tourism strategies and initiatives

Value to a Community

The marine archaeological site has intrinsic value to a particular community.

Criteria Examples of Indicators

The marine archaeological site has traditional, social, or religious importance to a particular community or group.

The marine archaeological site has:

• Symbolic value to a particular community

• A connection with folklore or tradition within a community

• Presence of human remains

28

Appendix 3

Steps to Determine the Existence of Known Cultural Heritage Resources Step 1 Consult MNR’s Natural Resource Values Information System (NRVIS). Information that may be obtained from MNR’s NRVIS includes the following:

1 “Archaeological Remains Site – Actual”; 2 “Cultural Landscape Site”; 3 “Structural Remains Site”; and 4 “Traditional Use Site”.

The first layer is classified as “sensitive” meaning access is restricted to only those staff approved to access the information per a data sharing agreement with MCL. At present only specific Forest Division staff has access to this database for Forest Management Planning purposes. MNR field staff are directed to contact MCL staff directly with location information (e.g. Township, lat. and long.) The latter three layers are classified as “low sensitivity” and are available to anyone with a NRVIS account. Special permission may be required for some layers. This permission can be granted from the custodian either at the district level or provincial level. The information in these layers comes mainly from Forest Management Planning projects and is not complete for all Districts and Zones. In all cases, look for registered, designated or locally identified CHR sites. If new cultural heritage values are found, please contact the custodian with location information to update NRVIS. Step 2 Consult with appropriate MCL staff in order to access MCL’s database of known CHR including location data for all registered archaeological sites in a given study area. So, a key consideration is to determine whether an archaeological site is within 250 meters of a proposed project. Step 3 Consider consulting other data sources for CHR information including: Ministry of Culture • Registered archaeological sites database; • Unverified site files; and • Reports of regional inventory surveys, excavations or collections.

29

Ministry of Natural Resources • Archaeological high potential mapping; • District Sensitive Area files, Crown Land Use Atlas and Reports on removal of

unauthorized occupations; • District Natural Resource Values Information System (NRVIS) cultural heritage

information; • Ontario Parks – park management plan background studies, park libraries or

archives; • Information from district or area staff on unverified sites (example: District

Aboriginal Liaison Officer); • Old forest inventory and topographic maps, and aerial photos; and Original

township survey notes and survey plans. Aboriginal Communities

• Aboriginal values mapping (e.g. Aboriginal Background Information Report); • Community consultations, individual or family interviews; and • Other primary or secondary historical documents.

Forest Management Planning Team

• Company records; • Information from Company Staff, LCC on unverified sites; • FRI maps; and • SFL holder records, known info.

Other Data as Available

• Primary and secondary historical sources (books, journals, maps, atlases); Ontario Bureau of Mines Reports, MNDM closed/abandoned mines database;

• “Friends of” organizations; • Parks Canada Agency; • Municipal Heritage Committees; • Ontario Heritage Trust; and • Community museum societies, historical societies, Women’s Institutes, etc.

30

Appendix 4

Clarification of Draft Checklist for Determining Cultural Heritage Potential

General Considerations for Areas with High Potential • Consideration should be given to past settlement and land use which is often

associated with higher ground and elevated positions, defined as such by surrounding low or level topography. Consequently study areas containing eskers, drumlins, sizable knolls, plateaus next to lowlands or other such topographic features, can exhibit potential.

Areas With High Potential for Cultural Heritage Resources are areas which, based on current modeling and existing standard screening criteria, are thought to have the greatest probability of containing cultural heritage remains of one sort or another. Modeling for cultural heritage potential is based on a range of factors, including soils and proximity to water courses among others. For the purpose of project planning recognition will be given to areas of high potential since it is estimated that up to 80% of any unknown CHR will be found in these areas. Areas with a high potential for CHR can be identified in the following ways (excluding sites that through site inspections are deemed not suitable for human occupation):

• A mapped high potential cultural heritage area based on government heritage potential modeling methodologies and associated standard criteria, or

• Where mapping does not exist the following areas when present with other high potential factors will be considered high potential:

o The area is within 250 metres from a registered or designated or locally

identified cultural heritage site, or o The area is within 300 metres of the shoreline of a primary water source

(accessible lakeshores, rivers, and large creeks), relic / glacial lake levels and watercourses or the confluence of two or more smaller watercourses, or

o The area is within 200 metres of the shoreline of a secondary water source (smaller creeks, intermittent streams, springs, marshes or swamps), or

o The area has the existence of unusual land formations, such as mounds (e.g. remains of graves, buildings, campsites, etc.) caverns or waterfalls, or

o The area contains Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal features such as monuments, cemetery markers, villages and/or plaques, etc., or

o It is suspected the subject lands include a portion of a heritage trail, heritage buildings or ruins, that cannot be found through a site visit or other means during the snow free season, or

31

o That the area is considered to have a high degree of heritage significance due to local knowledge (mutually exclusive).

Adapted from Cultural Heritage Screening MNR-MCzCR, MNR Bulletin PL 4.02.01 (April 2001) – Not to be used once the CHR Technical Guideline is in effect General Considerations for Areas with Low Potential

• Areas which exhibit intensive or extensive ground disturbances, usually from previous urban development and land uses, such as an industrial site extensively worked over or an established residential or commercial area with considerable concrete paved areas, parking lots, and/or existing roads, or

• Areas that are inland and remote, and beyond 300 meters of any major primary or secondary water source, and considerable distances (e.g. beyond 250 meters) from any known cultural heritage site, feature, or provincially registered archaeological site, or

• Areas that contain large tracts of wetlands, marshes, and/or swamps with no known cultural heritage values within or in close proximity to previously registered heritage sites below the water table, or

• Areas which are located in mostly sheer bedrock with a steep slope (usually more than 10 degrees) with no pocket areas of sand or soil, and with no visible cultural heritage features on the property such as cairns, markers, plaques, artifacts, pictographs, unusual land formations like caves or depressions to a allow for human habitation.

Low Potential Cultural Heritage Resource Areas are areas which may contain the following characteristics:

• Areas, which exhibit intensive and extensive, ground disturbances, usually from previous urban development and land uses. An example would be an industrial site extensively worked over or an established residential or commercial area with considerable concrete paved areas, parking lots, and/or existing roads.

• Areas which are inland and remote, and are beyond 300 metres of any major primary or secondary water source, and considerable distances (i.e. beyond 250 metres) from any known cultural heritage sites, feature, or provincially registered archaeological site.

• Areas, which contain large tracts of wetlands, marshes, and/or swamps, with no known cultural heritage values within, close proximity or previous registered heritage sites below the water table.

• Areas which are located on mostly sheer bedrock with a steep slope (usually more than 10 degrees), with no pocket areas of sand or soil, and with no visible cultural heritage features on the property such as cairns, markers, plaques, artifacts, pictographs, petroglyphs, unusual land formations like caves or deep depressions to allow for human habitation.

Adapted from Cultural Heritage Screening MNR-MCzCR MOU – MNR Bulletin PL 4.02.01 (April 2001) – not to be used once the CHR Technical Guideline is in effect.

32

Answering the following questions will help determine if there is potential for the discovery of CHRs:

1. Is the project adjacent to a known cultural heritage resource? It is important to note whether an existing CHR is adjacent to where a project is proposed as the project might negatively impact it. Normally, a distance of 250 metres is used for this determination.

2. Is there a water source on or adjacent to the proposed project?

The association to a water source in one of the most important features to consider, since water played an important part in settlement and land use decisions made by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal settlers. However it is important to distinguish between different types of water sources and the different landforms associated with those water sources. Likewise it will be important to distinguish “natural” water-forms from channelized ditches, artificial lakes or shorelines modified by previous damming activities which in and of themselves would not normally determine potential.

If the answer is yes, then:

2a. Is any part of the undertaking within 300 metres of a primary water source (accessible lakeshores, rivers and large creeks), or the confluence of two or more smaller water sources?

2b. Is the undertaking within 200 metres of a secondary water source (smaller

creeks, intermittent streams, springs, marshes or swamps)?

And since the occupation of Ontario extends back several thousand years, it is important to be able to recognize past water drainages.

2c. Is the project within 300 metres of a relic or ancient primary source of water,

such as glacial lake shorelines (as indicated by the presence of raised sand or gravel beach ridges), or relic river channels (as indicated by a visible linear, channelized dip or swale in the topography)?

3. Is the undertaking situated in an area of elevated topography?

Past settlement and land use is often associated with higher ground and elevated positions, defined as such by surrounding low or level topography. Consequently study areas containing eskers, drumlins, sizable knolls, plateaus next to lowlands or other such topographic features, can exhibit potential.

4. Is the project on well-drained, sandy soil?

33

Past settlement can be found associated with sandier, better drained soils. This is particularly true in regions of the province where there are extensive pockets of sandy soil in an area otherwise characterized by heavy soils or rocky ground.

5. Is the project associated with distinctive or unusual land formations? Certain locales, such as waterfalls, rock outcrops, rock faces, caverns, mounds etc. often were important to past peoples as special or spiritual places. This significance is often indicated by the presence of burials, structures, offerings, rock paintings or carvings etc.

6. Is the project associated with a particular resource-specific feature that would have attracted past subsistence or extractive uses?

Some locales provided past peoples access to a scarce resource (e.g. outcrops of chert, quartz, or other material used in making stone tools), served to concentrate plant or animal resources (e.g. migratory routes, spawning areas, prairies etc.) or attracted early Euro-Canadian industrial activity (e.g. logging prospecting, etc.). The presence of such a feature can suggest potential.

7. Is the project in an area of initial, non-Aboriginal settlement and/or is there presence of non-Aboriginal features, such as monuments, cemetery markers and/or plaques?

This can include places of early military or pioneer settlement in a region, the older core of a community, early wharf or dock complexes (which would include the potential for shipwreck sites), pioneer churches and/or early cemeteries, etc. Sometimes these areas contain well-known local, provincial or federal monuments or heritage parks and can be readily identified.

8. Is the project associated with an early historic transportation route, such as a trail, pass, road, rail, portage route or canal?

Initial Euro-Canadian settlement into an area is often closely linked to transportation routes. Also, some Aboriginal sites, particularly in the north and on the Canadian Shield, are found along portages and land traverses. Rapids associated with historic transportation routes can be particularly important for CHRs.

9. Does the project involve a property designated under the Ontario Heritage Act?

10. Is it suspected that the area may contain a portion of a heritage trail, heritage buildings or ruins that cannot be found through a site visit or other means during the snow free season?

34

This information is readily available from Municipal Heritage Committees or Clerk’s Office.

11. Is there a building or structure which is known to be of cultural heritage significance or 40 years or more old?

12. Has evidence from documentary sources, local knowledge or Aboriginal oral history, associating the area with historic events, activities or occupations, been brought forward?

Groups or individuals can bring forth information, not normally available for review purposes. This information should be considered when determining potential.

13. Has the project area been subjected to extensive, intensive land disturbance?

Obviously, certain recent land uses can affect potential. Such land disturbances need to be intensive (e.g. past quarrying, major landscaping recent built and industrial uses, sewage and infrastructure development, etc.) as opposed to “passive” (e.g. agricultural cultivation, gardening, minor landscaping or grading etc.). As well, this disturbance would have to be extensive, covering the vast majority of the subject area. In an area of high potential, even a hectare or less of intact land may still contain significant CHR.

35

Appendix 5

Conditions for Proceeding with Projects in Areas Having High Potential for Cultural Heritage Resources

If the proposed project is of a recurring nature or maintains an existing use, the project can advance in the Class EA process if: The proposed development or land use will not result in significant new ground disturbances or, in the case of buildings and structures, if the development will not result in significant new ground disturbances greater than one building envelope3 (greater than 400m2) and provided that, the building or structure was not the subject of the high potential determination. Development or land use projects that will result in significant new ground disturbances or, in the case of buildings and structures, significant new ground disturbances greater than one building envelope4 (greater than 400m2), a cultural heritage resources assessment report should be prepared as discussed in Section 2.5 and 2.6 of this document. In either case above, if archaeological remains or human burials or other CHR are discovered on site at any time, the actions outlined for Contingency Planning (Section 4.4) should be followed. Regarding human remains or burials, refer to Ontario Parks Policy and Procedure 11.05 for further clarification.” Situations where no further cultural heritage resource assessments are required: I If the proposed project involves an area greater than a building envelope, and will result in no or minimal soil disturbance, and is documented to have very low physical impact in those locations of high cultural heritage potential, (e.g. creation of a building with no footing or foundation), no further cultural heritage assessment is required II If the proposed project involves an area greater than a building envelope, and involves an area previously disturbed intensively and extensively (e.g. parking lot, dock area, trail/road, etc.) and/or the proponent has tenure authority for the intended use, no further cultural heritage assessment is required. III If the proposed project involves an area greater than a building envelope, and the exact location of the work is where there are no obvious or minimal cultural heritage values (e.g. mostly bedrock outcrop, steep slope, swampy or wetland areas with no known heritage sites), no further cultural heritage assessment is required.

4 Building envelope is an area considered equivalent to 400m2 or less and may include main building foundations,with minor outbuildings and infrastructure (i.e., garage or shed, septic tank, driveway, tile bed, well site, dock, boathouse, and associated shoreline alterations)

36

In all other cases, a cultural assessment by a qualified expert is recommended which will assess the significance of the CHR, the effects of the project on the heritage resource and possible mitigation techniques that may be effective in reducing net effects. Refer to Updated Listing of Cultural Heritage Consultants (Appendix 5).

37

Appendix 6

Cultural Heritage Consultants Depending on the property in question and the types of resources that may be present, it may be necessary to employ more than one specialized cultural heritage consultant for an undertaking. Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Consultants Depending on the nature of the project, a qualified heritage expert for built heritage/cultural landscapes could include a heritage conservation architect, an architectural conservator, an architectural or landscape historian, an historic landscape architect, or a member of another discipline with specialized training in preservation/historic materials (e.g. structural or mechanical engineer specializing in heritage conservation). The expert should have a minimum of five years experience in the heritage conservation field and be able to demonstrate relevant experience working on similar projects. The Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Consultants website at www.caphc.ca offers a list of its members, which includes a variety of heritage professionals. Licensed Professional Archaeologists In the past, the Ministry of Culture published a list of licensed professional archaeologists, but this practice has been discontinued due to concerns over protecting privacy. The Ontario Association of Professional Archaeologists (APA) has agreed to take on this role for the ministry. Although not available at the time of writing, the APA plans to provide a list of licensed consulting archaeologists and archaeological consulting firms on their website at www.apaontario.ca. The Ontario Heritage Act prohibits anyone from undertaking archaeological fieldwork, removing artifacts, or altering an archaeological site without a license issued by the Minister of Culture. For terrestrial archaeology, the criteria and scope of licences are set out in O.Reg. 8/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Ministry of Culture is currently developing similar licensing criteria for marine archaeological fieldwork. Consultant archaeologists conduct their work following standards and guidelines developed by the Ministry of Culture. For reference purposes, drafts of these documents are available on the Ministry of Culture’s website: Link: Draft Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists – Archaeological Fieldwork

Link: Draft Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists – Artifact Documentation and Analysis; Reporting Archaeological Fieldwork MCL plans to develop new standards and guidelines for assessment of marine archaeological resources in the future.

38

Appendix 7

Contingency Planning if Cultural Heritage Resources or Human Remains are Discovered During Project Implementation

Contingency Planning It is important to consider in advance the possibility of having to put a contingency plan in place in the event that unexpected or unpredictable effects of the project occur to previously undiscovered CHR or human remains, during project implementation. If CHR are unexpectedly discovered, the Plan will provide the means of addressing the conservation of Ontario’s CHRs and appropriate treatment of human remains during project implementation. Depending on the type and sensitivity of the CHRs that are discovered, the Plan may simply require the application of mitigation techniques as appropriate or could involve the full engagement of a qualified expert to carry out a cultural heritage assessment and make appropriate recommendations. In either case, any project changes and new information should be fully documented on file and trigger a subsequent formal decision to continue the project as is, with appropriate modifications, or in extreme cases, to cancel the project. Generally, contingency planning for discovered archaeological resources/sites requires the advice of a licensed archaeologist. Contingency Planning Protocols may include one or more of the following: In the event of discovery of Cultural Heritage Resources: Stop work immediately and secure the site from further alternation and public access Prompt notification of MCL staff in the event of a CHR discovery The employment of qualified experts to assess the significance and vulnerability of

discovered CHRs, as required Mitigation techniques for the accidental damage to or destruction of CHRs

In the event of discovery of Human Remains: Stop work immediately and secure the site from further alternation and public access Prompt notification in the event that human remains are encountered during project

implementation of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), MCL staff and the Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulations Unit, Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations

Consultation with local Aboriginal communities in the event that human remains are confirmed to be of Aboriginal origin. If in a protected area, refer to Parks Policy PM 11.05 (Appendix 9).

39

Appendix 8

Stages of an Archaeological Assessment MNR staff will not be expected to carry out this evaluation. Only a Professional archaeologist licensed by the Ministry of Culture may undertake archaeological fieldwork as a consultant. This information is provided only for the information of staff to explain the components of an evaluation. The archaeological assessment and mitigation is divided into four stages of fieldwork. Stage 1: Property Inspection

• Detailed documentary research of the land use and archaeological history and present condition of the property;

• An inspection visit to the property: • to gain first-hand knowledge of the property’s geography,

topography and current condition, to confirm background study findings; and

• to determine and map the potential for archaeological resources (recorded and unrecorded).

• There is no excavation or artifact collecting at this stage. Stage 2: Property Assessment

• on-site documentation of archaeological resources on the property, by systematically walking the property, observing and mapping archaeological features and collecting artifacts.

• the required survey method depends upon the nature and extent of ground cover. The survey may include one or both of the following:

• Pedestrian survey: mapping and collecting artifacts on the surface or open ploughed fields and planted fields (e.g. cornfields) that meet certain conditions.

• Test pit survey: mapping and collecting artifacts by digging small regularly spaced pits for areas where ploughing is not possible.

Stage 3: Archaeological Site Assessment

• on-site archaeological fieldwork to gather data from each archaeological site identified in the Property Survey as requiring further assessment.

• assessment methods depend on field conditions, techniques used in the Property Survey and type of site:

• Controlled surface pick-up (CSP): an examination of the archaeological site’s ground surface, recording the locations of and collecting surface artifacts for open ploughed fields where archaeological sites were discovered through pedestrian survey.

• Test unit excavation: controlled excavation of one-metre squares in selected locations to determine the presence of buried

40

artifacts, structures, stratigraphy and cultural features and to collect a representative sample of material. Test unit excavation must be done as follow-up to controlled surface pick-up and for archaeological sites discovered through test pit excavation.

Stage 4: Mitigation of Development Impacts

Overview of Mitigation Options: • Protection and Avoidance

• physical, legal, planning and administrative methods employed to protect the archaeological site and development designed to avoid it, with the objective of preserving it intact.

• if the archaeological site remains unaltered, no additional fieldwork is required and development can proceed.

• this is the preferred option for archaeological sites with heritage value.

• Excavation and Documentation • controlled removal and recording of archaeological site

context and artifacts, with the objective of preserving the site’s information for future study

• when site no longer exists in the ground, development can proceed in that area.

For further information on archaeological assessment and mitigation, refer to the Draft Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists – Archaeological Fieldwork.

41

Appendix 9

Parks Policy PM11.05, Treatment of Human Burial Sites in Provincial Parks and Procedure PM 11.05, The Discovery of a Burial Site

Subject: Treatment of Human Burial Sites in Provincial Parks

Policy No.: PM 11.05

New: X Compiled by – Branch: Ontario Parks Section: Planning & Research

Date Issued: June 30, 1998

Replaces Directive Title Number Dated Page: 1 of 1 Purpose To provide direction to staff regarding the degree of involvement and extent of consultation required when dealing with human remains and associated grave goods, and for the maintenance of cemeteries and burial sites in provincial parks. Definition For the purposes of this policy, a burial site means any area which contains human remains, and includes above and below ground burials. Policy Under the Cemeteries Act (http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90c04_e.htm), Burial Sites Ontario Regulation 133/92 (http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Regs/English/920133_e.htm), Ontario Parks is required to take whatever steps are necessary to preserve a burial site in a provincial park until a final disposition is made in accordance with the Act and Regulations. Relocation of the burial site may be necessary to reduce the deterioration of a site due to erosion or other factors, or where location of the burial raises a health issue. Otherwise, the Regulation requires the owner of the land on which the burial site is discovered to take steps to preserve the site. When preserving and protecting in place is the objective, conflicting uses must be removed and potential future impact must be reduced. Where cultural affiliation of the interred individual(s) is in question, treatment of the site should confirm to the expectations of the most sensitive group involved. Site management should respect the after-burial expectations of the culture to which the individual(s) belonged. Section 2 of the Provincial Park Regulations governs the removal of artifacts, conducting of research, disturbance and excavation of archaeological sites. [See also Policy PM2.20 Collection of Historical Equipment and Artifacts in Provincial Parks] Cultural materials from burial sites must not be separated from associated human remains, and parks will not display human remains or known grave goods to the public. The ongoing preservation, maintenance and management of burial sites should be addressed in the Park Management Plan and the status confirmed in the Cultural Resources Plan. Appropriate affiliated groups and organizations may enter into an agreement with Ontario Parks to maintain a cemetery or burial site. See also Policy PM 2.17 Commemorative Requests/Interments in Provincial Parks. Park Superintendents should develop and maintain a working relationship with these stakeholders, the local O.P.P, and the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation regarding in-park burial sites.

42

Subject: The Discovery of a Burial Site

Procedure No.: PM 11.05

New: X

Compiled by: Branch - Ontario Parks

Section: Planning & Research

Date Issued: June 30, 1998

Replaces Directive Title: Same

Number: PM 2.21

Dated: Feb 1, 1997

Page: 1 of 2

Purpose To provide direction to staff to ensure the proper and dignified treatment of human remains and associated cultural material on the discovery of a burial site. Procedure Upon request of the discovery of a burial site, activities in progress in the vicinity will immediately be suspended. Reference should also be made to Sections 6-74 of the Cemeteries Act (http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90c04_e.htm). The Regulation 133/92 for Burial Sites should also be consulted (http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Regs/English/920133_e.htm). Responsibility/Action Discoverer • does not disturb the burial site or associated artifacts • immediately notifies the park superintendent Park Superintendent • notifies the Ontario Provincial Police (O.P.P.) • advises zone manager • after the O.P.P. have made a preliminary examination, contacts the Registrar of Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Toronto (416) 326-8394 • where historic significance is likely, notifies the appropriate Ministry of Culture and regional archaeologist • evaluates the burial site and vicinity through site planning to identify a course of action (no additional work necessary, conservation measures, protection strategies, etc.) O.P.P. • calls the office of the local coroner • makes preliminary examination of remains If it is suspected that the remains are of an Aboriginal person, immediately see Procedures page 2. Registrar • may request in investigation to determine origin of the remains • declares the site:

i) an unapproved Aboriginal peoples cemetery ii) an unapproved cemetery, or iii) an irregular burial site

• directs how the remains should be interred. If an examination determines the remains are of an Aboriginal person(s) these actions will be taken: O.P.P.

43

• immediately contacts the nearest/appropriate First Nation(s) Chief or Band Administrator(s) Park Superintendent • notifies the Manager, Native Affairs Unit (705) 755-1923 • if not done at an earlier stage, advises the appropriate Ministry of Culture archaeologist • contacts appropriate First Nation(s) representative(s) regarding implementation of Policy “Treatment of Human Burial sites in Provincial Parks” Park Superintendents should develop and maintain a contact list for affiliated groups or interested organizations, and if it is anticipated that these groups may have an involvement in the burial site, to recommend to the O.P.P. that this group or groups be consulted with as soon as possible. Special Considerations Imminent Damage to Site In an emergency situation, immediate and reasonable action may be taken to mitigate or salvage the human remains, grave goods or grave markers from threat. Mitigation such as protection from wave action or erosion by reinforcing and stabilizing would be undertaken sooner than salvage. The nature of the intervention and all procedures taken shall be documented and reviewed, and shall be consistent with recognized salvage archaeology practices. Affiliated cultural group(s) must be consulted prior to undertaking any further action. Pathogens If the presence of agents (such as viruses that may cause disease) is suspected in the soil or in association with human remains or grave goods, medical authorities should be consulted before handling.

44

Appendix 10

References and Links Ministry of Culture, Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities, part of the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (2006) www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/culdiv/heritage/Toolkit/HPE Eng large.pdf Ministry of Culture, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, part of the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (2006) www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/culdiv/heritage/Toolkit/Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf Draft Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists – Archaeological Fieldwork (July 2004) www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/culdiv/heritage/discussion_draft_fieldwork-e.pdf Draft Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists – Artifact Documentation and Analysis; Reporting Archaeological Fieldwork (August 2005) www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/culdiv/heritage/Reporting_standards_guidelines_draft.pdf Ontario Heritage Trust www.heritagefdn.on.ca Ontario Archaeological Society www.canadianarchaeology.com/OAS/default.htm Canadian Archaeological Association www.canadianarchaeology.com Ontario Association of Professional Archaeologists www.apaontario.ca Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Consultants www.caphc.ca Parks Canada Agency, Cultural Heritage Resources www.pc.gc.ca/culture/index_E.asp Parks Canada Agency - Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/guide/nldclpc-sgchpc/index_E.asp Canada’s Historic Places www.historicplaces.ca/acc-hom_e.aspx

45

Canadian Heritage Rivers www.chrs.ca/Main_e.htm US National Park Service – History and Culture www.nps.gov International Council on Monuments and Sites - ICOMOS www.international.icomos.org/home.htm United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization - UNESCO – World Heritage Sites whc.unesco.org/ Draft Forest Management Guide for Cultural Heritage Values (June 2005). Archaeology, Land Use Planning and Development in Ontario: An Educational Primer and Comprehensive Guide for Non-specialists Bibliography of Cultural Resource Open File Reports (Please contact Planning and Research Section, Ontario Parks for further information – link will be established when available). Ministry of Natural Resources, A Topical Organization of Ontario History, Historical Sites Branch, division of Parks (197_). Forma, Gary, Caring for History: Managing Cultural Resources in Provincial Parks, Ministry of Natural Resources 1982. Cultural Resources Inventory Guidelines (1984) Historical Resources Evaluation Scheme (1974) Historical Resources Research Report Format Role of MNR in Cultural Resource Management (1982) References will be checked and hyperlinked where possible. Other references may be added to this section.