TOWNSHIP OF NIPIGON
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
RFQ – 2015-09
Provision for Professional Services to the:
Township of Nipigon
Stage 2 Archaeological Property Survey
Direct all inquiries to:
Ms. Suzanne Kukko
EDO
Township of Nipigon
(807) 887-3135 x 26
edo@nipigon.net
or
Mr. Lindsay Mannila
CAO
(807)887-3135 x 23
lindsaymannila@nipigon.net
Request for Quotation (RFQ)
Stage 2 Archaeological Property Survey
Township of Nipigon
RFQ – 2015 – 09
The RFQ is amended in the following manner:
Timeline;
The closing deadline is extended to Tuesday, September 8th, 2015 at noon. All other dates
within the expected timeframes would likely be extended by the additional week.
Tasks and Expected Outcomes:
The Tasks and expected outcomes are amended to refer to the recommendations from the
Revised Stage 1 Archeological Assessment of the Nipigon Waterfront, a report released in Sept
of 2013. The proposed scope of work will now cover archaeological assessment work from
recommendations 1-5 of pages 2-4 of the executive summary of the revised report.
The Revised report is attached and available as a resource for this proposal.
recommendations
Figure 47 identifies seven subareas within the primary Nipigon waterfront study area. Given their
proximity to the Nipigon River, all would normally be treated as having high archaeological potential
(See Appendix 1). However, landscape modification over the past 130 years has severely degraded
some of them, leading to the following recommendations.
1) Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4 represent recently created surfaces (Figure 47:4) or severely disturbed ones
(Zones 1, 2, and 3), and have little or no remaining archaeological value. These four areas do not
retain sufficient depositional integrity to warrant further archaeological concern.
2) Zone 5 upon the upper terrace overlooking the waterfront (Figure 47:5) retains very high
archaeological value because of preservation of the Officer’s House complex (Hamilton and Richie
1985). This mid to late 19th Century building burned in 1890, and the surviving foundations,
cellars, and unburned rubble lie intact and well-preserved beneath a gravel cap. The following
archaeological operations are recommended in the event that development occurs within Zone 5.
a) The gravel cap overlying these archaeological deposits should not be disturbed by
mechanized stripping. This will permit relocation of the permanent datum posts established
during the 1985 excavation, enabling re-establishment of the grid in order to precisely relocate
the previous test excavations and the Officer’s House and its outbuildings.
b) Improvements in Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) technology since the mid-1980s offers an
opportunity to more fully, precisely and noninvasively explore Zone 5 to delimit buried
archaeological features. Such methods should be employed prior to any further archaeological
investigation of this area.
c) The geophysical information should be used to guide more finely spaced shovel test pits or
strategic 1 m2 excavations to confirm the location of the HBC building foundations and cellars.
The exploratory shovel test excavations conducted in the 1980s was conducted at 10 metre
intervals. This testing should be supplemented to a five metre interval consistent to the current
MTCS Standards and Guidelines.
d) Guided by the results of GPR survey and the renewed exploratory shovel testing, strategic
excavation of 1 metre squares should be conducted to provide larger exposures of the deposits
located below the gravel cap. This should be designed to validate interpretations of the GPR
survey, and thereby refine our understanding of the location of the HBC buildings while
minimizing the impact to these deposits.
e) Given the cultural and scientific importance of the deposits within Zone 5, care should be
taken to minimize the invasive subsurface testing of these deposits given that the 1980s
excavations revealed very dense recoveries, sometimes with cellar features revealing
extremely good organic preservation in anaerobic water-saturated conditions. Recovery of
large quantities of such artifacts would result in the long-term obligation to curate and
conserve fragile objects at considerable cost.
f) In the event of development of buildings, walkways or interpretative structures upon the
upper terrace, ongoing archaeological monitoring should occur in the event that as yet
undiscovered remains are encountered.
g) Passive heritage development (i.e. interpretative walking trails, signage, marking of the
former building locations) should only occur on the surface of the gravel cap, thereby avoiding
undue degradation of the buried archaeological deposits. Such development should be
undertaken with archaeological monitoring.
3) Zone 6 consists of the lower terrace that once contained the trade store and men’s house as well
as the original warehouse facilities, wharf and powder magazine. It was also associated with the
original outlet of Clearwater Creek (Figure 47:6). This zone has been repeatedly and severely
disturbed throughout the 20th Century. While some remnants of some structural foundations were
intercepted during the 1985 excavations, subsequent building demolition, landscaping, re-routing
of Riverview Street, and refurbishment of the Marina area has severely degraded or completely
destroyed the archaeological deposits related to the HBC on the lower terrace (See Supplemental
Report Figure 2). It is unlikely that interpretable archaeological deposits remain, and therefore no
further archaeological concerns exist for the balance of Zone 6.
4) The only area within Zone 6 that retains some heritage potential is the south bank of the original
Clearwater Creek that contains the stone powder magazine. In the event of development in this
area, its location should be confirmed and protected from further disturbance. Such development of
the south bank of the original Clearwater Creek, should be preceeded by conventional 5 metre
interval shovel testing and ongoing monitoring during development operations in case presently
undocumented archaeological deposits are intercepted.
5) The forested area associated with zone 7 in Figure 47 contains portions of the early 20th
Century Mudflats community. This represents an important component of the early commercial
fishing and logging history of Nipigon. A significant part of this area has been modified to facilitate
development of a gravel parking lot, and campground and picnic area (Figure 47:7b and c) and the
archaeological potential of this area is so degraded that it no longer has heritage value. However
the southern portion of Zone 7 remains undeveloped except for recreational walkways and the
marking of beached and abandoned watercraft. Since this zone is a protected wetland it is highly
unlikely that further development will occur. Since Zone 7c contains the best preserved deposits
related to this early 20th Century occupation, no earthmoving and development should occur there.
In the event of future cultural heritage interpretation, an oral history project should be conducted
to collect information about the residents of the Mudflats and the location of their
homes. Development should be relatively passive, with gravelled walkways, and signage at various
key locations along them. It should also involve archaeological monitoring of trail development.
Upon completion of this project, the Township’s expectations are that the firm will have:
-
Re-establish the locations of the areas of concern identified above
Indicate these locations on a map of the study area
Provide GPS coordinates for these locations
Clearly mark and establish a safe border around the identified areas to prevent further
disturbance