Chapter 19 - Historic Resources

19. Historic Resources

Archaeological sites and artifacts contain valuable information on past and contemporary lifeways, cultural identity and relationships and/or interactions within and between cultures and the land, sea, plants, and animals. Archaeological sites are non-renewable resources, sometimes containing the only information to reconstruct most of the sequence of human history. For this reason they are valued by society and protected by provincial legislation. Pre-contact archaeological resources are particularly valued by the Innu and Inuit peoples of Labrador because they represent the physical archives of their past. Many sites, and burial sites in particular, have a spiritual importance for Innu and Inuit.

19.1 Existing Environment

Kapukuanipant-Kavashat: Innu name for Voisey's Bay. Tasiujatsuak.: Inuit name for Voisey's Bay.

Cultural traditions and settlement and subsistence strategies are discussed in Section 19.1.4.

Archaeological investigation on coast of Labrador has revealed a long and complex cultural history, dating from about 7,500 years ago. Several cultural traditions of Indian and Inuit ancestry lived in the Voisey's Bay area where they harvested the plant and animal resources of the land and sea in a seasonal fashion. The origins of the various cultural traditions lie in areas either south or west of Labrador or north, in the eastern Arctic. Table 19.1 summarizes the cultures known in Newfoundland and Labrador and identifies approximate dates for each.

Table 19.1 Cultural Traditions in Newfoundland and Labrador

Culture	Time Period	Known Site Distribution
Maritime Archaic	7,500 -3,500 BP	Labrador coast as far north as Ramah Bay Island of Newfoundland
Pre-Dorset Palaeo-Eskimo	3,800 -3,000 BP	North Labrador coast as far south as Nain area One site is known on the Island of Newfoundland at Cow Head
Intermediate Indian	3,500 - 2,000 BP	Labrador coastal areas
Groswater Palaeo-Eskimo	3,000 - 2,000 BP	Entire coast of Labrador Island of Newfoundland except on the Avalon Peninsula
Dorset Palaeo-Eskimo	2,500 - 500 BP	Entire coast of Labrador Island of Newfoundland including the Avalon Peninsula
Recent Indian	2,000 - 350 BP	Labrador (coastal and interior areas) Island of Newfoundland
Thule Eskimo Labrador Inuit	700 BP-present	North Labrador coast as far south as Nain area Expanded into southern Labrador with arrival of Europeans communities of Nain, Hopedale, Makkovik, Postville, Rigolet, Happy-Valley Goose Bay
Labrador Innu	350 BP-present	Labrador communities of Sheshatshiu and Utshimassits
Settlers	200 BP-present	Labrador, all communities
(Marshall 1995; Renouf P., pers. comm.; Schwarz F., pers. comm., Tuck J., pers. comm.).
BP is before present, taken to be the year 1950 by archaeologists.

19.1.1 Environmental Assessment Boundaries

Capitalized terms used (such as Landscape Region and VBNC Claim Block) may be defined in other chapters. Some terms and phrases used may have definitions in other chapters depending upon the context in which they are used, for example, the Assessment Area.

The Historic Resources Assessment Area encompasses the VBNC Claim Block and adjacent areas along the shores of Voisey's, Anaktalak and Kangeklualuk bays, and river valleys (Figure 19.1). The area of intensive archaeological investigations, adopted here as the Assessment Area, was agreed to by the Mushuau Innu Band Council, Labrador Inuit Association (Torngâsok Cultural Centre), and VBNC. The VBNC Claim Block was selected because it defined the limit for on-going VBNC mineral exploration and for potential development activities. Areas adjacent to the VBNC Claim Block were included to provide a regional context for the interpretation of historic resources.

Figure 19.1 Historic Resources Assessment Area

19.1.1.1 Administrative Boundaries

The Cultural Heritage Division of the Newfoundland Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation currently is responsible for enforcing the Historic Resources Act and administering the provincial archaeological resource management and protection program.

19.1.1.2 Technical Boundaries

The historic resources assessment carried out in 1995, 1996 and 1997 (JWEL 1996; JWEL et al 1997; JWEL 1997) provided partial coverage of the VBNC Claim Block. Although it is possible additional historic resources exist within the Assessment Area, the large database allows relatively accurate predictions to be made on where historic resources are likely to be found within the Assessment Area, using a predictive model of archaeological potential. Contemporary sites (more recent than 1994) are not considered in this environmental effects assessment.

19.1.2 Methods

Valeri Pilgrim, spokesperson for the Labrador Inuit said that " the "Aboriginal co-workers gave their expertise to the project while at the same time learning more about archaeological methods"...Innu spokesperson Germaine Benuen said "the archaeological research at Voisey's Bay is an excellent example of how good cooperation can be achieved between mining companies and Aboriginal groups when all parties are committed to protecting our historic resources in Labrador" (VBNC et al 1996).

In 1996, VBNC, LIA and Innu Nation agreed to a major cooperative program of archaeological assessment, which included two two-week intensive training programs for 26 Innu and Inuit archaeological researchers in Utshimassits and Nain. Three field teams completed the assessment, each made up of one professional archaeologist, an Innu, and an Inuit archaeological researcher.

Methods used in the historic resources assessment followed the Cultural Heritage Division of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation Historic Resources Impact Assessment Guidelines (1992). Given the different environments investigated, a uniform methodology was not applied to the Assessment Area. All areas were subjected to general visual inspection (a walkover) to identify visible surface features and assess the terrain. If the general visual inspection suggested there was low potential for historic resources (e.g., steep slopes, bog, or rocky ground), then no further assessment was undertaken. If the general visual inspection suggested moderate to high potential for historic resources (e.g.,. flat stream or lake terraces, raised marine beaches and level-topped glacial features), then intensive assessment methods were used, including close surface inspection and subsurface testing. All sites discovered through the historic resources assessment were recorded using a global positioning system (GPS).

A study on the application of sea level history and geomorphology to historic resources mapping in the Reid Brook and lower Kogluktokoluk Brook valleys was completed to provide data on past environmental conditions that could have directly influenced pre-contact settlement patterns (Bell 1996). This involved preliminary air photograph interpretation to identify landforms and sediments related to the deglacial and postglacial evolution of the valleys. Field mapping was also completed to ground-truth features and, where possible, describe the internal composition of landforms. Results obtained from this research were used to help predict historic resources potential within a portion of the Assessment Area.

Data which were considered in this assessment include:

information gathered through three years of archaeological surveying and assessment in the VBNC Claim Block and adjacent areas;
information on historic and contemporary land and resource use in the Voisey's Bay area gathered through limited informant interviewing conducted in 1995 (JWEL 1996: Section 3.0);
information gathered through a literature review of published sources and unpublished reports and records on file with the Cultural Heritage Division of the Newfoundland Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage;
air photo and map analyses; and
a predictive model of archaeological potential within part of the VBNC Claim Block (JWEL et al. 1997: Section 7.0).

19.1.3 Existing Conditions

This assessment represents the most comprehensive archaeological investigation conducted to date of an inner bay/near-coastal environment in north-central Labrador. Professional archaeologists surveyed over 200 km² in the Voisey's Bay area, conducting visual inspections and test pitting (Figure 19.1). General use and occupation of the Landscape Region (defined in Chapter 2) and key sites by culture are presented in Table 19.2. Figure 19.2 is a general location map.

Table 19.2 Culture History and Sites in the Landscape Region

Culture	Sites in the Project Region
Maritime Archaic	- Cape Little and Iglosiatik Island - Many sites known north and south of the Voisey's Bay area
Pre-Dorset Palaeo-Eskimo	- Cape Little, Kamarsuk and Kikkertavik Island - Many sites known on islands north and east of Nain
Intermediate Indian	- Iglosiatik, Paul and Kikkertavak Islands
Groswater Palaeo-Eskimo	- House Harbour, Cape Little and Kamarsuk
Dorset Palaeo-Eskimo	- House Harbour and Kikkertavik Island - Many other sites are known on the island east of Voisey's Bay
Recent Indian	- Daniel Rattle, Kamarsuk, Takpanyok Bay, Satosoak Island and Kikkertavak Island
Thule Eskimo/Labrador Inuit	- Iglosiatik Island (Thule) - Sites are common throughout Voisey's Bay area (Labrador Inuit)
Labrador Innu	- Sites are common throughout Voisey's Bay area
Settlers	Sites are common throughout Voisey's Bay area
(Fitzhugh 1978; Marshall 1995; Tuck J., pers. comm.)

Figure 19.2 Location Map for Historic Resources

A total of 134 archaeological and contemporary sites have been identified within the Assessment Area. In 1995, fifteen sites were located on or near the shores of Anaktalak Bay and Edward's Cove, six on the shore of Voisey's Bay and eleven in interior areas situated between the two bays. Most sites located in 1996 were found along the shores of Anaktalak Bay, Voisey's Bay, Kangeklualuk Bay, in the Reid Brook valley and along the banks of rivers and shores of ponds, including Trout and Reid ponds. Two sites were located on the north shore of Voisey's Bay in 1997. Most site features are found either on the surface or immediately below it. Precise site locations are not indicated for resource protection reasons. However, they have been provided to the Newfoundland Cultural Heritage Division, LIA, and Innu Nation.

Nineteen of the 134 sites date to the pre-contact period, two to either the late pre-contact or early historic period and 102 to historic (pre-1960) or contemporary occupation (post-1960). Figure 19.3 summarizes known sites in the Assessment Area by cultural affiliation.

19.1.3.1 Pre-contact Occupation

The cultural history of the Landscape Region, including pre-contact Innu and Inuit occupations is discussed in Chapter 2.

Sites related to pre-contact occupation in the area were found along the coast and in nearby interior areas, in both inner bay locations and interior lowland valleys. One large site complex associated with the Maritime Archaic culture was located on high terraces in the Reid Brook valley. Another Maritime Archaic site was found along Kogaluk Brook, outside the VBNC Claim Block.

Three Intermediate Indian components have been located, one on the south shore of Voisey's Bay, one overlooking the Gooseland area, and one in the Kogluktokoluk valley. Occupation of these sites was likely in the spring and/or fall when geese, charr, and seals would have been present.

Two Recent Indian sites were located within the Assessment Area. The season of occupation of these sites was likely the same as that of the Intermediate Indian period occupation. Several sites classified as indeterminate pre-contact may be associated with the Recent Indian culture.

Very few Palaeo-Eskimo (Pre-Dorset, Groswater or Dorset) sites were identified within the Assessment Area. No Thule Eskimo sites were located. This may suggest pre-contact Inuit cultures had different habitat preferences than the pre-contact Indian cultures. The inner-bay and near coastal environment, in which the VBNC Claim Block is situated, may not have been attractive to pre-contact Inuit cultures whose settlement and subsistence strategies were more focused on true coastal locations such as offshore islands or the sina (the ice floe edge between the landfast ice and pack ice). Seasonal trips into the interior for important resources such as caribou may have become more important during the early contact period and after the introduction of firearms, around 1785. If this pattern of land use existed during pre-contact times, the inner bay and near-coastal zone (where most of the archaeological investigation occurred) would likely have been used as a transitional zone where people stopped only briefly while moving to or from the coast to more interior areas.

Figure 19.3 Summary of Known Sites by Cultural Affiliation

19.1.3.2 Historic and Contemporary Occupation

Ninety-four, or roughly two-thirds, of the known sites are attributable to historic and contemporary Innu and Inuit occupation and use. Archaeological remains associated with these occupations include marker stones, fox-trap anchors, tent-rings, cabin foundations, hearths, and goose hunting blinds. Historic and contemporary Innu sites are found in a variety of coastal and inner bay settings, particularly the Gooseland area at the head of Voisey's Bay. This latter area has been identified as important for goose hunting in the spring. Sites are also found along streams flowing into the head of Voisey's Bay: Ikadlivik Brook, Reid Pond/Reid Brook, and Trout Pond/Kogluktokoluk Brook. Use of the Reid Brook Valley appears light compared to that in other valleys. Historic Innu camps are fewer than those of the contemporary period. The general pattern and season of land use was probably similar to contemporary land and resource use, although different patterns associated with long-distance seasonal movement would have existed.

Inukshuk - An Inuktitut word meaning "In the image of man". Inukshuks are lifelike figures of rock, erected by the Inuit. The main purpose was to serve as markers on a treeless horizon to guide those who followed (LIA n.d.).

Historic and contemporary Inuit use and occupation appears to have been more concentrated in coastal areas along the shores of bays, particularly Kangeklualuk Bay, Voisey's Bay, and Anaktalak Bay than in interior areas. Sites located on the coast were likely related to seal hunting in the spring and/or fall. One inukshuk was located overlooking Reid Brook. A possible Inuit dwelling was located on Trout Pond and an Inuit site was found on Makhavinekh Lake.

Settler sites can be virtually indistinguishable from contemporary Innu and Inuit sites because of the similarities in their patterns of land use and harvesting; settlers are generally people of mixed European and Aboriginal ancestry who, over time, developed an economy and culture based on an amalgam of characteristics and practices. Settler sites were found along the shores of Voisey's Bay and Anaktalak Bay. Two of these were trading posts frequented by the Innu during the winter during historic times. The remains of several cabins and the American Rawson-MacMillan Scientific Expedition base camp (1927-28) were also located.

19.1.3.3 Archaeological Site Potential Study

Archaeological, historic and contemporary site distribution, resource availability, physiography, vegetation, and geomorphological data were used to develop a predictive model of historic resources potential within a portion of the Assessment Area (Figure 19.4).

Figure 19.4 Zones of Historic Resources Potential Within the VBNC Claim Block

The results of this study may have wider applicability across similar inner-bay settings, from Nain to Davis Inlet (JWEL, Mushuau Innu Band Council, and Torngâsok Cultural Centre. 1997).

The results of this study indicate archaeological potential is relatively high along the coast, moderately high along the near-coastal reaches of major rivers, and low in near-coastal uplands (JWEL et al. 1997).

19.1.4 Likely Future Conditions

The expected condition of historic resources in the Assessment Area within the expected lifespan of the Project, in the absence of the Project, is not likely to change. However, archaeological sites and artifacts would be subject to potential loss and alteration from human activity (such as hunting, fishing, and camping) and natural processes (such as erosion).

The mean sea level may rise approximately 12 cm during the 25 year life of the Project as a result of climate change (Chapter 8). Rising sea levels can negatively affect historic resources located along shorelines. The primary effects are site inundation and erosion, resulting in the complete or partial loss of historic resources.

19.2 Environmental Effects Assessment

Construction activity and human presence can result in loss or alteration of historic resources.

Effects on historic resources may be either direct or indirect. A "direct impact" (direct environmental effect) is defined by the Cultural Heritage Division evaluation system as "an immediately demonstrable effect of a project on an historic resource which can be attributed to a particular land modifying action" (Cultural Heritage Division 1992). For the purposes of this assessment, a direct environmental effect is predicted for all sites within 50 m of an area of physical disturbance. An "indirect impact" (indirect environmental effect) is defined under this same system as "an effect on an historic resource which is the result of an activity other than actual development actions" (Cultural Heritage Division 1992). Indirect environmental effects could include, for example, loss or alteration as a result of vandalism or erosion resulting from the construction of site infrastructure.

Potential environmental effects are summarized in Table 19.3. A synthesis of the environmental effects analysis is in Appendix 19A.

Table 19.3 Potential Environmental Effects

Potential Environmental Effects	Project Phase	Project Activities
Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects loss or alteration of historic resources	construction	- ground clearing - grubbing - quarrying - blasting - vehicle traffic - human presence
	operation	- excavation - flooding of pond shorelines - human presence
	decommissioning	- soil reclamation - re-vegetating - water diversion - removing infrastructure - re-sloping - re-contouring the landscape - human presence
	post-decommissioning	- human presence

19.2.1 Direct Environmental Effects

Using the 50 m criterion, direct environmental effects are predicted at four sites (Table 19.4). All direct effects are anticipated during the construction phase. All, except perhaps one of these sites, date to within the past 100 years. Two are of possible Inuit origin and the cultural affiliation of the other two is unknown. Most sites for which a direct effect is anticipated are along the east shore of Edward's Cove. The magnitude and likelihood of anticipated environmental effects is high and there is potential for complete loss or extensive alteration of these historic resources.

Table 19.4 Sites for which a Direct Environmental Effect is Anticipated

Site Name	Borden No.	Culture	Age (Years)	Location	Source of Effect
Corner	HcCm-11	Unknown	50 - 100	Edward's Cove	fuel storage facility
Fishtrap	HcCm-12	Unknown	less than 25	Edward's Cove	temporary dock
Edward's Cove East	HcCm-13	Inuit?	less than 100	Edward's Cove	temporary dock
Edward's Kame Terrace	HcCm-16	Inuit?	Unknown	Edward's Cove	road borrow pit

All archaeological sites in Canada are assigned a Borden number based on their geographic location. Under the Borden System, Canada is divided into blocks of land defined by latitude and longitude. These blocks are assigned alphabetical designations (e.g. HcCm represents one Borden block). Sites found within a Borden block are sequentially numbered (e.g., HcCm-11 represents the eleventh site found in the HcCm Borden block).

Although not immediately threatened by the Project, five sites were identified as having increased potential for direct environmental effects during construction (Table 19.5). These sites are located between 50 and 200 m from proposed infrastructure.

Table 19.5 Sites with Potential for Direct Environmental Effects

Site Name	Borden No.	Culture	Age (Years)	Location	Source of Effect
Kangeklualuk Brook	HcCl-12	Inuit	less than 50	Kangeklualuk Bay	pipeline
Foxtrap	HcCm-14	Unknown	less than 100	Edward's Cove	shipping dock
Caribou	HcCm-17	unknown	less than 100	Edward's Cove kame area	borrow pit
Pond E Quarry	HcCm-25	Natural? Pre- contact?	Unknown	Headwater Pond	road
Road Crossing	HcCm-28	Pre-contact?	unknown	Reid Brook	road

19.2.2 Indirect Environmental Effects

There is potential for indirect environmental effects at all remaining known sites within the VBNC Claim Block. Although indirect environmental effects may occur during any Project phase, they are most likely to occur during construction and operation and as a result of accidental events. Human activity and accidental discovery are the most likely sources of indirect environmental effects on historic resources. The likelihood of indirect environmental effects occurring is highest for those sites located close to Project infrastructure or areas of high activity. Sites on the shores of Voisey's Bay and Anaktalak Bay, which are highly visible or well known (such as the MacMillan site), are at increased risk of being indirectly affected. The magnitude and likelihood of indirect effects occurring is low for most known sites, but the magnitude and likelihood are moderate for sites located close to Project infrastructure and areas where intensive human activity is anticipated. Sites which fit into the latter category are summarized in Table 19.6.

Table 19.6 Sites for which there is Increased Risk of Indirect Environmental Effects

Site Name	Borden No.	Culture	Age (Years)	Location	Potential Source of Effect
MacMillan Station	HcCm-3	American (research camp)	less than 70	Anaktalak Bay	human activity
Mountain Goat	HcCm-6	Inuit	less than 100	Anaktalak Bay	human activity
Thunder	HcCm-7	Inuit	less than 100	Anaktalak Bay	human activity
Edward's Cove West	HcCm-8	Inuit or Innu	less than 100	Edward's Cove West	human activity
Reid Homestead	HcCm-9	Settler? Innu? Inuit?	less than 100	Edward's Cove	camp and human activity
Edward's Blow-out	HcCm-10	Unknown	unknown	Edward's Cove	camp and human activity

Environmental effects on historic resources as a result of accidental events could occur during all phases of the Project. Sources of potential environmental effects resulting from an accidental event include discovery of an historic resource through human activity, operation of heavy equipment, and infrastructure failure (i.e., road wash-out). The risk of environmental effects on historic resources occurring as a result of accidental events is low as a result of the protection measures included as mitigation (Section 19.2.4).

19.2.3 Cumulative Environmental Effects

The cumulative environmental effects of mineral exploration and development on historic resources within the boundaries described in Section 19.2 were considered in this assessment. Mineral exploration in areas adjacent to the VBNC Claim Block has been ongoing and relatively intensive since the initial discovery of the ore body at Voisey's Bay. Several mining companies have staked claims and have been conducting mineral exploration in the Voisey's Bay to Nain area.

Mineral exploration in the Landscape Region has occurred in consultation with the Cultural Heritage Division of the provincial Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, LIA and Innu Nation. Strict monitoring and historic resources assessment requirements have also been enforced.

19.2.4 Environmental Design and Mitigation

The goal of historic resources management is to protect historic resources and mitigate potentially adverse effects to reduce loss alteration of archaeological, historic and contemporary sites and objects. Measures will be taken to mitigate the potential environmental effects of the Project on known historic resources and avoid adverse effects on undiscovered historic resources. In keeping with this commitment, VBNC has in place an Historic Resources Contingency Plan to address historic resources protection during all Project phases. This plan reflects VBNC's commitment to the following principles:

historic resources, including archaeological sites and artifacts, contain information on past and present lifeways, cultural identity and relationships and/or interactions within and between cultures and the land, sea, plants and animals;
archaeological sites are valued by society because they are non-renewable resources which contain information to reconstruct most of the sequence of human history;
disturbance to historic resources must be reduced throughout the life of the Project wherever possible; and
the prevention and/reduction of the loss or alteration of historic resources can be achieved through the implementation of sound management procedures and Project planning.

The Historic Resources Contingency Plan includes:

a policy statement on the protection of historic resources;
stated objectives for the protection of historic resources;
standard operating procedures to be followed in the event of a discovery of an historic resource;
standard operating procedures to be followed when reporting the results of archaeological investigations and findings to Inuit and Innu communities; and
specific mitigation measures for the protection of known historic resources.

Specific mitigation measures are required where the anticipated effects are direct or where there is high potential for indirect environmental effects to occur. Table 19.7 summarizes proposed mitigation for sites where a direct environmental effect is anticipated, sites having increased potential for direct effects, and sites having increased potential for indirect effects.

Table 19.7 Proposed Mitigative Measures for Historic Resources

Site Name	Borden No.	Mitigation
Sites Where a Direct Effect is Anticipated
Corner	HcCm-11	Avoidance or salvage^a
Fishtrap	HcCm-12	Salvage
Edward's Cove East	HcCm-13	Salvage
Edward's Kame Terrace	HcCl-16	Avoidance or salvage
Sites Having Increased Potential for Direct Effects
Kangeklualuk Brook	HcCl-12	Flagging or fencing
Foxtrap	HcCm-14	Flagging or fencing
Caribou	HcCm-17	Flagging or fencing
Pond E Quarry	HcCm-25	Flagging or fencing
Road Crossing	HcCm-28	Flagging or fencing
Sites Having Increased Potential for Indirect Effects
MacMillan Station	HcCm-3	Flagging or fencing
Mountain Goat	HcCm-6	Flagging or fencing
Thunder	HcCm-7	Flagging or fencing
Edward's Cove West	HcCm-8	Flagging or fencing
Reid Homestead	HcCm-9	Flagging or fencing
Edward's Blow-out	HcCm-10	Fencing
^asalvage archaeology is the controlled excavation and removal of historic resources using accepted archaeological excavation methods.

19.3 Residual Environmental Effects

The significance criteria for effects on historic resources are defined largely by the Historic Resources Act (1985). Residual environmental effects resulting in the complete or partial loss or alteration of historic resources are considered to be significant unless considered acceptable by the Minister of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Historic resources are not assigned a value relative to each other, either within the VBNC Claim Block or with other historic resources known from elsewhere in the province. For example, a Maritime Archaic site (though possibly more interesting due to its age) is not given an official status of importance higher than an historic site. The definitions for the rating of residual environmental effects follows.

A major (significant) residual environmental effect is the loss of an historic resource without salvage or retrieval of the information it contains.

A moderate (significant) residual environmental effect is partial alteration of an historic resource and loss of some of the information it contains.

A minor (not significant) residual environmental effect is any loss or alteration of an historic resource considered to be acceptable by the Provincial Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. This includes loss or alteration of an historic resource resulting from salvage archaeology, whereby information is retrieved.

A negligible (not significant) residual environmental effect is any discovery of an historic resource that does not result in loss or alteration of that historic resource or the information it contains, but increases the risk of future loss or alteration of that historic resource.

Application of the mitigative measures discussed in Section 19.2.4 will reduce the probability that historic resources will be lost or altered within the VBNC Claim Block. Therefore, the residual effects are negligible to minor. The residual effects, including cumulative environmental effects remaining after mitigation are presented in Table 19.8. The significance ratings in this table assume the Cultural Heritage Division will approve the necessary salvage archaeology.

Table 19.8 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects

Project Phase	Residual Environmental Effects	Significance	Likelihood^a	Sustainable (Capacity) Use of Renewable Resources^a
construction	site loss and/or alteration	negligible or minor (not significant)	n/a	n/a
operation	potential site loss and/or alteration	negligible (not significant)	n/a	n/a
decommissioning	potential site loss and/or alteration	negligible (not significant)	n/a	n/a
post decommissioning	potential site loss or alteration	negligible (not significant)	n/a	n/a
accidental events	potential site loss and/or alteration	negligible to major (not significant to significant)	high to low	high to nil
^a likelihood and sustainable use of renewable resources are only defined for environmental effects that are significant (moderate or major) (CEAA 1994: 84, 187).

19.3.1 Construction

Historic resources will be directly or indirectly affected during the construction phase of the project as a result of construction activity and human presence. Avoidance or salvage archaeology will allow the important information contained in four sites to be either preserved or completely and systematically recorded for future generations. The residual environmental effect is predicted to be minor (not significant).

19.3.2 Operation

Indirect residual environmental effects are most likely to result from increased human presence. Implementation of the Historic Resources Protection Plan will enable historic resources protection during this phase of the Project. Therefore, the residual environmental effect of operations on historic resources is predicted to be negligible (not significant).

19.3.3 Decommissioning

Indirect residual environmental effects may occur as a result of human presence and reclamation activities in the VBNC Claim Block. Implementation of the Historic Resources Protection Plan will enable historic resources protection during Project decommissioning. Therefore, the residual environmental effect of decommissioning on historic resources is predicted to be negligible (not significant).

19.3.4 Post-Decommissioning

Indirect residual environmental effects may result from on-going human activity in the VBNC Claim Block by local people and, occasionally, by individuals with long-term site monitoring responsibilities. Residual environmental effects on historic resources during post-decommissioning are predicted to be negligible (not significant).

19.3.5 Accidental Events

Residual environmental effects on historic resources resulting from accidental events could occur during all Project phases. A marine oil spill may affect historic resources near shorelines. Residual environmental effects on historic resources resulting from a spill could include contamination of organic materials (e.g. charcoal and fat) which are commonly collected as scientific samples, thus limiting the ability for such materials to be dated or otherwise analyzed. It is more likely historic resources would be affected as a result of on-shore cleanup activities. The SCAT (Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Techniques) team would include a professional archaeologist and procedures to protect near-shore historic resources.

Infrastructure failure, such as dam failure or road washout, could result in the complete or partial loss of historic resources. A forest fire could result in the destruction of standing features, such as tent frames, and contaminate organic materials contained within sites. Implementation of the Historic Resources Contingency Plan will reduce the probability and magnitude of residual environmental effects on historic resources. Residual effects resulting from accidental events could range from negligible to major (not significant to significant). The likelihood of these events would vary from high to low, respectively.

19.3.6 Follow-up Program

Surveillance monitoring involving a professional archaeologist to accompany Project personnel during construction whenever land disturbance is planned may be required. The archaeologist surveys the area of planned disturbance for historic resources.

There are no legislated compliance monitoring requirements for historic resources. However, the Cultural Heritage Division may require surveillance monitoring by a professional archaeologist during the construction phase. The process for monitoring and follow up is in Chapter 4.

19.4 References

Literature Cited

Bell, T. 1996. Application of Sea Level History and Geomorphology to Historic Resources Mapping in the Voisey's Bay Region, Labrador, Prepared for Voisey's Bay Nickel Company Limited, St. John's, Newfoundland.

CEAA ( Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) 1994. Responsible Authority's Guide.

Cultural Heritage Division. 1992. Historic Resources Impact Assessment Guidelines. Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, Newfoundland.

Fitzhugh, W.W. 1978. Maritime Archaic Cultures of the Central and Northern Labrador Coast. Arctic Anthropology 15(2):61-95.

JWEL. 1996. Voisey's Bay 1995 Environmental Baseline Technical Data Report, Historic Resources Program. Prepared for Voisey's Bay Nickel Company Limited, St. John's, Newfoundland.

JWEL. 1997. Voisey's Bay 1997 Historic Resources Assessment Report. Prepared for Voisey's Bay Nickel Company Limited, St. John's, Newfoundland.

JWEL, Mushuau Innu Band Council, and Torngâsok Cultural Centre. 1997. Historic Resources Technical Data Report,

Voisey's Bay, Labrador. Prepared for Voisey's Bay Nickel Company Limited, St. John's, Newfoundland.

LIA (Labrador Inuit Association) n.d. Mineral Developments in Northern Labrador, Labrador Inuit Association, Nain, Labrador.

Marshall, I. 1995. Background Report on a Stage I Historic Resources Overview Assessment Relating to the Area around Voisey's Bay, Central Labrador. Jacques Whitford Environment Limited, St. John's, Newfoundland.

VBNC, Mushuau Innu Band Council and Torngâsok Cultural Centre. 1996. Successful 1996 Archaeological Survey Program Completed. Press Release, October 3, 1996.

Personal Communications

Renouf, P. Archaeologist, Archaeology Unit, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland.

Schwarz, F. Archaeologist, Archaeological Consultant to the Mushuau Innu Band Council, Tantallon, Nova Scotia.

Tuck, J. Archaeologist, Archaeology Unit, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland.

Appendix 19A

Environmental Effects Assessment Synthesis: Historic Resources