final report heritage assessment, whittington wind project,...

FINAL REPORT

Heritage Assessment, Whittington

Wind Project, Dufferin County, ON

Prepared for: wpd Canada Corporation

405 Britannia Road East, Suite 214 Mississauga, ON L4Z 3E6

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd

2791 Lancaster Rd., Suite 200 Ottawa, ON K1B 1A7

February 2012

Project No.: 160960605

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT, WHITTINGTON WIND PROJECT, DUFFERIN COUNTY, ON

Project No.: 160960605 i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Specific sections of the Ontario Regulation 359/09, Renewable Energy Approvals Under Part V.0.1 Of The Environmental Protection Act pertain to Heritage Resources, specifically built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. In order to meet the conditions of the regulation, Stantec Consulting Ltd was retained by wpd Canada Corporation to conduct a Heritage Assessment of the location of a proposed wind project in the Township of Amaranth in Dufferin County, Ontario.

The assessment included a review of historic period maps, aerial imagery and Census data as well as records and inventories held by the Township of Amaranth, the Town of Mono, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture, and the Ontario Heritage Trust.

Using locations of known buildings and the locations of buildings from historic period maps, a visual survey of the Study Area was completed on June 10th, 2010 to determine the existence of any potentially significant built heritage resources within the Study Area. During the site visit the Study Area was also assessed for any groupings of resources that might constitute a cultural heritage landscape.

A total of eight resources were identified as potentially significant built heritage resources. All eight resources were evaluated using the criteria outlined under O.Reg 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. One resource was evaluated as being significant, the David Spence House in Lot 20, Concession 1. The property meets criteria 1(i) and 2(i) as outlined in O.Reg 9/06 and, as a result, was assessed for potential Project-related negative impacts as per InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MTC, 2006a). Potential negative impacts assessed included: destruction, alteration, shadows, isolation, direct or indirect obstruction and changes in land-use. No potential negative impacts of significant magnitude were identified for the David Spence House. No further mitigation is recommended.

No cultural heritage landscapes were identified in, or adjacent to, the Study Area and no further mitigation has been recommended with respect to cultural heritage landscapes.

The following report details the findings of the Heritage Assessment as completed under Section 23 of O.Reg 359/09.


Project No.: 160960605 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

1.3 Study Methodology ............................................................................................ 2

2 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................. 3

3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND........................................................................................ 6

3.1 Township Survey and Early Settlement ........................................................... 6

3.2 Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Domestic/Residential ......................................................................................... 6

3.4 Commercial and Industrial .............................................................................. 10

3.5 Educational, Religious and Public Buildings ................................................. 10

3.6 Transportation ................................................................................................. 10

4 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES ................................................................................. 11

4.1 Methodology .................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Existing Heritage Designations, Easements and Conservation

Districts ............................................................................................................ 11

4.3 Agricultural Resources .................................................................................... 12

4.4 Domestic/Residential Built Heritage Resources ............................................ 15

4.5 Educational, Religious and Public Built Heritage Resources ....................... 19

4.6 Commercial and Industrial Built Heritage Resources ................................... 19

4.7 Transportation Related Built Heritage Resources ......................................... 19

5 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES ...................................................................... 20

5.1 Methodology .................................................................................................... 20

5.2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes ......................................................................... 20

6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ........................................................................................ 21

6.1 Methodology .................................................................................................... 21

6.2 Identification of Impacts .................................................................................. 21


Project No.: 160960605 iii

6.3 Proposed Mitigation ........................................................................................ 22

7 STUDY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 25

8 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................... 25

9 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 26

9.1 Literature Cited ................................................................................................ 26

9.2 Literature Reviewed ......................................................................................... 27

9.3 Personal Communications .............................................................................. 27

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1 Farmhouse in Lot 20, Concession 1 (BHR 1) ................................................................................. 18

LIST OF VISUAL AIDS

Visual Aid 1 Wind Turbine Scale Schematic ............................................................................................... 23

Visual Aid 2 Wind Turbine Scale Schematic, with trees ............................................................................. 24

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4 - 1 Agricultural Built Heritage Resources ....................................................................................... 12

Table 4 - 2 Residential Built Heritage Resources ....................................................................................... 15 Table 6 - 1 Potential Negative Impacts and Recommended Mitigation ...................................................... 22

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Location of Study Area ................................................................................................................ 4

Figure 1-2 Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 3-1 Study Area Shown over Detail from 1861 Leslie and Wheelcock Map of Wellington County ............................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3-2 Study Area Shown over Detail from 1877 Walker and Miles Historical Atlas of Wellington County ............................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3-3 Study Area Shown over Detail from 1879 Miles & Co. Map of Wellington County ..................... 9

Figure 4-1 Location of Built Heritage Resources ........................................................................................ 14

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Built Heritage Resource Forms


Project Number: 160960605 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by wpd Canada Corporation to prepare a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Application, as required under Ontario Regulation 359/09 – Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (O.Reg. 359/09). According to subsection 6.(3) of O.Reg. 359/09, the Project is classified as a Class 4 Wind Facility and will follow the requirements identified in O.Reg.359/09 for such a facility.

The Project consists of three (3) turbines with a 6.9 MW nameplate capacity. The Project will be located entirely within the Township of Amaranth, Dufferin County in central Ontario. The Study Area is generally bounded by Sideroad 20 to the north, west of Second Line to the west, the Mono-Amaranth Townline to the east and Sideroad 15 to the South (Figure 1-1).

This Heritage Assessment Report is one component of the REA Application for the Project, and has been prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09. The study was conducted by Stephen Jarrett, B.A., Archaeological Technician and Christienne Uchiyama, B.A., Heritage Planning Consultant. A visual survey was conducted on June 10, 2010 by Mr. Jarrett, and Colin Varley, M.A., R.P.A., Senior Heritage Planning Consultant. Colin Varley acted as Team Leader and Senior Reviewer.

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

This Heritage Assessment Report has been conducted in accordance with O.Reg. 359/09, s.23 (1) and (3). O. Reg.359/09 s.23 (1) states that:

23. (1) If, as a result of the consideration mentioned in subsection 20 (1), a person concludes that engaging in the renewable energy project may have an impact on a heritage resource described in paragraph 2 of subsection 20 (1), the person shall,

(a) conduct a heritage assessment consisting of,

(i) an evaluation of whether there are any heritage resources at the project location, applying the criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest) made under the Ontario Heritage Act

Section 4 of this report satisfies the requirements of O.Reg.359/09, s.23(1)(a)(i).

The Regulation further states that:

(ii) if any heritage resources are identified as a result of the evaluation under subclause (i), an evaluation of any impact of the renewable energy project on the heritage resources and proposed measures to avoid, eliminate or mitigate the impact, which may include a heritage conservation plan.



In order to satisfy O.Reg.359/09, s.23(1)(a)(ii), an assessment of potential Project-related negative impacts was carried out for each significant built heritage resource and cultural heritage landscape within the Study Area. This assessment, conducted as per InfoSheet #5 in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (MTC, 2006a), is presented in Section 6.

1.2 Project Description

The Project, known as the Whittington Wind Project, consists of three (3) turbines with a 6.9 MW nameplate capacity. Schematics are included in Appendix B, Turbine Schematics. The Project will be located in the Township of Amaranth, Dufferin County in central Ontario. The Study Area is generally bounded by Sideroad 20 to the north, west of Second Line to the west, the Mono-Amaranth Townline to the east and Sideroad 15 to the South (Figure 1-1). According to subsection 4.(3) of Ontario Regulation 359/09, the proposed Whittington Wind Project is a Class 4 facility.

Existing provincial and municipal roads will be used to transport project-related components, equipment and personnel to the Study Area. Turbines will be installed on private lands and access to these lands will be required for installation and operation of the wind turbines (Figure 1-2). Permanent access roads will be approximately 4 metres wide.

Locations of Project components are shown in Figure 1-2.

1.3 Study Methodology

The Heritage Assessment study was composed of a program of archival research and visual assessment of potentially significant built heritage resources and potential components of cultural heritage landscapes within the vicinity of the Study Area. To familiarise the study team with the Study Area, local historical societies were consulted, archival documents were reviewed and a summary historical background of the local area was prepared. Listings of provincially and locally designated built heritage sites, districts and easements and buildings of architectural or historical interest for each municipality were reviewed in order to compile a catalogue of existing identified heritage resources.

A visual survey was conducted on June 10th, 2010. The Study Area was surveyed for extant buildings, outbuildings or other built heritage remains. During the site visit built heritage resources which might satisfy criteria outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, Under the Ontario Heritage Act, 2006 and components of potential cultural heritage landscapes were photographed and their locations recorded. Where municipal addresses were not available locations were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS).

In general, buildings and structures of more than forty years of age were evaluated during the survey for their potential to satisfy O.Reg. 9/06 criteria. The use of the forty year threshold is generally accepted by both federal and provincial authorities as a preliminary screening measure



for heritage interest or value. This practice does not imply that all buildings or structures more than forty years of age are inherently of significant heritage value, nor does it exclude exceptional examples constructed in the past forty years of being of significant cultural heritage value.

The Study Area was assessed for groupings of resources and environs that might potentially constitute cultural heritage landscapes as defined by the Ministry of Culture’s InfoSheet #2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (MTC, 2006b).

2 STUDY AREA

The Study Area is composed of approximately 420 hectares (1030 acres) around Whittington, Ontario being comprised of Lots 16 through 20, Concession 1 and part of Lots 16 through 20, Concession 2, in the Township of Amaranth, Dufferin County (Figure 1-1). The Town of Mono lies immediately to the east of the Study Area. Two small drainage features are located within the Study Area, in poorly drained areas (Figure 1-1). Land use in the Study Area is primarily agricultural with some areas of undeveloped, forested land (Figure 1-2).

The topography of the Study Area is relatively level with an elevated area south of 20th Sideroad below which is located a drainage feature (Figure 1-1). The Study Area falls within the Dundalk Till plains physiographic region (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The gently undulating Dundalk till plains, sitting at 1400 to 1750 feet in elevation, form the watershed from which the headwaters of many rivers originate including the Saugeen, Maitland, Nottawasaga and Grand. The plains are characterized by poorly drained swamps and bogs. Most of the area carries a surficial deposit of silt comparable to the loess in the Mississippi Valley.

Figure 1-1 Location of Study Area

1000m

Study Area

Legend Notes

June 2011Project No.160960605

Client/Projectwpd CANADA CORPORATIONWHITTINGTON WIND FARM

Figure No.1-2

TitleSITE PLAN

1.2.3.

Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17 NAD 83.Data Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources© Queens Printer Ontario, 2009.Image Source: © First Base Solutions, 2011 - Imagery Date: 2006.

2nd

20th

Mono Amaranth

15th

11

2nd

Mono Amaranth

566000

566000

567000

567000

568000

568000

4871

000

4871

000

4872

000

4872

000

4873

000

4873

000

4874

000

4874

000

!

!

USA

Ottawa

Toronto

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

Study AreaCollector SystemAccess RoadTurbine Blade TipSwitching Station

Lake Ontario

Project Area_̂

0 250 500m1:15,000

Georgian Bay

Lake Erie

Monday, June 13, 2011 1:56:30 PMV:\01225\active\other_pc\160960605 - Whittington WF\gis\map_site plan_20110318.mxd



3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3.1 Township Survey and Early Settlement

Settlement of Amaranth Township began in 1832. Amaranth Township grew slowly having fewer than 500 individual entries in the 1851 census. Settlement began in earnest between 1845 and 1865, following the American Civil War (Sawden 1952). Mono Township was surveyed in 1823 and the first settlers arrived the same year (Sawden 1952).

Dufferin County was created in 1881 from parts of Grey, Simcoe and Wellington Counties in an effort to create a more central municipality in the region. Upon creation of the County the Town of Orangeville was awarded the distinction of being named the County Seat.

3.2 Agriculture

Census records from the late 19th century indicate that the majority of land owners in the Study Area were farmers. Agricultural census records no longer exist for the Township of Amaranth, so it is not possible to determine the extent of land clearing or the success of individual farmers at that time. An 1861 map of Wellington County does show that all of the lots within the Study Area were occupied (Figure 3-1). To the west of the Study Area there are many lots marked “non”, indicating that the owners of those lots were non-resident in the township, and were likely land speculators. Although not indicated on any either of the 1861 or 1877 maps, it should be expected that there were agricultural outbuildings associated with each of the lots within the Study Area (Figures 3-1 and 3-2)

Farmers in the Town of Mono focused their efforts on growing spring wheat, peas, oats and potatoes. It also appears that a large number of farmers were using a large percentage, over half in many cases, of their cleared land for pasture. This may be due, in part, to imperfectly drained soils that were more prevalent in Mono than neighbouring townships. Amaranath Township, particularly the location of the Study Area, had similar conditions and it is likely that farmers in east Amaranath followed similar patterns.

3.3 Domestic/Residential

Residential structures are not indicated on historic maps of the Study Area (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). Amaranth is the only township in the 1877 Walker and Miles Atlas that does not show the location of individual farmhouses. However, given that all of the lots in the Study Area were occupied in both 1861 and 1877 it should be expected that there were homes in most, if not all, of the lots.

500m

Figure 3-1 Study Area Shown over Detail from 1861 Leslie and Wheelcock Map of Wellington County

Study Area

School Church

Figure 3-2 Study Area Shown over Detail from 1877 Walker and Miles Historical Atlas of Wellington County

800m

Study Area

Figure 3-3 Study Area Shown over Detail from 1879 Miles & Co. Map of Wellington County

Study Area



3.4 Commercial and Industrial

There is no evidence to indicate the presence of substantial commercial development within or adjacent to the Study Area. Census data indicates that all of the residents within the Study Area were either farmers or mariners. Commercial development in the vicinity of the Study Area appears to have been focused in the Hamlet of Whittington, in the southwest corner of the Study Area. At its height the hamlet contained a buttery, store, hotel and smithy (Marshall 1977:101). The 1861 map shows the location of the hotel, then known as Bowsfields Inn, immediately across Second Line from the Study Area (Figure 3-1). Kennedy’s Tavern operated for a time at the crossroads of Sideroad 20 and Second Line, on the northern edge of the Study Area (Sawden 1952), although it does not appear on any of the available 19th century maps.

3.5 Educational, Religious and Public Buildings

The historic Hamlet of Whittington contained a number of public buildings and was located in the southwest corner of the Study Area. At its height the hamlet contained a school, a church and a post office (Figures 3-1 to 3-3). All of the public buildings were located outside of the Study Area limits. The school, which still stands on the northwest corner of Lot 15, Concession 2, is now a residence.

The former United and Methodist Church was also located in Lot 15 Concession 2, to the south-west of the Study Area. All that remains is a plaque on a small section of fieldstone wall.

3.6 Transportation

Transportation within the Study Area was largely by road. Road corridors shown on all of the 19th century maps follow the present day road corridors (Figures 3-1 – 3.3).

The Toronto Grey and Bruce Railway, chartered in 1868 and operational in the Study Area by 1871, passed within 250 m of the Study Area to west on a parallel north-south axis (Figures 3-2 and 3-3). The nearest junction was in Orangeville, 8.2 km south of the Study Area.



4 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES

During the June, 2011 site visit two built heritage resources which might potentially satisfy the criteria outlined under O.Reg 9/06 were documented. One of those resources was determined to be of significant cultural heritage value following evaluation. In general, a threshold of forty years of age was used as a preliminary screening measure.

Built heritage resources are defined as “one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to a community” (MTC, 2006a).

4.1 Methodology

Evaluation of potentially significant built heritage resources in the Study Area was performed using criteria set out under O.Reg 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). A property meeting one or more of the following criteria is considered significant under the OHA.

1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression,

material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or

institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding

of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or

theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it,

i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2).

4.2 Existing Heritage Designations, Easements and Conservation Districts

There are no properties within a 5 km radius of the Study Area designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. No other properties are located within or adjacent to the Study Area which are protected as per the table in Section 19, O.Reg. 359/09 (Gervais, 2011 pers comm.; Early, 2011 pers. comm., Fraser, 2011 pers. comm.).



4.3 Agricultural Resources

Agricultural built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscape features one might expect as a result of agricultural activities include; fencing surrounding or separating fields and pastures, windmills and outbuildings such as sheds, barns and silos.

Three isolated potential agricultural built heritage resources were recorded during the June, 2010 visual survey (Figure 4-1). Table 4-1 summarises the evaluation of all three potentially significant agricultural resources. See Appendix A, Built Heritage Resource Record Forms for full descriptions. Table 4 - 1 Agricultural Built Heritage Resources Built Heritage

Resource (BHR)

Number

Property Criteria Met Justification Rating

Barn near 514403 Second Line

Does not meet criteria

Design Value or Physical Value - The barn is vernacular and is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an especially high degree of craftsmanship, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The cupola on top of the metal roof is an interesting feature of the barn, but is not considered sufficient, in itself, to satisfy criterion 1(ii). Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. The barn is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Contextual Value – the barn certainly suits the agricultural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. The barn is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark.

Not Significant

Barn near 514524 Second Line


Design Value or Physical Value - The barn is vernacular and is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an

Not Significant



especially high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. The barn is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Contextual Value – the barn certainly suits the agricultural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. The barn is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark.

Barn South of 514403 Second Line


Design Value or Physical Value – The wooden barn with saltbox roof is vernacular and is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an especially high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. The barn is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Contextual Value – the barn certainly suits the agricultural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. The barn is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark.

Not Significant

All three potential agricultural resources are barns. In general, the barns were not found to meet the criteria outlined in Section 4.1. None of the barns are early constructions, nor do they exemplify representative or unique architecture styles.

Legend Notes

February, 2012Project No.160960605

Client/Projectwpd CANADA CORPORATIONWHITTINGTON WIND FARM

Figure No.4-1

Title

LOCATION OF BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES

1.2.3.

Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17 NAD 83.Data Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources© Queens Printer Ontario, 2009.Image Source: © First Base Solutions, 2011 - Imagery Date: 2006.

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

")

Barn

554394 Townline

554456 Townline

514403 2nd Line

514465 2nd Line

514524 2nd Line

514578 2nd Line David Spence House

2nd

20th

Mono Amaranth

15th

2nd

11

Mono Amaranth

566000

566000

567000

567000

568000

568000

4871

000

4871

000

4872

000

4872

000

4873

000

4873

000

4874

000

4874

000

!

!

USA

Ottawa

Toronto

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

") Significant Built Heritage Resource

") Not Significant Built Heritage ResourceStudy AreaCollector SystemAccess RoadTurbine Blade TipSwitching Station

Lake Ontario

Project Area

_̂

0 250 500m

1:15,000Lake Erie

Georgian Bay

Revised: 2012-02-27 By: sarogersV:\01225\active\other_pc\160960605 - Whittington WF\gis\map_heritage resources_20110318.mxd



4.4 Domestic/Residential Built Heritage Resources

The majority of potential built heritage resources identified during archival research were residential in nature. A total of five potential residential built heritage resources were recorded within the Study Area (Figure 4-1). Table 4-2 summarises the evaluation of all five potentially significant residential resources. See Appendix A, Built Heritage Resource Record Forms for full descriptions.

Table 4 - 2 Residential Built Heritage Resources

Built Heritage Resource

(BHR) Number

Property Criteria Met

Justification Rating

514465 Second Line Does not meet criteria

Design Value or Physical Value - The farmhouse at 514465 Second Line is vernacular construction dating to the 20

th

century. It is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an especially high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. The farmhouse is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Contextual Value – the farmhouse is consistent with the rural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. The barn is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark.

Not Significant



BHR 1 David Spence House, Lot 20, Concession 1

Criteria 1.i, 2.i

Design Value or Physical Value - The dichromatic brick Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse is a relatively early example of the style in the area, particularly involving dichromatic brickwork which became popular in Ontario in the 1870’s (Ritchie, 1979). Historical Value or Associative Value – The farmhouse is associated with David Spence, an early resident in the community and original owner of the home. Contextual Value – the farmhouse is certainly suits the rural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. It is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark.

Significant

514578 Second Line Does not meet criteria

Design Value or Physical Value - The farmhouse at 514578 Second Line is a two-storey vernacular construction with vinyl siding and a redbrick addition to the rear. It is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an especially high degree of craftsmanship, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The decorative cornice brackets are not considered by this study to be sufficient to satisfy criterion (1)(ii). Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. The farmhouse is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Contextual Value – the farmhouse is certainly suits the rural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. It is not physically,

Not Significant



functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark.

554394 Townline Does not meet criteria

Design Value or Physical Value - The farmhouse at 554394 Townline Road is a one and a half storey Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse clad in a synthetic siding meant to resemble masonry. It is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an especially high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. The farmhouse is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Contextual Value – the farmhouse is certainly suits the rural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. It is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark.

Not Significant

554456 Townline Does not meet criteria

Design Value or Physical Value - The two-storey red brick farmhouse at 554456 Townline Road is vernacular in design. It is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an especially high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or

Not Significant



institution that is significant to the community. The farmhouse is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Contextual Value – the farmhouse is certainly suits the rural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. It is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark.

One of the built heritage resources meets criteria outlined in O.Reg 9/06. The remaining four farmhouses do not satisfy the criteria.

Plate 1 Farmhouse in Lot 20, Concession 1 (BHR 1)



Lot 20 Concession 1, Amaranth Township

The residence in Lot 20, Concession 1 in the Township of Amaranth is a one and a half storey red brick Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse. The building is decorated with beige brick quoins and flat arch trim above the windows and doors. This decorative style is representative of the area’s architecture.

Archival sources are scarce for this property; however, a plaque at the end of the driveway indicates that David Spence pioneered the plot in 1860. The 1877 map of the Amaranth Township shows D. Spence as the owner of the S1/2 of Lot 20, Concession 1 (Figure 3-2). This is likely the same David Spence who was Clerk for an Amaranth Township meeting in 1861 held at the Wallace Hotel (Sawden 1952). The enumerator of the 1861 Nominal Census for Amaranth Township was also David Spence (LAC, 1861).

The farmhouse is a good example of local dichromatic brickwork and includes the use of beige brick for quoins along the corners and lintels above the windows and doors. As a result, the building meets criteria 1.i. of O.Reg. 9/06, as outlined in Section 4.1.

Based on the property’s association with David Spence, an active member of the early settlement, the property has associative value. As a result, the property meets criteria 2.i. This property is considered to be a significant built heritage resource.

4.5 Educational, Religious and Public Built Heritage Resources

There are no educational, religious or public built heritage resources in or adjacent to the Study Area.

4.6 Commercial and Industrial Built Heritage Resources

There are no commercial built heritage resources in or adjacent to the Study Area.

4.7 Transportation Related Built Heritage Resources

Background research into the transportation methods of the Study Area identified all the roads within the Study Area as possible heritage resources. A visual survey of the roads on June 10, 2010 determined all the roads had undergone extensive repair and modification to modernize them for current use including raising the level, reducing the grade and paving the surface. As a result all roads within the Study Area maintain the plan of the original road but lack the integrity required to be considered heritage resources.



5 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES

5.1 Methodology

During the site visit in June, 2010 the Study Area was assessed for groupings of resources and environs that might potential constitute cultural heritage landscapes as defined by the Ministry of Culture. Cultural Heritage Landscapes for the purposes of this study are: “a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. A landscape involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts” (MTC, 2006b).

During the site visit, the Study Area was examined for evidence of human modification and resources that might reflect potential themes identified through the course of background research. These themes include, but are not exclusive to: First Nations use of the land; early settlement; and agriculture.

5.2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes

During the June, 2010 site visit, no significant cultural heritage landscapes were recorded.



6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

6.1 Methodology

Assessment of potential direct or indirect impacts of the project on identified built heritage resources in the Study Area considered Ministry of Tourism and Culture guidelines concerning Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MTC, 2006a).

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

Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features;

Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance;

Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden;

Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship;

Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features;

A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and

Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource.

Land disturbances are being assessed in a separate Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and have not been included in the current evaluation.

Identification of potential impacts considered the proposed site plan for the layout of turbines and optioned parcels in relation to identified cultural heritage resources (Figure 4-1).

6.2 Identification of Impacts

Table 6-1 provides a summary of potential direct and indirect impacts of the project on significant cultural heritage resources.

Destruction

BHR-1 will not be destroyed by the Project.

Alteration

BHR-1 will not be altered by the Project.



Shadows

The turbines will be sited approximately 750m, 1250m and 1850m from BHR-1 and as such will not cast shadows on the property (Figure 4-1).

Isolation

The Project will not isolate BHR-1.

Obstruction of Views

Turbines are the only Project components expected to interact with views of BHR-1. When viewing BHR-1 from the northwest, all three turbines may be visible. This will not be the case when viewing the subject property from the road in front of BHR-1 or from the southwest (Figure 4-1).

Visual Aid 1 illustrates the visual impact of turbines similar to those proposed for the Project at a distance of 550 m and 1,000 m from a two storey residential building. Visual Aid 2 shows the same model with simulated mature tree plantings around the residence. As shown in Plate 1, BHR-1 is surrounded by trees. The visual impact of the turbines on direct views of BHR-1 is further lessened as a result of their positioning in relation to the residence. The turbines will likely be visible in the periphery when viewing BHR-1 facing east, but will not obstruct views of the property (Figure 4-1).

Change in Land Use

There will be no change in land use as a result of the Project.

Table 6 - 1 Potential Negative Impacts and Recommended Mitigation

Resource Number

Potential Negative Impact Recommended Mitigation

De

stru

ctio

n

Alt

era

tio

n

Shad

ow

s

Iso

lati

on

Ob

stru

ctio

n o

f V

iew

s

Ch

ange

in L

and

Use

BHR 1 NE NE NE NE NE NE No further mitigation recommended

BHR - Built Heritage Resource, CHL - Cultural Heritage Landscape

Potential Impacts: R - Reversible, I - Irreversible, NE - Not Expected

6.3 Proposed Mitigation

Given that no significant and irreversible negative impacts are expected, no further mitigation has been recommended.

VISUAL AID 1WIND TURBINE SCALE SCHEMATIC, MARCH 2011

Notes:Camera: 1.8m height, 50mm lensTurbine: 95m to tower hub, 44m blade length Distance from Camera Turbine 1 = 550m Turbine 2 = 1,000mHouse: standard two storey, 50m from camera

Turbine 1

Turbine 2

VISUAL AID 2WIND TURBINE SCALE SCHEMATIC, MARCH 2011

Notes:Camera: 1.8m height, 50mm lensTurbine: 95m to tower hub, 44m blade length Distance from Camera Turbine 1 = 550m Turbine 2 = 1,000mHouse: standard two storey, 50m from cameraTrees: 13-15m (40-50’) height, forest 300m from camera

Turbine 1

Turbine 2



9 REFERENCES

9.1 Literature Cited

Chapman, L.J., and D.F. Putnam, 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario (3rd Edition). Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Hutchinson, Jean F., 1997. The History of Wellington County. Grand Valley, Ontario:Landsborough Printing Limited.

Leslie, Guy, and Charles J. Wheelcock, 1861. Map of the County of Wellington, Canada West.

Orangeville, ON: Leslie & Wheelcock, Publishers. National Map Collection H1/420/Wellington/1861.

LAC (Library and Archives Canada)

1851 Nominal Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia 1851, Microfilm C-11756

1861 Agricultural Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, 1861, Microfilm C-1084

1871 Federal Census of 1871 (Ontario Index). Microfilm C-9947-8

1881 Federal Census of 1881 (Ontario Index). Microfilm C-13259

Miles and Company, 1879. Map of the County of Wellington. National Map Collection H12/420/Wellington/1879

Ministry of Culture (MTC), 2006a. Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

---, 2006b. Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Sheet No. 5,

Information Sheet Series from Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process:

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Statement, 2005. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

---, 2005. Ontario Heritage Properties Database. http://www.hpd.mcl.gov.on.ca/scripts/hpdsearch/english/default.asp.

Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, Under the Ontario Heritage Act, 2006.

Ontario Regulation 359/09, Renewable Energy Approvals Under Part V.0.1 Of The Environmental Protection Act, 2009.

Ritchie, Thomas, 1979. Notes on Dichromatic Brickwork in Ontario. Ontario Association for

Preservation Technology Bulletin, Vol. 11(2) pp.60-75.

Sawden, Stephen 1952. History of Dufferin County. Orangeville, ON: Orangeville Banner.

Township of Amaranth, 2004. Official Plan for the Township of Amaranth. Accessed online at, http://www.amaranth-eastgary.ca/ta/doc/amopamend.pdf. June, 2010.

Walker and Miles, 1877. Illustrated Atlas of the County of Wellington. Toronto: Walker and Miles, Publishers. (Reprint Edition published in 1972. Ross Cumming, Port Elgin.)

http://www.hpd.mcl.gov.on.ca/scripts/hpdsearch/english/default.asp

http://www.amaranth-eastgary.ca/ta/doc/amopamend.pdf



9.2 Literature Reviewed

Cruikshank, Tom and John de Visser, 2000. Old Ontario Houses: Traditions in Local

Architecture. Willowdale, ON: Firefly Books.

Fram, Mark, 2003. Well-Preserved: the Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles

and Practice for Architectural Conservation. 3rd ed.. Erin, ON: The Boston Mills Press.

Gentilcore, Louis R. and C. Grant Head, 1984. Ontario’s History in Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Stantec Consulting Ltd, 2010. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, Whittington Wind Farm,

Dufferin County, ON. Report prepared for WPD Corporation.

Mikel, Robert, 2004. Ontario House Styles: The distinctive architecture of the province’s 18th

and 19th century homes. James Lorimer & Company Ltd., Publishers: Toronto.

Ontario Architecture, 2009 http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com

Parks Canada, 2003. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in

Canada.

9.3 Personal Communications

Early, Mark C. Director of Planning, Town of Mono. June, 2010 and March, 2011.

Fraser, Sean, Manager, Acquisitions and Conservation Services, Ontario Heritage Trust. Letter dated September 10, 2010.

Gervais, Christine, Planner, Township of Amaranth and Township of East Garafraxa, March, 2011.

http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/

Ministry of Tourism and Culture Ministère du Tourisme et de la Culture Culture Division Division de culture Culture Services Unit Unité des services culturels Programs and Services Branch Direction des programmes et des services 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 401, rue Bay, Bureau 1700 Toronto, ON, M7A 0A7 Toronto, ON, M7A 0A7 Telephone: 416 314 7137 Téléphone: 416 314 7137 Facsimile: 416 314 7175 Télécopieur: 416 314 7175 Email : [email protected] Email : [email protected]

1

August 15, 2011

Khlaire Parré

Director of Permits and Environmental Studies

wpd WF2, Inc.

405 Britannia Road East, Suite 214

Mississauga, ON L4Z 3E6

RE: Colloquial Name of Project: Proposed Whittington Wind Project

Location: Township of Amaranth, Dufferin County

FIT or other OPA Reference Number: FIT-FLBG88U

MTC DPR file no.: PLAN-22EA012

Dear Ms. Parré:

This letter constitutes the Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s written comments as required by s. 23(3)(a) of

O. Reg. 359/09 under the Environmental Protection Act regarding heritage assessments undertaken for the

above project.

Based on the information contained in the report you have submitted for this project, the Ministry is

satisfied with the heritage assessment. Please note that the Ministry makes no representation or warranty

as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of the heritage assessment report. *

The report recommends the following:

7 STUDY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A total of eight potential built heritage resources were identified in or adjacent to the Study Area

(Figure 4-1). One heritage resource, the David Spence House, is considered to be significant. The

David Spence House (BHR-1) in Lot 20, Concession 1 in the Township of Amaranth was identified

by this study to be a significant built heritage resource based on criteria 1(i) and 2(i) as outlined

under O.Reg 9/06. The Project is not expected to have any negative impacts on the heritage values

of BHR-1.

No cultural heritage landscapes were identified within the Study Area. It is recommended that the

project be released from further requirements with respect to cultural heritage landscapes.

2

The Ministry is satisfied with these recommendations.

This letter does not waive any requirements which you may have under the Ontario Heritage Act. Also,

this letter does not constitute approval of the renewable energy project. Approvals of the project may be

required under other statutes and regulations. It is your responsibility to obtain any necessary approvals or

licences.

Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,

Paula Kulpa

Heritage Planner

cc. Christienne Uchiyama, Archaeologist and Heritage Planning Consultant

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Chris Schiller, Manager, Culture Services Unit

Ministry of Tourism and Culture

______________________________________________________________________________________ * In no way will the Ministry be liable for any harm, damages, costs, expenses, losses, claims or actions that may result: (a) if the

Report(s) or its recommendations are discovered to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent; or (b) from the issuance

of this letter. Further measures may need to be taken in the event that additional artifacts or archaeological sites are identified or

the Report(s) is otherwise found to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent.

final report heritage assessment, whittington wind project,...

Documents