Microsoft Outlook
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Permits From: Julian Morse Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:32 PM To: Permits Subject: FW: Feb 17: MV2015W0018-Ft Providence Forest Management Agreement AOA Attachments: 15-36b Fort Providence AOA v.20160212.pdf Please post to MV2015W0018 From: John Bartlett [mailto:jbartl49@telus.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:23 AM To: pwnhc@gov.nt.ca; Julian Morse <jmorse@mvlwb.com> Cc: 'Greg Morrissey' <greg@kleanza.com>; Bob Head <bobhead@northwestel.net>; glen_mackay@gov.nt.ca Subject: Feb 17: MV2015W0018‐Ft Providence Forest Management Agreement AOA Julian, Digaa Enterprises Ltd submits to your office, with a copy to the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, an Archaeology Overview Assessment, per condition 54 of the LUP MV2015W0018. The report indicates 11 areas of potential concern and is recommending an AIA be conducted on them. Digaa will be in contact with the PWNHC (per Glen MacKay) to discuss these findings and identify the next steps required by his office to satisfy Condition 55. Thank you John John C Bartlett, RPF (ret) (BC) J C Bartlett & Associates Ltd 4916 Lambly Ave Terrace, BC V8G4N5 (867) 444-0291 1 Kleanza Consulting Ltd. February 2016 Archaeological Overview Assessment of the Fort Providence Forest Management Area Prepared for: Digaa Enterprises Ltd. By: Kleanza Consulting Ltd. #220, 328 West Hastings St. Vancouver, BC, V6B1K6 t. 604-563-5243 f. 604-563-5245 www.kleanza.com Copyright © February 12, 2016 v.20160212 1 Kleanza Consulting Ltd. February 2016 Executive Summary This report presents the results of an Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) of 121 proposed cutblocks and related developments within the Fort Providence Forest Management Area (FMA), located south of Fort Providence, Northwest Territories, Canada (the Project). Kleanza Consulting Ltd. (Kleanza) conducted this study at the request of Digaa Enterprises Ltd. (Digaa). This AOA was conducted with the purpose of providing a planning-level evaluation of the archaeological inventory and permitting needs for Digaa in relation to the Project area. It focuses on identifying and determining if there are archaeological issues within the Project area, and how to address those issues prior to development. The Project is a multi-year forestry operation. The AOA includes a desktop review of available publications, maps, and previous archaeological studies within and near to the Project area. A GIS (geographic information system) based analysis of archaeological site correlates was conducted for a broader Study area, leading to the construction of an archaeological potential model. The Study area encompasses a large enough area of the Northwest Territories to contain a significant sample of archaeological sites and is larger than the Project area. It spans along the southeast shore of Great Slave Lake from Snowdrift River to the Taltson River, continuing along the northwest shore of the lake and the immediate Mackenzie River watershed until the Trout River. The model identifies areas within the Project area the greatest potential for archaeological sites, and therefore greatest priority for further work in the form of an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA). The analysis found that there is potential for archaeological remains to exist within the Project area. Ten percent of blocks (n=12) are rated as having only low potential, 81 percent (n=98) as having low-moderate potential, and nine percent (n=11) as moderate potential. Zones of low-moderate or greater potential do not occupy a large area of each block, and are commonly found along the edges of natural boundaries between wetlands, lakes, and watercourses. No previously identified archaeological sites are found within the Project area. However, Kleanza recommends that an AIA be conducted for any proposed cutblocks that fall within areas of modelled moderate and high archaeological potential. An assessment of selected areas of low and low-moderate potential is also recommended, in order to ground-truth the accuracy and efficiency of the GIS model. Otherwise, areas of low and low-moderate potential do not need an AIA. Refinement of the model should continue as field observations alter expectations of archaeological potential and new data sources become available for this part of the Northwest Territories. 2 Kleanza Consulting Ltd. February 2016 Credits Background Research Corey Hartley, BA Greg Morrissey, MA Mapping Wendy Rolston Magellan Digital Mapping Report Authors Corey Hartley Greg Morrissey Report Editor Travis Freeland, MA Review Amanda Marshall, MA, RPCA 3 Kleanza Consulting Ltd. February 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 4 Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................................................... 6 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 8 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 8 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 General ................................................................................................................................................. 9 1.2 Objectives and Scope of Work .................................................................................................... 9 1.3 The Project ....................................................................................................................................... 10 1.4 Archaeological Assessment and Review Process .............................................................. 10 2.0 Methods ...................................................................................................................................12 2.1 Background Review ...................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 First Nations Liaison .................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 GIS Archaeological Potential Modelling ................................................................................ 12 3.0 Definition of Project Area .................................................................................................14 3.1 Description of Project Area ........................................................................................................ 14 3.2 Environment and Geology .......................................................................................................... 14 4.0 Results: Archaeological Overview Assessment .........................................................16 4.1 Background Review ...................................................................................................................... 16 4.1.1 Ethnographic Background ................................................................................................. 16 4.1.2 Historical Background ......................................................................................................... 19 4.1.3 Archaeological Time Periods............................................................................................. 20 4.1.4 Previous Archaeological Research in the Region ...................................................... 21 4.1.5 Expected Areas of Archaeological Potential ................................................................ 25 4.1.6 Expected Site Types .............................................................................................................. 26 5.0 Archaeological Potential Assessment ...........................................................................27 5.1 Variable Selection .......................................................................................................................... 27 5.2 Archaeological Potential Model ............................................................................................... 27 5.3 Evaluation and Limitations of the Model ............................................................................. 28 5.4 Archaeological Potential within the Project Area ............................................................. 29 6.0 Recommendations ...............................................................................................................33 6.1 Unanticipated Cultural Materials ............................................................................................ 33 4 Kleanza Consulting Ltd. February 2016 7.0 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................34 References Cited ..........................................................................................................................35 Appendix I: Figures ....................................................................................................................39 Appendix II: TUS letter from client .......................................................................................40 5 Kleanza Consulting Ltd. February