BIRTLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT PROPOSAL TITLE HERITAGE RESOURCES IMPACT ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

Heritage Permit A33-17

Manitoba Hydro

Licencing and Environmental Assessment

Prepared by:

InterGroup Consultants Ltd.

500‐280 Smith Street

Winnipeg, MB R3C 1K2

August 2018

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

The objective of the HRIA was to determine if heritage resources are situated within the development area and assess any potential impacts to heritage resources during development activities. The assessment occurred over two field programs August 21-24, 2017 and October 10-13, 2017 under Manitoba Heritage Permit A33-17. A total of 46 quarter sections were selected for heritage survey, of these 15 (33%) were unable to be assessed due to lack of landowner permission or access issues.

The results of the HRIA of the proposed Birtle Transmission Project resulted in the discovery of two new archaeological sites (EcMh-66 and EdMi-7) within the proposed transmission right-of-way; however these are small, delimited sites that are of low significance. Mitigation measures and Environmental Protection Plans during construction will ensure the sites are protected from subsurface damage.

Pre-construction recommendations for the ROW of the Birtle Transmission Project include:

 Additional testing at quarter sections (n=8) previously investigated and assessment of quarter sections (n=23) not investigated during the 2017 field season;

 Shovel testing of the tower foot locations within eight (n=9) selected quarter sections; and

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

Construction recommendations for the ROW of the Birtle Transmission Project include:

 An archaeologist monitor tower footing excavations within 100 meters of major waterways, at the two newly identified registered archaeological sites, EcMh-66 and EdMi-7, and as well as any previously registered heritage resources sites in the area.

i Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Project Personnel

Project Archaeologist Lisa C. Bobbie, M.A. (Aug 21-24 and Oct 10-13) Amber Flett, M.A. Archaeologist (Aug 21-24) Luther Sousa, B.A Archaeologist (Oct 10-13) Tamas Farkas, M.A.

Community Assistant (Aug 21-24) Roy Sanderson, Gambler FN Lisa C. Bobbie, M.A. Report Preparation: Ashley Daciuk, B.A. Hons. Jennifer Olson, PhD. Reviewed By: R. Connon, MBA Daniel Szot, M.A. Candidate; GIS Mapping: Lisa C. Bobbie, M.A.; Manitoba Hydro

Acknowledgements:

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

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

ii Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lithic – made of stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

YRA – ‘Years ago’

iii Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...... 1 2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...... 3 3.0 CHARACTERIZATION STUDY ...... 3 3.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 3 3.2 PALEO‐ENVIRONMENT ...... 4 3.3 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...... 5 3.3.1 Early Precontact Period (Palaeo) 10,000 – 6,000 BP ...... 5 3.3.2 Middle Precontact Period (Intensive Diversification) 6000 – 2000 BP ...... 6 3.3.3 Late Precontact Period (Woodland) 2000 – 350 BP ...... 6 3.3.4 Contact Period ...... 7 3.3.5 Settlement Period ...... 9 4.0 PREDICTIVE MODEL ...... 9 5.0 HERITAGE RESOURCE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 14 5.1 PRE‐INVESTIGATION ...... 14 5.1.1 Previously Registered Heritage Resources ...... 14 5.1.2 Heritage Resources in Proximity to Preliminary Preferred Route ...... 15 5.1.3 Land‐based Selection of Areas of Potential along PPR ...... 17 5.2 METHODOLOGY AND OBJECTIVES ...... 19 5.3 PHASE I – AUGUST 21 TO 24, 2017 ...... 20 5.3.1 SE and NE‐24‐16‐28W Snake Creek (New Archaeological Site, EcMh‐66 “Double Buckle”) ...... 20 5.3.2 SW and NW‐36‐16‐28W Canola Field ...... 25 5.3.3 SE‐2‐17‐28W Wheat Field ...... 25 5.3.4 SW‐22‐16‐27W and SE and SW‐21‐16‐27W Birdtail River ...... 25 5.3.5 NE and NW‐3‐18‐29W Upper Ridges of Assiniboine River West ...... 26

iv Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

5.3.6 NE‐5‐18‐28W ...... 27 5.4 HRIA PHASE II – OCTOBER 10 TO 13, 2017 ...... 27 5.4.1 NE‐18‐16‐26W Birtle Transformer Station ...... 28 5.4.2 SW‐19‐16‐26W Flax Field ...... 28 5.4.3 SE‐23‐16‐27W Canola Field/Treed Area ...... 29 5.4.4 SE‐22‐16‐27W Wheat Field ...... 29 5.4.5 SE and SW‐20‐16‐27W Canola Field ...... 30 5.4.6 NE‐25‐16‐28W Wheat Field/Pastureland/Snake Creek ...... 30 5.4.7 NE‐2‐17‐28W Canola Field ...... 31 5.4.8 NE and NW‐3‐18‐28W Canola Field ...... 31 5.4.9 SE‐11‐17‐28W Pasture ...... 31 5.4.10 NE‐11‐17‐28W Canola Field/Marsh ...... 31 5.4.11 NE‐14‐17‐28W Canola Field/Relic Channel ...... 31 5.4.12 SE and NE‐23‐17‐28W Canola Field/Relic Channel ...... 31 5.4.13 NE‐26‐17‐28W Wheat Field ...... 32 5.4.14 NE‐and NW‐1‐18‐29W Assiniboine River – East ...... 32 5.4.15 NE and NW‐2‐18‐29W Assiniboine River Valley West (New Archaeological Site, EdMi‐7 “Assiniboine Overlook”) ...... 32 6.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 35 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 39

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A STUDY AREA MAPS APPENDIX B HERITAGE PERMIT A33‐17 APPENDIX C LIST OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN PROJECT STUDY AREA APPENDIX D SHOVEL TEST FORMS APPENDIX E ARTIFACT CATALOGUE APPENIDIX F STATUS OF QUARTER SECTIONS

v Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Feature Classes of Five Land-based Attributes for the Project Predictive Model ...... 11 Table 2: Overall Weighted Ranking of Each Factor Layer (out of 100%) ...... 12 Table 3: List of Centennial Farms in Project Study Area ...... 14 Table 4: List of Plaques in Project Study Area ...... 15 Table 5: Listing of Registered Archaeological Sites within 600 meters of the PPR ...... 16 Table 6: Listing of Registered Plaques within 500 meters of the PPR ...... 16 Table 7: List of Quarter Sections Selected for Heritage Assessment ...... 18 Table 8: Work to be Completed Prior to Construction ...... 36

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Maximum Extent of Glacial Lake Agassiz (red box indicating the study area) ...... 5 Figure 2: Western Canada’s Established Trails (University of Alberta Press 2005) ...... 8 Figure 3: Oxford School Plaque (MHS 2017) ...... 17 Figure 4: Testing the North Side of Snake Creek ...... 22 Figure 5: Exposing Rock Feature ...... 22 Figure 6: Artifacts from EcMh-66 ...... 23 Figure 7: Location of New Archaeological Site, EcMh-66 and extent of investigations ...... 24 Figure 8: Crew Conducting Pedestrian Survey in Harvested Canola Field ...... 25 Figure 9: Birdtail River Crossing...... 26 Figure 10: Shovel Testing along Upper Terraces on West Side of Assiniboine Valley ...... 27 Figure 11: Shovel Testing along Small Ridges in SW-19-16-26W ...... 28 Figure 12: Natural Treed area in SE-23-16-27W ...... 29 Figure 13: Snake Creek Valley; View from Upper Terrace ...... 30 Figure 14: Location of Archaeological Site, EdMi-7 ...... 33 Figure 15: Upper Edge of Assiniboine River Terrace (testing along edge of treeline) ...... 34 Figure 16: Artifacts Found from EdMi-7; amethyst bottle glass, lead and animal bone ...... 34 Figure 17: Shovel Testing Along West Bank of Assiniboine River ...... 35

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1: Project Study Area and Final Preferred Route ...... 2 Map 2: Heritage Predictive Model ...... 13

vi Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

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

The Project consists of the construction of a new ROW. The ROW will be 40 to 60 meters wide and will run from the Birtle Station to the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border for a distance of approximately 46 km (Map 1 and Appendix A). The current ROW will cut through 59 quarter sections. The Project has undergone a route selection process during which a number of variables for three alternative routes originally proposed through 58 quarter sections were refined into a single Preliminary Preferred Route.

1 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Map 1: Project Study Area and Final Preferred Route

2 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

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

Heritage resources are considered a Valued Component (VC) that helps characterize the effects of a Project. This includes tangible material culture, such as artifacts or animal remains, as well as intangible culture, which may be linked to the physical remains left behind or natural landscape of an area. The Project is located in an area that is traditional territory to First Nation and Métis communities who have a deep connection to the land. These connections include “heritage, historic, cultural and sacred sites.” Since all heritage resources are protected under The Act, all are considered under a single VC.

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

3.0 CHARACTERIZATION STUDY

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

3.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

The Project is situated about 150 km north of the Canada-United States boundary and extends from the Saskatchewan border east to the town of Birtle, MB. There is one First Nation community, Gambler First Nation, directly in the study area, with Waywayseecappo First Nation, Birdtail Sioux Dakota Nation, Canupawakpa Dakota First Nation and Sioux Valley Dakota Nation located within a 90 km of the study area.

The study area is located in the Aspen Parkland ecoregion, part of the Prairies ecozone, which extends in a broad arc from southwestern Manitoba, northwestward through Saskatchewan to its northern apex in central Alberta. The climate is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover. The ecoregion is classified as having a transitional grassland ecoclimate, which is now mostly farmland, but in its native state, the landscape was characterized by trembling aspen, oak groves, mixed tall shrubs and intermittent fescue grasslands. This broad plains region, underlain by Cretaceous shale, is

3 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018 covered by undulating to kettled calcareous, glacial till with significant areas of level lacustrine and hummocky to ridged fluvioglacial deposits. Dominant soils in the area are Chernozems characterized by a generally thick surface horizon rich in organic material (Smith, et al 1998:218-219). Due to cultivation, the organic matter content and/or the thickness of the organic-rich surface layer has been reduced in most soils. This area is some of the most productive agricultural lands in the Prairies (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995:93-94); however, a portion of the study area located west in the upland Assiniboine River and Qu’Appelle River valleys is composed of Deltaic sand dunes that are partially to fully vegetated (Hamel and Reimer 2004:2). The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration has been managing the Spy Hill-Ellice Community Pastureland since 1941.

The ecoregion provides major breeding habitat for waterfowl and includes habitat for white-tailed deer, coyote, snowshoe hare, cottontail, red fox, northern pocket gopher, ground squirrel and bird species like sharp-tailed grouse, black-billed magpie. Major waterways include the Assiniboine and Qu’Appelle rivers, Birdtail Creek, Snake Creek, Silver Creek and Beaver Creek.

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

3.2 PALEO‐ENVIRONMENT

The last great Ice Age, known as “Wisconsinan,” was responsible for creating the topography of Manitoba as it is known today. At its highest extent, the ice formed a glacier over 2 km thick over the study region (Ledohoski 2009:10). By 18,000 years ago (yra), the glacier began to melt and by 10,000 yra, it had fully retreated from what is now southwestern Manitoba. As the glacier retreated, it left behind a thick layer of mixed sands, including gravels, stones, and boulders. The glacial melt waters collected along portions of the ice fronts, forming huge lakes. The largest of these glacial lakes was called Glacial Lake Agassiz (Figure 1). The Manitoba Escarpment forms the edge of the extent of Glacial Lake Agassiz and separated the Agassiz basin from the elevated areas to the west (Teller and Last 1981). The high elevation of the study area has made this one of relatively few regions in Manitoba that was not submerged and one of the first for humans to inhabit.

There are four remnant glacial spillway channels located in the study area, and the wide deep wooded valleys show the scale of glacial outwash. The Qu’Appelle River Valley is the longest former spillway found on the Canadian prairies. The Assiniboine spillway was fed by melt waters from Glacial Lake Assiniboine, which was created by a large mass of remnant ice that was left on Porcupine Mountain. The Shell and Birdtail River valleys are smaller former meltwater channels, created as water drained from similar large blocks of stagnant ice left by the receding glacier on Duck and Riding Mountains (Ledohowski 2009: 12- 18).

4 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Figure 1: Maximum Extent of Glacial Lake Agassiz (red box indicating the study area)

Source: University of Notre Dame 2007.

3.3 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3.3.1 Early Precontact Period (Palaeo) 10,000 – 6,000 BP

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

The earliest evidence of human occupation at this time is associated with the archaeological period known as the Palaeo Period. Consisting of Clovis, Folsom and Plano complexes, the first two of these cultures are generally characterized by hunting technology based on large fluted spear points, while the Plano culture is represented by large non-fluted stemmed points. These large points were used by Palaeo peoples to

5 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018 hunt Ice Age megafauna such as mammoth and extinct species of camels and horses. As the climate fluctuated, they shifted their focus to bison. A small number of Palaeo sites have been recovered in Manitoba but all are from surface collections located west of the Manitoba Escarpment.

3.3.2 Middle Precontact Period (Intensive Diversification) 6000 – 2000 BP

The natural environment began to change around 7,500 BP in what is called the Altithermal climatic period, when the temperature gradually rose to levels higher than at present (Antevs 1955:326). This period dates from 7,500-4,000 BP and it is suggested that open grasslands expanded as much as 70 km north of current boundaries (Sheehan 2002; Ritchie 1976, 1978). Human adaptive response to this warmer and more arid climate can be seen in the changes to the archaeological record. The Middle Precontact Period, also known as the Intensive Diversification Period, is characterized by a complete shift in hunting technology from spears to the use of atlatl and large side-notched darts. In addition, the use of boiling pits, bison jumps, increasing trade and the construction of the earliest medicine wheels are characteristic of the Middle Precontact Period(SAS 2012:10; Peck 2011). Cultural complexes include Mummy Cave, Oxbow, McKean and Pelican Lake (Playford 2015:27-28). The subsistence pattern changed to adopt a wider variety of resources and more reliance on plants and smaller animals, although bison and large game continued to be a major source of food. There is also more evidence of extensive trade networks with groups in the Eastern Woodland based on the recovery of shell and copper from a burial in Saskatchewan (Nicholson and Webster 2011:92-93).

3.3.3 Late Precontact Period (Woodland) 2000 – 350 BP

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

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

About 1,000 years later ceramic technology changed to the Terminal Woodland Period, which contains various style types such as Selkirk, Blackduck and Clearwater Lake Punctate, characterized as globular vessels with a thick out flaring lip formed within a mesh or fibre bag. Both Laurel and Blackduck subsistence patterns focused on hunting available medium to small mammals and birds, as well as fishing based on seasonal rounds. While Laurel peoples resided in the plains and subsided based on the available resources there, Blackduck peoples tended towards living within the forests, utilizing those available resources. Blackduck sites in the Parkland ecozone deviate in a number of respects from those sites in forests. Not only was bison the major source of food, but certain tool categories are more typically of the Plains proper

6 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018 and there appears to be some form of relationship with the Middle Missouri farming populations (Gibbon 1998: 77).

3.3.4 Contact Period

The strategic location and varied geography of the region resulted in a rich history of Indigenous land use during the Precontact Period and well after first contact. Ray (1974) examined historical evidence regarding the movements and activities of the Assiniboine, Cree and Ojibway. Overlapping economic systems would see the coming together of the boreal forest and Parkland groups during which they would exchange ideas and trade with one another. The multi-cultural aspect of the region was attested to in many fur trade era journals and accounts. For example, James Settee, an Indigenous schoolmaster, was sent out to determine the need for a school in the Fort Ellice area. Settee reported that “Fort Ellice is a very desirable locality for the establishment of a new station. The Missionary might have access to the Sioux, the Assiniboine, the Mandans, the Crees and the Chippeways” (Ledohowski 2009: 25).

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

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

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

7 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018 of the major trade posts in the region located just south of the junction of the Qu’Appelle and Assiniboine rivers on Beaver Creek. The post was located on the upper plateau of the junction of Beaver Creek and Assiniboine River and was in operation from 1831 to 1890.

Figure 2: Western Canada’s Established Trails (University of Alberta Press 2005)

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

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

A large Métis population in the region dates back to the earliest days of the fur trade in the study area, especially around the Fort Ellice area. The ethnogenesis of the Métis Nation was firmly established between 1790 and 1820 A.D. and at this time was intrinsically liked with the fur trade (Teillet 2010). The historical

8 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Métis society was a large, highly mobile network that sprawled across the North West1 using bases of operations such as Sault Ste Marie, Red River, Fort Edmonton, Qu’Appelle Valley, and Green Lake (Teillet 2010). One of these bases was situated near the Fort Ellice, where casual labourers and craftsmen lived in temporary and semi-permanent Métis camps usually along the region’s waterways and overland trails. It was only after the beginning of the twentieth century that a permanent settlement was established at Ste. Madeleine, which is located in Township 18 Range 29.

The Métis were still living a largely subsistence lifestyle of hunting and raising small numbers of horses and cattle at the beginning of the twentieth century. As the railways continued to be built in the Prairies and Anglo-Ontario settlers began purchasing homesteads, the Métis were pushed to the fringes of society. A Catholic mission was set up in St. Lazare in 1895 and the local community built a small log chapel on SW 32-18-29W that operated as an auxiliary mission. The church became the focus of the community. However, by the 1930s the Great Depression made life extremely difficult in Ste. Madeleine and even a bare subsistence was difficult. The sandy soils and drought conditions resulted in little to no pasture and a scarcity of wild game and berries. In 1935, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was passed in Ottawa and land to the northwest and southwest of St. Lazare was identified as land that never should have been homesteaded. Between 1935-1938, it was systematically converted to farmland.

3.3.5 Settlement Period

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

4.0 PREDICTIVE MODEL

A predictive model has been designed to provide an auxiliary understanding of the study area from an archaeological perspective. The objective of a predictive model is to identify areas that have moderate to high potential for heritage resources that should be avoided to the extent possible during the preliminary route selection process. The higher the interest in an area and the greater the probability of archaeological artifacts being present, the less desirable the routeing option would be. The assumption is that ancient peoples had preferences for certain types of environments and selected certain land-based features over others for habitation, resource procurement, and protection. The model employs natural and cultural variables to predict the locations that have the potential to contain archaeological evidence. Using data from public sources such as GeoBase, Manitoba Land Initiative (MLI) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN), as well as Manitoba’s Historic Resources Branch Archaeological Site Inventory, a high-level predictive model was created for the Project Study Area that focused on the Round 1 Alternative Route

1 North West: The North West includes western sub-Arctic of the northern plains; the Northwest Territories as we know it today, north-eastern BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba & north-western Ontario (Teillet 2010: 13). 9 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018 segments (version October 4, 2016). The study area was refined on December 22, 2016 and features were clipped to overlap with the modified extent.

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

 Proximity to known archaeological sites;

 Ground slope;

 Proximity to waterways;

 Soil drainage; and

 Land cover.

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

10 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Table 1: Feature Classes of Five Land‐based Attributes for the Project Predictive Model

Distance from Valuation (based out Archaeological Site (meters) of 1 to 100) High Potential 0-100 60 Medium Potential 101-500 30 Low Potential 501-1000 9 Lowest Potential >1001 1 Sum 100 Valuation (based out Slope Degree of 1 to 100) High Potential 0-2 60 Medium Potential 5-Mar 39 Low Potential >5 1 Sum 100 Distance from Valuation (based out Water body - River (meters) of 1 to 100) High Potential 0-100 50 Medium Potential 101-500 35 Low Potential 501-1000 14 Lowest Potential >1001 1 Sum 100 Valuation (based out Soil Drainage Classification of 1 to 100) High Potential Rapid/Well 55 Medium Potential Imperfect 35 Low Potential Poor/Very poor 9 Lowest Potential Water 1 Sum 100 Valuation (based out Land Cover Classification of 1 to 100) High Potential Forest 45 Medium Potential Agricultural 25 Medium Potential Shrub and grassland 20 Low Potential Urban 9 Lowest Potential Water/Wetland 1 Sum 100

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

11 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Classification was arbitrarily performed using 4 classes utilizing a Jenks (natural breaks) classification methodology.

Table 2: Overall Weighted Ranking of Each Factor Layer (out of 100%)

Factor Layer Percentage Archaeological Site 40% Slope 10% Water body 30% Soil Drainage 10% Land Cover 10% Total 100

The results of the predictive model showed certain segments had preference over others (Map 2). The results were provided to Manitoba Hydro to use in the route selection process. Known heritage sites were avoided during the routeing process.

While predictive models provide a technical and quantitative analysis of an area, they should not be considered a definitive source on the cultural or historical use of an area. It is a tool to supplement the understanding of the past and is limited to the material remains left behind by a cultural group. It is imperative that a ground-truthing field program is implemented to test the validity of the model and refine it for ongoing use through construction of the project. EcMh-63, for example, was not captured in earlier datasets during the production of the predictive model and therefore not included as it was recently recorded.

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

12 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Map 2: Heritage Predictive Model

13 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

5.0 HERITAGE RESOURCE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.1 PRE‐INVESTIGATION

5.1.1 Previously Registered Heritage Resources

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

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

Table 3: List of Centennial Farms in Project Study Area

Legal Centennial Farm Original Date Description Barteaux Family Farm 1907 S 18-16-27 W Nettle Family Farm 1904 E 14-17-27 W Prescott Family Farm 1887 SE 30-17-27 W Falloon Family Farm 1881 NW 28-17-28 W Laycock Family Farm 1891 SE 36-17-28 W Hamilton Family Farm 1881 SW 6-18-27 W Falloon Family Farm 1882 SW 10-18-28 W Falloon Family Farm 1885 SE 10-18-28 W Pizzey Family Farm 1904 NE 16-18-28 W Bradshaw Family Farm 1908 SW 12-19-29 W Lyon Family Farm 1903 E 17-19-28 W Joyce Family Farm 1889 NW 16-19-28 W

14

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Table 4: List of Plaques in Project Study Area

Plaque ID Plaque Name Legal Description PLAQ1119 St. Albans Church and Blenheim Cemetery SW13-15-27W PLAQ890 Oxford Schools SE19-16-27W PLAQ1366 Fort Ellice NW33-16-28W PLAQ812 Morseby School NW31-17-27W PLAQ1747 Falloon Family NE32-17-28W PLAQ2389 Foxwarren Memory Garden SW4-18-27W PLAQ1751 Hamilton Farm SW6-18-27W PLAQ2486 Memory Garden, Foxwarren School Bell NW of NW 4-8-27 PLAQ418 Foxwarren School Bell NE5-18-27W PLAQ1172 Ste. Madeleine SE32-18-29W PLAQ55 Baldwin School NW5-19-28W PLAQ1438 Wayside Store NE18-19-29W PLAQ1430 Crosby School SW20-19-29W

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

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

5.1.2 Heritage Resources in Proximity to Preliminary Preferred Route

The results of the inventory review showed six archaeological sites within 500 metres of the PPR. Two additional sites were identified by the HRB immediately prior to the 2017 field program, EcMh-23 and EcMh- 63, which are 600 meters from the PPR and were included in the assessment. All of the eight sites within 600 meters of the PPR were of disturbed context found in open agricultural fields (Table 5).

Six of the eight sites date to the Precontact Period. One of these, EcMh-24, found by Pierre Huberdeau, is a rich but disturbed site that contained artifacts from all three cultural periods, including the rarely represented Palaeo period and evidence of clay ceramics from the Woodland period. The Archaic Period is well-represented in four of the sites, EcMh-19, EcMh-26, EcMh-28 and EcMh-63. One site can only be dated

15

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018 to the general Pre-contact Period due to the presence of lithic flakes. The two remaining sites have undetermined cultural affiliation and it is not known what types of artifacts were recovered or who originally found and recorded the sites.

Table 5: Listing of Registered Archaeological Sites within 600 meters of the PPR

Borden Distance Number Name Site Type Period to PPR EcMg-2 N/A H. Uninterpreted Undetermined Precontact 101 m EcMh-19 N/A H. Uninterpreted Middle Precontact 481 m EcMh-23 N/A H. Uninterpreted Undetermined 582 m Huberdeau Paleo; Oxbow; Avonlea; Pelican EcMh-24 Cache Site A. Campsite Lake; Woodland 197 m EcMh-26 N/A A. Campsite Pelican Lake (ca. 3300 to 1850 BP) 456 m EcMh-27 N/A H. Uninterpreted Undetermined 314 m EcMh-28 N/A A. Campsite Oxbow; Pelican Lake; Avonlea 397 m Middle Precontact (specifically 3000 EcMh-63 N/A H. Uninterpreted BC to 1 AD) 399 m

One Provincial Plaque is recorded within 500 meters of the PPR (Table 6). Plaque 890 commemorates the Oxford School in Section SE 19-16-27W located 103 meters north of the PPR (Figure 3). This is a monument to the site of the former Oxford School, which operated from 1882 to 1901. The school was relocated half a mile to the north in NE19-16-27W and remained open until 1960. The school building was then relocated and renovated into a private residence (MHS 2017).

Table 6: Listing of Registered Plaques within 500 meters of the PPR

Plaque ID Plaque Name Legal Description PLAQ890 Oxford School SE19-16-27W

16

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Figure 3: Oxford School Plaque (MHS 2017)

5.1.3 Land‐based Selection of Areas of Potential along PPR

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

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

In June 2017, the PPR originally intersected with 58 quarter sections (now 59). InterGroup identified a total of 22 quarter sections for investigation and provide the shapefiles and data to the HRB for review and comment. These quarter sections were chosen based on their high heritage potential determined in correlation with the predictive model. The HRB requested an additional 13 quarter sections for inclusion in the 2017 field program. Subsequently, in addition to the 13 requested by the HRB, InterGroup added an

17

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018 additional 11 quarter sections to be surveyed. This brought the total number of quarter sections to 46 parcels of land. These 46 quarter sections make up 36 km of the 46 km long PPR. Manitoba Hydro implemented their landowner contact process and altered InterGroup to those parcels where permissions had been granted.

A list of the quarter sections that were selected for assessment provided in Table 7.

Table 7: List of Quarter Sections Selected for Heritage Assessment

Section POI_Name Assessed Status NE‐18‐16‐26 W Subsatation Yes Negative SW‐19‐16‐26 W Point 18 Yes Negative SE‐20‐16‐27 W Point 13 Yes Negative SW‐20‐16‐27 W Point 24 Yes Negative SE‐21‐16‐27 W Point 14 Yes Negative SW‐21‐16‐27 W Point 14 Yes Negative SE‐22‐16‐27 W Point 16 Yes Negative Point 15 and Near Registered SW 22‐16‐27 W No N/A Archaeological Site EcMg‐2 SE‐23‐16‐27 W Yes Negative SW‐23‐16‐27 W No N/A SE‐24‐16‐27 W Point 17 No N/A Near Regsitered NE‐24‐16‐28 W Yes Positive, New Site EcMh‐66 Archaeological Site EcMh‐28 Near Regsitered SE‐24‐16‐28 W Yes Negative Archaeological Site EcMh‐28 NE‐25‐16‐28 W Point 11 Yes Negative Near Registered SE‐25‐16‐28 W No N/A Archaeological Site EeMh‐26 Near Registered NE‐35‐16‐28 W No N/A Archaeological Site EcMg‐23 NW‐36‐16‐28 W Yes Negative SW‐36‐16‐28 W Point 9 & 10 Yes Negative NE‐02‐17‐28 W Yes Negative Near Registered SE‐02‐17‐28 W Yes Negative Archaeological Site EcMg‐63

18

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Section POI_Name Assessed Status Near Registered NE‐11‐17‐28 W Yes Negative Archaeological Site EcMh‐19 SE‐11‐17‐28 W Poly 4YesNegative NE‐14‐17‐28 W Point 8YesNegative SE‐14‐17‐28 W Poly 4NoN/A NE‐23‐17‐28 W Point 23 Yes Negative SE‐23‐17‐28 W Yes Negative NE‐26‐17‐28 W Point 22 Yes Positive NE‐35‐17‐28 W No N/A SE‐35‐17‐28 W No N/A NE‐02‐18‐28 W Point 21 No N/A NW‐02‐18‐28 W Point 5NoN/A SE‐02‐18‐28 W Point 2 & 3NoN/A NE‐03‐18‐28 W Point 3YesNegative NW‐03‐18‐28 W Point 20 Yes Negative NE‐05‐18‐28 W Point 2YesNegative NW‐05‐18‐28 W Point 4 & 1NoN/A NE‐01‐18‐29 W Point 19 Yes Negative NW‐01‐18‐29 W Poly 3YesNegative NE‐02‐18‐29 W Poly 3YesPositive, New Site EdMi‐7 NW‐02‐18‐29 W Poly 3YesNegative NE‐03‐18‐29 W Poly 2YesNegative NW‐03‐18‐29 W Poly 2YesNegative NE‐04‐18‐29 W Poly 2NoN/A NW‐04‐18‐29 W Poly 1NoN/A NE‐05‐18‐29 W Poly 1NoN/A NW‐05‐18‐29 W No N/A

Due to border crossing route being originally undetermined, five quarter sections were not initially assessed by the HRB for heritage concerns, including three selected for assessment by InterGroup in July (NE 05-18-29 W, NW 05-18-29 W, and NW 04-18-29 W).

5.2 METHODOLOGY AND OBJECTIVES

An archaeological assessment determines presence of heritage or cultural resources that may be adversely affected by the Project. The assessment occurred over two separate field trips, the first trip occurred between August 21 to 24, 2017 and the second was from October 10 to 13, 2017. Dividing the assessment into summer and fall programs allowed for local Indigenous participation and accounted for crop harvesting across an extensive number of lands within the Study Area. The HRIA occurred under Manitoba Heritage

19

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Permit A33-17. Investigation methods followed the provincially mandated requirements of the HRB and Section 12(2) of The Heritage Resources Act (1986).

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

Pedestrian survey transects were closely spaced, approximately 10 meters apart, and examined the exposed ground surface in the cultivated agricultural portions of the Study Area. A total of 53 shovel test pits were dug over the August and October assessment field trips. Subsurface shovel testing was implemented in areas judiciously selected as having favourable landscape features conducive to locating heritage resources such as hillocks, ridges, or near existing waterways, ponds or sloughs. Test pits measured 50 cm by 50 cm and were excavated to depths between 35 and 65 cm below ground surface to locate in situ2 artifacts or buried cultural horizons. Shovel tests were recorded on detailed shovel test forms, which include relevant information such as vegetation, landmarks, and proximity to water (Appendix D). Additional notes were recorded in notebooks and the fieldwork was photo-documented. Pedestrian survey tracks were recorded using handheld GPS units (Garmin 78S) in geodetic reference system NAD 83. Deep testing was unable to be conducted due to a number of reasons such as biosecurity, environmental considerations or lack of access.

5.3 PHASE I – AUGUST 21 TO 24, 2017

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

5.3.1 SE and NE‐24‐16‐28W Snake Creek (New Archaeological Site, EcMh‐66 “Double Buckle”)

The PPR crosses a small branch of Snake creek in Sections SE and NE-24-16-28. Shovel testing, three tests (n=3) in SE-24-26-28W and sixteen tests (n=16) in NE-24-16-28W, occurred on the south bank in a pasture along the upper terrace spaced 10 meters apart beginning at fence line and extending westward. Cow

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

20

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018 bones were found in one test at a depth of 40 cm; however, these are modern and would not trigger a site designation. A second transect was set back five meters from the first transect and shovel tests were spaced every 10 meters. Shovel testing continued along an elevated ridge located approximately 100 meters south of the creek. The soils consisted of sandy silt and gravel. The crew examined the creek bed and embankment which was dry at the time of survey and criss-crossed with many cow trails. The survey also encompassed the surrounding pasture, which included a registered archaeological site. EcMh-28 is located 600 meters to the west of the ROW and the general pasture consisted of small knolls and depression.

The assessment continued on the north side of Snake Creek in Section NE 24-16-28 with testing implemented along the upper terrace and downslope of the ridge (Figure 4). The north bank is steeper and more elevated than the southern bank with an extensive poplar sapling understory. Testing resulted in finding square machine-cut nails, chinking and a possible retouched quartzite flake. A second shovel test was placed near the first positive test and three more square machine-cut nails were recovered. Testing around these positive locations also returned positive results and included artifact such as historic refined white earthenware, calcined animal bone and two horse harness buckles and a possible Precontact lithic flake (Figure 6). The artifacts indicate that there may have been a historic farm building or barn in this location due to the presence of architectural materials (chinking and nails) (Appendix E). The nails predate the 1900s due to their manufacture. Archival research at the Manitoba Archives has found that the property was first purchased in 1885 by John H. Bartley but plans did not show the location of buildings or barns in the vicinity of the finds.

A pedestrian survey examined the general area within the ROW and noted an unusual landscape feature to the north and west of the testing locations. A channel depression extended approximately 10 meters towards the creek. On the top, one end of a stone cobble pile was noted (Figure 5). Vegetation was cleared away from the rock feature and a shovel test was excavated in the gully below the rock feature. Relatively modern materials were found in the gully (insect poison spray, plastic button, pig tooth, small glass fragment, and tin can fragments) but were not collected. The rock pile and linear depression is likely modern and may be used for drainage.

21

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Figure 4: Testing the North Side of Snake Creek

Figure 5: Exposing Rock Feature

22

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Figure 6: Artifacts from EcMh‐66

23

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Figure 7: Location of New Archaeological Site, EcMh‐66 and extent of investigations

24

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

5.3.2 SW and NW‐36‐16‐28W Canola Field

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

5.3.3 SE‐2‐17‐28W Wheat Field

The next section was an agricultural field that had been recently harvested (Figure 8). The ground surface had fair visibility and a pedestrian survey covered the extent of the ROW which borders highway Provincial Trunk Highway (PTH) 568. Heritage objects were not observed.

Figure 8: Crew Conducting Pedestrian Survey in Harvested Canola Field

5.3.4 SW‐22‐16‐27W and SE and SW‐21‐16‐27W Birdtail River

The Birdtail River is a major waterway located in SE-21-16-27W that has high heritage potential. The river is crossed by PTH 568. Upon arrival at the crossing, it was noted that the banks are incredibly steep and forested. The elevation goes from 450 meters about sea level (MASL) to 490 MASL in a distance of 300 meters. Access down to the river’s edge in SE-21-16-27W was difficult due to the berms created by the

25

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018 highway construction and bridge crossing. There was no appreciable shoreline with a border of willow. The river is shallow and very rocky (Figure 9).

Shovel testing (n=6) occurred on both sides of the river in SE-21-16-27W with negative results. The survey also continued up along the upper terrace on the east side of the Birdtail River with negative results. A gravel extraction borrow pit is located in the quarter section east of the crossing (SW22-16-27W), which halted the survey in that direction. No paleontological resources were noted at the time. The quarter section of SW-21-16-27W was examined via vehicular survey and the area did not contain areas of potential. No heritage resources were encountered.

Figure 9: Birdtail River Crossing

5.3.5 NE and NW‐3‐18‐29W Upper Ridges of Assiniboine River West

Access to the west side of the Assiniboine River proved difficult. There are no organized mile roads, only circuitous roads leading to residences or pastures. The quarter sections of land that were closest to the Assiniboine River were still under crop and therefore assessment of them was deferred. The two adjoining quarter sections heading west were assessed.

The first quarter section, NE-3-18-29W, contained a large treed area and marsh. Shovel tests (n=3) were excavated along the tree line and a pedestrian survey within the tree grove did not result in the discovery of heritage resources. The survey continued up the steep slope of a ridge leading to the roadway. At the

26

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018 top of the ridge, the area is comprised of sandy ridges and has an expansive vista. Shovel testing (n=3) occurred along this ridge overlooking the Assiniboine River Valley (Figure 10).

The survey continued past the road into section NW-3-18-29W where the elevation increased substantially and the area is considerably sandier. The ground surface has excellent visibility with small pockets of jack pine and oak. Heritage objects were not observed.

Figure 10: Shovel Testing along Upper Terraces on West Side of Assiniboine Valley

5.3.6 NE‐5‐18‐28W

A dried-up creek was noted within this fallow agricultural field. The area had been modified through general agriculture use and the creation of a dugout. Pedestrian survey was conducted along the ROW and the east edge of the slight elevation change in the southeast corner of the quarter section. No heritage resources were found in this quarter section.

5.4 HRIA PHASE II – OCTOBER 10 TO 13, 2017

In September 2017, the route was finalized with some alternations. These changes resulted in the transmission line being moved slightly north at the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border. Four quarter sections (NE-05-18-29 W, NW-05-18-29 W, NE-06-18-29 W, and NW-06-18-29 W) were removed from the finalized transmission line, while five quarter sections (SE-07-18-29 W, SW-07-18-29, SE-08-18-29 W, SW-08-18-29

27

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

W, and SW-09-18-29 W) were added to the route. Due to this, the total count of quarter sections increased from 58 to 59 in the final route.

5.4.1 NE‐18‐16‐26W Birtle Transformer Station

The transmission line will originate at an existing transformer station in Section NE-18-16-26W. The existing Birtle South Electrical Station is located 4.8 km south of the Town of Birtle on Highway 83 at the junction with PTH 568. The area has undergone impact from the development of the station and the surrounding land is currently pasture. A pedestrian survey was carried out within the proposed ROW; however, it was noted that the pasture contained large pockets of marsh that had to be skirted around during the survey. A shovel test (n=1) was placed on a slightly elevated area within the field. The soils were gravelly dense clays and had negative results.

5.4.2 SW‐19‐16‐26W Flax Field

The next quarter section contained a small waterway approximately 230 meters north of the proposed ROW. The area consisted of a harvested flax field. Pedestrian surveys of the entire ROW were conducted and shovel tests (n=2) were placed on a series of small ridges in the southwest corner of the field. The pedestrian surveys and shovel tests produced negative results (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Shovel Testing along Small Ridges in SW‐19‐16‐26W

28

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

5.4.3 SE‐23‐16‐27W Canola Field/Treed Area

The next section available for survey consisted of a harvested canola field intersected in the middle by a fallow area that contained a grove of white and black poplar trees and tall grasses. The pedestrian survey of the exposed soils in the field occurred within the ROW. Shovel testing (n=2) was conducted in the undisturbed treed area (Figure 12). Black organic soils and lots of tree roots were encountered in the tests. Heritage objects were not observed.

Figure 12: Natural Treed area in SE‐23‐16‐27W

5.4.4 SE‐22‐16‐27W Wheat Field

The quarter section consisted of a harvested wheat field with fair visibility of the ground surface. Pedestrian survey examined the length of the ROW. No heritage resources were noted. In the extreme southwest corner of the field, there is a grove of poplar trees next to an open fallow area with a relict streambed and a small dugout slough. Two shovel tests (n=2) were excavated on the west upper edge of the slough with negative results.

29

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

5.4.5 SE and SW‐20‐16‐27W Canola Field

The survey covered two adjoining quarter sections consisting of harvested canola fields. The field had fair surface visibility and oil derricks were located across the SW quarter section. A thin strip of willow marked a slight elevation change (approximately 2-3 meters), which was located in the eastern half. The field below had been harvested. The two surrounding fields were exposed with good surface visibility. Shovel tests (n=2) were placed on an elevation change at the 480 meter contour in the SE quarter section, revealing hard-packed gravelly soils. No heritage objects were found.

5.4.6 NE‐25‐16‐28W Wheat Field/Pastureland/Snake Creek

This quarter section was accessed from PTH 568 turning east on mile road 96N and then walking across a harvested wheat field towards the Snake Creek valley. Fencing separated the field from the edge of the terrace overlooking a steep embankment leading down to Snake Creek (Figure 13). Shovel testing (n=2) occurred along the edge of the terrace and soils were sandy and very gravelly. The embankment was too steep to traverse. Testing could not be completed on the south side of this water crossing due to lack of landowner permission. It is recommended testing be done once permission is granted.

Figure 13: Snake Creek Valley; View from Upper Terrace

30

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

5.4.7 NE‐2‐17‐28W Canola Field

The area, much like the majority of the Study Area, was noted to be flat without much elevation change. Pedestrian survey of the harvested canola field did not result in the discovery of heritage resources nor any landscape features of potential that would warrant testing.

5.4.8 NE and NW‐3‐18‐28W Canola Field

These two quarter sections were accessed immediately off of PTH 41 and mile road 103N. Two POI area were identified as having potential and the area was covered via pedestrian survey. The field was a harvested canola field with fair visibility. No heritage resources were noted and testing was not warranted due to the relict creek having undergone modification. The landscape appeared hummocky, likely from drainage put in by farmers. Garbage was strewn around the brush area where the creek was located.

5.4.9 SE‐11‐17‐28W Pasture

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

5.4.10 NE‐11‐17‐28W Canola Field/Marsh

The survey of this section was divided by a large marsh and pond that runs diagonally from southeast to northwest. Pedestrian survey of the plowed areas examined the ground surface. Shovel testing (n=2) occurred in the treed and grassy area bordering the south side of the pond. It was noted that a large berm had been created on this side of the pond comprised of felled trees, boulders and soils giving evidence that some disturbance had occurred to this area. On the north side of the pond, shovel testing (n=2) had to be pushed a bit further back because of marshy and saturated ground closer to the waterway. No heritage materials were found.

5.4.11 NE‐14‐17‐28W Canola Field/Relic Channel

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

5.4.12 SE and NE‐23‐17‐28W Canola Field/Relic Channel

The pedestrian survey found the ground surface in this harvested canola field to have fair visibility. Once again, there were no landscape features that would warrant shovel testing. The survey expanded into the NE quarter section and where another relict channel was noted from imagery. Modern road infrastructure has impacted where the channel may have been and there was no traces in this quarter section where the ROW will be situated. Heritage materials were not encountered.

31

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

5.4.13 NE‐26‐17‐28W Wheat Field

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

5.4.14 NE‐and NW‐1‐18‐29W Assiniboine River – East

The investigation on the east side of the Assiniboine River occurred on October 12, 2017. The landowner had provided permission to access the quarter section parcels leading towards the upper terrace edge of the Assiniboine River Valley. A pedestrian survey examined the area beginning with the first quarter section of land, NE-1-18-29W, consisting of dense forest and an understory of shrubs. The area has also seen modification to the landscape with various cut trails and a dugout slough for cattle. This quarter section was found to have no heritage resources.

The second quarter section, NW-1-18-29W, consisted of open agricultural field that had excellent visibility as the field had little topsoil. The grey beige silty loam was noted to be exposed through the topsoil in places. The landowner was currently installing sub-surface irrigation system across both of these parcels, likely a result of the lack of topsoil. No heritage resources were recovered from this quarter section.

5.4.15 NE and NW‐2‐18‐29W Assiniboine River Valley West (New Archaeological Site, EdMi‐7 “Assiniboine Overlook”)

The northeast quarter located on the east side of the Assiniboine River in Section 2-18-29W could only undergo pedestrian survey at its extreme eastern boundary close to the division with quarter section NW- 1-18-29W due to the start of a steep embankment leading down to the Assiniboine River valley. The embankment drops 70 meters in elevation in less than 500 meters. Shovel testing (n=3) occurred along this edge of the upper terrace and a new archaeological site (EdMi-7 “Assiniboine Outlook”) was found (Figure 14).

At the edge of the upper terrace in NE-2-18-29W, a thin strip of grass divided the plowed field and the forested downslope (Figure 15). Testing along this edge, within the ROW, resulted in the discovery of historic materials in all three shovel tests (n=3) excavated. Bottle glass, animal bone, ferrous metal and lead were recovered at depths between 10 and 15 cm below the surface. One piece of glass was amethyst colour indicating a manufacture date of pre-1914 (Figure 16 and Appendix E). Archival research was undertaken for this parcel of land and the owner of the northeast quarter in 1891 was Antoine Desjarlais. The archival materials did not note buildings, trails or other indicators with which the artifacts could be associated.

32

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Figure 14: Location of Archaeological Site, EdMi‐7

33

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Figure 15: Upper Edge of Assiniboine River Terrace (testing along edge of treeline)

Figure 16: Artifacts Found from EdMi‐7; amethyst bottle glass, lead and animal bone

34

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

The survey continued in the NW quarter section which lay across the river at the bottom of the Assiniboine River valley. Evidence of former oxbow channels were noted in the harvested wheat field and soils remained saturated in areas despite drainage efforts of the landowner. A total of four shovel tests (n=4) were distributed on either side of the relict oxbow and another two tests (n=2) were placed at the edge of the current bank of the river (Figure 17). The height of the bank on this side of the river is approximately 3 meters. No heritage resources were recovered from this quarter section.

Figure 17: Shovel Testing Along West Bank of Assiniboine River

6.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

InterGroup in conjunction with the Manitoba’s HRB reviewed the assessment conducted during the 2017 survey and created a list of quarter sections that require no further work at this time and any outstanding future work required (Table 8 and Appendix F).

35

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Table 8: Work to be Completed Prior to Construction

Shovel Tests Quarter Section Results Type of Test Work to Be Done Status and Recommendations Conducted Requiring no further NE‐01‐18‐29‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Requiring no further NE‐02‐17‐28‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time NE‐02‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit POSITIVE ‐ NEW SITE If a tower is proposed outside the previously NE‐02‐18‐29‐W 3Shovel Test Pit Test Footing EdMi‐7 tested area, test the footing site Requiring no further NE‐03‐18‐28‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Requiring no further NE‐03‐18‐29‐W NEGATIVE 6 Shovel Test Pit Requiring no further work at this time work at this time NE‐04‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Test Footing Survey and Test pit Route has been altered, survey and test pit along NE‐04‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit the final route Requiring no further NE‐05‐18‐28‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time NE‐06‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Test Footing If a tower is proposed, test the footing area Requiring no further NE‐11‐17‐28‐W NEGATIVE 4 Shovel Test Pit Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Requiring no further NE‐14‐17‐28‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Requiring no further NE‐18‐16‐26‐W NEGATIVE 1 Shovel Test Pit Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Requiring no further NE‐23‐17‐28‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time POSITIVE ‐ NEW SITE Requiring no further NE‐24‐16‐28‐W 18 Shovel Test Pit Requiring no further work at this time ‐EcMh‐28 work at this time Requiring no further NE‐25‐16‐28‐W NEGATIVE 2 Shovel Test Pit Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Requiring no further NE‐26‐17‐28‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time NE‐35‐16‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit Was flagged for testing by HRB July 11, 2017 ‐ NE‐35‐17‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit If a tower is proposed in close proximity to the NW‐01‐18‐29‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Test Footing new site, test the footing area

NW‐02‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit

Survey and test the east side of the Assiniboine NW‐02‐18‐29‐W NEGATIVE 6 Shovel Test Pit Survey & Test Pit River Requiring no further NW‐03‐18‐28‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Requiring no further NW‐03‐18‐29‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time

NW‐04‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Test Footing If a tower is proposed, test the footing area

Route has been altered, survey and test pit along NW‐04‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit the final route

NW‐05‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit NW‐06‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Test Footing If a tower is proposed, test the footing area

36

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Shovel Tests Quarter Section Results Type of Test Work to Be Done Status and Recommendations Conducted Requiring no further NW‐36‐16‐28‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time 2017 work at this time Requiring no further SE‐02‐17‐28‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time SE‐02‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit Route has been altered, survey and test pit along SE‐07‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit the final route Route has been altered, survey and test pit along SE‐08‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit the final route Requiring no further SE‐11‐17‐28‐W NEGATIVE 2 Shovel Test Pit Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Requiring no further SE‐14‐17‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Requiring no further work at this time work at this time SE‐19‐16‐26‐W N/A 0 N/A Test Footing Test the footing site for the tower Requiring no further SE‐19‐16‐27‐W N/A 0 N/A Requiring no further work at this time work at this time SE‐20‐16‐27‐W NEGATIVE 2 Shovel Test Pit Shovel Test Pit Test pit on West bank of channel Requiring no further SE‐21‐16‐27‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time SE‐22‐16‐27‐W NEGATIVE 2 Shovel Test Pit Shovel Test Pit Test pit the East bank of channel Requiring no further SE‐23‐16‐27‐W NEGATIVE 2 Shovel Test Pit Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Requiring no further SE‐23‐17‐28‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Test pit both banks of the channel and survey SE‐24‐16‐27‐W N/A 0 N/A Shovel Test Pit area SE‐24‐16‐28‐W NEGATIVE 3 Shovel Test Pit Test Footing Test the footing site for the tower Test pit on South side of water crossing and SE‐25‐16‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Shovel Test Pit pedestrian survey the area Requiring no further SE‐26‐17‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Requiring no further work at this time work at this time SE‐35‐17‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit Requiring no further SE‐36‐16‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Route has been altered, survey and test pit along SW‐07‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit the final route Route has been altered, survey and test pit along SW‐08‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit the final route Route has been altered, survey and test pit along SW‐09‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit the final route

SW‐19‐16‐26‐W NEGATIVE 2 Shovel Test Pit Shovel Test Pit Test pit the relic channel in the southeast corner

Requiring no further SW‐19‐16‐27‐W N/A 0 N/A Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Requiring no further SW‐20‐16‐27‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Requiring no further SW‐21‐16‐27‐W NEGATIVE 6 Shovel Test Pit Requiring no further work at this time work at this time Investigate the gravel pit and survey and test pit SW‐22‐16‐27‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit the quarter section SW‐23‐16‐27‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and test pit Requiring no further SW‐24‐16‐27‐W N/A 0 N/A Requiring no further work at this time work at this time SW‐36‐16‐28‐W NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Test Footing If tower is proposed, test the footing area

37

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Of the 59 quarter sections, 28 require no further investigation at this time (Table 9). Twenty-two (n=22) require pedestrian survey and/or subsurface testing and eight (n=9) require that the location of the tower foots be tested prior to construction activities (Table 8).

Pre-construction recommendations for the ROW of the Project include:

1. Additional testing at quarter sections (n=8) and assessment of quarter sections (n=23) not investigated during the 2017 field season;

2. Shovel testing of the tower foot locations within eight (n=9) selected quarter sections;

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

4. It is recommended that an archaeologist monitor tower footing excavations within 100 meters of major waterways, at the two newly identified registered archaeological sites, EcMh-66 and EdMi-7, and at any previously registered heritage resources sites in the area.

Registered archaeological sites and locations of moderate to high heritage potential will be added to the Environmental Protection Plan for avoidance. Mitigation measures will be developed to manage these areas during construction. A Culture and Heritage Protection Plan will be developed to outline key actions in the case of newly discovered culture or heritage resources during clearing or construction.

38

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

7.0 REFERENCES

Antevs, E. 1955 Geologic Climatic Dating in the West. American Antiquity 20:317-335.

University of Alberta Press 2005 Atlas of Alberta Railways. Maps. Western Canada’s Established Trails. Accessed June 6, 2018. http://railways.library.ualberta.ca/Maps-2-1-2/

Bird. R. 1961 Ecology of the Aspen Parkland of Western Canada in Relation to Land Use. Contribution no. 27, Research Station. Research Branch Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa. Accessed Nov 21, 2016 http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/aac-aafc/agrhist/A43-1066-1961- eng.pdf

Ecological Stratification Working Group (Canada) 1995 A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa/Hull. Accessed Nov. 21, 2016 http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/ecostrat/index.html

Gibbon, G. K. Ames (eds.) 1998 Archaeology of Prehistoric Native America: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis, New York.

Hamel, C. and E. Reimer 2004 St. Lazare Area of Manitoba: A Biodiversity Hotspot. Blue Jay vol 62:203-210. Online document accessed Nov 18, 2017. https://www.gov.mb.ca/sd/cdc/pdf/stlazare.pdf

Hind, H. Y. 1971 Narrative of the Canadian Red River Exploring Expedition of 1857 and of the Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition of 1858. M.G. Hurtig Ltd., Edmonton.

Kermoal, N. 2007 Métis Trails of Western Canada. Encyclopedia of French Cultural Heritage in North America. Accessed Oct 31, 2017 http://www.ameriquefrancaise.org/en/article- 488/M%C3%A9tis_Trails_of_Western_Canada_.html

39

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Ledohowski, E. 2009 The Heritage Landscape of the West Riding Mountain Study Region of Southwestern Manitoba. Unpublished manuscript, Historic Resources Branch, Manitoba Culture, Heritage & Tourism. Ms on file Manitoba Historic Resources Branch, Wpg, MB.

Manitoba Government Heritage Resources Act 2017 Historic Sites of Manitoba: Oxford School No. 257 (Municipality of Prairie View). Accessed Nov 20, 2017 http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/sites/oxfordschool.shtml

Nicholson, B. and S. Webster 2011 Human Ecology of the Canadian Prairie Ecozone ca 3000 BP: Post Hypsithermal Adaptations to the Canadian Prairie Ecozone. In Human Ecology of the Canadian Prairie Ecozone 11,000-300 BP, edited by B.A. Nicholson, pp 81-98, CPRC Press, Regina, SK.

North Shore Archaeology 2013 Archaeological Investigations of Fort Ellice and other Archaeological Sites near the St. Lazare Region of Manitoba. For the Nature Conservancy of Canada. Heritage Permit A30-13. MS on file Historic Resources Branch, Winnipeg, MB.

Peck, Trevor 2011 Light from Ancient Campfires: Archaeological Evidence for Native Lifeways on the Northern Plains. AU Press, Athabasca University.

Peers, Laura 1994 The Ojibwa of Western Canada, 1780-1870. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, MB.

Playford, T. 2015 An Examination of Species Diversity and Bison Processing Intensity Contextualized within an Aboriginal Seasonality Framework for Late Precontact Sites on the Canadian Northeastern Plains. Doctoral Thesis, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba.

Ray, A. 1974 Indians in the Fur Trade: Their Role as Trappers, Hunters, and Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay, 1660-1870. University of Toronto Press Inc.

Ritchie, J. C. 1976 The Late-Quaternary Vegetation History of the Western Interior of Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany 54:1793-1818. 1978 Postglacial Vegetation of Canada. Cambridge University Press.

40

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Saskatchewan Archaeological Society 2012 A Guide to Saskatchewan Archaeology. Compiled by K. Steuber and D. Huynh. Accessed Nov 20, 2017 http://thenhier.ca/sites/default/files/2012GuideToSaskArchaeology.pdf 2010 A Teaching Guide to Saskatchewan Archaeology: Companion Document to Incorporating Archaeology into Lesson Plans: Educational Outcomes from the Saskatchewan Curriculum – Grades Four through Nine. Saskatoon, SK. Accessed Sept 29, 2017. http://thenhier.ca/sites/default/files/TheArchaeologyofSaskatchewan.pdf

Sheehan, M.S. 2002 Dietary Responses to Mid-Holocene Climatic Change. North American Anthropologist 40(153):117-143.

Smith, R.E., H. Veldhuis, G.F. Mills, R.G. Eilers, W.R. Fraser and G. W Lelyk 1998 Terrestrial Ecozones, Ecoregions, and Ecodistricts of Manitoba, An Ecological Stratification of Manitoba’s Landscapes. Technical Bulletin 98-9E. Land Resource Unit, Brandon Research Centre, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Winnipeg, MB.

Petch, V., L. Larcombe, D. Ebert, K.D. McLeod, G. Senior, M. Singer 2001 End of Field Season Report Testing the F1 Archaeological Predictive Model. Manitoba Model Forest. Accessed Jan 19, 2017 http://www.manitobamodelforest.net/publications/Archaeological%20Predictive%20Model%20- %20Final%20Report%20on%20Field%20Testing.pdf

Teillet, J. 2010 The People and Territory of the Metis Nation. Presentation at the The Powley Legacy: Mapping the History of Métis Nation Rights July 16-17, 2010, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Accessed Oct 31, 2017. http://metisportals.ca/MetisRights/wp/wp-content/uploads/The-People-and-Territory-of- the-Metis-Nation-2010.pdf

Teller, J. T. and W. M. Last, 1981 Late Quaternary history of Lake Manitoba, Canada: Quaternary Research vol. 16 pp 97-116.

University of Alberta Press 2005 Western Canada’s Established Trails. Settlement of Western Canada: Before the Railway: Trails, Canoes and York Boats, Atlas of Alberta Railways. The University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Alberta. Accessed Jan 11, 2017. http://railways.library.ualberta.ca/Maps-2-1-2/

University of Notre Dame. 2007 Depositional Landforms. Course Lab Notes. Accessed Oct 31, 2017. https://www3.nd.edu/~cneal/PlanetEarth/Lab-Glaciation/10.6.jpg

41

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

APPENDIX A: Study Area Maps

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

A-1 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

A-2 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

APPENDIX B: Heritage Permit A33‐17

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

APPENDIX C: List of Archaeological Sites in Project Study Area

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Borden Common Name Site Type Cultural Affiliation # Condition EcMg-1 Cleghorn Hill A. Campsite Archaic; Woodland Disturbed Name Not EcMg-2 H. Uninterpreted Available Precontact Disturbed Name Not EcMg-5 A. Campsite Available Woodland Disturbed Name Not EcMg-6 H. Uninterpreted Available Precontact Disturbed Name Not EcMg-8 A. Campsite Available Archaic Disturbed Name Not EcMg-9 A. Campsite Available Precontact Disturbed Name Not EcMh-1 A. Campsite Available Undetermined Disturbed EcMh-10 Fort Ellice 2 Site B. Permanent Settlement Historic Disturbed EcMh-11 Plante Site A. Campsite Archaic; Woodland Disturbed Name Not EcMh-12 H. Uninterpreted Available Archaic Disturbed Name Not EcMh-13 A. Campsite Available Precontact Disturbed Name Not EcMh-14 H. Uninterpreted Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMh-15 H. Uninterpreted Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMh-16 H. Uninterpreted Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMh-17 A. Campsite Available Woodland Disturbed Name Not EcMh-19 H. Uninterpreted Available Archaic Disturbed Name Not EcMh-2 A. Campsite Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMh-20 H. Uninterpreted Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMh-21 H. Uninterpreted Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMh-22 H. Uninterpreted Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMh-23 H. Uninterpreted Available Undetermined Disturbed Huberdeau Cache Paleo; Archaic; EcMh-24 A. Campsite Site Woodland Disturbed Name Not EcMh-25 H. Uninterpreted Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMh-26 A. Campsite Available Archaic Disturbed Name Not EcMh-27 H. Uninterpreted Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMh-28 A. Campsite Available Archaic Disturbed

C-1 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Borden Common Name Site Type Cultural Affiliation # Condition Name Not EcMh-29 E. Workshop Available Precontact Disturbed M. Fur Trade Post; A. EcMh-3 Fort Ellice I Campsite Archaic; Historic Disturbed Name Not EcMh-30 H. Uninterpreted Available Precontact Disturbed EcMh-31 Broken Shock Trail A. Campsite Precontact Disturbed Name Not EcMh-32 A. Campsite Available Archaic Disturbed Paleo; Archaic; EcMh-33 Junction H. Uninterpreted Woodland Disturbed Name Not EcMh-34 A. Campsite Available Late Woodland Disturbed Paleo; Archaic; EcMh-35 H. Laferrier Site A. Campsite Woodland Disturbed EcMh-36 D. Simard Site H. Uninterpreted Precontact Disturbed EcMh-37 Fluted Site A. Campsite Paleo Disturbed EcMh-38 Axe Site A. Campsite Archaic Disturbed EcMh-39 Parallel Site A. Campsite Paleo; Archaic Disturbed Name Not EcMh-4 A. Campsite Available Woodland; Historic Disturbed Name Not EcMh-40 I. Isolated Find Available Precontact Disturbed EcMh-41 Little Beauty I. Isolated Find Precontact Disturbed Name Not Paleo; Archaic; EcMh-42 A. Campsite Available Woodland Disturbed EcMh-43 Assiniboine Hearth I. Isolated Find Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMh-46 A. Campsite Available Precontact Disturbed EcMh-47 Midsection Site I. Isolated Find Paleo Disturbed EcMh-48 Scraper A. Campsite Precontact Disturbed Name Not EcMh-5 A. Campsite Available Woodland; Historic Disturbed Slightly EcMh-53 Dune Track Site I. Isolated Find Precontact Disturbed Slightly EcMh-54 Edge Of Dune Site I. Isolated Find Precontact Disturbed Slightly EcMh-55 Texas Gate Site I. Isolated Find Precontact Disturbed Slightly EcMh-56 Farmer Field Site A. Campsite Precontact Disturbed Slightly EcMh-57 Farmer Field Site 2 I. Isolated Find Precontact Disturbed Beaver Creek Slightly EcMh-58 I. Isolated Find Cultivation 1 Precontact Disturbed Beaver Creek Slightly EcMh-59 A. Campsite Cultivation 2 Precontact Disturbed

C-2 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Borden Common Name Site Type Cultural Affiliation # Condition Name Not EcMh-6 A. Campsite Available Archaic Disturbed Beaver Creek EcMh-60 I. Isolated Find Cultivation 3 Historic Disturbed EcMh-61 Cross Alignment G. Petroform Precontact None Name Not EcMh-7 A. Campsite Available Historic Disturbed Jackson Medal EcMh-8 F. Burial Burial Site Historic Very Disturbed Name Not Archaic; Woodland; EcMh-9 A. Campsite Available Historic Disturbed Name Not EcMi-10 A. Campsite Available Undetermined Disturbed Partly EcMi-11 Peter Lepine Site A. Campsite Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMi-12 A. Campsite Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMi-13 A. Campsite Available Woodland Disturbed EcMi-14 Pumpkin Plain H. Uninterpreted Precontact Disturbed Partially EcMi-15 Grasshopper Site A. Campsite Precontact Disturbed Name Not EcMi-16 A. Campsite Available Precontact Disturbed EcMi-17 Chip Stop E. Workshop Precontact Disturbed Partially EcMi-18 Picture Perfect H. Uninterpreted Precontact Disturbed Paleo; Archaic; EcMi-19 Huberdeau Pasture A. Campsite Woodland Disturbed EcMi-2 Hayden Farm Site I. Isolated Find Undetermined Disturbed Name Not Slightly EcMi-3 A. Campsite Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMi-4 A. Campsite Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not Slightly EcMi-5 I. Isolated Find Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMi-6 A. Campsite Available Undetermined Undisturbed Name Not EcMi-7 I. Isolated Find Available Undetermined Disturbed Name Not EcMi-8 A. Campsite Available Undetermined Disturbed EcMi-9 The Fouillard Site A. Campsite Undetermined Disturbed Beaver Creek EdMh-58 I. Isolated Find Cultivation 1 Undetermined Unknown EdMi-1 Smart Site A. Campsite Woodland Disturbed Partially EdMi-2 Deerhorn Valley #1 H. Uninterpreted Woodland Disturbed EdMi-3 Deerhorn Valley #2 H. Uninterpreted Precontact Disturbed C-3 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Borden Common Name Site Type Cultural Affiliation # Condition EdMi-4 Deerhorn Valley #3 H. Uninterpreted Precontact Disturbed Ste. Madeleine Late To Recent Mostly EdMi-5 F. Burial Cemetery Historic Undisturbed EdMi-6 Cox Site A. Campsite Archaic Disturbed

C-4 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

APPENDIX D: Shovel Test Forms

Result Extent ‐ Zone Extent ‐ Depth Distance to Current Tree Soil STP ID STP Number (Postive/ Easting Northing Date Elev. (m) East/ Aspect Slope (°) Vista (°) Ground Cover Disturbance Comment (NAD 83) North/ (cm) Water (m) Cover Negative) West (cm) South (cm) Strata Depth (cm) Description Oh 0 to 7 Root mat; dry Snake Creek Branch Grasses, White Poplar A7 to 23 Black organic; dry south side 4530 TPLL1 Positive 343573 5583278 14 August 22, 2017 461 36 50 54 North 3 ‐ 5° 360 ‐ 271° Rocks and Cobbles pastureland (Trembling Aspen) Grey white, silty loam; Transect 1 B23 to 54 very dry Cow bone recovered Oh 0 to 4 Root mat; dry Snake Creek Branch Grasses, White Poplar A4 to 30 Dark grey silty clay; dry south side 4531 TPLL2 Negative 343550 5583293 14 August 22, 2017 475 47 52 44 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 10 Not Applicable pastureland (Trembling Aspen) Grey rocky hardpacked Transect 1 B30 to 44 loam; dry L. Bobbie, L. Sousa Oh 0 to 4 Root mat; dry Snake Creek Branch Dark grey hardpacked silt; Grasses, White Poplar A4 to 50 south side 4532 TPLL3 Negative 343561 5583276 14 August 22, 2017 470 52 48 50 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Not Applicable dry pastureland (Trembling Aspen) Transect 1 Olive grey hardpacked silt B50 L. Bobbie, L. Sousa loam; dry Oh 0 to 6 Root mat; dry Snake Creek Branch Grasses, White Poplar 4533 TPLL4 Negative 343540 5583287 14 August 22, 2017 468 45 45 50 North 3 ‐ 5° 360 ‐ 271° 20 Not Applicable Dark grey silty loam south side pastureland (Trembling Aspen) A6 to 50 hardpacked; dry Transect 2 Oh 0 to 1 Grass root mat; dry Grey organic sand soil; A1 to 13 Hardpacked, dry, Elevated ridge south Grasses, nonfriable of Snake Creek 4534 TPLB01 Negative 343556 5583202 14 August 22, 2017 476 49 49 54 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 100 pastureland, wild Not Applicable Rocks and Cobbles Light beige sandy soil; Dry branch sage B13 to 35 hardpacked, nonfriable L. Bobbie Mottled sand gravel C35 to 54 cobbles; dry Oh 0 to 4 Root mat; dry Snake Creek branch White Poplar 4535 TPLB02 Negative 343582 5583335 14 August 22, 2017 474 54 54 41 South 3 ‐ 5° 360 ‐ 271° 35 Grasses, rose Tree/ Vegetation Grey silty loam; dry north side (Trembling Aspen) A4 to 41 nonfriable hardpacked L. Bobbie Oh 0 to 11 Root mat; dry Snake Creek branch Black silty loam; dry Grasses, blueberry, White Poplar A11 to 22 north side 4536 TPLB03 Positive 343581 5583346 14 August 22, 2017 471 58 48 44 South 3 ‐ 5° 360 ‐ 271° 40 Tree/ Vegetation nonfriable creamy peavine (Trembling Aspen) Chinking at 20cm dbs Grey silty loam; dry B22 to 44 L. Bobbie nonfriable Golden rod, thistle, Oh 0 to 5 Root mat; wet Assiniboine River White Poplar 4537 TPLB04 Negative 330867 5598435 14 August 23, 2017 399 48 47 50 East 0 ‐ 2° 180 ‐ 91° grasses, edge of Tree/ Vegetation Black loamy soil; moist, Valley west side (Trembling Aspen) A5 to 50 wheat field slightly friable Bone fragment 34cm Oh 0 to 1 Root mat; dry Grasses, poison ivy, Assiniboine River Paper Birch 4538 TPLB05 Negative 330487 5598463 14 August 23, 2017 422 50 44 42 East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° purple aster, Not Applicable A1 to 19 Beige grey sand soil; dry Valley upper terrace (White) reindeer lichen L. Bobbie B 19 Brown sand; dry Snake Creek branch Oh 0 to 6 Root mat; dry, nonfriable north Grasses, rose, White Poplar Grey silty loam; dry Burnt glass, calcined 4539 TPLB06 Positive 343575 5583344 14 August 23, 2017 473 47 53 46 South 3 ‐ 5° 360 ‐ 271° 40 Not Applicable A6 to 24 creamy peavine (Trembling Aspen) nonfriable hardpacked bone 6‐12cmdbs, Beige silty loam; dry, horse harness buckle B24 to 46 nonfriable 12cmdbs Snake Creek branch Oh 0 to 6 Root mat; dry, nonfriable north Grasses, rose, White Poplar Grey silty loam; dry Burnt glass, calcined 4539 TPLB06 Positive 343575 5583344 14 August 23, 2017 473 47 53 46 South 3 ‐ 5° 360 ‐ 271° 40 Not Applicable A6 to 24 creamy peavine (Trembling Aspen) nonfriable hardpacked bone 6‐12cmdbs, Beige silty loam; dry, horse harness buckle B24 to 46 nonfriable 12cmdbs Snake Creek branch Oh 0 to 6 Root mat; dry, nonfriable north Grasses, rose, White Poplar Grey silty loam; dry Burnt glass, calcined 4539 TPLB06 Positive 343575 5583344 14 August 23, 2017 473 47 53 46 South 3 ‐ 5° 360 ‐ 271° 40 Not Applicable A6 to 24 creamy peavine (Trembling Aspen) nonfriable hardpacked bone 6‐12cmdbs, Beige silty loam; dry, horse harness buckle B24 to 46 nonfriable 12cmdbs Result Extent ‐ Extent ‐ Zone Depth Distance to Current Tree Soil STP ID STP Number (Postive/ Easting Northing Date Elev. (m) East West North Aspect Slope (°) Vista (°) Ground Cover Disturbance Comment (NAD 83) (cm) Water (m) Cover Negative) (cm) South (cm) Strata Depth (cm) Description Snake Creek branch Oh 0 to 6 Root mat; Dry, nonfriable north Grasses, rose, White Poplar Grey silty loam; dry Burnt glass, calcined 4539 TPLB06 Positive 343575 5583344 14 August 23, 2017 473 47 53 46 South 3 ‐ 5° 360 ‐ 271° 40 Not Applicable A6 to 24 creamy peavine (Trembling Aspen) nonfriable hardpacked bone 6‐12cmdbs, Beige silty loam; dry, horse harness buckle B24 to 46 nonfriable 12cmdbs Oh 0 to 3 Root mat; dry Dark grey silt loam; dry Birdtail River East Grasses, thistle; A3 to 33 4540 TPLB07 Negative 348321 5582331 14 August 24, 2017 446 45 48 46 West 0 ‐ 2° 180 ‐ 91° 15 Willow Not Applicable nonfriable Natural clam shells chokecherry Light grey silt loam; dry L. Bobbie B33 to 46 nonfriable Oh 0 to 5 Root mat; dry Dark grey silty loam; dry Grasses, thistle, White Poplar A5 to 32 Birdtail River East 4541 TPLB08 Negative 348341 5582349 14 August 24, 2017 449 45 44 46 West 0 ‐ 2° 180 ‐ 91° 35 Tree/ Vegetation nonfriable chokecherry (Trembling Aspen) L. Bobbie Light grey silty sand; dry B32 to 46 nonfriable Oh 0 to 3 Root mat; dry Snake Creek branch Dark brown silty loam; dry north side ‐ trench White Poplar A3 to 38 4542 TPLB09 Positive 343558 5583370 14 August 24, 2017 473 50 38 45 South 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 40 Grasses, rose Rocks and Cobbles nonfriable depression (Trembling Aspen) Beige silty loam; dry Modern debris B38 nonfriable L. Bobbie Oh 0 to 1 Root mat; dry Dark brown silt loam; Snake Creek branch Grasses, A1 to 3 4543 TPLS01 Negative 343520 5583243 14 August 22, 2017 472 36 45 53 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 60 Not Applicable Not Applicable moist south side pastureland Light brown silt loam; L. Sousa B30 moist Oh 0 to 5 Root mat; damp Snake Creek branch White Poplar A5 to 7 Ash, charcoal; dry 4544 TPLS02 Positive 343569 5583346 14 August 22, 2017 474 38 50 40 South 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses Tree/ Vegetation north side (Trembling Aspen) Dark grey silty loam; dry B7 to 50 L. Sousa nonfriable Oh 0 to 5 Root mat; damp Snake Creek branch White Poplar A5 to 7 Ash, charcoal; dry 4544 TPLS02 Positive 343569 5583346 14 August 22, 2017 474 38 50 40 South0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses Tree/ Vegetation north side (Trembling Aspen) Dark grey silty loam; dry B7 to 50 L. Sousa nonfriable Oh 0 to 10 Root mat; wet Assiniboine River Grasses, nearby White Poplar 4545 TPLS03 Negative 330876 5598446 14 August 23, 2017 405 42 48 42 East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Not Applicable Dark grey loamy silt; Valley west wheat field (Trembling Aspen) A10 to 42 damp L. Sousa White Poplar Oh 0 to 10 Root mat; damp Assiniboine River 4546 TPLS04 Negative 330463 5598484 14 August 23, 2017 420 45 60 70 East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses Not Applicable (Trembling Aspen) A10 to 70 Sandy; damp Valley terrace west Dark grey, grey silty sandy Oh 0 to 10 loam; dry Snake Creek branch White Poplar Dark black grey loam with 4547 TPLS05 Positive 343576 5583346 14 August 23, 2017 473 42 64 49 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses Not Applicable A10 to 18 north (Trembling Aspen) charcoal L. Sousa Dark brown sandy loam B18 to 22 silt; dry C 22 Light beige sand Dark grey, grey silty sandy Oh 0 to 10 loam; dry Snake Creek branch White Poplar Dark black grey loam with 4547 TPLS05 Positive 343576 5583346 14 August 23, 2017 473 42 64 49 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses Not Applicable A10 to 18 north (Trembling Aspen) charcoal L. Sousa Dark brown sandy loam B18 to 22 silt; dry C 22 Light beige sand Result Extent ‐ Extent ‐ Zone Depth Distance to Current Tree Soil STP ID STP Number (Postive/ Easting Northing Date Elev. (m) East West North Aspect Slope (°) Vista (°) Ground Cover Disturbance Comment (NAD 83) (cm) Water (m) Cover Negative) (cm) South (cm) Strata Depth (cm) Description Dark grey, grey silty sandy Oh 0 to 10 loam; dry Dark black grey loam with Snake Creek branch White Poplar A10 to 18 4547 TPLS05 Positive 343576 5583346 14 August 23, 2017 473 42 64 49 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses Not Applicable charcoal north (Trembling Aspen) Dark brown sandy loam L. Sousa B18 to 22 silt; dry C 22 Light beige sand Dark grey, grey silty sandy Oh 0 to 10 loam; dry Dark black grey loam with Snake Creek branch White Poplar A10 to 18 4547 TPLS05 Positive 343576 5583346 14 August 23, 2017 473 42 64 49 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses Not Applicable charcoal north (Trembling Aspen) Dark brown sandy loam L. Sousa B18 to 22 silt; dry C 22 Light beige sand Dark grey, grey silty sandy Oh 0 to 10 loam; dry Dark black grey loam with Snake Creek branch White Poplar A10 to 18 4547 TPLS05 Positive 343576 5583346 14 August 23, 2017 473 42 64 49 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses Not Applicable charcoal north (Trembling Aspen) Dark brown sandy loam L. Sousa B18 to 22 silt; dry C 22 Light beige sand Grasses, thistle, White Poplar Oh 0 to 5 Root mat; damp Birdtail River 4548 TPLS06 Negative 348319 5582328 14 August 24, 2017 450 54 42 54 West 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 5 Not Applicable willow (Trembling Aspen) A5 to 54 Dark brown silt; damp L. Sousa White Poplar Birdtail River 4549 TPLS07 Negative 348338 5582326 14 August 24, 2017 450 67 45 45 West 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses, thistle Not Applicable Oh (Trembling Aspen) L. Sousa Oh o to 5 Root mat; dry Dark grey loam; dry, Snake Creek branch, Paper Birch A5 to 13 4550 TPLS08 Negative 343569 5583366 14 August 24, 2017 476 50 49 45 South 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses Not Applicable hardpacked north (White) Light grey loam; dry, L. Sousa B13 hardpacked Oh 0 to 5 Root mat; dry Snake Creek branch White Poplar 4551 TPLS09 Negative 343565 5583378 14 August 24, 2017 473 50 55 50 South 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses Not Applicable A5 to 20 Dark grey loam north side (Trembling Aspen) B20 to 50 Light grey loam L. Bobbie Oh 0 to 10 Root mat; dry Grasses, Snake Creek branch 4552 TPAF01 Negative 343565 5583281 14 August 22, 2017 458 50 44 74 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 24 N/A Not Applicable A10 to 27 Dark organic soil; dry pastureland A. Flett, R. Sanderson B27 to 74 Grey silty clay; dry Oh 0 to 7 Root mat; dry Snake Creek branch Grasses, White Poplar 4553 TPAF02 Negative 343557 5583288 14 August 22, 2017 467 54 50 50 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Rocks and Cobbles A7 to 30 Dark organic soil; dry south side pastureland (Trembling Aspen) B30 to 50 Grey silt with rocks; dry A. Flett, R. Sanderson Oh 0 to 5 Root mat; dry Dark oragnic silt; dry, Snake Creek branch Grasses, White Poplar A5 to 40 4554 TPAF03 Negative 343569 5583275 14 August 22, 2017 467 56 43 60 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 22 Not Applicable hardpacked south side pastureland (Trembling Aspen) A. Flett, R. Sanderson B40 to 60 Grey silt; dry, hardpacked Oh 0 to 7 Root mat; dry Dark organic silt; dry, Snake Creek branch Grasses, White Poplar A7 to 51 4555 TPAF04 Negative 343553 5583284 14 August 22, 2017 467 53 53 55 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Not Applicable hardpacked south side pastureland (Trembling Aspen) A. Flett, R. Sanderson B51 to 55 Grey silt; dry, hardpacked Oh 0 to 3 Root mat; dry Snake Creek branch Grasses, White Poplar 4556 TPAF05 Negative 343543 5583226 14 August 22, 2017 470 50 46 50 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 90 Not Applicable A3 to 30 Dark silty; dry south side on pastureland (Trembling Aspen) B30 to 50 Light grey silty soil; dry elevated ridge Oh 0 to 7 Root mat; dry Snake Creek branch Grasses, small Black Poplar 4557 TPAF06 Negative 343550 5583347 14 August 22, 2017 475 50 40 55 South 3 ‐ 5° 360 ‐ 271° 35 Not Applicable A7 to 24 Dark silty; dry north side shrubs (Balsam) B24 to 55 Grey brown silt; dry A. Flett, R. Sanderson Oh 0 to 6 Root mat; dry Snake Creek branch Grasses, rose, small Black Poplar 4558 TPAF07 Positive 343565 5583348 14 August 22, 2017 475 50 47 45 South 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 35 Not Applicable A6 to 22 Dark silty soil; dry north side shrubs (Balsam) B22 to 45 Grey silty soil; dry Metal bar, machine Result Extent ‐ Extent ‐ Zone Depth Distance to Current Tree Soil STP ID STP Number (Postive/ Easting Northing Date Elev. (m) East West North Aspect Slope (°) Vista (°) Ground Cover Disturbance Comment (NAD 83) (cm) Water (m) Cover Negative) (cm) South (cm) Strata Depth (cm) Description Oh 0 to 13 Root mat; wet A13 to 24 Black organic soil; wet Assiniboine River Thistle, grass, edge White Poplar 4559 TPAF08 Negative 330857 5598458 14 August 23, 2017 391 60 46 50 North 0 ‐ 2° 180 ‐ 91° Not Applicable B24 to 38 Dark grey clay; wet, dense Valley of wheat field (Trembling Aspen) A. Flett, R. Sanderson C38 to 50 Light grey clay; wet, dense

Assiniboine River White Poplar 4560 TPAF09 Negative 330446 5598491 14 August 23, 2017 422 52 45 50 South East 0 ‐ 2° 270 ‐ 181° Grass Not Applicable Oh 0 to 50 Sand; dry Valley terrace (Trembling Aspen) A. Flett, R. Sanderson Oh 0 to 9 Root mat; dry Snake Creek branch White Poplar 4561 TPAF10 Negative 343562 5583347 14 August 23, 2017 472 55 45 52 South 3 ‐ 5° 180 ‐ 91° 35 Grasses, wild rose Not Applicable A9 to 19 Dark silty clay; dry north side (Trembling Aspen) B19 to 52 Grey silty soil; dry A. Flett, R. Sanderson Oh 0 to 25 Root mat; dry Birdtail River 4562 TPAF11 Negative 348292 5582330 14 August 24, 2017 441 50 50 25 East 0 ‐ 2° 180 ‐ 91° 3 Willow, grasses Willow Not Applicable A 25 Rock A. Flett, R. Sanderson Oh 0 to 10 Root mat; dry Birdtail River 4563 TPAF12 Negative 348268 5582346 14 August 24, 2017 442 50 45 50 East 0 ‐ 2° 90 ‐ 46° 24 Grasses Not Applicable Not Applicable Black organic soil; dry, A10 to 50 A. Flett, R. Sanderson friable Oh 0 to 6 Root mat; dry Snake Creek branch, White Poplar A6 to 20 Dark organic silt; dry 4564 TPAF13 Negative 343570 5583362 14 August 24, 2017 475 60 37 44 South 3 ‐ 5° 360 ‐ 271° 58 Grasses Not Applicable north side (Trembling Aspen) B20 to 44 Grey silt; dry A. Flett, R. Sanderson C 44 Rocks Oh 0 to 6 Root mat; dry Snake Creek branch White Poplar 4565 TPAF14 Negative 343549 5583372 14 August 24, 2017 473 60 50 50 South 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Small shrubs Tree/ Vegetation A6 to 15 Dark organic silt; dry north side (Trembling Aspen) B15 to 50 Grey silt; dry A. Flett, R. Sanderson Oh 0 to 1 Grass root; dry Dark grey silty loam; dry, A1 to 11 NE‐18‐16‐26W 4566 TPLT01 Negative 354309 5582077 14 October 11, 2017 515 51 57 31 Not Available 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Harvested oat field Not Applicable Cultivation dense L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Light grey silty loam; dry, B11 to 31 dense Oh 0 to 1 Grass mat; dry Dark grey organic silty A1 to 13 soil, dry friable SW‐19‐16‐26W 4567 TPLT02 Negative 353490 5582207 14 October 11, 2017 512 47 55 34 Not Available 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Alfalfa, grasses Not Applicable Rocks and Cobbles Light brown clay loam; B13 to 28 L. Bobbie, T. Farkas dry, friable Light grey silty clay with C28 gravel; dry, friable Oh 0 to 1 Grass mat; dry Brown grey loam soil; dry, White Poplar A1 to 10 SW‐19‐16‐26W 4568 TPLT03 Negative 353454 5582190 14 October 11, 2017 513 42 48 32 Not Available 3 ‐ 5° 360 ‐ 271° Alfalfa, grasses Not Applicable friable (Trembling Aspen) L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Beige silty, loam; dry, B10 to 32 friable Oh 0 to 4 Grass and root mat; dry Black Poplar SW‐23‐16‐27W 4569 TPLT04 Negative 351201 5582257 14 October 11, 2017 505 43 42 34 Not Available 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses, thistle Tree/ Vegetation Black organic soil; moist, (Balsam) A4 to 34 L. Bobbie, T. Farkas friable Oh 0 to 3 Root mat; dry Black Poplar SW‐23‐16‐27W 4570 TPLT05 Negative 351228 5582253 14 October 11, 2017 505 40 33 26 Not Available 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses, thistle Tree/ Vegetation Black organic loam soil; (Balsam) A3 to 26 L. Bobbie, T. Farkas dry, friable SW‐22‐16‐27W Large boulder in unit Harvested wheat Black organic soil loam; 4571 TPLT06 Negative 349913 5582300 14 October 11, 2017 507 47 36 21 East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Not Applicable Cultivation Oh 0 to 21 prevented deeper field dry friable tesng L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Oh 0 to 4 Root mat; dry Black organic soil loam; Harvested wheat A4 to 13 SW‐22‐16‐27W 4572 TPLT07 Negative 349932 5582308 14 October 11, 2017 507 43 43 34 East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 30 Willow Not Applicable dry, friable field L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Light brown silty loam; B13 to 34 dry, friable Result Extent ‐ Extent ‐ Zone Depth Distance to Current Tree Soil STP ID STP Number (Postive/ Easting Northing Date Elev. (m) East West North Aspect Slope (°) Vista (°) Ground Cover Disturbance Comment (NAD 83) (cm) Water (m) Cover Negative) (cm) South (cm) Strata Depth (cm) Description Oh 0 to 4 Root mat; dry Black and brown mottled Black Poplar A4 to 10 SE‐20‐16‐27W 4573TPLT08 Negative 346493 5582408 14 October 11, 2017 483 44 47 28 Not Available 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271°Grasses Not Applicable soils; dry, friable (Balsam) L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Black organic soil; dry, B10 hardpacked Oh 0 to 6 Root mat; dry Black organic soil loam Black Poplar A6 to 13 SE‐20‐16‐27W 4574 TPLT09 Negative 346497 5582387 14 October 11, 2017 485 47 46 27 Not Available 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses, thistle Rocks and Cobbles silty; dry (Balsam) L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Brown silty clay and B13 gravel; dry hardpacked Oh 0 to 5 Root mat; dry Dark brown silty clay and Snake Creek Upper White Poplar A5 to 27 4575 TPLT10 Negative 343315 5585138 14 October 11, 2017 476 42 45 33 South East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 210 Grasses Rocks and Cobbles sand; dry Terrace (Trembling Aspen) Beige and light beige sand L. Bobbie, T. Farkas B27 to 33 and rock; dry Oh 0 to 4 Root mat; dry A4 to 11 Black organic loam; dry Snake Creek Upper Brown grey silty loam 4576 TPLT11 Negative 343283 5585127 14 October 11, 2017 476 41 42 29 South East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 210 Grasses, alfalfa Not Applicable Rocks and Cobbles B11 to 22 Terrace with gravel; nonfriable L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Light grey silt gravel; C22 nonfriable Oh 0 to 3 Root mat; dry Light brown silty soil with A3 to 14 SE 11‐17‐28W 4577 TPLT12 Negative 342092 5589448 14 October 12, 2017 500 42 52 23 Not Available 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Fallow alfalfa field Not Applicable Tree/ Vegetation gravel; nonfriable L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Light brown silt with B14 gravel; hardpacked Oh 0 to 4 Root mat; dry Light grey silt clay; dry Grasses, fallow field A4 to 21 SE 11‐17‐28W 4578 TPLT13 Negative 342105 5589448 14 October 12, 2017 498 50 49 25 Not Available 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Not Applicable Rocks and Cobbles nonfriable with alfalfa L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Brown silt clay; dry B21 to 25 nonfriable Oh 0 to 4 Root mat; dry White Poplar A4 to 18 Dark grey silty clay; dry NE 11‐17‐28W 4579 TPLT14 Negative 342107 5589962 14 October 12, 2017 492 47 48 32 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 50 Grasses Not Applicable (Trembling Aspen) White grey silty ashy L. Bobbie, T. Farkas B18 to 32 loam; dry hardpacked Oh 0 to 3 Root mat; dry Dark black silty loam clay; White Poplar A3 to 22 NE 11‐17‐28W 4580 TPLT15 Negative 342121 5589929 14 October 12, 2017 494 47 44 34 North 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 75 Grasses, thistle Tree/ Vegetation dry nonfriable (Trembling Aspen) L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Medium grey silty loam B22 to 27 with gravel; nonfriable Oh 0 to 3 Root mat; dry Mottled organic & beige A3 to 11 NE 11‐17‐28W 4581 TPLT16 Negative 342102 5590289 14 October 12, 2017 501 43 43 40 South 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 100 Grasses, alfalfa Not Applicable Not Applicable silt loam; dry nonfriable L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Beige silty clay; dry B11 to 40 nonfriable Oh 0 to 4 Root mat; dry Dark grey silty organic A4 to 20 NE 11‐17‐28W 4582TPLT17 Negative 342123 5590205 14 October 12, 2017 499 44 52 46 South 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 50 Grasses Not Applicable Not Applicable loam; dry nonfriable L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Light Grey ashy silt; dry B20 non fiable Oh 0 to 3 Root mat Dark black organic silt; dry A3 to 20 NE2‐18‐29W 4583 TPLT18 Positive 332544 5598385 14 October 12, 2017 474 44 45 38 West 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 600 Grasses Bur Oak Not Applicable nonfriable L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Beige sand with gravel; B20 to 38 dry nonfriable Result Extent ‐ Extent ‐ Zone Depth Distance to Current Tree Soil STP ID STP Number (Postive/ Easting Northing Date Elev. (m) East West North Aspect Slope (°) Vista (°) Ground Cover Disturbance Comment (NAD 83) (cm) Water (m) Cover Negative) (cm) South (cm) Strata Depth (cm) Description Oh 0 to 3 Root mat Dark brown organic silty A3 to 29 NE2‐18‐29W 4584 TPLT19 Positive 332546 5598404 14 October 12, 2017 475 50 48 49 West 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses Bur Oak Not Applicable soil; dry nonfriable L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Beige sand with gravel; B29 to 49 dry nonfriable Oh 0 to 3 Root mat Dark brown organic silty A3 to 29 NE2‐18‐29W 4584 TPLT19 Positive 332546 5598404 14 October 12, 2017 475 50 48 49 West 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° Grasses Bur Oak Not Applicable soil; dry nonfriable L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Beige sand with gravel; B29 to 49 dry nonfriable Oh 0 to 3 Root mat Dark brown organic silty A3 to 29 NE2‐18‐29W 4584 TPLT19 Positive 332546 5598404 14 October 12, 2017 475 50 48 49 West 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271°Grasses Bur Oak Not Applicable soil; dry nonfriable L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Beige sand with gravel; B29 to 49 dry nonfriable Oh 0 to 3 Root mat Black organic silt soil; dry A3 to 34 NE2‐18‐29W 4585 TPLT20 Positive 332550 5598418 14 October 12, 2017 468 49 55 39 West 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 600 Grasses Bur Oak Not Applicable nonfriable L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Beige sand with gravel; B34 dry nonfriable Oh 0 to 3 Root mat Black organic silt soil; dry A3 to 34 NE2‐18‐29W 4585 TPLT20 Positive 332550 5598418 14 October 12, 2017 468 49 55 39 West 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 600 Grasses Bur Oak Not Applicable nonfriable L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Beige sand with gravel; B34 dry nonfriable Top soil; moist highly Oh 0 to 4 NW2‐18‐29W friable Harvested wheat Assiniboine River 4586 TPLT21 Negative 331133 5598463 14 October 13, 2017 322 53 52 36 East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 25 Not Applicable Not Applicable field Dark brown silt clay; moist Valley West A4 to 36 dense highly friable L. Bobbie, T. Farkas NW2‐18‐29W Harvested wheat Light brown sand; dry Assiniboine River 4587 TPLT22 Negative 331184 5598425 14 October 13, 2017 397 66 57 51 East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 15 Not Applicable Not Applicable Oh 0 to 51 field nonfriable Valley West L. Bobbie, T. Farkas NW2‐18‐29W Harvested wheat Dark brown silty clay; dry Assiniboine River 4588 TPLT23 Negative 331280 5598447 14 October 13, 2017 397 47 51 38 East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 30 Not Applicable Not Applicable Oh 0 to 38 field dense highly friable Valley West L. Bobbie, T. Farkas NW2‐18‐29W Harvested wheat Dark brown silt clay; moist Assiniboine River 4589 TPLT24 Negative 331279 5598428 14 October 13, 2017 397 46 51 32 East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 30 Not Applicable Not Applicable Oh 0 to 32 field dense highly friable Valley West L. Bobbie, T. Farkas Oh 0 to 5 Root mat; dry NW2‐18‐29W 4590 TPLT25 Negative 331515 5598433 14 October 13, 2017 396 46 46 42 East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 20 Grasses, thistle Manitoba Maple Tree/ Vegetation Brown silty clay; dry Assiniboine River A5 to 42 Friable hardpacked west shore Oh 0 to 4 Root mat NW2‐18‐29W 4591 TPLT26 Negative 331515 5598417 14 October 13, 2017 394 60 49 35 East 0 ‐ 2° 360 ‐ 271° 10 Grasses, thistle Manitoba Maple Not Applicable Brown silt clay; dry Assiniboine River A4 to 35 hardpacked friable west shore Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

APPENDIX E: Artifact Catalogue

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Site CatNo Unit DBS Cult_Affil Category Subcat Object Name Object Type Object Portion Material Colour Quant Wgt_g EcMh‐66 1 STP LS02 5‐15 cm Historic ‐ Late Architectural Nail Square Machine Complete Ferrous Brown/rust 1 8.00 EcMh‐66 2 STP LS02 5‐15 cm Historic ‐ Late Architectural Nail Square Machine Shank Ferrous Brown/rust 1 12.70 EcMh‐66 3 STP LB03 20 cm Historic ‐ Late Architectural Chinking Clay Brown/rust 2 1.40 EcMh‐66 4 STP LB06 6‐12 cm Historic ‐ Late Clothing Fasteners Buckle Incomplete Brass Brown 1 31.20 EcMh‐66 5 STP LB06 6‐12 cm Historic ‐ Late Kitchen Tableware Plate Rim Earthenware White 1 3.40 EcMh‐66 6 STP LB06 6‐12 cm Undetermined Faunal Mammalia‐large >55 lbs Undetermined Long Bone Incomplete Bone Black/brown 2 10.00 EcMh‐66 7 STP LB06 6‐12 cm Undetermined Faunal Mammalia‐large >55 lbs Undetermined Long Bone Incomplete Bone White/grey 9 8.80 EcMh‐66 8 STP LS05 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Late Clothing Fasteners Buckle Complete Ferrous Grey/brown 1 10.30 EcMh‐66 9 STP LS05 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Late Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Plastic Black/brown 5 10.90 EcMh‐66 10 STP LS05 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Late Architectural Chinking Clay Brown/rust 2 7.00 EcMh‐66 11 STP LS05 10‐15 cm Undetermined Faunal Mammalia Undetermined Long Bone Incomplete Bone White/grey 1 4.00 EcMh‐66 12 STP LS05 10‐15 cm Pre‐European Contact Lithic Tool ‐ possible Uniface Tip Quartzite Grey 1 2.40

EcMh‐66 13 STP LS10 15 cm Historic ‐ Late Architectural Chinking Clay Brown/rust 3 34.20 EdMi‐07 1 STP 18 10 cm Undetermined Faunal Mammalia Undetermined Incomplete Bone Brown 1 2.60 EdMi‐07 2 STP 20 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Undetermined Kitchen Container Bottle Undetermined Incomplete Glass Colourless 3 4.00 EdMi‐07 3 STP 20 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Pre‐1914 Kitchen Container Bottle Undetermined Incomplete Glass Amethyst 1 0.80 EdMi‐07 4 STP 19 10‐15 cm Undetermined Faunal Mammalia Undetermined Incomplete Bone Brown 1 3.80 EdMi‐07 5 STP 19 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Incomplete Ferrous Rust 1 1.20 EdMi‐07 6 STP 19 10‐15 cm Historic ‐ Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Incomplete Lead Grey 1 3.40

E-1

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

APPENDIX F: Status of Quarter Sections

Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Shovel Tests Quarter Section Referenced Results Type of Test Work to Be Done Status and Recommendations Conducted NE‐01‐18‐29‐W 5.4.14 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey None at this time None at this time 2017 NE‐02‐17‐28‐W 5.4.7 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey None at this time None at this time 2017 NE‐02‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit POSITIVE ‐ NEW SITE NE‐02‐18‐29‐W 5.4.15 3 Shovel Test Pit Test Footing If a tower is proposed outside the previously tested area, test the footing site EdMi‐7 NE‐03‐18‐28‐W 5.4.8 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Shovel Test Pit Returning to Test NE‐03‐18‐29‐W 5.3.5 NEGATIVE 6 Shovel Test Pit None at this time None at this time 2017 NE‐04‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Test Footing Survey and Test pit NE‐04‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Route has been altered, survey and test pit along the final route NE‐05‐18‐28‐W 5.3.6 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey None at this time Will return to Test pit NE‐06‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Test Footing If a tower is proposed, test the footing area NE‐11‐17‐28‐W 5.4.10 NEGATIVE 4 Shovel Test Pit None at this time None at this time 2017 NE‐14‐17‐28‐W 5.4.11 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey None at this time None at this time 2017 NE‐18‐16‐26‐W 5.4.1 NEGATIVE 1 Shovel Test Pit None at this time None at this time 2017 NE‐23‐17‐28‐W 5.4.12 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey None at this time None at this time 2017 POSITIVE ‐ NEW SITE ‐ NE‐24‐16‐28‐W 5.3.1 18 Shovel Test Pit None at this time None at this time 2017 EcMh‐28 NE‐25‐16‐28‐W 5.4.6 NEGATIVE 2 Shovel Test Pit None at this time None at this time 2017 NE‐26‐17‐28‐W 5.4.13 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey None at this time None at this time 2017 NE‐35‐16‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit NE‐35‐17‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Was flagged for testing by HRB July 11, 2017 ‐ Survey and Test pit

NW‐01‐18‐29‐W 5.4.14 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Shovel Test Pit If a tower is proposed in close proximity to the new site, test the footing area, will return to STP

NW‐02‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit

NW‐02‐18‐29‐W 5.4.15 NEGATIVE 6 Shovel Test Pit Survey & Test Pit Survey and test the east side of the Assiniboine River

NW‐03‐18‐28‐W 5.4.8 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey None at this time None at this time 2017 NW‐03‐18‐29‐W 5.3.5 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Shovel Test Pit Returning to Test NW‐04‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Test Footing If a tower is proposed, test the footing area, will return to Survey and Test NW‐04‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Route has been altered, survey and test pit along the final route

NW‐05‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit

NW‐06‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Test Footing If a tower is proposed, test the footing area

F-1 Birtle Transmission Project Heritage Resources Impact Assessment Technical Report Heritage Permit A33-17 August 2018

Shovel Tests Quarter Section Referenced Results Type of Test Work to Be Done Status and Recommendations Conducted

NW‐36‐16‐28‐W 5.3.2 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey None at this time None at this time 2017

SE‐02‐17‐28‐W 5.3.3 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey None at this time None at this time, but Returning to Test SE‐02‐18‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit SE‐07‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Route has been altered, survey and test pit along the final route SE‐08‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Route has been altered, survey and test pit along the final route SE‐11‐17‐28‐W 5.4.9 NEGATIVE 2 Shovel Test Pit None at this time None at this time 2017 SE‐14‐17‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A None at this time None at this time 2017 SE‐19‐16‐26‐W N/A 0 N/A Test Footing Test the footing site for the tower SE‐19‐16‐27‐W N/A 0 N/A None at this time None at this time 2017 SE‐20‐16‐27‐W 5.4.5 NEGATIVE 2 Shovel Test Pit Shovel Test Pit Test pit on West bank of channel SE‐21‐16‐27‐W 5.3.4 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey None at this time None at this time 2017 SE‐22‐16‐27‐W 5.4.4 NEGATIVE 2 Shovel Test Pit Shovel Test Pit Test pit the East bank of channel SE‐23‐16‐27‐W 5.4.3 NEGATIVE 2 Shovel Test Pit None at this time None at this time 2017 SE‐23‐17‐28‐W 5.4.12 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey None at this time None at this time 2017 SE‐24‐16‐27‐W N/A 0 N/A Shovel Test Pit Test pit both banks of the channel and survey area SE‐24‐16‐28‐W 5.3.1 NEGATIVE 3 Shovel Test Pit Test Footing Test the footing site for the tower SE‐25‐16‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Shovel Test Pit Test pit on South side of water crossing and pedestrian survey the area SE‐26‐17‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A None at this time None at this time 2017 SE‐35‐17‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and Test pit SE‐36‐16‐28‐W N/A 0 N/A None at this time None at this time 2017 SW‐07‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Route has been altered, survey and test pit along the final route SW‐08‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Route has been altered, survey and test pit along the final route SW‐09‐18‐29‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Route has been altered, survey and test pit along the final route SW‐19‐16‐26‐W 5.4.2 NEGATIVE 2 Shovel Test Pit Shovel Test Pit Test pit the relic channel in the southeast corner SW‐19‐16‐27‐W N/A 0 N/A None at this time None at this time 2017 SW‐20‐16‐27‐W 5.4.5 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey None at this time None at this time 2017 SW‐21‐16‐27‐W 5.3.4 NEGATIVE 6 Shovel Test Pit None at this time None at this time 2017 SW‐22‐16‐27‐W 5.3.4 N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Investigate the gravel pit and survey and test pit the quarter section SW‐23‐16‐27‐W N/A 0 N/A Survey & Test Pit Survey and test pit SW‐24‐16‐27‐W N/A 0 N/A None at this time None at this time 2017 SW‐36‐16‐28‐W 5.3.2 NEGATIVE 0 Pedestrian Survey Test Footing If tower is proposed, test the footing area

F-2