Draft Construction Plan Report - Invenergy

Proposal ment Conestogo Measures” for Wind for Energy Liquid Centre 

Review Effluents, Renewable and Storm Energy Analysis Water, Approval and of "Risk 

Management Transportation (REA) Draft Measures" Submission and Constructed for Liquid 

Effluents, Pathways Stormwater and 

Transportation Final Construction Draft Report Plan Report and (Draft) Constructed 

Pathways 

June November 8, 2007 2012 

Request for Proposals No.: SWP20070002 

January 2007 

Ontario Ministry of the Environment 

Conestogo Wind Power Partnership 

Submitted by 

11-4472 

Dillon Consulting 

Submitted by 

Limited 

Dillon Consulting 

50-2800-6100 

Limited

Conestogo Wind Power Partnership – Conestogo Wind Energy Centre 

Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Draft Submission 

Construction Plan Report (Draft) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Conestogo Wind Power Partnership, an entity owned and operated by Invenergy Wind Canada 

Development ULC, is developing the Conestogo Wind Energy Centre. The Proponent is 

developing the Project as a Class 4 wind facility with a nameplate capacity of 69 MW that will 

consist of up to 26 wind turbines. 

The proposed wind turbines are to be located within the Municipality of North Perth and 

Township of Perth East in the County of Perth. The wind turbines are bordered by Highway 86 

(Main Street East/Wellington Road 86) to the north, Highway 23 to the west, Perth Line 72 to 

the south and Perth Road 131 to the east. Collector lines will run approximately 25 km east of 

the wind farm to a substation located in the Township of Wellesley, Regional Municipality of 

Waterloo, to connect the Project to the provincial power grid. It is proposed that the wind 

turbines will be situated entirely on privately owned land that is currently under agricultural 

production, used for pasture land or is land that has been left fallow. Other project components, 

including underground collector lines, will be located on privately owned land and within the 

municipal road rights-of-way (RoW). The proposed substation is to be located on land currently 

used for aggregate extraction. 

The Project will require approval under Ontario Regulation 359/09 – Renewable Energy 

Approvals (REA) under the Green Energy Act. The Construction Plan Report is one component 

of the REA application for the Project and is in accordance with Ontario Regulation 359/09 

(as revised July 2012), MOE‟s Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals, 2011. The draft 

report will be made available for municipal, aboriginal, stakeholder and public review and 

comment prior to the final REA submission. 

The Construction Plan Report provides an overview of the project proponent, a description of the 

project study area and details regarding construction and installation activities. Construction 

details include: materials brought to the site, construction timelines, equipment used and 

temporary land uses. The construction process is broken into three stages; site preparation, 

project component installation and post-construction activities. A description of proposed 

construction related negative environmental effects and mitigation measures is produced. This 

should be reviewed in parallel with the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) Report as part of the 

Natural Heritage Assessment package. Together, both reports describe a full scope of effects and 

mitigation measures for the construction of the Project. 

Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 11-4472 

Page i




This page intentionally left blank 


Page ii




TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i 

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

1.1 Project Proponent .................................................................................................... 2 

1.2 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 3 

2. TIMING AND OPERATIONAL PLAN ............................................................................ 4 

3. CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION ACTIVITIES ............................................... 6 

3.1 Site Preparation Activities ...................................................................................... 6 

3.1.1 Surveying .................................................................................................... 6 

3.1.2 Geotechnical Investigations ........................................................................ 7 

3.1.3 Land Clearing (Vegetation Removal) ......................................................... 7 

3.1.4 Topsoil Stripping, Grubbing and Grading................................................... 8 

3.1.5 Access Roads and Municipal Road Upgrades............................................. 8 

3.1.6 Turbine Foundations ................................................................................... 9 

3.1.7 Turbine Crane Pads ..................................................................................... 9 

3.2 Component Installation, Interconnection and Testing .......................................... 10 

3.2.1 Pad Mount Transformers and Collector System Installation .................... 10 

3.2.2 Project Substation ...................................................................................... 11 

3.2.3 Wind Turbine Erection .............................................................................. 11 

3.3 Post Installation ..................................................................................................... 12 

3.3.1 Turbine Commissioning ............................................................................ 12 

3.3.2 Clean-up and Remediation ........................................................................ 12 

3.4 Temporary Uses of Land ...................................................................................... 13 

3.4.1 Temporary Storage and Laydown Area .................................................... 13 

3.4.2 Turbine Laydown Area ............................................................................. 13 

3.5 Temporary Water Takings .................................................................................... 14 

3.6 Materials Brought to Site ...................................................................................... 14 

3.6.1 Construction Equipment Used .................................................................. 16 

3.6.2 Transportation of Equipment and Project Components ............................ 16 

3.6.3 Materials Generated at, or Transported from, the Project Location.......... 17 

4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MONITORING PLAN ...................................... 19 

5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 27 


Page iii




LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

Figure 1 Project Site Plan ................................................................................. follows page 4 

Figure 1a Project Site Plan ................................................................................. follows page 4 

Figure 1b Project Site Plan ................................................................................. follows page 4 

Figure 1c Project Site Plan ................................................................................. follows page 4 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 O. Reg 359/09 Construction Plan Report Requirements ........................................ 1 

Table 2 Anticipated Construction Schedule......................................................................... 5 

Table 3 Gravel Requirements ............................................................................................ 15 

Table 4 Concrete Requirements ......................................................................................... 15 

Table 5 Description of Negative Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures .......... 23 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A 

Appendix B 

Stage 1 Archaeology Assessment 

Cultural Heritage Assessment 


Page iv




1. INTRODUCTION 

Conestogo Wind Power Partnership (CWPP) is developing the Conestogo Wind Energy Centre 

(CWEC). The proposed wind facility (the “Project”) will consist of up to 26 wind turbines and 

associated infrastructure for a total nameplate capacity of up to 69 MW. CWPP is proposing the 

wind turbines be situated entirely on privately owned land that is currently under agricultural 

production, used for pasture land or is land that has been left fallow. Other project components, 

including underground collector lines, will be located on privately owned land and within the 

municipal road rights-of-way (RoW). CWPP is proposing the project substation be situated on 

privately owned land that is used for aggregate extraction. 

CWPP has retained Dillon Consulting Limited to complete a Renewable Energy Approval 

(REA) application for the Project, as required under Ontario Regulation 359/09 – Renewable 

Energy Approval (REA) under Section V.0.1 of the Green Energy Act. 

The purpose of this Construction Plan Report is to provide a detailed description of all site 

preparation, construction and commissioning activities that will occur to bring the proposed wind 

facility into operation. 

This Construction Plan Report has been prepared to fulfill the requirements of Item 1 in Table 1 

of Ontario Regulation 359/09 (Table 1). 

Table 1: O. Reg 359/09 Construction Plan Report Requirements 

Requirements 

Section Reference 

1. Set out description of the following in respect of the renewable energy project: 

i. Details of any construction or installation activities Section 3 

ii. The location and timing of any construction or installation Section 2 

activities for the duration of the construction or installation 

iii. Any negative environmental effects that may result from Section 4 

construction or installation activities 

iv. Mitigation measures in respect of any negative environmental Section 4 

effects mentioned in paragraph 3 

Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 11-4472 Page 1




1.1 Project Proponent 

Invenergy Wind LLC, the parent company of Invenergy Wind Canada Development ULC, and 

CWPP, has successfully developed and commissioned 33 large-scale wind farms. This 

experience has resulted in a proven track record of establishing and maintaining relationships 

with host communities, suppliers and utilities. In the course of developing wind energy projects, 

Invenergy respects various environmental approval requirements and obtains regulatory 

approvals that vary depending on the jurisdiction, project capacity and site location. 

Contact information for CWPP is as follows: 

Full Name of Company: 


Address: 120 Front Street East, Suite 201 

Toronto, Ontario, M5A 4L9 

Telephone: (416) 901-9463 

Fax: (416) 546-9905 

Prime Contact: 

Email: 

James J. Murphy Director, Business Development 

jmurphy2@invenergyllc.com 

Dillon Consulting Limited is the prime consultant for the preparation of the REA documents. 

The Dillon contact information is: 

Full Name of Company: 

Dillon Consulting Limited 

Address: 235 Yorkland Boulevard, Suite 800 

Toronto, Ontario, M2J 4Y8 

Telephone: (416) 229-4646 Ext. 2355 

Prime Contact: 

Email: 

Don McKinnon, REA Project Manager 

dpmckinnon@dillon.ca 





1.2 Project Location 

The Project is located within the County of Perth, as shown in Figures 1a through 1c, and 

transects the Municipality of North Perth and the Township of Perth East, as well as the 

Township of Wellesley in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The wind farm component of 

the Project is roughly bordered by Highway 86 (Main Street East/Wellington Road 86) to the 

north, Highway 23 to the west, Perth Line 71 to the south and Perth Road 131 to the east. To 

connect the Project to the provincial power grid, owned by Hydro One Networks, Inc., it will be 

necessary to run low voltage, 34.5 kV, power lines approximately 25 km, within municipal road 

RoW, to a connection point with the 115 kV provincial transmission line. The connection point 

is located to the east of the proposed wind farm at Lot 16, Concession A Eastern Division, 

Township of Wellesley in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 

Figures 1a through 1c reference a „buildable area‟ which outlines the construction footprint 

(including crane walking paths) and houses all the project components listed below. 

Post-construction, the buildable area is remediated to its original condition, except for the 

locations where permanent project infrastructure is located. 

Components to be constructed at the project location consist of the following: 

 

 

 

 

Turbines – 120 metre by 120 metre cleared area (during construction) which includes the 

turbine tower, foundation, pad mount transformer, crane pad and temporary turbine 

component laydown area; 

Access roads – 15 metre wide corridor leading to each turbine (50 metres at temporary 

turning radii), aggregate roads (5 metres to 7 metres wide), temporary compacted 

shoulders, temporary topsoil windrow, staging areas and where necessary, culverts; 

Collector system – underground electrical cables and alternate electrical cables, junction 

boxes and fiber optic communication cable installed in an approximate 1.2 metre deep by 

0.3 metre wide trench, conveying energy output of all turbines to the project substation 

over private land and municipal road allowance; and 

Project substation – 40 metre by 70 metre fenced area with circuit breakers, disconnect 

switches, protection and control equipment, 34.5 kV to 115 kV step up transformer with 

an approximate 45 metre long overhead spur line connecting the substation to the existing 

115 kV Hydro One transmission line. 





This page intentionally left blank. 


HIGHWAY 23 

PERTH 147 ROAD 

HIGHWAY 9 

WELLINGTON 10 ROAD 



MANSER ROAD 


ARTHUR STREET NORTH 


Conestogo Wind Energy Centre 

88 LINE 

TOWNSHIP OF WOOLWICH 

Figure 1 

Project Site Plan 

TOWNSHIP OF MAPLETON 


FLORADALE ROAD 

LINE 86 

CHURCH STREET WEST 

Elmira 

Legend 

Highway 

Major Road 

Local Road 

Railway 

Water Body 

Inset Map Extents 

Listowel 

PERTH 86 LINE 

HIGHWAY 86 

LINE 86 

LISTOWEL ROAD 

Municipal Boundary 

A 

A 

")Ð 

A 

A 

")Ð 

A 

A A 

A 

")Ð 

A 

A A 

A 

")Ð 

SEE 

FIGURE 1A SEE 

FIGURE 1B 


AMENT LINE 

SEE 

FIGURE 1C 

HAWKESVILLE ROAD 

!( 

KRESSLER ROAD 

Project Components 

")Ð Junction Box 

A 

!( 

Turbine 

Project Substation 

Collector Line 

Access Road 

120 metre Setback from Project Components 

Temporary Laydown Area 

Temporary Turn Radius 

Buildable Area 

HERRGOTT ROAD 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Atwood A A 

A 

A A 

A 

A 

")Ð ")Ð 

")Ð 

A A A 

MUNICIPALITY OF NORTH PERTH 

")Ð 

Millbank 

TOWNSHIP OF PERTH EAST 

PERTH 72 LINE 

WILLIAM HASTINGS LINE 

TOWNSHIP OF WELLESLEY 

LOBSINGER LINE 

St. Clements 

WEIMAR LINE 


Milverton 


NOTRE DAME DRIVE 

HUTCHISON ROAD 

Wellesley 

GERBER ROAD 

TOWNSHIP OF WILMOT 

/ 

1:115,000 

0 2 4 6 km 

NAFZIGER ROAD 

MUNICIPALITY OF WEST PERTH 

PERTH 55 LINE 


PERTH 56 LINE 

PERTH LINE 56 

Created by: GM 

Checked By: RC 

Date Created: 101112 

Date Modified: 111612 

File Path: I:\GIS\114472 - Gotham\ 

Mapping\Construction Plan Report\ 

Figure 1 - Project Site Plan.mxd

HIGHWAY 23 

TREMAINE AVENUE SOUTH 

158 ROAD 

153 ROAD 

154 ROAD 


147 ROAD 

HIGHWAY 23 

HIGHWAY 9 

WELLINGTON 

10 RD 

MANSER ROAD 

WELLINGTON 

12 RD 

A 

T1 

A 

T2 

A 

T4 



")Ð 

A 

T3 

84 LINE 

")Ð 

83 LINE 

Legend 

Highway 

Figure 1a 


82 LINE 

T8 

T9 

A A ")Ð 

Major Road 

Local Road 

Water Body 

Water Body 

Railway 


Parcels 

81 LINE 

Delineated Evaluated Wetland 

Delineated Unevaluated Wetland 

A 

T11 

A 

A 

T5 

T7 

A 

T6 

80 LINE 

A 

T10 

Evaluated Wetland 

Unevaluated Wetlands 

Provincially Significant Wetlands 

Delineated Woodland 

Undelineated Woodland 


A 

T12 


")Ð 

A 

!( 

Junction Box 

Turbine 

Project Subtation 



")Ð 

78 LINE 


Access Road 




A 

T15 


77 LINE 

A 

T13 

A 

T14 

A 

T16 

HIGHWAY 86 

LINE 86 

76 LINE 

")Ð 

75 LINE 

FIGURE 1A FIGURE 1B FIGURE 1C 

PERTH 72 LINE 

Atwood 

A 

T18 

A 

T19 

A 

T26 

PERTH LINE 56 

GERBER ROAD 



PERTH 72 LINE 

A 

T17 

")Ð 

")Ð 

A 

T20 

A 

A 

T25 

")Ð 

T24 

72A LINE 

140 ROAD 

136 ROAD 

/ 

1:40,000 

0 0.5 1 1.5 km 

A 

T21 

A 

T22 

A 

T23 







Figure 1a - Project Site Plan.mxd

128 ROAD 

ROAD 116 

CHALMERS FORREST ROAD 

LICHTY ROAD 

HIGHWAY 23 

HIGHWAY 9 

WELLINGTON 

10 RD 

MANSER ROAD 

WELLINGTON 

12 RD 




129 ROAD 

Figure 1b 


Legend 

Highway 

Major Road 

83 LINE 

Local Road 

Water Body 

BUEHLER LINE 

Water Body 

Railway 


T9 

A A ")Ð 

Parcels 









A 

T10 


80 LINE 


AMENT LINE 


")Ð Junction Box 

A 

!( 

Turbine 



Access Road 


124 ROAD 




BOYDE LANE 

HIGHWAY 86 

LINE 86 


76 LINE 

SCHUMMER LINE 

PERTH LINE 56 

PERTH 72 LINE 


GERBER ROAD 


73 LINE 

/ 

1:40,000 

0 0.5 1 1.5 km 

PERTH 72 LINE 

PERTH 72 LINE 







Figure 1b - Project Site Plan.mxd

LAVERY ROAD 

HUTCHISON ROAD 

HIGHWAY 23 

HIGHWAY 9 

WELLINGTON 

10 RD 

MANSER ROAD 

WELLINGTON 

12 RD 

MALLOTT ROAD 

LISTOWEL ROAD 



BRICKER SCHOOL LINE 

TOWNSHIP OF WOOLWICH 

3 BRIDGES ROAD 

Legend 

Figure 1c 


STEFFLER ROAD 

POWELL ROAD 

Highway 

TEMPERANCE ROAD 

BUEHLER LINE 

POSEY LINE 

LAWSON LINE 

Hawksville 

BROADWAY STREET 

HEMLOCK HILL DRIVE 

Major Road 

Local Road 

Water Body 

Water Body 

Railway 


Parcels 


MOSER YOUNG ROAD 

HAWKESVILLE ROAD 





DURST ROAD 



EMPEY ROAD 

!( 



AMENT LINE 

")Ð 

A 

!( 

Junction Box 

Turbine 



Access Road 


KRESSLER ROAD 




BOOMER LINE 

Heidelberg 

LOBSINGER LINE 

HIGHWAY 86 

LINE 86 


St. Clements 

PERTH 72 LINE 



SCHUMMER LINE 

PERTH LINE 56 

GERBER ROAD 

HERRGOTT ROAD 

MANSER ROAD 

HACKBART ROAD 

/ 

1:40,000 

HESSEN STRASSE 

0 0.5 1 1.5 km 







Figure 1c - Project Site Plan.mxd




2. TIMING AND OPERATIONAL PLAN 

Based on the current project schedule, Table 2 outlines the anticipated construction schedule. 

Pre-construction surveying work began in the fall of 2012. Timing requirements, with respect to 

natural heritage features (i.e., in-water works), are further discussed in Section 4 of this report. 

The schedule and duration of construction activities is subject to change to accommodate 

seasonal and environmental restrictions, the permitting process and timing from authorities. 

Table 2: Anticipated Construction Schedule 

Construction Activity Date of Commencement Duration 

Archaeological surveys October 2012 1 to 2 months, depending 

on weather and findings 

Geotechnical activities June 2013 1 to 2 months 

Temporary construction laydown area, May 2014 

2 to 3 months 

temporary turn radii and access roads 

Wind turbine foundations June 2014 2 to 3 months 

Crane pads and turbine laydown area July 2014 

1 to 2 months 

at each turbine site 

Project collection system April 2014 3 to 5 months 

Project substation April 2014 4 to 6 months 

Wind turbine delivery and erection July 2014 2 to 3 months 

Interconnection tie-in July 2014 1 month 

Meteorological towers July 2014 1 month 

Clean-up and reclamation activities August 2014 2 to 3 months 





3. CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION ACTIVITIES 

This section of the Construction Plan Report (CPR) provides a detailed description of the 

construction activities that will occur to bring the wind facility into operation. 

Construction and installation activities will be undertaken in three stages: 

 

 

 

Site Preparation; 

Component Installation, Interconnection and Testing; and 

Post-Installation. 

Each of these stages has multiple construction activities associated with it, as laid out below. In 

general, construction activities involving excavations and the construction and installation of 

turbines and cables is anticipated to take approximately six to eight months. 

3.1 Site Preparation Activities 

The preparation of the site will include all activities leading up to the erection of the turbines and 

installation of Project components. Site preparation will include activities related to: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surveying; 

Geotechnical Investigations; 

Land Clearing (Vegetation Removal); 

Topsoil Stripping, Grubbing and Grading; 

Development of access roads and temporary turning radii to accommodate oversized 

turbine component deliveries; 

Establishment of temporary staging and laydown areas at each turbine site; 

Excavation and placement of reinforced concrete for turbine foundations; and 

Creation of temporary turbine crane pads. 

3.1.1 Surveying 

Prior to the start of construction, CWPP will undertake a preliminary survey of all locations 

where construction activities will occur. A registered Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) will stake 

the following areas: 

 

Turbine Laydown Areas (zones around the wind turbines to provide a work area and to 

stage components) – 120 metre by 120 metre area; 





 

 

 

 

Access roads and turning radii for turbine component deliveries; 

Land for the project substation; 

Central Laydown Area to locate temporary construction trailers, vehicles and equipment; 

and 

Collector system routes on private land and within municipal road rights-of-way. 

The OLS will also stake the locations of any designated archaeological or environmental features 

and their applicable setbacks to prevent unnecessary encroachment. Surveying work for 

the delineation of archaeological material began in the fall of 2012. Details of the 

Stage 1 Archaeology Assessment are available in Appendix A of this report. 

3.1.2 Geotechnical Investigations 

Geotechnical work is anticipated to commence in summer 2013. Detailed geotechnical work will 

be completed to obtain subsurface information at each turbine location, and at the project 

substation location to aid in the final foundation designs. 

3.1.3 Land Clearing (Vegetation Removal) 

The majority of project components, including turbines and transformers, will be located on 

agricultural land which is currently under agricultural production. Most natural vegetation in the 

area has previously been removed for agricultural purposes. The Project has been designed to 

reduce vegetation clearing. Temporary laydown areas, crane pads, construction staging areas, 

collector lines and access roads may require pre-construction clearing to facilitate construction 

operations. CWPP will integrate mitigation measures, as identified in Section 4 of this report and 

outlined in the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) Report, to ensure the Project is developed in a 

manner that will minimize vegetation disturbance and require little disruption to significant 

natural areas, as identified in the Natural Heritage Assessment (NHA) Reports. 

Areas to be cleared will be marked using fencing, spray paint, flagging or other signage, as 

appropriate prior to clearing activities. 





3.1.4 Topsoil Stripping, Grubbing and Grading 

Topsoil in areas to be disturbed by construction activities will be removed and windrowed or 

stockpiled to prevent contamination. Additional substrate may be removed if it is determined 

unsuitable for road or turbine pad construction. Soils unsuitable for construction will be reused 

as fill or re-spread during post-construction activities. Stockpiled soils will be stabilized to 

prevent erosion; silt barrier fencing will be used as required to prevent surface runoff of 

materials. 

Grading may be required to smooth work surfaces prior to construction to ensure road grades are 

suitable for trucks delivering turbine components. Grading will be done in such a manner as to 

not alter existing drainage patterns in the area. It is not anticipated that blasting will be required. 

3.1.5 Access Roads and Municipal Road Upgrades 

Approximately 19.4 km of new access roads will be required to deliver turbine components and 

for wind turbine maintenance activities during operations. Wherever practicable, existing roads 

and laneways will be utilized to reach the turbine sites. The location of the access roads, 

presented in Figures 1a through 1c, has been developed to minimize disruption to agricultural 

operations and to minimize removal of natural features. Additionally, it is anticipated that four 

new water course crossings will be required to access turbine locations. Watercourse crossings 

will be constructed using culverts to maintain stream flow. Please see the Water Body Report for 

additional information on watercourse crossings. 

Access roads for turbine construction will be created by stripping topsoil and installing a bed of 

aggregate consisting of crushed stone and gravel with a width of 5 metres to 7 metres, and may 

include compacted shoulders in areas where crane walks are planned. If necessary, access road 

sub grades will be stabilized with geotextile materials, cement or lime to help facilitate the 

movement of heavy machinery. Where possible, materials will be sourced locally for access 

roads and delivered to the site via dump truck. The aggregate access roads will include 

approximately 150 mm to 300 mm of crushed gravel, consisting of 0 mm to 150 mm Granular A 

type material over 0 mm to 150 mm of Granular B type material. A construction contractor will 

temporarily windrow stripped topsoil from the site adjacent to the access roads and turbine sites 

and re-spread it during post-construction activities. 





Upon completion of turbine construction, access roads will be narrowed to 5 metre widths and 

will become permanent maintenance roads. Soil stripped during construction of the roads will be 

placed as fill over the construction footprint and graded to match surrounding lands. Temporary 

construction areas will be returned to agriculturally productive lands and/or left in place if 

requested by landowner. 

In addition to the construction of access roads, some existing municipal infrastructure may 

require upgrades. Some upgrades may be required on select local roads throughout the project 

study area to facilitate the wide turning radius of delivery trucks carrying large components and 

heavy machinery required for construction. Due to weight restrictions and current design 

specifications, select bridges and culverts spanning watercourses may require strengthening to 

support the movement of large construction equipment and the weight of project components 

being delivered to the site. A transportation plan will be developed as part of the project design 

stage to determine the turbine delivery routes within the project location and to identify 

municipal road infrastructure that may require upgrading. 

3.1.6 Turbine Foundations 

The excavation of each turbine foundation will take approximately two to three working days to 

complete, depending on weather. CWPP anticipates that the foundations will be 15 metres to 

18 metres in diameter, and will be approximately 3 metres deep. Soils removed from the 

excavation will be stockpiled and stabilized on site for reuse in backfilling operations. 

Concrete required for the construction of turbine foundations is expected to be sourced from 

local suppliers. If a construction contractor cannot source the amount required locally, they may 

bring a Project specific batch plant on-site. It would require 2 ha of land and a Permit to Take 

Water issued by the Ministry of the Environment for water takings that exceed 50,000 L/day. 

The concrete batch plant would be operated by a separate contractor who would have its own 

Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). 

3.1.7 Turbine Crane Pads 

Construction of the crane pads will require stripping of topsoil and grading of the area to create a 

level base to support construction cranes during the installation of wind turbines. Topsoil will be 

stockpiled on-site for reuse during post-construction reclamation activities. The addition of a 





stabilizing base and/or crane matting may be required where soil conditions cannot support the 

weight of the crane. Stabilizing materials may include geotextiles, concrete or lime sub grades 

that a construction contractor will source from local suppliers where practicable. 

3.2 Component Installation, Interconnection and Testing 

Installation, interconnection and testing of components makes up the large bulk of the 

construction schedule and includes the following activities: 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Collector System; 

Project Substation; 

Wind Turbine Delivery and Erection; 

Inter-Connection and Tie-In to existing transmission grid; and 

Meteorological Tower Installation. 

3.2.1 Pad Mount Transformers and Collector System Installation 

Pad mount transformers will be required at the base of each wind turbine (either internally or 

externally) to step the voltage up from 690 v to 34.5 kV for distribution through collector lines to 

the project substation. External pad mount transformers would be placed on a concrete pad 

adjacent to the wind turbine. 

The project collector system will be comprised of 34.5 kV collector lines which will connect the 

turbines to the transformer substation located at Lot 16, Concession A Eastern Division, in the 

Township of Wellesley. Efforts have been made to ensure collector lines follow turbine access 

roads and municipal road RoW, wherever possible. In certain cases, at the landowners‟ request 

or to reduce the distance of collector lines, cables may stray from access roads. Collector lines 

between turbines and from the turbines to the project substation are proposed to be buried within 

the municipal road RoW. Placement of the cable will be done using trenching methods. In some 

areas, a construction contractor will use Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) to go under, for 

example, sensitive natural features, roads and/or watercourses. Trenches will be approximately 

0.3 metres wide and 1.2 metres deep. Collector lines will be backfilled with compacted trench 

spoil. 

Underground lines will not interfere with normal agricultural operations; however, construction 

will cause a temporary disruption. Any existing tile drain damaged during collector line 





installation will be repaired and documented with GPS coordinates and photos. All cabling to be 

buried on private property will be mapped using Ontario One Call and the property owner will be 

notified of all cable locations. 

3.2.2 Project Substation 

A project substation will be located at Lot 16, Concession A Eastern Division in the Township of 

Wellesley. The proposed site is on the property of an active aggregate extraction operation. The 

substation is required to collect voltage from the 34.5 kV collector line, increase the voltage to 

115 kV and connect the Project to the provincial power grid owned by Hydro One Networks, 

Inc. The substation will require a total leveled land area of 40 metres by 70 metres with a 

concrete foundation to support the transformer unit. The transformer may utilize a SORBWEB 

spill containment system or a concrete containment pit with oil/water separator to protect the 

environment from spills. SORBWEB systems utilize co-polymer textiles to capture and retain 

spilled oils while allowing water to pass through unobstructed into the natural environment. The 

containment system will be sized to contain 110% of the transformer oil should there be a 

complete failure of the system (which would be a rare and unexpected event), and will be 

designed to handle a 25 year rain storm event. The facility will be an open air enclosure 

surrounded by wire fencing and equipped with security lighting (with consideration given to 

nearby residents) and informational hazard signage. 

3.2.3 Wind Turbine Erection 

The Project will consist of up to 26 wind turbines for a total installed operating capacity of 

69 MW. Figures 1a through 1c identify the proposed location of each wind turbine. The turbines 

will be installed using large erection cranes which weigh an estimated 400 tonnes. Given the 

crane size and weight, select municipal roads may require strengthening, as discussed above, 

prior to this phase of construction. Project component delivery is discussed in 

Section 3.6.2. 

Turbines will be delivered to the construction site in four sections; tower sections, nacelles, hubs 

and blades. The tower is the supporting structure of the wind turbine and would be affixed to the 

turbine foundations poured during site preparation activities. Towers for each turbine will be 

approximately 100 metres in height. The nacelle, which houses the generator and electrical 





components, will be attached to the top of the tower prior to the rotor blades. The construction 

of one turbine will generally take two to four days depending on weather conditions. 

The specific wind turbine make and model has yet to be selected. General specifications for a 

typical wind turbine that could be used for this Project, including acoustic information, 

dimensions and technical specifications are provided in the Wind Turbine Specification Report. 

3.3 Post Installation 

Post installation construction activities include commissioning of the facility, rehabilitating 

construction areas and transitioning into the operations phase of the Project. 

3.3.1 Turbine Commissioning 

Turbine commissioning will occur once the wind turbines have been fully installed and electrical 

connections are complete. Commissioning involves testing and inspection of electrical, 

mechanical and communications operability. The proponent follows a detailed set of operating 

instructions and procedures to connect the wind turbines with the provincial electrical system. 

While adhering to these requirements, the proponent coordinates closely with Hydro One and the 

Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). 

3.3.2 Clean-up and Remediation 

Post-construction activities will primarily involve the removal and reclamation of temporary 

construction areas. The temporary laydown area will be restored to pre-construction conditions 

or as agreed upon with the landowner. Areas surrounding turbine foundations and work areas, 

marked as buildable areas on Figures 1a though 1c, will be covered with stockpiled topsoil, 

graded and restored to agriculturally productive land or as agreed upon with the landowner. 

Disturbed areas within the municipal road rights-of-way (from trenching) will be backfilled and 

allowed to re-naturalize or maintained at the discretion of the landowner. 

Local municipal infrastructure which was temporarily upgraded to facilitate construction of the 

Project will be returned to pre-construction conditions or as agreed upon with the local 

municipality. 





3.4 Temporary Uses of Land 

3.4.1 Temporary Storage and Laydown Area 

The Project will require a centralized laydown area. The temporary facility will be located at Part 

Lots 29 and 30, Concession 6 ELMA, Part 2, 44R8, in the Municipality of North Perth which is 

land currently being utilized for livestock grazing and pasture. The facility will house field 

offices while providing safe storage of construction materials, equipment and excess supplies 

during construction activities. The facility will have a total footprint of 2 ha. Access points will 

be created from both Perth 147 Road and 78 Line. The laydown area will be fenced and locked. 

Within the facility there may be designated fueling areas for all equipment that will meet or 

exceed regulatory requirements, as well as waste collection facilities for the disposal of materials 

generated during site construction activities. Waste materials will be segregated on site, and 

collected by a licensed commercial waste collection and disposal company which will have an 

ECA. The requirements of the company‟s ECA will determine how they will handle disposal of 

materials. 

Hazardous materials stored at the site may include items such as oils, grease, lubricants and fuel. 

Fuel may be delivered to the site by tanker and be stored at the centralized staging area. 

Hazardous materials will be disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste collection company that 

will have an ECA. While the storage and use of hazardous materials will be minimal, the 

potential exists for spills to occur during the construction period. Spills, if any, will be managed 

in accordance with provincial legislation and mitigation measures as outlined in both the 

Environmental Effects and Monitoring Plan and Emergency Response and Communications 

Plan, prepared as part of the Design and Operations Report of this REA submission package. 

Post-construction, a construction contractor will restore the central laydown area to its 

pre-construction condition, unless requested otherwise by the landowner. 

3.4.2 Turbine Laydown Area 

Each turbine location will require an adjacent construction area during construction of the wind 

facility. Construction areas will be located on land that is currently under agricultural production, 

used as pasture land or is land that has been left fallow. Each construction area will typically be 

centered on the turbine location with a diameter of approximately 120 metres and will have a 





maximum 5% slope. The construction and crane pad areas will be cognizant of surrounding 

archaeological resources and natural heritage features and sized within required setback 

allowances. 

Post-construction, the turbine laydown areas will be reclaimed to their pre-construction 

condition. 

3.5 Temporary Water Takings 

There are no anticipated water takings at this time. If concrete cannot be sourced locally, a 

concrete batch plant would be required and the proponent would require a Permit to Take Water. 

Turbine foundation dewatering is not anticipated. 

3.6 Materials Brought to Site 

An estimate of quantities of construction materials that will be required to be transported to site 

is presented below. Estimates will be confirmed and additional details provided, once a 

Construction Contractor is procured. Section 3.6.2 outlines the method of transport of materials 

to site and estimates the construction traffic that will be generated from construction activities. 

The raw materials required to construct the Project consist of standard building materials for 

construction including: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concrete; 

Reinforcing steel and anchor bolts; 

Gravel; 

Wood; 

Geotextiles; 

Electrical and fiber optic communication cabling; and 

Fuel and lubricants for equipment maintenance. 

Gravel and concrete would require large volumes for construction. Estimates of the quantities 

required are outlined in Tables 3 and 4. 





Construction Activity 

Table 3: Gravel Requirements 

Access Roads 30,000 metres 3 

Temporary radius widening at select intersection 10,000 metres 3 

Culverts 

300 linear metres 

Turbine Crane Pads and Laydown Areas 3000 metres 3 

Transformer Substation 900 metres 3 

Central Laydown Area 6000 metres 3 

Construction Activity 

Table 4: Concrete Requirements 

Anticipated Gravel Requirements 

Anticipated Concrete Requirements 

Turbine Foundations 

300 metres 3 to 400 metres 3 per turbine foundation; 

7800 metres 3 to 10,400 metres 3 total 

Transformer Substation 300 metres 3 

Additional materials that will be brought to site include components, such as: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Turbine components and pad mount transformers; 

Grounding cable, electrical cable and fiber optic communication cable; 

Meteorological tower; 

Power transformer, circuit breakers, switch gear and oil containment system; 

Junction boxes; 

PVC electrical conduit; 

Ancillary support equipment; and 

Culverts, corrugated metal pipe and/or High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. 

Construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, excavators, light and heavy duty trucks for 

deliveries and cranes, will be brought on-site for construction and installation activities. 

Invenergy is following the Ontario Feed-in Tariff Program requirements for minimum Ontario 

content and will attempt to source materials locally whenever available. 

A detailed construction and delivery schedule will be created to manage incoming materials and 

components. It is anticipated raw materials will be stored at each individual turbine site, as they 

are required. If this is not possible, materials will be stored at the central laydown facility. All 

fuels and lubricants will be stored in appropriate storage containers at the central laydown 

facility, which may be monitored 24 hours per day. The disposal of waste materials is described 

in Section 3.6.3. 





3.6.1 Construction Equipment Used 

Heavy equipment will be brought to site to undertake construction activities. The following 

heavy equipment may be required: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bulldozers; 

Graders; 

Compactors; 

Loaders; 

Excavators; 

Dump Trucks; 

Tree Fellers; 

Water trucks; 

Large erection crane; 

Truck mounted crane and rough-terrain forklift; 

Boom trucks; 

Trenching machine; 

Cable reel trucks and trailers; 

Horizontal directional drill rigs and support vehicles; and 

Flatbed trucks for deliveries. 

3.6.2 Transportation of Equipment and Project Components 

The construction contractor will design and implement a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to 

identify and deal with traffic planning. The plan includes the management of traffic during 

construction and the delivery of components. The TMP will outline: 

 

 

 

The size and number of trucks coming to site; 

The timeline and operational plan for transporting materials to site and within the site; 

and 

The sequence of construction traffic. 

The proponent or the construction contractor will work with upper and lower tier municipalities 

in the development of the TMP and will provide the finalized plan once completed. 

An estimated 35 to 40 ready mix concrete trucks would be required for each wind turbine 

foundation, requiring a total of approximately 900 to 1050 round trips. An estimated 





12 oversized flatbed trucks would be required for each wind turbine delivery, totaling 

approximately 312 trips. An estimated 5,000 other trips would be required for conventional 

trucks to transport civil and electrical components and materials, access road materials, the 

substation and ancillary equipment. 

The turbine manufacturer is responsible for the transportation of all wind turbine components to 

the project area. The Proponent, in coordination with the turbine manufacturer, will develop a 

transportation plan for delivery of the turbine components to the individual turbine sites. The 

turbine manufacturer is responsible for securing the necessary safety and transportation permits. 

The Ontario Ministry of Transportation will be notified regarding the timing of deliveries to 

account for any road works at the time of delivery. 

For public safety purposes, all oversized trucks on public roads will be accompanied by escort 

vehicles. 

All necessary road and intersection improvements will be paid for and permitted by the 

proponent. Road widths must be 5 metres to 7 metres with an additional 3 metre clearance 

required on both sides. CWPP will discuss maintenance and repair of local roads with the local 

municipalities, and may include a Road User Agreement between the Proponent and local 

municipalities. 

The Proponent is committed to providing notification to local residents of any temporary road 

closures through newspaper advertisement and/or other communication outlets found to be 

mutually acceptable to Proponent and local municipalities. These notifications are in the interest 

of public safety and to limit disruption to the community during construction and installation 

activities. Consideration of the local Mennonite community and horse-drawn vehicles will also 

be given. 

3.6.3 Materials Generated at, or Transported from, the Project Location 

Topsoil and subsoil, if required, will be stripped from access roads and temporary laydown areas 

and will be stockpiled and covered for re-use on site, where feasible. Waste material produced is 

expected to consist of construction material (i.e., concrete truck washouts, brush, equipment 

packaging, grease and oil) and a small amount of domestic waste (i.e., garbage, recycling and 

organic material). Construction and domestic waste disposal will be the responsibility of the 





construction contractor. The final decision on waste disposal or recycling will be made by the 

on-site contractor who will refer to the Environmental Protection Act before submitting a 

Generator Registration Report for waste produced at the facility. 

Any hazardous wastes that are used or have been stored on-site, such as lubricating oils, will be 

removed in accordance with Ontario Regulation 347, Environmental Protection Act, and 

disposed of at a Ministry of the Environment (MOE) licensed facility. This type of waste will be 

centrally stored at the central staging area, and removed from the site routinely by an MOE 

licensed hauler. Should any contaminated soils be encountered during construction, 

the contaminated materials will be disposed of in accordance with current provincial 

legislation – O.Reg 347, the General Waste Management Regulation. 

Portable toilets will be used during the construction phase of the Project and sewage will be 

collected by an MOE licensed local hauler and disposed of off-site. 

All wastes will be disposed of at licensed facilities; there will be no on-site waste disposal during 

the construction of the Project. 





4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MONITORING PLAN 

This section of the Construction Plan Report describes potential negative environmental effects 

that could occur as a result of construction activities. A description of related mitigation 

measures is provided that work to reduce or eliminate anticipated negative environmental effects. 

Additionally, Dillon has created an Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan (EEMP) to show 

how a construction contractor will monitor negative environmental effects during construction 

activities and how CWPP will respond to adverse environmental impacts. 

The description of project effects, mitigation and monitoring commitments, is organized by 

environmental component as presented in Table 6. Dillon has identified potential environmental 

effects of the Project based on the review of available background studies and collection of 

baseline data as described in the other REA reports including: 

 

 

 

 

 

The Natural Heritage Assessment Reports; 

Water Assessment; 

Water Body Report; 

Stage 1 Archaeological Report; and 

Heritage Report (seen in Appendix B of this report). 

These reports form part of the overall final REA submission package. 

To minimize adverse effects to the identified natural and socio-economic features in the project 

area, mitigation strategies have been proposed. Mitigation strategies selected to reduce/eliminate 

negative effects have been chosen based on the hierarchical principles of: 

 

 

 

Avoidance – elimination of adverse effects by sitting, scheduling and design 

considerations; 

Minimization – reduction or control of the adverse impact through project modifications 

or the implement of mitigation measures; and 

Compensation – enhancement or rehabilitation of impacted areas. 





Through the use of effective mitigation measures some potential negative impacts to the Project 

can be eliminated. Residual adverse impacts (those that cannot be completely avoided) have 

been assessed based on their level of impact using the following indicators: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Duration – length of time that the effect would result; 

Context – nature/sensitivity of the area in which the effect will occur; 

Frequency – number of times the effect may occur; 

Magnitude – size or scale of the effect; 

Likelihood – likelihood that an effect may occur; 

Resilience – likelihood of an environmental component/feature to recover from an 

effect; and 

Spatial Extent – area within which the effect may occur. 

4.1 Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan 

The Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan (EEMP) outlines how the anticipated negative 

environmental effects from the construction phase of the Project will be mitigated and how 

ongoing monitoring will ensure compliance with Ontario Regulation 359/09. According to the 

Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals, components of the EEMP include: 

 

 

 

 

 

A summary of all potentially negative environmental effects as given in the 

description of negative environmental effects in the Project Description Report; 

Performance objectives in respect of each potential negative effect. Performance should 

be defined such that in achieving the objective the negative effect will be mitigated; 

A description of all mitigation strategies planned to achieve performance objectives; 

Where there is an ongoing risk of potential negative effects, a description of how the 

Project will be monitored to ensure that mitigation strategies are meeting performance 

objectives; and 

Contingency measures that will be undertaken should monitoring reveal that any 

mitigation measures are failing. 

The EEMP is supported by the assessments of several study disciplines as documented in other 

reports prepared as part of the REA submission, including: 

 

 

 

Project Description Report, which summarizes potential negative environmental effects; 

Design and Operations Report, which details potential negative environmental effects 

resulting from operation and maintenance activities; 

Noise Study Report, which analyzes noise impacts on receptors; 





 

 

 

Archaeological Reports and Cultural Self-Assessment Reports, which describe potential 

negative effects to archaeological activities during construction and installation activities; 

Natural Heritage Assessment Reports, which describe potential negative effects to 

significant natural heritage features within 120 metres of the project location during 

construction, operation and decommissioning; and 

Water Body Report, which describes potential negative effects to water bodies within 

120 metres of the project location for construction, operation and decommissioning 

phases. 

Several reports prepared for the REA submission include monitoring plans: 

 

 

Environmental Impact Study (EIS) Report, part of the Natural Heritage Assessment, 

provides monitoring requirements related to natural features within 120 metres of the 

project location during construction, operation and decommissioning; and 

Water Body Report, which provides monitoring requirements for water bodies within 

120 metres of the project location during construction, operation and decommissioning. 

The EEMP has been designed to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of identified 

protection and mitigation measures being used during the construction phase of the Project. 

The goals of the EEMP during the construction phase of the Project include: 

1. Comply with environmental regulations and minimize effects to the natural environment; 

2. Minimize disruptions to the local community; 

3. Minimize conflicts in local communities affected by the Project; 

4. Avoid accidents; and 

5. Establish a series of Best Management Practices that enhance occupational safety. 

Table 5 presents the EEMP for the construction phase of the Project. In regards to the natural 

heritage mitigation and monitoring commitments, Table 5 provides a summary of the 

commitments. Negative environmental effects and mitigation measures, as described in this 

report, should be reviewed in parallel with the EIS and the Water Body Report. Combined, these 

reports describe a full scope of effects and mitigation measures for the construction of the wind 

facility. 





This page intentionally left blank. 





Environmental 

Component 

Potential Negative 

Environmental Effects 

Table 5: Description of Negative Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Performance 

Mitigation/Protection/Monitoring 

Objective 

Residual Effects Summary 

Air Quality 

Noise 

Natural Heritage 

Resources 

(Wetlands, 

Woodlots, etc.) 

Air emissions, greenhouse gases and 

fugitive dust from the use of 

construction equipment resulting from 

excavations and increased road truck 

traffic could impair local air quality 

Sound emitted during the operations 

phase could be a nuisance to local 

residents 

Noise emissions could disrupt tranquility 

of surrounding area 

Noise can cause sensory disturbance to 

wildlife and people nearby 

Use of machinery for construction 

activities may result in disturbances to 

wildlife in adjacent habitat areas 

Minimize magnitude and 

duration of emissions to 

the greatest extent 

possible and receive no 

complaints 

Receive minimal noise 

related complaints 

during the construction 

phase of the Project 

Ensure the protection of 

natural heritage 

resources by minimizing 

disturbance to adjacent 

habitat areas 

Mitigation Measures 

During the construction period the construction contractor will be required to implement a number of standard operating 

practices to minimize air emissions and control fugitive dust emissions including: 

Maintain equipment in proper working order to reduce air emissions; 

Use machinery equipped with muffler/exhaust systems; 

Motorized equipment should meet design specifications for emission controls and conform to local Drive Clean standards; 

Contractor should limit operation and idling of gas-powered equipment and vehicles, especially during smog advisories; 

Minimize vehicular traffic on exposed soils and stabilize high traffic areas with clean gravel surface layers; 

Minimize mud tracking by vehicles exiting construction areas. Routinely scrape local roads to remove tracked mud, dirt and 

debris; 

Avoid excavation and other construction activities with the potential to release airborne particulates during windy and 

prolonged dry periods; 

Stabilize exposed soils and ensure timely reseeding and recovering of areas where construction activities are finished; 

Perform routine site maintenance to contain loose construction materials or prevent debris from leaving the construction site; 

A water truck should be onsite at all times, and water or environmentally friendly dust control agents should be applied at an 

acceptable rate to minimize the release of dust from gravel, paved areas, exposed soils or problem areas; and 

Implementation of a speed limit to reduce the disturbance of exposed soils 

Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan 

No specific air quality monitoring is proposed nor required. An Emergency Response and Communication Plan (ERCP) has 

been created which outlines how the public or other concerned agencies can file complaints related to dust and air emissions. 

The ERCP can be found in Section 8 of the Design and Operations Report submitted as part of this DRAFT REA Submission 

Mitigation Measures: 

Hours of construction will conform to the Municipality of North Perth Noise By-Law No. 32-AD-2001, the Township of 

Perth East Noise By-Law No. 53-2008 and the Township of Wellesley By-Law 38/2008; 

Generators used for the construction of wind facility components and for field offices will have sound barriers installed or 

will be equipped with acoustically rated enclosures to minimize sound; and 

Construction equipment will be kept in good repair and will operate in accordance with local by-laws, manufacturer 

recommended guidelines and MOE‟s publication NPC 115 


An Emergency Response and Communication Plan has been created which outlines how the public or other concerned 

agencies can file complaints related to nuisance noise. The Emergency Response and Communications Plan can be found in the 

Design and Operations Report of this DRAFT REA Submission Package 


The EIS outlines a full set of mitigation measures to protect the natural environment, which include: 

Develop and implement an erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan (based on standard construction practices) which 

will include silt fencing around work area if within 30 metres of a wetland, woodland or waterbody and minimize any 

stock piled or excavated materials in the project location to prevent runoff into adjacent areas and to protect 

surrounding areas prior to site preparation. Any stockpiled material will be stored more than 30 metres away from a 

wetland, woodland or waterbody; 

Erosion and sediment control measures (i.e., silt fence) installed for construction purposes will prevent the movement 

of amphibians and other small wildlife into the construction area; 

Minimize duration of soil exposure and ensure exposed soils are stable prior to removal of ESC measures; 

Minimize the removal/disturbance of vegetation adjacent to the wetland habitat between the buildable area and 

wetland boundary; 

Maximize the distance of all construction equipment used from the wetland edge; operate machinery in the project 

location areas only; 

Re-grade to pre-construction condition and re-vegetate using native plant species typical of the adjacent habitat; and 

Implementation of the listed mitigation, 

protection and monitoring measures 

during the construction phase of the 

Project will ensure the protection of local 

air quality. Emissions from the 

construction phase of the Project are 

expected to be negligible compared to 

background conditions. Potential air 

quality effects are characterized as 

follows: 

Duration – Throughout construction 

phase of Project 

Context – Localized 

Frequency – Sporadic 

Magnitude – Small 

Likelihood – Low 

 

 

Resilience – High 

Spatial Extent – Near turbines and 

along access roads 

Occasional noise emissions from 

construction activities will comply with 

REA requirements and applicable MOE 

noise guidelines. Intermittent noise 

activities are anticipated to have the 

following effects characteristics: 

Duration – Throughout construction 

phase of Project 

Context –Localized 



Likelihood – Moderate 


Spatial Extent – Project Area 

In the event of adverse effects on natural 

heritage features effects are 

characterized as follows: 

Duration – throughout construction 

Context –Variable 


Magnitude – Variable 


Resilience – Variable 






Environmental 

Component 




Performance 


Objective 


 

If feasible, undertake site preparation activities outside of the breeding season for amphibians (i.e., from April 15 to 

June 30) and during core bird breeding season (April 15 to July 15) 

Surface Water 

Use of machinery could result in impacts 

to surface water resources including: 

increased sediment loads, deleterious 

substances or physical alterations to 

riparian areas 

No spills, erosion or 

sediment transport 




Pre-construction surveys will be conducted to assess habitat use within amphibian breeding habitat; 

Visual monitoring for wildlife species and avoidance where encountered; 

Erosion and sediment control structures should be monitored regularly to ensure that they are fully functional. Should 

erosion and sediment control measures not be functional, they should be immediately repaired ; and 

Upon submission of annual post-construction monitoring reports to MNR it will be determined in consultation with 

MNR whether contingency measures are required and the contingency measures to be undertaken 


Use of sediment control devices including silt barrier fencing around surface water resources and fiber-fill flow check dams; 

Stabilize exposed soils and ensure timely reseeding and recovering of areas where construction activities are finished; 

All construction equipment and materials should be stored in areas of the project location that maximize distance between 

water bodies and construction laydown areas; 

Design roads, crane paths and turn radii to promote infiltration; 

Maintain flow conveyance throughout construction of access roads/culverts; 

Provide a designated storage area(s), equipped with spill kits for the safe handling of deleterious substances; and 

Develop and implement a stormwater management plan which maintains pre-construction surface water flows to adjacent 

lands 

In the event of adverse effects on surface 

water, the effects are characterized as 

follows: 








Water Bodies 

Potential direct and indirect effects on 

water quality 

(i.e., sedimentation, vegetation removal 

etc.) resulting in adverse effects on fish 

and fish habitat including: 

Loss of shade; 

Reduced input of leaves, twigs, 

insects, etc. to water body; 

Reduced bank stability and ability to 

trap sediment from upland areas; 

increase erosion, sedimentation and 

turbidity; 

Potential for runoff and 

contaminants into water body; 

Smoothing of spawning area 

substrates; 

Adverse effects on benthic 

invertebrates and other fish food 

sources; 

Reduced survival of fish eggs; 

Clogging of and damage to fish gills; 

and 

Increased water turbidity 

No spills, erosion or 

sediment transport 




Inspection of equipment and materials for spills/leaks; 

Ensure appropriate grasses and vegetation grow once re-planted; 

Ensure streambed, substrate and banks are stable; 

Visual assessment of vegetation communities for disturbance; and 

Monitor flow conveyance during installation of the culvert 


All construction equipment and materials should be stored in areas of the project location that maximize distance between 

water bodies and construction laydown areas; 

No materials or equipment to be stored within 30 metres of the average annual high water mark of a water body; 

Existing vegetation in the project location should be maintained to act as a natural buffer; 

Pump all water encountered during installation of wind turbine foundations to acceptable receiving areas; 

Vegetated areas can be used for natural infiltration and avoidance of soil mobilization or use of a temporary storage basin in 

a disturbed area of the project location; 

Control rate and timing of water pumping. If possible, restrict groundwater taking to low flow time periods; 

Design construction approaches to be perpendicular to water bodies to minimize disturbance to riparian vegetation; 

Avoid placing poles on meander bends, braided streams, active floodplains or other unstable areas that may result in erosion 

and scouring of the streambed. Locate poles sufficiently above the high water mark where possible. 

Operate machinery on land and minimize disturbance to the banks of adjacent water bodies; 

Install effective sediment and erosion control measures to prevent entry of sediment into the water bodies. Avoid work 

during wet, rainy conditions; 

Stabilize waste materials removed from the work site to prevent them from entering water bodies; 

Vegetate any disturbed areas by planting native trees, shrubs, grasses and cover to prevent erosion ; 

Use portable dams, pea gravel bags, concrete blocks, steel or wood walls, clean rock, sheet pile or other appropriate designs 

to separate the dewatered work site from flowing water; 

Before dewatering, rescue any fish from within the isolate and release them downstream; 

Avoid construction during wet, rainy or winter thaw conditions; 

Design roads, crane paths and turn radii to promote infiltration ; 

Maintain or provide vegetative buffers; 

Maintain flow conveyance throughout construction of access roads/culverts; 

Develop and implement an erosion and 

sediment control plan. In the event of 

adverse effects on fish and fish habitat, 

the effects are characterized as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 







Spatial Extent – construction works 

within 30 metres of water body 





Environmental 

Component 




Performance 


Objective 


Minimize removal/disturbance of vegetation adjacent to the water body between the buildable area and water body boundary; 

Maximize the distance of all construction equipment used from the water body edge; operate machinery in the project 

location areas only; and 

Develop and implement a stormwater management plan, which maintains pre-construction surface water flows to adjacent 

lands 

Waste 

Management and 

Contamination 

Potential for spills resulting in 

deleterious substances entering the 

natural environment 

Improper disposal of waste could result 

in contamination of the natural 

environment 

Ensure proper storage 

and disposal of waste 

material and to have no 

accidental spills of 

hazardous materials 


Routine checks of all erosion and sediment control measures; 

Ensure appropriate grasses and vegetation are grown once re-planted; 

Ensure streambed, substrate and banks are stable; 

Visual assessment of vegetation communities for disturbance; 

Monitor flow conveyance during installation of the culvert; 

Visual inspection of access/exit pits and directional drill line for frac-out; and 

Visual inspection and routine checks of dewatering and vegetation areas/retention basin 


Please refer to the Spills Response Plan in Section 6.2.1 of the Design and Operations Report for details on chemical and 

hazardous material storage, handling and spills response. Additionally, the following best practices will be utilized during 

construction with respect to the handling of waste materials (hazardous and non-hazardous) and spill prevention: 

Food waste will be stored in a manner that ensures wildlife will not be attracted, and will be removed from the site on a 

routine basis; 

Off-site temporary disposal areas for surplus material will be designated, and will be located a minimum of 30 metres from a 

wetland or watercourse. In circumstances where landowners will not permit the use of alternate locations, the buffer zone 

will be reduced to a minimum of 10 metres; 

The construction contractor will designate areas for the transfer and limited temporary storage of hazardous materials and 

special wastes. These sites will be properly labeled and appropriately controlled, and will be located a minimum of 30 metres 

from a wetland or watercourse; 

All surplus materials, rubbish, waste materials, and debris will be removed from the site upon completion of construction 

activities; 

All waste will be handled in accordance with relevant provincial and federal requirements; 

No waste or debris will be permitted to enter any watercourse; 

Only material approved by the Site Supervisor will be disposed of or reused onsite (e.g., clean fill materials); 

Run-off from a disposal/storage area will not be allowed to enter a watercourse; 

Spill kit supplies will be inventoried and their usage will be documented; 

Refueling of vehicles will occur designated areas only; 

Ensure equipment and vehicles are properly maintained and in working condition; 

Minimize construction during wet weather; and 

Proper training of workers in spill prevention and containment 

Responsible management of waste 

materials and spill prevention methods 

will be utilized throughout the Projects 

operation. As a result, no net effects are 

anticipated. However, in the event a spill 

occurs, the effects are characterized as 

follows: 

Duration – Variable 




Likelihood – Small 


Spatial Extent – Variable 


Site supervisor will conduct routine visual monitoring of the site; 

Spill kit supplies will be inventoried and their usage will be documented; and 

See ERCP for the procedure regarding the reporting of, and following up of, complaints by the public or agencies 





Environmental 

Component 




Performance 


Objective 


Heritage 

Resources 

(Archaeology and 

Cultural) 

Local 

Infrastructure 

Land Use 

Resources 

Areas Protected 

under Provincial 

Plans and Policies 

Potential damage to archaeological or 

cultural resources resulting from 

construction activities 

During construction an increase in local 

road truck traffic will be required for 

construction material delivery causing 

potential delays to local residents, horse 

drawn traffic, and potential safety 

hazards due to existing narrow 

roadways, and excessive wear and tear 

and municipal roads 

Potential for conflict with Horse drawn 

traffic as a result of increased and 

oversized truck traffic 

Reduced land available for agricultural 

production during construction 

No areas protected under specified 

Provincial Plans or policies, such as the 

Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment 

Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Act 

are located within the Study Area. 

Therefore, no adverse effects are 

anticipated 

No Archaeological 

resources will be 

affected by the 

construction of the 

Project. 

Minimize disruptions to 

local traffic and ensure 

local infrastructure is not 

adversely affected by the 

Project 

Minimize disturbance 

and disruption to 

existing adjacent land 

uses 


Siting of wind turbines shifted to avoid archaeological features; and 

Temporary fencing will be installed along the outer limits of archaeological sites to prevent accidental impacts 


No monitoring activities required 


Minimize trucking during early morning and afternoon hours to alleviate school bus, horse drawn traffic and commuter 

traffic interruptions; 

Provide advance notification to local residents and school boards of trucking activities; 

Develop a local road improvement plan to widen existing roads, strengthen water crossings and increase turning radii where 

necessary; 

Incorporate necessary signage and pavement markings to increase safety of traveling public; 

Incorporate contract clauses requiring trucks to be maintained properly and to be in good working condition; and 

Implement contract clauses requiring trucks to adhere to approved transportation routes. 

Monitoring 

The construction contractor will be required to monitor truck traffic and ensure approved transportation routes are being used 

as required 


Project components have been sited in a manner to minimize the impact on neighboring land uses; and 

Consolidated construction schedule will be utilized to return lands used for temporary purposes to agricultural production in 

a timely manner 

Environmental Effects and Monitoring Plan 

None Required 

None Required 

Archaeological and cultural heritage 

assessments will be completed prior to 

construction starting. Therefore, no 

adverse effects are anticipated. For 

unforeseen archaeological finds during 

construction, the residual effects include: 

Duration – Long Term 

Context – Larger Community 

Frequency – Very Rare 

Magnitude – Large 

Likelihood – Very Small 

Resilience – Very Low 

Spatial Extent – Larger Community 

Upgrades to local infrastructure will be 

completed as part of the construction 

process which will aid in reducing 

potential negative effects. However, 

potential exists for damage to local 

infrastructure (roads etc.) as a result of 

construction activities. Impacts include: 

Duration – Varies 

Context – Local Community 

Frequency – Rare 

Magnitude – Varies 

Likelihood – Medium 


Spatial Extent - Regional 

Construction activities will not impact 

agricultural activity on adjacent land 

parcels. 

A small amount of agricultural land 

will be taken out of agricultural 

production during construction of the 

wind turbines. Residual Impacts 

include: 

Duration – Short-Term 

Context – Localized 

Frequency – Continual 


Likelihood – Confirmed 







5. CONCLUSION 

The Construction Plan Report has been prepared in accordance with Ontario Regulation 359/09 

for the construction of a Class 4 wind facility and is intended to assist CWPP in fulfilling 

regulatory requirements for the Conestogo Wind Energy Centre. 

Field work and data has been collected over the past two years to assist with the preparation and 

determination of potential effects to various environmental and social features that may be 

affected by this project. Mitigation, protection and monitoring measures have been developed to 

manage impacts identified. 

Through a careful site selection process, and thorough planning of the facility and location of 

project components, the Project will avoid adverse effects to the natural and social environment. 

CWPP has sited all wind turbines, project components and ancillary facilities with public and 

landowner consultation to minimize the impact to current land uses. 

DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED 


APPENDIX A 

STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGY ASSESSMENT

STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 

CONESTOGO WIND ENERGY CENTRE 

GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIPS OF ELMA AND MORINGINTON 

NOW MUNICIPALITY OF NORTH PERTH AND 

TOWNSHIP OF EAST PERTH 

COUNTY OF PERTH 

GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF WELLESLEY 

FORMER WATERLOO COUNTY 

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO 

ORIGINAL REPORT 

FIT- FF91BT0 

Prepared for 


Invenergy Canada LLC 

and 

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport 

SCARLETT JANUSAS 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE 

CONSULTING AND EDUCATION 

269 Cameron Lake Road 

Tobermory, Ontario N0H 2R0 

phone and fax 519-596-8243 cell 519-374-1119 

jscarlett@amtelecom.net 

License # P027, PIF #P027-174-2012 

October 28, 2012 

©

ii 

Table of Contents 

Project Personnel 

Acknowledgements 

Executive Summary 

vi 

vi 

vii 

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 1 

1.1 Development Context 1 

1.1.1 Description of the Project 2 

1.2 Historical Context 4 

1.2.1 Current Environment 4 

1.2.2 Prehistory of the Subject Area 5 

1.2.3 Native Historic Period 6 

1.2.4 Historic Period 6 

1.2.4.1 Historic Settlement and Development 7 

1.2.4.2 Elma Township 7 

1.2.4.3 Mornington Township 9 

1.2.4.4 Wellesley Township 10 

1.2.5 Detailed Lots Histories 11 

1.2.5.1 Concession I, Lot 57 (South Half) 11 

1.2.5.2 Concession II, Lot 32 12 

1.2.5.3 Concession IV, Lots 22 12 

1.2.5.4 Concession VI, Lot 32 13 

1.2.5.5 Concession V, Lot 22 13 

1.2.5.6 Concession IV, Lot 22 13 

1.2.5.7 Concession VI, Lot 29 14 

1.2.5.8 Concession VII, Lot 26 14 

1.2.5.9 Concession VII, Lot 27 (West part) 14 

1.2.5.10 Concession VIII, Lot 21 14 





1.2.5.15 Concession IX, Lot 19 16 



1.2.5.18 Concession X, Lot 18 17 



1.2.5.21 Mornington, Concession XI, Lot 6 18 

1.2.5.22 Mornington, Concession XII, Lot 5, North Half 19 

1.2.5.23 Mornington, Concession XIII, Lot 4 19 

1.2.6 Plaques 19 

1.3 Natural Environment 20 

1.3.1 Bedrock and Physiography 20 

1.3.2 Prehistoric Shorelines 20 

1.3.3 Soils and Topography 20 

1.3.4 Drainage 21 

1.3.5 Vegetation 22 

1.4 Archaeological Context 22

iii 

1.4.1 Previously Known Archaeological Resources/Assessments 22 

2.0 METHODOLOGY 24 

2.1 Stage 1 (Background Research) 24 

2.2 Stage 1 (Property Inspection) 24 

3.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 25 

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 26 

5.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION 27 

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 28 

Tables 

1. Lots and Concessions of the Project Area 31 

2. Historic Atlas Map Information 32 

3. Abstract Indices for Lot Histories 69 

Figures 

1. Project Site Plan 82 

1a. Project Site Plan 83 

1b. Project Site Plan 84 

1c. Project Site Plan 85 

2. New France 1718 86 

3. Point-of-Interconnect 86 

4. Historic Atlas Map of Study Area – Wellesley Township 87 

5. Historic Atlas Maps of Perth County 88 

6. Perth County Plaque 98 

7. Waterloo County Plaque 99 

8. Physiography 100 

9. Ontario Island 100 

10. Perth County Soil Map 101 

11. Waterloo County Soil Map 102 

12. Drainage Map of Study Area 103 

13. Archaeological Potential Mapping for Regional Municipality and 

Part of Perth County 104 

14. Archaeological Potential for Remainder of Study Area 105 

15. Archaeological Potential for Remainder of Study Area 106 

16. Photograph Locations 107 



Photographs 

1. Area of Turbine 17 facing North 110 

2. Area of Turbine 21 facing South 110 



5. Area of Turbines 22 and 23 facing South 112 

6. Area of Turbines 24 and 25 facing North 112



9. Area of Turning Radius facing West, 78 Line and 158 Road 114 

10. Area of Turbine 11 and 12 facing North 114 


12. Area of Turbine 15 and 16 facing West 115 

13. Area of Turbines 5, 6, and 7 facing South 116 


15. Area of Turbine 1 and 2 facing North 117 

16. Area of Turbine 4 facing East 117 

17. Area of Turbines 8 and 9, facing East 118 


19. Area of Proposed Substation facing South 119 

20. Study Area along Line 72 facing East 119 

21. Study Area near 5771 Line 72, facing East 120 

22. Study Area along Perth Road 147, facing North 120 

23. Study Area along 75 Line and Perth Road 147 facing South 121 

24. Study Area, Boomer Line facing West 121 

25. Study Area, Lavery Road, facing South 122 

26. Study Area, Buehler Line, facing West 122 

27. Study Area, Line 83, facing East 123 

28. Study Area, Ament Line facing West 123 

iv

v 


Project Manager 

Principal Archaeologist, 

Report Preparation 

Scarlett Janusas (P027), BA, MA, CAHP 

Member, Association of Professional 

Archaeologists 

Historic Research Assistants 

Historian 

Stefan Bouchard, BA 

Yasmin Oliva, BA 

Michelle Potts 

Chelsea Robert, BA 

Spencer McBride, BA, MA 

Acknowledgments 

Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education extend 

our thanks to Mr. Richard Deacon, Invenergy Canada, Mr. Don McKinnon, Dillon 

Consulting Limited, Mr. Brian Lamondin and Ms. Kate Hagerman, Heritage 

Planner, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, and to Mr. Dave Hanley, Perth 

County Planner.

vi 


The proponent, Conestogo Wind Power Partnership (CWPP), retained the 

services of Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and 

Education (SJAHCE) to conduct a Stage 1 archaeological resource assessment 

on property proposed for the development of the Conestogo Wind Energy Centre 

located in the Municipality of North Perth (former Elma Township) and Township 

of Perth East (former Mornington Township) in Perth County and Wellesley 

Township in (former Waterloo County) the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 

The main project area (area of proposed turbines and access roads) is located 

entirely within the Municipality of North Perth and Township of Perth East in Perth 

County, and the transmission lines extend into Wellesley Township, Regional 

Municipality of Waterloo. 

Permission to access the property and to conduct all activities associated with 

the Stage 1 archaeological assessment was provided by the proponent. The 

proposed transmission corridor will be contained in existing municipal right-ofways, 

and the proposed turbine, access roads, point of interconnect, substations, 

and turning radii will be located on private property. The exact location of the 

transmission line was not established at the time of this archaeological 

assessment, and therefore, both sides of existing roads within the municipal 

right-of-ways were included in this archaeological assessment. 

The study area, lots and concessions are presented in the table below. 

Township Concession Part of Lots 

ELMA 1 31-72 

2 16-36 

3 16-36 

4 16-36 

5 16-36 

6 16-36 

7 16-36 

8 16-36 

9 16-36 

10 16-36 

MORNINGTON 6 1-15 

7 1-15 

8 1-18 

9 1-18 

10 1-15 

11 1-15 

12 1-18 

13 1-18 

14 1-15 

WELLESLEY 0 15 

0 16 

0 50 

A 15-19 

8 10-12

vii 


8W 1-9 

9 1-12 

9W 1-7 

10 1-10, 12 

11 1-9 

12W 1-12 

12 1-9 

13 3-6 

13W 1-12 

14 3-8 

15 4-7 

Background research indicated that there are four registered archaeological sites 

within one kilometer of the study area, and two previous archaeological 

assessments within 50 m of the study area. The Regional Municipality of 

Waterloo does have an archaeological master plan which includes coverage for 

Wellesley Township. Perth County does not have an archaeological master plan. 

There are two plaques that relate directly to the study area, one within Listowel, 

and the other refers to the Queen’s Bush. 

Soils across the study area range from well drained to imperfectly drained till 

soils. The study area lies within two watersheds: the Maitland River, and the 

Grand River. The study area lies within an area known prehistorically as Ontario 

Island. Listowel is located at the western edge of the former island, and there are 

multiple prehistoric shorelines associated with the study area. 

The archaeological assessment was undertaken as part of Ontario Regulation 

359/09 within the Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) process under part V.0.1 

of the Environmental Protection Energy Act. 

The Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the study property was conducted 

under license P027 (Scarlett Janusas, PIF #P027-174-2012) during September 

and October 2012. The property inspection was conducted on September 18th 

2012 under good assessment conditions. All of the property inspection was 

conducted with a windshield survey methodology. No field work was undertaken 

as part of the property inspection. 

The archaeological master plan for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo 

indicates that the majority of the study area that passes through Wellesley 

Township has potential. The one exception is the area at the eastern most end 

of the collector lines, and the point-of-interconnect (substation) which is an area 

of deep and extensive development disturbance and is deemed to be of low 

archaeological potential. This was confirmed in the property inspection.

viii 

The remaining area (main infrastructure, and collection lines) in Perth County, 

also is deemed to show archaeological potential, based on proximity to 4 

archaeological sites, varying soil types, nearby drainage, historic potential, 

especially along roadways, and the relatively little development disturbance. 

Based upon the background research of past and present conditions, and the 

property inspection, the following is recommended: 

 

 

Stage 2 archaeological assessment is required for all areas of the proposed 

Conestogo Wind farm, and collection lines with the exception of the point-ofinterconnect 

and any infrastructure that will cross the identified area of low 

archaeological potential identified in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo 

archaeological master plan; 

Fields that can be ploughed must be ploughed for assessment purposes and 

allowed to weather prior to pedestrian transect to be conducted in 5 m 

intervals or less 

Areas that cannot be ploughed must be subject to test pitting conducted in 5 

metre intervals or less 

This archaeological assessment has been conducted under the 2011 Standards 

and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ministry of Tourism and Culture, 

2011).

1 

STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 


North Perth Township (former Elma Township) 

East Perth Township (former Mornington Township) 

Perth County 

Wellesley Township, (former Waterloo County) 

Regional Municipality of Waterloo 

FIT-FF91BT0 

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 

1.1 Development Context 

The proponent retained the services of Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage 

Consulting and Education (SJAHCE) to conduct a Stage 1 archaeological resource 

assessment on project area proposed for the development of the Conestogo Wind 

Energy Centre project located in the geographic townships of Elma and Mornington 

(Municipality of North Perth, and East Perth Township) in Perth County, and, Wellesley 

Township in former Waterloo County (Regional Municipality of Waterloo) (Figures 1, 1a- 

1c). 

The archaeological assessment was undertaken as part of Ontario Regulation 359/09 

within the Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) process under part V.0.1 of the 

Environmental Protection Energy Act. 

“The Conestogo Wind Energy Centre (CWEC) is being developed by Conestogo Wind 

Power Partnership (CWPP). The proposed wind farm will consist of up to 27 wind 

turbines with a total nameplate capacity of up to 69 MW. The wind turbines will be 

situated entirely on privately owned land that is currently under agricultural production. 

Municipal lands (rights-of-way) will be used in most cases for underground or overhead 

transmission lines and connection to the provincial grid” (Dillon Consulting Ltd. 2012:2). 

“The wind farm is to be located within the Municipality of North Perth and the Township 

of East Perth within the County of Perth, approximately 5 km north of the community of 

Milverton and 30 km west from the City of Waterloo. The proposed project site is 

bordered by Highway 86 (Main Street E./Wellington Road 86) to the North, Highway 23 

to the West, Perth Line 72 to the South, and Perth Road 121 to the East…. 

To connect the project to the provincial grid it will be necessary to run an approximate 

20 – 25 km low voltage (34.5 or 44 kV) power line within road rights-of-way to a 

connection point with the provincial 115 kV transmission line that is located to the east 

of the proposed wind farm location. An electrical substation will be required at the pointof-interconnect 

with the grid that will increase the voltage from 34.5/44 kV to 115 kV” 

(ibid:3).

2 

The turbine areas are 100 by 100 metres typically centred on the turbine coordinates. 

For purposes of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment, and for the planned Stage 2 

assessment, the area of investigation for the turbine areas is 110 by 110 metres. 

The access roads are 30 metres wide centered on the road route, which has been 

adjusted to 40 metres for purposes of archaeological assessment. In addition, where 

the access road intersects with the public roadway, to account for the wider turning radii 

for turbine deliveries, the area is 50 by 100 metres, which has been adjusted to 60 by 

110 metres for purposes of archaeological assessment. The collection route is 30 

metres wide centred on the collection route, and has been adjusted to 40 metres for 

purposes of the archaeological assessment. For collection routes located along the 

public roadways, the centerline is staked at 50 m at the centre of the roadway, which 

encompasses public road, ditches, and public right-of-way. Areas of archaeological 

assessment have been added to from the infrastructure to ensure more than adequate 

coverage of the areas. 

There are 27 proposed turbine areas, and approximately 25 kms of collection routes. 

As the exact location of the main collection route has not yet been determined, both 

sides of the roadways are subject to the Stage 1 archaeological assessment. The area 

of Stage 1 archaeological assessment encompasses approximately 300 hectares. 

This archaeological assessment has been conducted under the 2011 Standards and 

Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists (Ministry of Tourism and Culture, 2011). 

The project infrastructure occupies part of the following lots and concessions within the 

three townships of Mornington, Elma and Wellesley (Table 1). 

1.1.1 Description of the Project 

The following is a description of the project derived from Dillon Consulting Ltd.’s Draft 

Project Description Report (2012: 8- 11). 

Major Components: 

Up to 27 wind turbines 

400-600V/34.5 kV (located in the turbine base); or 400-600V/44 kV set up 

transformers (with a pad mounted switch located outside the tower) 

34.5 or 44 kV collection system to link the wind turbines to the substation 

Substation (34.5 or 44 kV to 115 kV) and switch station at the point of connection 

with the provincial grid 

Wind turbine access roads 

One permanent meteorological tower 

Staging areas for assembly and erection of wind turbines, only during 

construction 

Operation and maintenance building (will not be required for this project – 

personal communication, R. Crump, Dillon Consulting Ltd., October 28, 2012)

3 

 

A temporary concrete batch plant (only required if concrete cannot be sourced 

through local suppliers) 

Wind Turbines and Foundations: The basic components of the project include up to 

27 wind turbines with an installed capacity of up to 69 MW. The specific model of 

turbine to be used is being determined. Turbine tower height is anticipated to be 85 to 

105 m. The wind turbines consist of the supporting tower, tower foundation, rotor 

blades, and gearbox/electrical generator housing. The nacelle includes the gearbox 

and electric generator, as well as blade and turbine control equipment, senor and 

cooling equipment. These components are located at the top of the supporting tower, 

and are connected to the blades via a main shaft. The tower will require the 

construction of a poured-in-place concrete foundation with depths depending on subsurface 

conditions. During construction, gravel crane pads will be installed. These 

pads will be capable of supporting the necessary cranes and equipment required for 

installation of the wind turbines. 

The land base (foundation, compacted fill, ground grid and pad mount transformer) 

required for each turbine, excluding the access road, is less than half an acre (~.2 

hectares) once in operation. 

Step-up Transformers & Collection System: A small pad mound transformer will be 

located adjacent to the base of each turbine to transform the electricity from 400-600 V 

to 34.5-44 kV through the collection system. The collection system will be composed of 

a combination of underground and overhead lines all connecting to the substation. 

CWPP is endeavouring to place all electrical lines underground. Efforts are being made 

to ensure the feeder lines will generally follow the turbine access roads, although in 

some cases, at landowner requests and to reduce the distance of the lines, they may 

divert from the roads. It is expected that no above ground sections of overhead lines 

will be required on private property. If overhead lines are required they would be 

supported by single poles in most locations, although double poles could be required in 

some locations due to soil conditions or angles in the route. The substation will be 

located about 20-25 km to the east of the wind farm adjacent to the provincial 115 kV 

transmission line, therefore it will be necessary to connect the project to the substation 

with a 34.5 or 44 kV low voltage power line(s) that would run within the municipal road 

right of way. 

Substation: A substation will be required to increase the voltage of the electricity from 

34.5 or 44 kV to 115 kV. The higher voltage is required to allow connection with the 

provincial grid. The design of the substation is being confirmed. The substation would 

be surrounded by a security fence and would have security lighting. The substation 

would require an area of about 50 m by 80 m of land. 

Turbine Access Roads: Access roads will be required to deliver the wind turbine 

components and for operation and maintenance activities on the wind turbines. 

Wherever possible, CWPP will use existing roadways and accesses to reach the 

construction site for the turbines. Road work will include upgrades (e.g., upgraded

4 

turning radii, road widening and strengthening) to existing roads where necessary, in 

particular the existing side-roads that are not winter maintained. However, where 

access is not available, or not of a standard to support construction and transportation 

vehicles, upgraded access roads will have to be constructed. Additional temporary 

crane travel paths may be required during construction. CWPP is endeavouring to 

minimize land disturbance and remove as little as possible from agricultural use as 

possible. 

Along the temporary construction access roads topsoil will be stripped, temporarily 

stored and re-spread around permanent access roads. Aggregate of crushed stone or 

gravel of sufficient depth and width, underlain by geotextile fabric or cement-stabilized 

or lime stabilized sub-grade, will be installed on access roads to facilitate movement of 

heavy construction equipment and maintenance support. The location of the permanent 

access roads will be determined based upon turbine locations, accessibility of 

equipment to adjacent sites, and consultations with the affected landowner and 

township(s), with the objective of minimizing effects on agricultural operations and local 

roads. Watercourse crossings would be facilitated through the use of culverts to 

maintain stream flow. 

Staging Areas: Turbine staging areas are located at each turbine site. The turbine 

stating area is comprised of 

A crane pad (approximately 12 m by 36.5 m) to support the crane used for 

construction 

A staging and equipment storage area for the erection of the towers and the lift 

and securing of the nacelle and blades. 

A total leveled surface of approximately 40 by 40 m will be required at each turbine. A 

360 degree radius around the base of the turbine to a distance of 50 metres at a 5% 

grade is also needed for the assembly and erection of the turbines. 

The land for the staging area will be restored to as close to an original state as possible 

after the construction period. 

Concrete Batch Plant: It is not anticipated that a concrete batch plant will be built, as 

the proponent plans to acquire the product from local sources (R. Crump, Dillon 

Consulting, personal communication, October 28, 2012). 

Figures 1a – 1c illustrate the location of the proposed infrastructure. 

1.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 

1.2.1 Current Environment 

The main project area and transmission corridor are predominantly agricultural lands 

with level to gently rolling topography, agricultural (man-made) ditches, and municipal 

right-of-ways with existing drainage ditches and utility corridors. Although the location of 

the main collector line has not yet been determined, both sides of each roadway the

5 

collector line ran along was also investigated. In some areas, the proposed collector 

line ran through small populated areas, such as villages or crossroads. 

The main population center within the project area is Listowel, however several small 

towns and hamlets are also located within or near the study area. 

1.2.2 Prehistory of the Subject Area 

Prior to any human occupation, glaciers covered much of Southern Ontario. As these 

glaciers retreated, they left behind large meltwater lakes and streams and a landscape 

of barren tundra interspersed with open forests. This environment supported large 

mammals such as moose, elk and large herds of caribou and left the waters teeming 

with fish. The first human inhabitants probably moved into this region of Ontario 

approximately 11,000 years ago following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice 

Sheet. Nomadic Paleo-Indian hunters usually maintained a band level society while 

living in small camps, moving often as they followed the various herds across the 

area. Their population was small and they did not stay in the same place for long, 

making evidence of their existence somewhat scarce. However, some Paleo-Indian 

campsites have been found along the shorelines of glacial waters where a number of 

their stone tools and weapons have been found. Paleo shorelines occur but are distant 

from the study area. 

People of the early and middle Archaic periods (7000BC-2500BC) lived similar lives to 

those of the Paleo-Indians. They remained in small nomadic groups, often moving 

further inland during the winters as they followed the caribou herds. However, their 

stone tools and weapons became more advanced as the level of their skill and 

craftsmanship progressed, often adding ornamentation and intricate carved details to 

their items. By the late Archaic period (2500BC-1000BC) they were involved in trade 

networks for sought after raw materials such as tobacco and also engaged in burial 

ceremonies. 

Although daily life probably remained relatively the same, there were at least two 

changes earmarking the subsequent early Woodland period (1000-400BC). During this 

period, ceramics appear to have come into use and very elaborate burial practices 

made an appearance that included the burial of precious and ornate objects with the 

dead. The Middle Woodland period saw an increase in the trading of these objects 

and limited agricultural practices coupled with longer site occupations made an 

appearance during the transitional Woodland period (900-600AD). 

During the Late Woodland or Iroquoian period (900AD-1650AD), there was a major shift 

to agriculture as well as the establishment of more permanent camps and villages. The 

social structure of communities also changed with the development of political systems 

based on families and the need for alliances with other groups of people. The early 

villages were small with a series of longhouses surrounded by wooden palisades. Later 

villages housed as many as two thousand people and had very entrenched political 

structure.

6 

Up to approximately 1400 B.C., the Iroquoian Neutral tribe inhabited Perth County area. 

At around 1300 B.C. to the 1600s the Neutrals receded to the north of Lake Erie due to 

raiding of Five Nations Iroquois (Figure 2). In about 1700 B.C. Algonquians from Detroit, 

Sarnia and Northern Ontario began to inhabit the surrounding area and occasionally 

hunted within Perth County. The Ojibwa Sarnia Band signed a treaty with Upper 

Canada in 1827 the regarding Perth County area thereby conceding the land to the 

Canada Company (Stratford-Perth Archives). 

1.2.3 Native Historic Period 

Perth and former Waterloo Counties first emerged from underneath a glacier more than 

14,000 years ago. The back and forth advances and retreats of the glacier over the 

land led to ridges and moraines covering the area, with Perth County falling in-between 

two prominent moraines. The first people arrived about 11,000 years ago, living off the 

land by hunting the diverse species that walked the hilly region, later developing stone 

tools and loosely-organized groups. Approximately 2900 years ago is the first evidence 

of the development of pottery in the region, the various examples coming from the 

Early, Middle, and Late Woodland style. The main tribes inhabiting the region are 

thought to have been Algonquin Nations such as the Ojibwa, Ottawa, and Cree. 

However, they would often travel out of the area during the summer months, due to the 

fierceness of the mosquitoes coming out of the swamplands. From 700 to 900 BC, 

these tribes were gradually replaced by Iroquoian nations like the Neutral, Huron, and 

Petun tribes. By 1500, the troubles of the Five Nations Iroquois Confederacy in Eastern 

Ontario forced many Native peoples to move to this region, by the early 1600’s they had 

created the Neutral Confederacy, also called the Attiwandaronk. During the 1650’s the 

Five Nations Confederacy destroyed most of the villages in the region, and dispersed 

the tribes amongst the rest of southwest Ontario. In the early 1700’s, however, the 

power of the Five Nations had decreased significantly, and Algonquin groups such as 

the Ojibwa, Ottawa, and Pottawatomi moved back into the area. Native ascendency in 

the area did not end until 1827, when the Ojibwa Chief Wawanosh ceded the land to the 

British Crown and moved his people elsewhere in southern Ontario. 

Four different First Nations have expressed an interest in the study area, or parts 

thereof: Six Nations, the Chippewas of the Thames, the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, and 

the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. The proponent has engaged all four First Nations with 

respect to this project. 

1.2.4 Historic Period 

The main Project Area (area of turbines and access roads) is located in Perth County, in 

the geographic townships of Elma and Mornington, north of the town of Stratford. The 

transmission corridor occupies part of Perth County and the Regional Municipality of 

Waterloo, specifically, the geographic township of Wellesley (Figures 1a-1c). Each of 

these lots is one hundred acres, with the exception of Concession 1 and those lots 

within Mornington Township, which are each two hundred acres. The main project area 

is southeast of Listowel and northeast of Milverton. As to geographical features, the

7 

main area (Perth County) is almost completely flat, with some areas lacking any kind of 

topographical undulation. The Maitland River runs through some of the lots, and there 

are some manmade undulations due to the railroad crossing through one of the lots. 

Most of the land in and surrounding the main Project Area is either cultivated farmland 

or pasture. The area in Wellesley Township is more of a rolling hill topography. 

A section of the proposed collector line passes through Perth County, and the general 

observations for these areas is similar to that described above for the main Project 

Area. The collector line extends into the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to the east 

(also the point of interconnect) (Figure 3). 

1.2.4.1 Historic Settlement and Development 

Perth County had few European settlers until the mid 1800s when famine and economic 

hardship in Europe, especially Ireland, meant that many sought their fortunes, or even 

just their sustenance, in North America. Upper Canada opened up new tracts of land 

for development, and as Bruce, Grey, Wellington, and Perth Counties were surveyed, 

their rough conditions gave them the name “The Queen’s Bush”. In the very earliest 

days of the county there would have been no roads, only blazes on trees to mark the 

paths through the wilderness, and it had been considered far too distant from civilization 

to be the site of United Empire Loyalist settlements. 

As mentioned above, Perth County was originally part of the much bigger Huron District, 

which stretched from Stratford to the southern limits of Lake Huron. The difficulty with 

the district system was that so much of the business of the area had to be done in the 

county capital, Goderich, which was over a week of travel distant for most of Perth 

County. This trip was exacerbated by the irresponsible behaviour of some district 

officials and the lack of control that could be exerted by distant communities. In 1847 

fierce agitation on the part of many communities in Perth and elsewhere resulted in the 

establishment of Perth County along with many other counties in the region. 

1.2.4.2 Elma Township 

It was around this time that Elma Township began to develop as farmers began to 

realize that once cleared, most of the Township’s 29,379 hectares were highly fertile. 

The Township was named after Lady Elma Bruce, the young daughter of Canada’s new 

Governor-General, James Bruce, 8 th Earl of Elgin and 12 th Earl of Kincardine. His 

success in bringing about self-government in the colony and ensuring multi-lingual 

cooperation in the wake of the 1837 Rebellion made him a revered figure, thought to be 

well worth honouring. However, the honour must have meant little at the time, since 

Elma was very slow to develop after its acquisition in 1827. The south of the county, 

especially Stratford, began earlier, but it was only in April 1847 that the first road 

through the area of Elma Township was surveyed by Alexander Wilkinson who drew a 

line from the northwest corner of Mornington Township to Lake Huron. He laid out 100 

acre lots along each side of the road, but his measuring equipment had certain 

imitations, which meant that he had to create lots that were half their normal width and

8 

twice their normal length. This became the oddly-shaped First Concession of Elma 

Township. 

The question of the first settler to Elma Township is somewhat difficult to determine. 

The first people to arrive in the region were frustrated with how slowly development was 

moving, and so set out on their own, squatting illegally on land they cleared. By the 

time the Township was fully surveyed by John Grant in 1852-53, many settler families 

had been established for some time. This often led to difficulties with the law, as some 

were forced to abandon their properties and improvements to legal newcomers. The 

most prominent of these squatters were the Code, Squire, Graham, Huges, Caircross, 

McCulloch, Gibson, Twamley, Bingham, and Elliot families. With so many unrecorded 

early settlers, the task of determining the very first is almost impossible. However, it 

seems as though the search can be narrowed just enough to determine that either the 

Code or the Buchanan family was the first to arrive in the area. The presence of roads 

in the area indicate that there were people living there as early as 1848, mostly along 

the road between Elma and Mornington Townships, in what is now known as lot 36 in 

each concession. 

As with most other pioneer settlements, log cabins were initially the only form of 

residence and remained so until the region was mostly cleared. By 1851, The 

Township boasted a log tavern erected by William Blair, but it wouldn’t be until 1900 that 

the inhabitants had access to houses with any significant degree of comfort or 

civilization. 

The land in Elma Township was first sold by the government in 1854. Concessions 1- 

10 were considered the best lots, and therefore sold as “school lots” meaning that they 

cost $0.50 for every acre (~.4 hectares), and all money was given to the improvement of 

the province’s schools. Regular Crown Lands, by contrast, were sold for $0.37 per acre 

(~.4 hectares), with the money going to the province’s general accounts. Many of the 

lots were sold, but some lots in the poorer sections of land were soon abandoned, and 

were eventually resold several times. The purchaser was required to fulfill several 

terms in order for the sale to be finalized, namely that they had to make improvements 

to the land or lose the rights to it, and that all payments had to be made before that 

patent was granted. Often, fulfilling these requirements could take ten or more years. 

However, many immigrants, especially the Irish and Scottish, were willing to agree to 

these terms for the chance to own a relatively inexpensive tract of land. The sometimes 

fierce competition for land in the area gave some difficulties to the new immigrants. 

There was quite a lot of conflict between the Scottish and Irish in particular in the early 

days of Elma County. The two groups were on opposite sides of almost every policy, 

and fights were not uncommon in the larger towns. There were also a large number of 

German immigrants to the Township, especially around Monkton. The Mennonite 

religion was popular in the area as early as 1871, but the large population of 

Mennonites that are established there today is fairly recent in its origin, most of them 

having spread into Elma from other surrounding Townships and counties. The most 

popular religions in the region in the 19 th century were by far Presbyterian, Methodist, 

Anglican, and Lutheran.

9 

Elma presented many difficulties for farmers, since it was wholly level, not even 

undulating, and much of it was dominated by swamps. However, swamplands, once 

drained, make for excellent grass, and it is this grass that made the dairy farming in the 

region so successful. Before long, clearing land for pasture was the main focus of the 

pioneers, and cheese factories would proliferate over the years. The Ballantyne family, 

in the west of the Township, soon became one of the most important figures in the 

cheese industry of the County and the Province. By 1861 Elma had 7,445 acres (~3012 

hectares) under cultivation. Over 3,000 acres (~1214 hectares) of wheat, and the rest 

made up of corn, peas, potatoes, carrots, oats, barley, turnips, and pasture for dairy 

cows. The expansion was greatly helped in later years by the creation of a railway 

running through the Township. There was initially some conflict behind the creation of 

the route, as very few in the south of Perth County wanted to fund a railway intended 

only for the northern-most regions of the county. The act passed narrowly by only one 

vote in 1873, and struggled severely with funding until its completion in 1877. The route 

that now runs through the Project Area is the 1877 Stratford & Huron route, part of the 

Canadian National System. 

1.2.4.3 Mornington Township 

The history of Mornington Township is for the most part very similar to that of Elma 

Township. It shares the same general history, and a similar early history, with squattersettlers 

infiltrating both townships to an equal extent. Mornington was surveyed in 1848 

by James Bridgeland, but it was not really was not defined as a separate township until 

1853, at which time it was pure geography, with no recorded population or political 

history, and no government. It was a busy year, however, and there was a reeve 

elected the next year, chosen from out of the several illegal settlers. Mornington is 

50,725 acres (~20,527 hectares) of very fertile land. Like Elma, it is mostly flat, but 

tends more towards undulation than does Elma. The settlement of the Township begun 

in the south half in what is now Concession 2. A resurveying of lands in the mid 1850s 

meant that new roads were constructed some distance from the old roads, meaning that 

many farms were as much as 50 meters away from the new roads. Similarly, many 

farmers were removed from the land they had already built on or cultivated, and even if 

they were not and were simply told to go register their ownership, the land registry was 

over ~65 kilometres away. 

As the Township grew, the farms developed, and the practice of mixed farming 

prevailed: all sorts of grains and vegetables were cultivated, as were dairy cows, though 

the later proved less successful than in Elma. The early farmers also faced extreme 

difficulty in developing the harsh land, and were unable to build homes of any 

significance until the advent of the twentieth century, at which time development of 

farms in the region increased slightly. Likewise, the towns within the area developed at 

a relatively slow rate. The nearest village to the project area in Mornington is Carthage, 

which lies in the 12 th concession. In 1900 it had a population of 75, and was known in 

the area for its Orange Hall, cheese factory, and temperance hotel. Some of those 

owning property in the project area lived in this hamlet.

10 

Like Elma, the farmers in the region were, throughout the 19 th century, mostly recent 

European immigrants from Ireland, Scotland, or Germany. The religion in the area was 

overwhelmingly Presbyterian, though the first pioneer missionary in the area was Rev. 

John Armstrong, a Methodist minister. 

Throughout its history, Elma and Mornington Townships have been slow to develop and 

difficult to get to. However, the farming and cheese industries kept the inhabitants of 

both Townships relatively prosperous, and it remained a successful and important 

farming centre throughout its history. This study now turns to more specific individual 

property histories in order to explore the Project Area in more detail. 

1.2.4.4 Wellesley Township 

Wellesley is bounded north east by Peel; north by Maryboro, east by Woolwich, west by 

North Easthope and south by Wilmot. The township was first surveyed in 1843 by 

William Walker and first land conveyed was in 1847 to William Cunningham, Josiah Hall 

in 1848 and John Hawke in 1851. The township developed rapidly due to excellent 

quality soil, hardwood forests and the fact that it was well watered by branches of the 

Nith and Conestogo Rivers. In 1837 the township contained 63 inhabitants and by 1861 

had almost 6000 (1867 Gazetteer: 22). Hawkesville, a small hamlet today once vied 

with Berlin and Galt for the county seat. The railways bypassed the area, so the 

township remained rural and the villages declined as centers of promise (Corporation of 

the Township of Wellesley). 

The township is located in the northwest corner of the Region of Waterloo, and was 

once part of a vast Clergy Reserve known as the Queen’s Bush. This area stretched 

from the Township of Waterloo to Lake Huron. The Clergy Reserves were areas set 

aside for the maintenance of the Anglican Church in Canada. Proceeds from sales and 

rent provided income for the church. In most cases every seventh lot were set aside, but 

in the case of Wellesley the entire township was set aside (Wellesley Township 

Heritage and Historical Society). 

The ‘Queen’s Bush’ was largely unpopulated during the early 1800s. By the 1840s it 

had become home to more than 1500 formerly enslaved Afro-Americans. They 

pioneered scattered farms throughout this area including Wellesley Township and the 

town of Hawkesville. By the 1840s businesses had been established, including a 

sawmill, grist mill, store and hotel. The first church was erected south of the Conestogo 

River in Peel Township. In Peel township two missionary schools were built but these 

were closed by 1853 due to the departure of Black settlers from the area. 

After the land was surveyed many of these early settlers, both Afro-Americans and 

European could not afford to purchase the lands they had lived on. While those that 

were willing to make improvements on their lands were allowed to pay by installments 

many could still not afford to and abandoned their homes. By the 1850s these early

11 

settlers had begun to migrate out of these lands, many of them heading back to the 

United States. 

While freed slaves initially settled the land, the majority of the settlers during the 1840s 

were of German and Anglo-Saxon heritage. By 1901 almost two thirds of the inhabitants 

were of German heritage. Today more than half the people of Wellesley Township now 

belong to the Amish or Mennonite faith. A lot of the Amish families crossed into 

Wellesley from Wilmot Township and settled along the First Line, while many Roman 

Catholics settled along the Third Line in the eastern section. For the most part these 

two groups were of Alsatian descent and spoke the same German dialect, which can 

still be heard today. 

The heaviest settlement of the area occurred along the Wilmot, Woolwich and Waterloo 

Township borders in areas that usually had availability of waterpower. There were four 

sawmills in the area, a gristmill and a woolen mill but industrial development was 

somewhat less when compared to other townships in the area because the two major 

rivers in the area, the Conestogo and Nith ran to the north and south of the township 

respectively, and no major tributaries existed in Wellesley. This inclined the township 

towards an economy based on farming. It also missed out on the economic benefits of 

the railway boom of the mid-19 th century, as the township’s first railway line was not laid 

until 1907. 

Figures 4 to 5a-j illustrate the areas of proposed infrastructure with the historic maps of 

the area. Table 2 indicates where ownership and/or structures are indicated on the 

historic atlas maps in relation to the project and infrastructure. 

1.2.5 Detailed Lot Histories 

Detailed lot histories were conducted for the main infrastructure area (that is, the area of 

access roads, turbines, and turning radii). The main collection line location has not yet 

been determined, and as such the general history of Wellesley Township above, 

coupled with a property inspection, provided the detail needed to determine 

archaeological potential. In addition, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo has an 

archaeological master plan which clearly identifies areas of archaeological potential. 

The lot histories for the areas of main infrastructure are relatively simple, usually 

involving few divisions of the lot, consistent with family inheritance, and long periods of 

ownership by a single owner. Generally not included in the histories or the title grant 

tables below are mortgages, which were frequent for many lots, but involve no change 

in inhabitants on the property. 

The lot summaries (abstract index) are presented in Table 3 (3.1 – 3.23). 

1.2.5.1 Concession I, Lot 57 (South Half) 

Lot 57 was one of the many lots in the area upon which squatters lived before a patent 

was assigned. As with all such cases, the title grant tables below show no names

12 

before the patent as these squatters were unrecorded by the land registry, but their 

names are often known none the less. The first settler to move on to the land on lot 57 

was William Woods, who came to the area in 1854. However, Woods built his home on 

the north of the lot, near what was then the best road in the region. The study is only 

concerned with the south half of the lot, making irrelevant much of the early history of 

the lot, which takes place in the north half. 

For instance, one of the first schools in the area was established along what is now 

known as Highway 86 at the north-most edge of the lot (Fig. 5h). The other men who 

settled illegally on the lot were James Johnston in 1863, James Halsted and John W. 

Scott in 1864, and Thomas Mann Sr. in 1865, the last of whom allowed his son Thomas 

Jr. to claim the patent the next year. Each of these men followed Woods’ pattern of 

settling in the north of the lot. 

In the south of the lot, the most significant family after the first granting of the patent was 

the Gibb family, Irish immigrants who had moved to the region in the 1870’s, and had 

built a house on the lot within two years of acquiring the property in 1876. A house still 

stands on that location. In addition, in 1907, part of the land was used by the Guelph 

and Goderich Railway Company for the creation of an east-west segment of rail that 

divided the property in half, north and south (Fig.5h). Most of the inhabitants of the land 

left few traces on the soil, apart from allowing much of it to be used as pasture for 

Holstein dairy cows. The milk was primarily sent to the nearby Britton Cheese Factory. 

Few families owned the lot for more than a decade at a time before 1909, when Willis 

Johnston and his son John began their tenure over the land, which would last until 

1973. During that time, several buildings were added, and in 1977, significant 

renovations were done to the original house, dramatically modifying it from its 19 th 

century materials while maintaining the style of the original. 

1.2.5.2 Concession II, Lot 32 

The only owner of the lot before the patent was granted was Samuel Mayberry, who 

acquired the land in 1854. By 1872 he had made enough progress working the land 

that he was allowed to keep it, and was granted the patent by the Crown on May of that 

year. He built a house on the land, noted on the 1878 historic atlas, but it was torn 

down in 1980 and there is currently no building on the lot. In 1880 Mayberry sold the 

land to James Keating, who kept it for only seven years before selling it to James 

Mayberry, Samuel’s son. Mayberry raised a large family there before selling to David 

and Marion Lennox in 1944, who used it as a successful mixed farming operation. 

When the lot was sold to the Gibsons, who lived off the lot, in 1968, the house fell into 

disrepair and was torn down 12 years later. There are no other significant structures on 

the lot. 

1.2.5.3 Concession VI, Lot 22 

Early Scottish immigrants to a harsh land, the Coghlins laid long claim to this lot, owning 

it long before it was legal to do so. Nathaniel Coghlin began work on the land in 1854, 

and his son Peter took over the east side of the lot in 1867, gaining the patent the next

13 

year. In 1870, they sold to the Cleland family, who kept control of the land for more 

than one hundred years after that. The east half of the lot had a recognized Century 

Farm on it. The Robert Cleland built a house and a barn there in the 1870’s, but they 

were destroyed in 1977, and subsequently replaced by a new brick home on the same 

location. 

On the west half of the property, the land was more dynamic, changing hands 

frequently. However, most of the owners lived elsewhere, and purchased the land 

mostly to take advantage of the nearby Cheese factory on lot 21 in the same 

concession. The lot is now significant mostly for its status as a century farm. 


John G. Alexander was the first to own this property, both illegally and legally, in 1854 

and 1869, respectively. He built a house in 1886 and a barn in 1900, both in the 

northeast part of the lot, but neither has survived. The other major building project on 

the lot was the Guelph to Goderich Railway, built in 1877 by the S&H Railroad 

Company. Nothing remains on the surface of the track, but its construction impacted 

the land. Other families owning this lot chose to live in the nearby town of Britton, 

reserving the land almost entirely for cow and pig pasture. Alexander’s buildings 

gradually fell into disrepair and were destroyed in the latter half of the 20 th century. 

1.2.5.5 Concession V, Lot 22 

As with lot 22 in Concession IV, the Coghlin family was the first to settle this land in 

1854, selling it to the Capling family in 1858 just before it was patented. The land 

passed through several hands before coming to the Porterfield family in 1874. The 

Porterfeilds had known well the Cleland family from Concession IV from their mutual 

home in Scotland, and had, in fact, only come to the area to visit, staying because of the 

inexpensiveness and fertility of the land. It was under their tenure in 1880 that the white 

brick house that currently stands on the lot was built. The brick were dragged to the 

location from Gorrie by a team of horses, and the timbers came directly from the work 

felling trees on the lot. The buildings were upgraded during the 1980s, with the 

exteriors being covered in steel and several additions added to the house and the barn. 

In 1944, the lot was sold to Robert Galbraith, who had been born on the ship in which 

his Irish parents immigrated to Canada. He maintained the house and barn well, and 

they still stand today in the southern portion of the lot. 

1.2.5.6 Concession IV, Lot 22 

Like the 22 nd lots in both concessions to the north of it, this lot was first cultivated in 

1854, long before a patent was granted. Philip Donohue worked the land for only a year 

before giving it to John B. Hyde, who developed the land for seven years before selling 

it to John Schmidt in 1862. Schmidt obtained a patent just two years later, and worked 

the land until 1868. The Cosens and Newbigging families lived there over the next few 

decades, the latter family building a stable house that lasted for some time after the 

construction, but is no longer extant. It probably fell into disrepair in the first half of the

14 

20 th century, when the farms owners, the Farrells, chose to live elsewhere in the 

township. There is currently a modern building on the property, apparently built by the 

Galbraith family on the south half of the lot. The lots has been used as pasture for 

some time, and since the 1970’s it has been owned by a series of incorporated farm 

owners, some of whom did chose to live on the property. 


This lot was always owned in conjunction with other lots, usually Lot 29 in the fifth 

concession. The lot was first held by the McCauley family, who had been sold the lot by 

the warden and treasurer of the township in 1871, before being granted a patent for the 

land in 1889. They soon after sold the land to Richard Long, who divided it into two 

halves, the north and the south. This division meant that the centre of the land was left 

unfarmed, and is currently a forest. There were never any significant buildings 

constructed on the lot. 

1.2.5.8 Concession VII, Lot 26 (East Half) 

This lot had only one owner before the patent was granted, James Hammond, who had 

the land in 1854. Thomas Smith acquired the west half of the lot in 1868, receiving the 

patent for it later that year, while Hammond kept the east part and received the patent 

for it in 1874. James also owned lot 27 in this concession, and upon his death, he 

divided the land and gave it to his three sons, George, Edward, and William. George 

inherited the east half of this lot, and Edward inherited the west part of lot 27. They 

used the land for livestock pasture, but also planted an apple orchard and kept enough 

forest to draw maple sap in the winter. The two built homes on their respective lots, but 

in the early 1880s the both sold their farms to their brother William. William soon 

knocked down the house on lot 26, and after passing through several hands, the east 

half of lot 26 and the west part of lot 27 were sold in conjunction. The Parker family 

moved on to lot 27 and built no further buildings on lot 26. Today, the east half of the lot 

is used for cultivation, pasture, and woodland. 

1.2.5.9 Concession VII, Lot 27 (West part) 

The history of this lot is highly connected to the history of Lot 26 in the same 

concession, discussed above. The most significant difference between the two lots is 

that a house remains on lot 27, possibly of historic origin. Early maps of the region 

clearly show a house on this lot, quite close to the one that currently lies on the 

property, but not so close that it can be stated with certainty that they are on the same 

location. Regardless, the house that currently stands on the lot is not the same house 

as was built in the 19 th century. The house built by Edward Hammond was either 

destroyed or completely restructured into a far more modern residence. 

1.2.5.10 Concession VIII, Lot 21 

This lot was first owned by John Large, who began clearing the land and cultivating it 

prior to 1854. The lot then passed to John Bonner in 1859, and from him to Francis

15 

Curtis in 1863. Curtis obtained the patent the same year, and built a log cabin for his 

family in the southwest corner of the lot. His sons Algernon and Frederick took over the 

land after his passing, and after each of their deaths, Francis’ daughter Bessie gained 

control in 1922, selling the lot to Walter M. Scott. Scott allowed the house to fall into 

disrepair, eventually destroying it and building a new house in the north half of the lot in 

1944. This is the house that currently stands on the property. The land is now made up 

partly of forest, partly of pasture for a large dairy herd, and partly of cultivated land. 


Abraham Matthews built a log cabin on this lot in 1854, but when he moved off the land 

some years later, no one replaced him, and the house decayed. Newson Richardson 

obtained the patent for the land in 1879, and built a new house in the northeast corner 

of the lot. The house lasted through the tenure of John Adams, but Robert S. 

Ballantyne, a highly successful local dairy farmer who purchased the land in 1900, lived 

elsewhere, and allowed the log house to decay. It was eventually knocked down, and 

when the Parrish family moved to Elma from Saskatchewan in 1937, they built a new 

house. They continued updating the house throughout their years there, adding hydro 

and other improvements to the house and barn, many of them meant to incorporate 

modern farming equipment that was mostly unheard of elsewhere in Elma. The rest of 

the lot is used almost entirely for pasture, with some forest still remaining in the 

southeast of the lot. 


The first person to own this lot was Finley Dundas, a recent immigrant from Ireland, who 

worked the land for only a year before giving it over to Robert Bingham. Bingham was 

followed five years later by George Sangster, who lived there until he sold the lot to 

Alexander McTavish in 1862. McTavish claimed the patent for the land later the same 

year, and built a house in the northeast corner of the lot. The Gibson, Hargreaves, 

Hume, Dickson, and Inglis families all lived on the lot for periods of a few years before 

the lot was split up in 1919, and the east and west halves sold separately. After this 

time, each of the owners of the farm lived elsewhere, and only purchased the half lots to 

supplement their existing farms. The house was allowed to decay, and no buildings 

currently stand on the property, only some forest and some cultivated land. 


This property was first owned by William Johnston in 1854, but he did little with the land, 

and left after just a few years. The lot was left unclaimed until 1862, when William F. 

Murray received a patent on the land and lived there for four years. Over the next few 

years, the property changed hands several times, and a house was built on the lot by 

either Thomas Kerr, John MacKenzie, or William Forrest, most likely the latter, as his 

sale of the property involved the largest increase to the price. In 1889, Forrest sold the 

property and the house to William Little, who worked the lot with his two sons, William 

and Michael. The front 40 acres (~16 hectares) had already been cleared when the 

Littles took over, and they turned it into a successful mixed farming operation, with

16 

horses, cattle, dairy products, and maple sugar as their main products. The Littles got 

rid of the old log cabin on the land and built a white brick house on the centre of the 

northern border of the lot. This house still stands today, with several modern additions 

connected to the original house. The Little family owned the lot for more than one 

hundred years, making this a century farm. 


William Cooper and William Cossley both owned the farm for several years before 

granting it to Robert Mills in 1860, who obtained the patent in 1865. In 1873, Mills 

divided the land into east and west sections, giving the west half to his son Joseph and 

the east to James Fisher in 1873. The Mills family lived elsewhere in Elma, but Fisher 

built a house on the land, in the northeast corner. The two lands were reunited in 1889 

under the auspices of Francis Curtis, but Curtis lived on lot 22 in the same concession, 

and paid little attention to the farmhouse. Still, in 1905 William Matheson moved to the 

lot and repaired the house, maintaining its historic flavour. Said house remained extant 

on the lot until 1935, when Thomas Buchanan sold the house to Wilfred Cockwell, who 

had it uprooted and moved across the road to his own farm. There was also a barn on 

the property until the early 1940s, when a strawblower exploded into a fireball that took 

out most of the year’s harvest and the entire barn. The lot is currently used as a cash 

crop farm for farmers living off the lot, and has no buildings at all. 

1.2.5.15 Concession IX, Lot 19 

William Morrison owned the lot for eight years before obtaining the patent in 1862. The 

Simpson family built the longest lasting wood farmhouse on the lot in 1878, which 

remained standing until the 1920s, when William Blatchford and his family moved to the 

nearby village of Atwood. In 1978, Joseph and Brenda Blatchford moved a wartime 

house in London onto the property, moved to the farm in 1978 as a second home. It 

lasted for only two years before it burnt to the ground in 1980 due to a chimney fire. 

The next year, the original wood barn burnt to the ground as well after straw heating 

ignited a fire. The family rebuilt after a local fundraising initiative, and the metal barns 

that now stand on the lot are all of recent origin. The rest of the lot is used as pasture 

for the cows on the dairy farm. 


Thomas Gibbs owned the lot as early as 1854, but did little with it other than gather 

maple sap for syrup making, and it fell then to Hugh Wilson, who came to the area from 

Carleton County, to clear room for a farm out of the forest. Wilson built a house on the 

centre of the south border of the lot, and in the 1930s, W. Joseph Acheson made 

several improvements to the house, as well as building a silo and barn nearby. 

However, the barn burnt down in 1956, taking with it the house and the silo. The only 

current evidence of the former existence of the buildings is a dirt path surrounded by 

trees, which leads to the former location of the house. Otherwise, the land is mostly 

cultivated, and is now owned by large scale farmers living elsewhere in Elma.

17 


Before John Nixon received the patent for the land in 1864, the land was owned by 

Robert Cathers in 1854, John Carol in 1856, and James Trow later the same year. 

Nixon cleared some of the land, but built no lasting structures. However, he did sell part 

of his land to the Donegal Wesleyan Methodist Church, who began a pioneer cemetery 

in the southeast corner of the lot. When he sold to Samuel Vipond in 1872, Vipond 

built a house in the centre of the lot on the south side, with a curved pathway leading up 

to it. He knocked this house down in 1880 and built a better one slightly to the west of 

the original, making use of the curved road. A well dug nearby in 1864 lasted through 

the 20 th century, and became the only dug well in Elma that provided enough water to 

run the entire lot. The house was demolished within the past 15 years. 

In 1876 Vipond took the important step of selling half an acre (~.2 hectares) of his farm 

to Elisha Harris, who used it to build a Cheese factory in the southeast corner, next to 

the cemetery. The factory was operated by Elisha’s son Charles until it was destroyed 

in a fire in 1881. This was most unfortunate for the farm, as all of the following 

occupants were dairy farmers, using the original barn and house for the farms 

operations and for livestock such as cows, pigs, sheep, lambs, ducks, and geese. The 

lot is currently owned as part of a large incorporated farm. 

1.2.5.18 Concession X, Lot 18 

Arthur Gordon owned this lot long before he was granted the patent in 1863, with his 

tenure beginning in 1854. After he sold the lot to James Redford in 1873, Redford built 

a wood house in the northeast corner of the lot. The house did not last long before it 

was torn down, but each subsequent homestead was built on its location, each with 

slightly more modern accoutrements and additions. In 1876, Redford sold the property 

to Charles McMane, who divided the property in 1885, selling the east 25 acres (~10 

hectares) of it to his son, Charles McMane Jr., who lived on lot 19 in the same 

concession. The McMane family continued to hold both lots, making the previously 

mentioned improvements to the buildings, until the 1940s, when they sold the west part 

and the east part to the Whyte family and the Long family, respectively. The Whyte 

family lived on the lot until quite recently, continuing to make modern improvements to 

the original house. 

1.2.5.19 Concession X, Lot 23 (East 25 acres, ~10 hectares) 

Lot 23 was first owned in 1854 by Michael J. Hamilton, who soon after passed it to 

Robert Cathers, who passed the land to Richard Bell. John Sydney Smith removed Bell 

from the land in 1862, as Smith held the legal patent for the lot. Smith lived elsewhere 

in the concession, however. By 1878 no house had been built on the lot. In 1883, the 

east half of the land was sold to Adam Gray Sr., the owner of lot 24, who cultivated the 

lot until 1900, when he gave the west half of the east half of the lot to his son Robert, 

and the east half of the west half of the lot to his son Adam Gray Jr., who lived on lot 24. 

Henceforth, nothing was built on these approximately 10 hectares, being used purely for 

cultivation or pasture, and they were bought and sold in conjunction with lot 24.

18 

1.2.5.20 Concession X, Lot 24 

The first owner of lot 24 was Archibald Lillico, who attempted to clear the land for only a 

few years before abandoning the lot. The lot lay undeveloped until 1874, when William 

Anderson obtained its patent and built a wood house in the northeast corner. The 

Anderson family proceeded to hold the east side of the lot for three generations, selling 

to Adam Gray Jr. in 1919. William Anderson had sold the west side of the lot in 1874 to 

William S. Cowen through the landholder John Tawse. Cowen built a house in the 

northwest corner of the lot, and it is this house, with a myriad of improvements and 

modernizations added on, that now stands in the lot. When Adam Gray acquired both 

halves of the lot in 1919, he had already made his family’s home in the house on the 

west half of the lot, and had no more need for the east house, knocking it down for room 

to expand his cultivation, and leaving no trace of where it stood. From 1919 onwards, 

the lot follows the same pattern of purchase as the east quarter of lot 23, passing 

through the hands of John E. Rock to the Danbrook family, who have lived in the 

Anderson house since 1946. 

1.2.5.21 Mornington Concession XI, Lot 6 

There were two patents given out for this lot, one for the north 100 acres (~40 hectares) 

to James Grayson Smith, and one for the south 100 acres (~40 hectares) to Samuel 

Watson. The north half was divided up into sections, and by 1878, Benjamin Johnston 

and John Campbell had built houses on the north 50 acres (~20 hectares) and the south 

50 acres (~20 hectares) of the north half, while Samuel Watson had built a house on the 

south half. The house built by Campbell burnt down in the early 1900s, shortly after the 

south half of the north half started being sold in conjunction with the south half. The 

houses built by Johnston and Watson were both kept alive by the following inhabitants 

of the farm, who made constant refurbishments and modernizations to the wood houses 

over the years. Though the current houses are on the same location as the original 19 th 

century houses, it is uncertain to what degree they resemble the pioneer buildings. 

In 1878, there was also a pioneer cemetery begun in the northeast corner of the south 

half of the lot. It was a Methodist Cemetery, and remains there today. It is outside the 

study area, but nevertheless lends its historic significance to any developments in the 

region. However, the most important development on the lot lies on the south border of 

the lot, the S.S. No. 6 Mornington Public School. The ¾ acre (~.3 hectares) lot was sold 

to the school board by George Bast in 1946 for $3500, but the school house itself had 

been there long before. It was first opened in 1864, although originally located in a 

different lot. The first building on the present location was made in 1872, but destroyed 

by a cyclone in 1903. The current red brick building was finished just a year later, and 

was in operation as a school until its closure in 1964. It has since been used as a work 

shed and as a small home, and stands as the most important heritage building on the 

lot. The rest of the lot is either cultivated farmland or pasture, with the exception of the 

Black Creek waterway running through the centre of the lot from south to north.

19 

1.2.5.22 Mornington Concession XII, Lot 5 (North half) 

The south half of this lot was first owned by Alexander Glen of Carthage, a farmer from 

Ireland who settled here in 1851 and became one of the contributors to the illustrated 

historic atlas. The first owner of the north half of this lot, however, was William 

Campbell Sr. in 1876, who built a house on north part of the lot’s centre line almost 

immediately after his purchase. After passing through the hands of the Riddell, 

Johnston, Rennie, Fritz, and Frielung families, the house remained in the same location, 

although here, as elsewhere in the township, dramatic modernization efforts were 

applied to the original building. The structure that now stands in the place of the 19 th 

century building is quite different from its predecessor. Other than this building, the 

north half of the lot contains cultivated land, pasture, and part of the Black Creek 

waterway. 

1.2.5.23 Mornington Concession XIII, Lot 4 

The first owner of the lot was Alexander Walker, who purchased the patent for the north 

125 acres (~50 hectares) of the lot, all of which is part of the study area, in 1862. He 

built a wood house on the west border of the lot near the Black Creek, and farmed the 

land until his death in 1919. At this time, the land was sold to Edward Wood, who 

maintained the house and added significantly to its modernization before passing it to 

The Agricultural Development Board near the beginning of the depression. The Board 

then maintained the house until granting it to Albert Tinadall in 1944. 

1.2.6 Plaques 

One commemorative plaque is located within the project area in Perth County. The 

plaque located inside the Listowel Public Library at Livingston Avenue South and Main 

Street reads (Figure 6): 

Born at Listowel, Ontario, Walker learned water colour technique in Toronto and studied 

briefly in New York but was largely self taught. In 1883 he settled on the Ile d'Orleans 

where for more than fifty years he painted scenes of rural life. Elected to the Royal 

Academy of Canada in 1918 he became its president in 1925. His portrayals, in the 

traditional manner, of figures and animals won international acclaim and his work is 

displayed in major American galleries as well as in the National Gallery of Canada. He 

died at Ste. Pétronille. 

There is one plaque within the area that applies to the Regional Municipality of 

Waterloo. It is located on Wellington Road 45 near Hawkesville and the Conestogo 

River (Figure 7). It reads: 

In the early 19th century the vast unsettled area between Waterloo County and Lake 

Huron was known as the "Queen's Bush". More than 1,500 free and formerly enslaved 

Blacks pioneered scattered farms along the Peel and Wellesley Township border, with 

Glen Allan, Hawkesville and Wallenstein as important centres. Working together, these 

industrious and self-reliant settlers built churches, schools, and a strong and vibrant

20 

community life. American missionaries taught local Black children at the Mount Hope 

and Mount Pleasant schools. In the 1840s the government ordered the district surveyed 

and many of the settlers could not afford to purchase the land they had laboured so 

hard to clear. By 1850 migration out of the Queen's Bush had begun. Today African 

Canadians whose ancestors pioneered the Queen's Bush are represented in 

communities across Ontario. 

1.3 Natural Environment 

1.3.1 Bedrock and Physiography 

The main project area and transmission line and point of interconnect run across four 

different bedrock formations. West of Perth Road 147 the underlying bedrock includes 

the Detroit River Group and the Onondaga Formation. East of Perth Road 147 and west 

of Perth Road 131 the bedrock is composed of the Bois Blanc Formation and the 

Oriskany Formation. The eastern most section of the project area is composed of the 

Bass Island Formation. The transmission lines outside of the main project area run 

along the Salina Formation bedrock. 

The area is characterized mostly as till moraine. The Milverton Moraine ridge intersects 

the center of the main project area running south to north and a small area of marsh 

and bog is present in the southwest corner. The area affected by the transmission lines 

is also till moraine (Figure 8). 

1.3.2 Prehistoric Shorelines 

The Wisconsin glacier retreated approximately 14,000 years ago uncovering the Ontario 

Island. During its retreat it created this high island and the flat till plains and elevated 

moraines now part of the surrounding topography of Perth County and former Waterloo 

County (Figure 9). The retreating glacier also created small swamps and marshlands, 

which greatly affected the habitation of the land by Paleo-Indian peoples and European 

settlers (Riedstra 2000)(Chapman and Putnam 1984). While most of the study area 

lies within the “island” area, there are areas where the study area extends to former 

beach/strand lines. 

1.3.3 Soils and Topography 

The elevations range from 380m to 400m above sea level (asl) with the project area and 

about 400 asl within the areas affected by the transmission lines (The Atlas of Canada 

2010). 

The soil types within the project area will be examined from the western boundary of the 

main project area (Highway 23) to the east, as well as the concessions along the 

transmission lines that extend to the east into the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 

The western section is dominated by imperfect limestone till that is yellowish-brown in 

colour and has a medium texture (Listowel). It consists of a silt loam and the topography

21 

is level to slightly undulating. This soil type widens to the east as one moves south 

within the study area. Within the area dominated by this soil type are a few minor soil 

types. These include larger patches of good quality, medium textured yellowish-brown 

limestone till (Harriston) and smaller patches of poor quality grey limestone till of a 

medium texture (Parkhill). The Harriston type is found in rolling topography and has a 

silt loam, while the Parkhill type is found in level to depressional topography and has a 

loam. Lines of alluvial deposits follow the various streams in the area as well (Figure 10, 

Perth Soil Map). 

The eastern section of the project area, within the Elma Township, is characterized by 

imperfect limestone shale till of a heavy texture (Perth). It consists of a clay loam and 

silt loam, and is found in level to undulating topography. The soil type covers a larger 

area in the north of the study area, but narrows as it moves south. Minor deposits within 

this soil type include a large amount of poor quality, heavy textured limestone shale till 

(Brookston) and a smaller amount of good quality soil of this type (Huron). The 

Brookston type consists of a clay loam and silt loam and is found in level to 

depressional topography. The Huron type also consists of a silt loam and clay loam, but 

is found in rolling topography. Again, lines of alluvial deposits follow the various streams 

in the area. A few small bogs are found scattered across the study area (Figure 10, 

Perth Soil Map). 

The transmission lines pass through Perth County continuing east into the Regional 

Municipality of Waterloo. These two transmission corridors pass through an area with a 

similar soil regime. This regime is predominately comprised of fine-textured soils formed 

on till or lacustrine deposits. It varies from good drainage to poor drainage and consists 

of silty clay and silty clay loam. There are also small areas of coarse and medium 

textured soils located near streams and watersheds. These soils go to a depth of 30 to 

90 cms and overlay fine-textured till and lacustrine deposits. Alluvial deposits are again 

found along water sources such as rivers, streams and creeks. These alluvial deposits 

are coarse and medium textured soils, varying from loam, loamy sand, loam over 

gravel, and sand and gravel (Figure 11, Waterloo Soil Map). 

1.3.4 Drainage 

After the retreat of the last glacier, the area was characterized by marshes and swamps. 

In the 1870s, municipal drains and tiling has transformed swampland into agricultural 

land (Riedstra 2000). 

There are three watersheds within the study area: the Grand River watershed, the 

Upper Thames watershed and the Maitland watershed, which has a north and south 

branch (Riedstra 2000). The area of the point of interconnect is influenced by the 

Conestogo River watershed (The Atlas of Canada 2010). The Grand River is a 

designated heritage river. 

A number of small rivers and streams cross the project area and transmission lines 

area. These water sources will be described herein from west to east (Figure 12). The

22 

Middle Maitland River runs across the northwestern corner of the study area after 

originating north of Listowel. The Boyle Drain flows from the south and west of the 

project area affecting the majority of the area west of Perth Road 131 along with Smith 

Creek. The Nith River, a tributary of the Grand River, flows from south of the project 

area from around Millbank and Perth Road 121(Chapman and Putnam 1984). 

From west to east the transmission corridors cross Boomer Creek, Kirkland Creek, 

Donald Creek and another area of Boomer Creek (The Atlas of Canada 2010). 

It is worth noting that the Conestogo River, which drains into the small creeks within the 

project area, is located approximately 3.78 km to the north. 

1.3.5 Vegetation 

The study area falls within the Mixed Wood Plains Ecozone and the Great Lakes – St. 

Lawrence Forest area. This area is characterized by deciduous and coniferous trees 

with occasional tall grass prairies. Tree species include yellow birch, sugar and red 

maple, basswood, red oak, eastern white pine, red pine, eastern hemlock and white 

cedar. It is also known for its more mild temperature and rich faunal diversity. The 

study area is primarily agricultural, consisting of crops and pasture lands. 

1.4 Archaeological Context 

1.4.1 Previously Known Archaeological Resources/Assessments 

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport was contacted on September 17 th , 2012 via 

email (from Scarlett Janusas) requesting site data information and information regarding 

nearby previous archaeological assessments. The MTCS responded on September 

19 th , 2012. Four registered archaeological sites were documented within kilometre of 

the study area. These are AjHd-29, AjHd-30, and AjHd-34, located at the east end to 

the study area, and AjHe-1, located at the west end of the study area. 

AjHd-29, the J. Martin site, is a prehistoric campsite, in the village of Hawkesville. No 

specific cultural affiliation was identified in the site record. It is about 10 by 12 m in 

size, and consists solely of lithic materials. 

AjHd-30 is also located in the village of Hawkesville and is recorded as a Middle Archaic 

findspot – a projectile point manufactured from Onondaga chert. 

AjHd-34, the Bowman site, is a possible Archaic camp/station for tool maintenance. It is 

located near the Conestogo River. The scatter is 13 by 31 metres in size. 

AjHe-1, the Newmaster site, is an isolated findspot. This site is only reported by the 

former Archaeological Survey of Canada as “Newmaster found a ‘fishing knife’ and lost 

it”.

23 

There are no other registered archaeological sites located within 1 km of the study area. 

There are two archaeological assessments that lie within 50 m of the study area (MTCS 

2012, email). The first if by Grimes (2006) and reports on a property in the Village of 

Hawkesville. No archaeological material was recovered, and there was no 

recommendation for any additional archaeological assessment. 

The second report by Parker (2003) has not been reviewed by the MTCS as yet, and 

not in the Public Registry, and is therefore not accessible to this investigator. Attempts 

were made to contact Mr. Parker directly, but there was no answer at the known 

address/contact information. The report findings are therefore not available to this 

study. The assessment was conducted on the Hillside Cemetery expansion. 

Perth County does not have an archaeological master plan. 

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo has an active archaeological master plan, which 

defines areas of archaeological potential. Figure 13 illustrates the areas of 

archaeological potential for the transmission line and point of interconnect areas that fall 

within the RMW political boundaries. Almost all areas of the proposed Conestogo Wind 

Energy Centre within the RMW boundaries are considered to exhibit archaeological 

potential. The only area that is considered to exhibit low potential is the area at the 

most eastern proximity of the collection system and point of interconnect. This is an 

active gravel/quarry pit, and has been subject to deep and extensive development 

disturbance. This is area does not exhibit archaeological potential. This was further 

substantiated through a property visit. 

The Master Plan was developed to incorporate neighbouring boundaries to ensure 

“potential” for areas within the RMW were adequately mapped. In this case, parts of 

Perth County are also included in the RMW potential mapping, up to and including Road 

116. The majority of the transmission lines that are delineated on the archaeological 

master plan mapping exhibit archaeological potential. The roadways are buffered to 

capture early settlement along early transportation routes.

24 

2.0 METHODOLOGY 

2.1 Stage 1 (Background Research) 

As part of the background research, an examination of the following was conducted: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the Site Registration Database (maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and 

Culture) was examined for the presence of known archaeological sites in the project 

area and within a radius of one kilometre of the project area by contacting the data 

coordinator of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture; 

reports of previous archaeological fieldwork within a radius of 50 m around the 

property; 

topographic maps at 1:10 000 (recent and historical) or the most detailed map 

available; 

historic settlement maps such as the historic atlases; 

land registry records (abstract index); 

available archaeological management/master plans or archaeological potential 

mapping; 

commemorative plaques or monuments; and, 

any other avenues that assist in determining archaeological potential were examined 

(in the case of Crown Lands, the Ministry of Natural Resources was contacted). 

Photographs 1-28 illustrate the study area conditions. Figures 16-18 illustrates the 

location of the photographs taken and their orientation. 

2.2 Stage 1 (Property Inspection) 

The property was visited on September 18th, 2012. The weather was overcast, with 

light periods of drizzle and temperature of 16 degrees Celsius. 

The study area in the location of the wind farm was relatively level and could be seen 

easily from the roadside. A windshield survey of the area was conducted, primarily to 

ascertain if there were any areas that could be excluded from the archaeological 

assessment based on deep and extensive development disturbance. There was no 

such disturbance noted in the wind farm area. 

The collection line was also subject to a windshield survey, both sides of roadways, as 

the path of the collection line is not yet determined. The collection line will be located 

with the municipal road right-of-way, and a windshield survey was appropriate to 

determine potential. 

The only area of extreme and deep development disturbance was located at the east 

end of the collector line system and at the point of interconnect. This is an active quarry 

pit, known as the Wolfe Pit.

25 

3.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The majority of the property exhibits archaeological potential based on early historic 

transportation routes, early historic settlement along early roadways, drainage 

crossings, the prehistoric Ontario Island and adjacent prehistoric beach and strandlines, 

and the relatively undeveloped nature of the properties (Figures 13 – 15). Only at the 

east end of the collection line, and at the point of interconnect, is there an area of 

extensive and deep development disturbance associated with an active quarry pit. This 

area, field verified, and also determined through the Regional Municipality of Waterloo’s 

archaeological master plan, is considered to be an area of low archaeological potential.

26 

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 

Based on the results of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment, the following is 

recommended: 

 

 

 

The study property is considered to exhibit archaeological potential and is 

recommended for Stage 2 archaeological assessment prior to any development 

of the property according to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s 2011 

Standards and Guidelines (MTC, 2011). 

The area of low archaeological potential, as per the Regional Municipality of 

Waterloo’s archaeological master plan, and field verified in September 2012, 

does not need any further archaeological assessment. 

The remaining subject lands should be ploughed, where ploughing is possible, 

and subject to pedestrian transect intervals of 5 metres or less; and test pitted, 

where ploughing cannot be accomplished, in 5 metre or less intervals. The 

intensification of both the test pitting and ploughed areas upon discovery of 

cultural material must be done according to the Stage 2 MTCS standards. 

This archaeological assessment has been conducted under the 2011 Standards and 

Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ministry of Tourism and Culture, 2011). The 

following presents the standards and compliance.

27 

5.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION 

According to the 2011 Standards and Guidelines (Section 7.5.9) the following must be 

stated within this report: 

This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport as a condition of 

licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18. 

The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that 

are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report 

recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural 

heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project 

area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry 

of Tourism, Culture and Sport, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there 

are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the 

proposed development. 

It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other 

than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or 

to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the 

site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork 

on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural 

heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of 

Archaeological Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 

Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be 

an archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage 

Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease 

alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to 

carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with sec. 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage 

Act. 

The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation 

Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. require that any person discovering human remains 

must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of 

Consumer Services. 

Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork or protection 

remain subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or 

have artifacts removed from them, except by a person holding an archaeological 

license.

28 

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 

Archaeological Survey of Canada 

n.d. Archaeological Survey of Canada Description, Manuscript No. 1062, H.I. Smith 

files. 

Belden, H. 

1879 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Perth. H. Belden & Co., Toronto. 

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam 

1951 Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario Research Foundation. 

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/archives/3rdedition/environment/land/0 

14 

1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 

Crump, Rebecca 

2012 Personal communication, October 28 th , 2012, Dillon Consulting Ltd. 

Department of Soils 

1971 Soil Map of Perth County Ontario. Soil Survey Report No. 15. Experimental 

Farms Service. Ottawa 

1971 Soil Map of Waterloo County Ontario Soil Survey Report No. 44. Canada 

Department of Agriculture 


2012 Conestogo Wind Energy Centre, Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Draft 

Submission, Draft Project Description Report, May 2, 2012. 

Grimes, Garth 

2006 Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment, Edgewood Lumber Property, Village 

of Hawkesville, Township of Wellesley, RM of Waterloo. MTCS Public Registry. 

Government of Ontario 

1990a The Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O. 1990. Ontario Regulation 9/06, made under 

the Ontario Heritage Act. Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or 

Interest. Queen's Printer, Toronto. 

1990b The Planning Act. R.S.O. 1990. 

2005 The Environmental Protection Act. 

2009 The Green Energy Act.

29 

Johnston, W. Stafford and Johnston, Hugh J.M. 

1967 History of Perth County to 1967. The B-H Press, Stratford. 

Johnston, William. 

1903 History of Perth County 1825-1902. W.M. O’Beirne, Stratford. 

Knight, Dean H. 

1993 Archaeological Assessment Future Zone Change Application for Part of Lot 2, 

Concession 12, East Section Wellesley Township, RM of Waterloo. 

Milverton Centennial Committee (ed.) 

1957 A Century of Progress 1857-1957. Sun Print, Milverton. 

Ministry of Tourism and Culture 

2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists. Ministry of 

Tourism and Culture. 


2012 Archaeological Site Data and Report of Assessments within 50 m of Study Area. 

Email dated September 19, 2012. 

Mornington Old Boys and Girls Reunion (ed.) 

1981 Paths of History: Milverton’s 100 th Anniversary as an Incorporated Village. 

Sun Print, Milverton. 

No author 

1867 Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Waterloo, Irwin & Burnham, Toronto 

Parker, L. 

2003 Archaeological Assessment, Stages 1 and 2, Proposed Zone Change Application 

(ZCA 03-05), Hillside Cemetery Expansion, Part of Lot 1, Concession 9, East 

Section, Township of Wellesley, RM of Waterloo (Not in MTCS Public Registry). 

Parsell 

1881 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo. Parsell, Toronto. 

Riedstra, L.H. 

2000. Municipal History. The Elmanac; The History of Elma Township 1857-1997. 

Town of North Perth, Listowel. 

Smith, Wm. H. 

1846 Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer. H. & W. Rowsell, Toronto. 

Versteeg, Jenny (ed.) 

2000 Elmenac: A History of Elma Township, the Heart of the Farming 

Community. The Stratford Beacon Herald Fine Print Division, Stratford.

30 

Web Sources 

Cemeteries - www.geneofun.on.ca 

http://geneofun.on.ca/cems/ON/ONGRY10959?PHPSESSID=5b9f01c702cee4aa 

2b7f6c36a0cfadab 

Ontario Vital Statistics, www.ancestry.ca 

Ontario Census Records, www.ancestry.ca 

Library and Archives Canada Records, 

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/index-e.html 

Canadiana Records, http://www.canadiana.ca/en/home 

District Map of Ontario, http://www.brocku.ca/maplibrary/digital/in-house.php 

Aerial Maps, Elma and Mornington Townships, www.maps.google.ca 

Upper Canada and the First Nations, 1780s to 1820s, www.canata.ca 

County Land Records, Perth County Land Registry Office #44, Ontario and the 

Archives of Ontario, 5 Huron Street, Stratford, Ontario 

Library and Archives, Perth County Archives, 5 Huron St., Stratford, Ontario 

Corporation of the Township of Wellesley 

http://www.township.wellesley.on.ca/Tourism%20-%20home.html 

Waterloo Regional Museum http://www.waterlooregionmuseum.com/historicalplace-names/wellesely.aspx 

Guelph Museums http://guelph.ca/museumsites/BlackHistory/queens.htm 

Wellesley Township Heritage and History Society 

http://www.wellesleyhistory.org/history-of-wellesley-township.html 

Ontario Heritage Plaques 

http://www.ontarioplaques.com/Plaques_VWZ/Plaque_Wellington31.html 

2010 Toporama – Topographic Maps. 

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/topo/ 

Government of Ontario, 2009 Ontario’s Natural Resources – Forests, 

http://www.ontario.ca/en/ 

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam, 1951 Physiography of Southern Ontario. 

Ontario Research Foundation. 

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/archives/3rdedition/environment/land/0 

14 

Natural Resources Canada, 2002 Ontario. The Atlas of Canada. 

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/reference/provincesterritories/ontario/r 

eferencemap 

Ministry of Natural Resources, 2009 Wildlife Management – Wildlife in 

Ontario. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/

31 

TABLES 


ELMA 1 31-72 

2 16-36 

3 16-36 

4 16-36 

5 16-36 

6 16-36 

7 16-36 

8 16-36 

9 16-36 

10 16-36 

MORNINGTON 6 1-15 

7 1-15 

8 1-18 

9 1-18 

10 1-15 

11 1-15 

12 1-18 

13 1-18 

14 1-15 

WELLESLEY 0 15 

0 16 

0 50 

A 15-19 

8 10-12 

8W 1-9 

9 1-12 

9W 1-7 

10 1-10, 12 

11 1-9 

12W 1-12 

12 1-9 

13 3-6 

13W 1-12 

14 3-8 

15 4-7 

Table 1 

Lots and Concessions of the Project Area

32 

Table 2 Historic Atlas Map Information 

Township Lot and 

Concession 

Historic Owner Size Occupation Birth Place Year 

Settled 

Elma C1 L55 T.K. Lawrence 50 acres 

(south half) 

C1 L56 

William 

Stewart 

William 

Stewart 

William 

Stewart 

50 acres 

(north half) 

50 acres 

(north half) 

50 acres 

(north half) 

C1 L57 S. Fallis 49 acres 

(north half) 

S. Fallis 49 acres 

(north half) 

C1 L58 S. Fallis 50 acres 

(north half) 

N. Harris 50 acres 

(south half) 

C1 L59 A. Gordon 50 acres 

(north half) 

A. Nixon 50 acres 

(south half) 


(north half) 


(south half) 


(south half) 


(north half) 

John Bain 

50 acres 

(south half) 

Historic Built Feature Information 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on south half of part lot near 84 

Line 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 

Source Date/Atlas 

Date 

N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on NE quadrant near 86 Line N Belden: 1879 



N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on north half near Perth 86. N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on north half near Perth 86. N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 84 Line N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near 86 Line N Belden: 1879 


N/A N/A N/A No Built Features N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near perth road 

147 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near perth road 

147 



N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant near 147 Road N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW corner near 147 Road N Belden: 1879 

C1 L62 J. Gillies 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in North half on 86 Line N Belden: 1879 

C1 L63 J. Hamilton 66.5 acres 

(north section) 

N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879

33 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

H. Hamilton 33.5 acres 

(south 

section) 

C1 L64 J. Hamilton 33.5 acres 

(north west 

section) 

R. Hamilton 33.5 acres(NE 

section) 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 


N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant of part lot near 

86 Line 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant of part lot near 

86 Line 




(south 

section) 

C1 L65 R. Hamilton 66.5 acres 

(north section) 




(south 

section) 

C1 L66 J. Newart 50 acres 

(north half) 

G. Mayberry 50 acres 

(south half) 

C1 L67 J. Newart 50 acres 

(north half) 

G. Mayberry 50 acres 

(south half) 



N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 84 Line N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature Y Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 84 Line N Belden: 1879 

C1 L68 A. Hull 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built feature on north half of lot near 86 Line N Belden: 1879 

C1 L69 P. Keopus 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Three Built Features in north half near 86 Line N Belden: 1879 

C1 L70 F. Ellis 50 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

(north half) 

P. Keopus 50 acres 

(south half) 


C1 L71 W. Haddow 99.5 acres N/A N/A N/A NW corner of lot near Line 86 is 0.5 acre part 

lot with Built Feature. Two Built features in 

north end of property 


C1 L72 W. Haddow 100 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Features N Belden: 1879

34 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 

C2 L28 McLellan 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on north half near center of lot N Belden: 1879 

C2 L29 S. Rothwell 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature at the center of west half of lot N Belden: 1879 

C2 L30 

C2 L31 

John 

Stevenson 

John 

Stevenson 

John 

Stevenson 

John 

Stevenson 

100 acres Farmer Ireland 1852 Built Feature in SE quadrant near Road 147 Y Belden: 1879 



100 acres Farmer Ireland 1852 No Built Feature Y Belden: 1879 

C2 L32 S. Mayberry 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in south section of lot near 84 Y Belden: 1879 

Line 

C2 L33 G. Mayberry 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near 82 Line N Belden: 1879 

C2 L34 John Mayberry 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 82 Line N Belden: 1879 

C2 L35 John Mayberry 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 82 Line N Belden: 1879 

C2 L36 John Mayberry 104 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Features N Belden: 1879 

C3 L21 

C3 L30 

James. Brock 

SR 

William 

Stevenson 

Property of 

Britton Station 

99.5 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near Perth 81 

Line; Schoolhouse in SW corner 

99.5 acres Farmer Canada 1853 Built Feature in NE quadrant near 147 Road; 

Deport for S&H Railroad in SW corner of lot 

0.5 acres (part 

lot along 147 

Road in SE 

quadrant of 

main lot) 


Y Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature within property Y Belden: 1879 

C3 L31 

Property of 


2 acres (part 

lot on SW 

corner) 

N/A N/A N/A Appears to be three Built Features in SW 

corner near intersection of 147 Road and 81 

Line 


Property of 


2 acres (part 

lot on SW 

corner) 



Line 


Property of 


2 acres (part 

lot on SW 

corner) 



Line 

Y Belden: 1879

35 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

Property of 


2 acres (part 

lot on SW 

corner) 




Line 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 


Property of 


2 acres (part 

lot on SW 

corner) 



Line 


Property of 


2 acres (part 

lot on SE 

corner) 



Line 


William 

Stevenson 

99 acres Farmer Canada 1853 Built Feature (Cheese Factory) on NW 

quadrant of lot near 147 Line. 


William 

Stevenson 

William 

Stevenson 

William 

Stevenson 

C3 L32 No Owner 2 acres (part 

lot on SE 

corner) 

No Owner 







2 acres (part 

lot on SE 

corner) 




N/A N/A N/A Built feature in center of part lot on 81 Line N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in center of part lot on 81 Line N Belden: 1879 

T. Preston 98 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near 82 Line N Belden: 1879 

C3 L33 G. Mayberry 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near 82 Line N Belden: 1879 

C4 L20 George 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 158 Road N Belden: 1879 

Clelland 

C4 L21 T. Jickling 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near Road 158 N Belden: 1879 

C4 L22 No Owner 50 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

C4 L23 T. Thompson 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in centre of NE quadrant close 

to Perth 81 Line 


C4 L30 

C4 L31 

Property of 


Property of 


0.5 acres (NE 

corner) 

N/A N/A N/A One Built feature near intersection of 81 Line 

and 147 Road 

0.5 acres N/A N/A N/A One Built Feature in NW corner of Lot near 

intersection of 147 Road and 81 Line 


Y Belden: 1879

36 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 

J. Gray 98.5 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant of lot Y Belden: 1879 

C4 L32 John G. 

Alexander 

C4 L33 John G. 

Alexander 

99 acres Farmer Canada 1854 Built Feature in NE quadrant of lot near Line 

81 


100 acres Farmer Canada 1854 No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

C5 L20 G. Grierson 50 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on SW quadrant near Perth 78 N Belden: 1879 

Line 

J. Coughlin 50 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near 158 Road N Belden: 1879 

C5 L21 Mrs. Donehue 50 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant near 158 Road N Belden: 1879 

C5 L22 J. Porterfield 100 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

C5 L23 A. Atcheson 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near Line 78 N Belden: 1879 

C5 L24 J. Newbigging 100 acres Farmer Scotland 1860 Built Feature in SE quadrant near 78 Line N Belden: 1879 

C5 L25 J. Stewart 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near road 154 N Belden: 1879 

C5 L26 T and J 90 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near road 154 N Belden: 1879 

Alexander 

and 78 Line 

J. Stewart 10 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

C5 L27 William Hone 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 78 Line N Belden: 1879 

C5 L28 William 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 78 Line N Belden: 1879 

Keating 

C5 L29 J. McCauly 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 78 Line N Belden: 1879 

C5 L30 J. McCauly 100 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Features N Belden: 1879 

J. McCauly 100 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Features N Belden: 1879 

C5 L31 J. Hammond 100 acres N/A N/A N/A One Built Feature in SW quadrant near 



C5 L32 James Corry 100 acres Farmer Ireland 1867 Built Feature on SE corner of lot on 78 Line N Belden: 1879 

C5 L33 

William 

Keating 

99 acres N/A N/A N/A Two Built Features in SW corner along Line 78 N Belden: 1879 

C6 L21 J.G. Robertson 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 158 Road N Belden: 1879

37 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


C6 L22 A. Newbigging 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on NW quadrant near Perth 78 

Line 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 


C6 L23 J. Ingles 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near Line 78 N Belden: 1879 

C6 L24 J. Leonard 50 acres (East 

Half) 


C6 L25 J. Leonard 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant of lot near 78 

Line 


C6 L26 A. Atcheson 100 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 



C6 L29 J. McCauly 100 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

C6 L30 T. Melrose 95.5 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

T. Melrose 95.5 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

T. Melrose 95.5 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

Town of 

Hammond 

4.5 acres (NE 

corner) 

N/A N/A N/A Four built features, two along 147 Road, and 

two along 78 Line (one of which is a Cheese 

Facility) 

C6 L31 No Owner 0.5 acres N/A N/A N/A Area partitioned from lot on the SW corner 

near 147 Road. Appears to be one to three 

built features on lot 

Town of 

Hammond 

5 acres (NW 

corner) 

N/A N/A N/A Three built features. Two along 147 Road, 

and one the intersection 147 Road and 78 

Line 




J. Hammond 94.5 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

C7 L21 R. Leslie 50 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant near 158 Road N Belden: 1879 

C. Thomas 50 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879 

C7 L22 R. Forrest 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879 

C7 L23 

C7 L24 

George 

Sangster 

James 

Whitfield 

100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879 

100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879

38 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


C7 L25 J. Young 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near Perth 75 

Line 

C7 L26 A. Farrell 50 acres (West N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near Line 75 

Half) 

and 154 Road 

G. Hammond 50 acres (East 

Half) 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 



N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near Line 75 N Belden: 1879 

C7 L27 E. Hammond 80 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant of part lot near 

75 Line 

W. Hammond 20 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant of part lot near 

75 Line 

C7 L28 George Long 60 acres Farmer Ireland 1853 Built Feature in SE quadrant of part lot near 

75 Line 

C7 L29 R. Long 60 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant of part lot near 

75 Line 

C7 L30 C. McNIcol 50 acres (West 

Half) 

C7 L31 

C7 L32 

C7 L33 

C7 L34 

T. Parrell 50 acres (East 

Half) 

George 

Denbrook 

William 

Matheson 

George 

Foulston 

Alexander 

Anderson 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant of part lot near 

75 Line 


75 Line 







100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 147 Road N Belden: 1879 

100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879 

100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879 

100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879 

C7 L35 J. Perrin 100 acres Farmer England 1871 Built Feature in SE quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879 

C7 L36 T.L. Tisdale 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 75 Line and 

Road 140 

C8 L18 

C8 L19 

J. Hanna's 

Estate 

J. Hanna's 

Estate 


50 acres Farmer Ireland 1854 No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

100 acres Farmer Ireland 1854 Built Feature in NE quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879 

C8 L20 R. Cochrane 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near 75 Line and 

158 Road 

C8 L21 P.R. Curtis 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant close to Line 75 

and Road 158 



C8 L22 N. Richardson 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879

39 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 

C8 L23 T. Gibson 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879 

C8 L24 George C. 

Hume 

100 acres Farmer Scotland 1858 Built Feature in NW quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879 

George C. 

Hume 


C8 L25 William Wilson 100 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

C8 L26 S. Wilson 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant of lot near Perth 

Line 75 


C8 L27 William Forrest 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near 75 Line Y Belden: 1879 

C8 L28 

William Forrest 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near 75 Line Y Belden: 1879 

Samuel 

Buchanan 

100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near 75 Line N Belden: 1879 

C8 L29 J. Mills 50 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature Y Belden: 1879 

R. Mills 50 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near 75 Line Y Belden: 1879 

C8 L30 D. Shaver 50 acres 

(south half) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 147 Road Y Belden: 1879 

D. McLean 50 acres 

(north half) 

N/A N/A N/A Three Built Features in north half near 75 Line 

and one at intersection of 75 Line and Road 

147 

C8 L31 William Burke 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant near 75 Line 

and Road 147 

C8 L32 J. Beatty 50 acres (East 

Half) 

J. Gray 50 acres (West 

Half) 

C8 L33 J. Cooper 50 acres 

(North Half) 

C8 L34 

William 

Matheson 


75 Line 






75 Line 


100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature near very middle of property N Belden: 1879 

C8 L35 R. Ford 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant near 75 Line Y Belden: 1879 

C8 L36 C. Buchanan 119 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in middle of eastern half near 

Road 140 

C9 L18 M. Harvey 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near Perth Line 

72 


N Belden: 1879

40 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 

C9 L19 


Settled 

Archibald 

Simpson 


100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on SW quadrant (just west of N- 

S centre)near Perth Line 72 

C9 L20 No Owner 0.5 acres N/A N/A N/A Schoolhouse in SE corner at intersection of 

Road 158 and Line 72 

J. Baker 99.5 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near Perth Line 

72 

C9 L21 William Scott 50 acres (west 

half) 

R. Pride 50 acres (East 

Half) 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 




N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near Road 158 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in south half of part lot near 72 

Line 


C9 L22 H. Wilson 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 72 Line N Belden: 1879 

C9 L23 W. Denbrook 50 acres (East N/A N/A N/A Built Feature close to Perth Line 72 in SW N Belden: 1879 

Half) 

corner of part lot 

J. Denbrook 50 acres (West 

Half) 

C9 L24 P. Cowan 50 acres (East 

Half) 

James 

Denbrook 

50 acres (West 

Half) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature close to Perth Line 72 in SE 


N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on SW quadrant near Perth Line 

72 in part lot 




C9 L25 Dobson 50 acres (East 

Half) 

A.A. Ellison 

50 acres (West 

Half) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant of lot near Road 

154 in part lot 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on south half near Perth Line 72 

in part lot 



C9 L26 J. Nixon 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quarter near Line 72 N Belden: 1879 

J. Nixon 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quarter near Line 72 N Belden: 1879 

J. Nixon 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quarter near Line 72 N Belden: 1879 

C9 L27 S. Vipond 99 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 72 Line; 

two small lots (1 acre total) in SE corner with 

one building each (possible cheese factory) 


S. Vipond 99 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 72 Line; 

two small lots (1 acre total) in SE corner with 

one building each (possible cheese factory) 


C9 L28 G. McGill 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 72 Line Y Belden: 1879 

C9 L29 W. Johnston 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in south end of lot near Line 72 N Belden: 1879

41 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 

C9 L30 S. McAllister 95 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 72 Line N Belden: 1879 

S. McAllister 95 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 72 Line N Belden: 1879 

Town of 

Donegal 

5 acres (SE 

corner) 

N/A N/A N/A Multiple Built Features within this subdivision 

(mostly along Perth 72 Line and a few on 

Perth Road 147) 


C9 L31 A. Buchanan 99.5 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quarter near Line 72 N Belden: 1879 

A. Buchanan 99.5 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quarter near Line 72 N Belden: 1879 



No Owner 

0.5 acres (SW 

corner) 

C9 L32 J. Buchanan 50 acres 

(South Half) 

N/A N/A N/A Schoolhouse in SW corner at Line 72 and 

Road 147 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in middle of SW quarter near 72 

Line 



C10 L17 T. Sweeton 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant near 72 Line N Belden: 1879 

C10 L18 C. McMane 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on NE quadrant close to Perth Y Belden: 1879 

Line 72 

C10 L19 

Archibald 

Simpson 

100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on SW quadrant (just west of N- 

S centre)near Perth Line 72 

C10 L20 G. Peoples 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built feature in middle of north half along 72 

Line 

C10 L21 J. Gray 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near Perth Line 

72 

C10 L22 B. Young 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature located in NW quadrant near 

Perth Line 72 





C10 L23 A. Smith 100 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

C10 L24 R. Anderson 50 acres (East N/A N/A N/A Built Feature close to Perth Line 72 in NW Y Belden: 1879 

Half) 


A. Gray 50 acres (West 

Half) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature close to Perth Line 72 in NE 


C10 L25 A. Little 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on NE quadrant near Perth Line 

72 


N Belden: 1879

42 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


C10 L26 J. Petrie 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Four Built Features One North of Boyle Drain 

in NE quarter; One South of Boyle Drain in NE 

quarter; One west of Rd. 154 and North of E- 

W center; One Built Feature just east of very 

centre 

C10 L27 William Little 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature located in north end of lot, 

along N-S center line 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 



C10 L28 J. Dickson 100 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

C10 L29 C. Mason 50 acres (East 

Half) 

J. Dickson 50 acres (West 

Half) 


Perth Line 72 



C10 L30 A. Hemphill 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE corner near Line 72 N Belden: 1879 

C10 L31 

A. Hemphill 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE corner near Line 72 N Belden: 1879 



William 

Shatford 

William 

Shatford 

William 

Shatford 

William 

Shatford 

100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW corner near Line 72 N Belden: 1879 




C11 L18 W. Struthers 100 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

C11 L19 J. Magwood 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant of lot near Perth 

Line 71 

C11 L23 H. Smith 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant (a road on 

eastern edge travels most of the lot) 



C11 L24 J. Struthers 100 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

C11 L25 A. McMeans 100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant not very close N Belden: 1879 

to any road

43 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

Mornington C14 L4 John Walsh 96 acres (west 

half) 

P. Grealish 96 acres (east 

half) 

C14 L5 J. Woods 100 acres 

(west half) 

C13 L1 C. Stever 100 acres 

(west half) 

C13 L2 

F. Stever 100 acres 

(east half) 

William Wood 

Sr. 

50 acres 

(easternmost 

quarter) 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 





N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SW corner along 83 Line N Belden: 1879 


William Wood 

Jr. 

50 acres 

(quarter west 

of centre) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE corner of part lot near 83 

Line 


William Martin 

100 acres 

(east half) 

C13 L3 James Miller 100 acres 

(south half) 

Alex Walker Jr. 

100 acres 

(north half) 

C13 L4 Alex Walker Sr. 125 acres 

(North 

Section) 

C13 L5 

Robert Moore 

William 

Johnston 

Robert 

Johnston 

No Owner 

75 acres 

(South part) 

100 acres 

(west half) 

99.5 acres 

(east half) 

0.5 acres (SE 

corner) 

C13 L6 A. Harvey 98.5 acres 

(west half) 

A. Harvey 98.5 acres 

(west half) 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in SE quadrant on 83 Line Y Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 136 Road N Belden: 1879 


N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near 136 Road Y Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant near Road 136 Y Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Three Built features along south end of 

property along 83 line 


N/A N/A N/A Two Built Features in south end near 83 Line N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Schoolhouse located in SE corner N Belden: 1879 


131 


131 


N Belden: 1879

44 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 

A. Harvey 98.5 acres 

(west half) 


131 


C13 L7 

Alexander 

McDonald 

James 

McDonald 

100 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near Road 131 N Belden: 1879 

125 acres 

(North Half 

and west 

section along 

Road 136) 


John McKee 

75 acres (SE 

area) 

C13 L8 John Askin 100 acres 

(west half) 

Thomas 

Simpson 

100 acres 

(east half) 

C13 L9 Charles Brown 100 acres 

(west half) 

William 

Henderson's 

Estate 

100 acres 

(east half) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in south of part lot near Line 83 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in South half near Line 83 Y Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Two Built Features in South half along Line 83 Y Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW corner near Line 83 N Belden: 1879 


45 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

C13 L10 T. Gibson Sr. 70 acres 

(Southernmost 

section) 


N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SW quadrant near Line 83 

and Road 129 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 


C13 L11 William Ertle 100 acres 

(west half) 

John Forester 

100 acres 

(east half) 

C13 L12 H. Isley 50 acres (SW 

quarter) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in south half along Line 83 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in south half along Line 83 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant along Line 83 N Belden: 1879 

C13 L13 

C13 L14 

J. Cook 40 acres (SE 

corner) 

George 

Strangway 

100 acres 

(west half) 

D. McCloy 100 acres 

(west half) 

Thomas 

Volmer 

100 acres 

(west half) 

E. Knoblauch 100 acres 

(east half) 

C13 L15 E. Knoblauch 50 acres (west 

corner) 


N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in South half near Line 83 and 

Road 124 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant away from any 

road 



N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant near 83 Line N Belden: 1879 

Farmer Prussia 1847 Built Feature in north edge of SE quadrant N Belden: 1879 

Farmer Prussia 1847 Schoolhouse in SE corner of part lot near 83 

Line 

Y Belden: 1879

46 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

John Cramer 89 acres (SE 

area with 

small 

partitions 

from both 

south corners) 


N/A N/A N/A Built feature in north half of part lot near 

Road 121 Each partition also has building; 

the SW building along 83 line, the SE building 

at the intersection of 83 Line and Road 121 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 


C13 L16 H. Cassel 100 acres 

(West Half) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in North half of part lot near 

Road 121 


C13 L17 

Charles Mosier 

John 

Gatschene 

50 acres (SE 

quadrant) 

50 acres (SW 

quarter) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in South half of part lot near 

Line 83 

Farmer France 1876 Built Feature in SE quadrant of part lot near 

Line 83 



George 

Stemler 

150 acres N/A N/A N/A Two built Features; One in the NE quadrant 

and one in the NW quadrant; neither close to 

a road 

N Belden: 1879

47 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

C13 L18 Patrick Hanly 100 acres 

(south half) 

C12 L1 James Kilgore 100 acres 

(north half) 

C12 L2 F. Galloway 100 acres 

(west half) 

John Martin 

100 acres 

(east half) 

C12 L3 Mrs. Beaton 25 acres 

(south part of 

NE quarter) 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in SW quadrant near Line 83 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near Line 83 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant near Line 83 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near Line 83 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature near Line 83 and Road 136 N Belden: 1879 

J. Forman 25 acres 

(north part of 

NE quarter) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant of part lot near 

Road 136 


Henry 

Freeborn 

150 acres Farmer Canada 1848 Built Feature in NE quadrant of SE quarter of 

lot 

C12 L4 J. Forman 29.5 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in small partition in NE corner of 

(NW section 

part lot along Line 83 

with small 

partition) 



J. McM 20 acres 

(north area in 

middle) 

J. Allen 50 acres (NE 

quarter) 

H. Schneider 50 acres 

(North Half of 

South Half) 



Line 83 


Road 136 



C12 L5 

C12 L6 

William 

Campbell Sr. 

Town of 

Carthage 

100 acres 

(north half) 

D. Kerr 93 acres 

(north half) 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in NE quadrant near Line 83 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A N/A Saw and Grist Mill on west half near Road 131 Y Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant of lot Y Belden: 1879

48 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

William Glenn 

50 acres 

(north half of 

southern 

partition) 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant near Road 131 Y Belden: 1879 

Alex Glenn 

50 acres 

(southernmost 

quarter) 

Farmer Ireland 1848 No Built Feature Y Belden: 1879 

C12 L7 

Town of 

Carthage 

1 acre (NW 

corner of lot 

at intersection 

of Road 131 

and Line 83) 

N/A N/A N/A Not visible on map N Belden: 1879 

Town of 

Carthage 

1 acre (NW 

corner of lot 


of Road 131 

and Line 83) 


Town of 

Carthage 

1 acre (NW 

corner of lot 


of Road 131 

and Line 83) 


Town of 

Carthage 

1 acre (NW 

corner of lot 


of Road 131 

and Line 83) 


Town of 

Carthage 

1 acre (NW 

corner of lot 


of Road 131 

and Line 83) 

N/A N/A N/A Not visible on map N Belden: 1879

49 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

Thomas 

Hamilton 

98.5 acres 

(north half) 


N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant along Road 131 

beside Town Hall 

Town Hall 0.5 acres N/A N/A N/A Town Hall located on west side of lot along 

Road 131 

Thomas 

Hamilton 

Thomas 

Hamilton 

Thomas 

Hamilton 

Thomas 

Hamilton 

Thomas 

Hamilton 

Thomas 

Hamilton 

Thomas 

Hamilton 

Thomas 

Hamilton 

Thomas 

Hamilton 

John Gamble 

98.5 acres 

(north half) 

98.5 acres 

(north half) 

98.5 acres 

(north half) 

98.5 acres 

(north half) 

98.5 acres 

(north half) 

98.5 acres 

(north half) 

98.5 acres 

(north half) 

98.5 acres 

(north half) 

98.5 acres 

(north half) 

50 acres 

(southernmost 

quarter) 



















Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 












N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant near Road 131 N Belden: 1879 

Thomas 

Hamilton 

James Gamble 

98.5 acres 

(north half) 

50 acres 

(North Half of 

South Half) 





C12 L8 A. Robinson 100 acres 

(west half) 

William 

Campbell 

100 acres 

(east half) 

C12 L9 A. Moore 75 acres (NW 

section) 


Line 83 


Line 83 

N/A N/A N/A Two Built Features in North half of part lot 

near Line 83 



Y Belden: 1879

50 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

Robert Moore 

75 acres (NE 

section) 

C12 L10 John Hagan 150 acres 

(North 

section) 



Road 129 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 


N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant near Line 83 N Belden: 1879 

C12 L11 N. Hasid 100 acres 

(west half) 

A. Hasid 100 acres 

(east half) 

C12 L12 Patrick Short 100 acres 

(west half) 

C12 L13 

J. Cook 100 acres 

(east half) 

James 

Feidenhammer 

100 acres 

(north half) 

C12 L14 C. Voll 50 acres 

(westernmost 

quarter) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in north half near Line 83 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant of part lot on 

Line 83 


N/A N/A N/A Built feature in NE quadrant near Line 83 N Belden: 1879 


N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant along Line 83 Y Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant of part lot 

along Line 83 


A. Mittleholtz 50 acres (east 

half of west 

half) 

Philip Arnold 

100 acres 

(east half) 

C12 L15 J. Ceiling 50 acres 

(westernmost 

quarter) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant of part lot along 

Line 83 


along Line 83 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE quadrant of part lot along 

Line 83 




W.J. Knoblauch 

50 acres (east 

half of west 

half) 


along Line 83 


W. Gohle 97 acres (east 

half) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in north half of part lot along 

Line 83 and near Road 121 

Y Belden: 1879

51 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

C12 L16 G. Hessinger 14 acres (West 

section of NW 

section with 1 

acre portion in 

NE corner) 


N/A N/A N/A Built Feature at intersection of Line 83 and 

Road 121 and one Built feature in partitioned 

acre on Line 83 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 


B. Skalitzky 15 acres (East 

section of NW 

section) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE corner of part lot on Line 

83 


R. De Guehery 50 acre (west 

half of east 

half) 


83 


John Cook 

50 acres 

(easternmost 

quarter) 


83 


C12 L17 Alex Reid 75 acres (NW 

section) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant of part lot away 

from roads 


William Reid 125 acres N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant of part lot away 

from roads 

C12 L18 Patrick Hanly 50 acres 

(northernmost 

quarter) 



C11 L3 

William 

Whaley 

100 acres 

(east half) 

C11 L4 William Riddell 100 acres 

(west half) 

John Riddell 

100 acres 

(east half) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE quadrant along Road 136 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant on Road 136 N Belden: 1879 


Line 80 


C11 L5 Hugh Riddell 150 acres 

(does not own 

50 acres in NE 

corner) 


52 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 

C11 L6 

Samuel 

Watson 

99.5 acres 

(South Half) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in East half near Road 131; 

Schoolhouse located in South half along Line 

80; 


John Campbell 

50 acres 

(South Half of 

North Half) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in West half N Belden: 1879 

B. Johnston 50 acres 

(northernmost 

quarter) 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in SE corner of part lot near 

Road 131 


C11 L7 

John Watson 

Sr. 

150 acres 

(southern 

three 

quarters) 

Township 

Clerk 

Ireland 1848 Built Feature in SE quadrant of lot N Belden: 1879 

John Gamble 

50 acres 

(northernmost 

quarter) 


C10 L3 S. Robinson 99 acres N/A N/A N/A Church in NE corner at intersection of Line 80 

and Road 136 


C10 L4 Mary Brown 50 acres N/A N/A N/A No Built Feature N Belden: 1879 

C10 L6 A.R. Davidson 100 acres 

(west half) 

William Dawd 

100 acres 

(east half) 

C10 L7 John Dawd 100 acres 

(west half) 

C9 L1 

C9 L2 

C9 L3 

Joseph 

Farncomb 

Joseph 

McGregor 

Charles 

Stewart 

100 acres, 

South half 

100 acres, 

South half 

48 acres, SW 

quadrant of 

lot 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in North Half near Line 80 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in North Half near Line 80 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW quadrant near Road 131 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on the SE quadrant of lot near 

140 Road 


N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SE quadrant N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on NE quadrant north of the 

railroad 

N Belden: 1879

53 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

Mrs. 

Masterton 

48 acres, SE 

quadrant of 

lot 


N/A N/A N/A Built feature on NE quadrant of lot near 136 

Road 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 


C9 L4 

Joseph Peffers 

Estate 

99 acres, 

south half 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SW quadrant N Belden: 1879 

Joseph Peffers 

Estate 

99 acres, 

south half 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SW quadrant N Belden: 1879 

C9 L5 

William 

McGorman 

William Jones 

100 acres, 

west half 

100 acres, 

east half 

C9 L6 Simon Loney 100 acres, 

west half 

C9 L7 

William 

Merrick 

William 

McCormick 

100 acres, 

east half 

99.5 acres, 

south half 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SE quadrant of part lot near 

76 line 


N/A N/A N/A No built feature N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SW quadrant of part lot near 

76 line 


129 road 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SW quadrant near the 

intersection of 76 line and 129 Road 




C9 L8 Alex McLeay 200 acres N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SW quadrant near 76 line N Belden: 1879 

Alex McLeay 200 acres N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SW quadrant near 76 line N Belden: 1879 

C9 L9 Mrs. R Scott 100 acres, 

south half 

C9 L10 

James 

Johnston 

No Owner 

99.5 acres, 

south half 

.5 acres, SW 

quadrant 

C9 L11 William Reid 100 acres, 

south half 

C9 L12 H. Harron 75 acres west 

section of lot 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SW quadrant near 76 line Y Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SW quadrant near 76 line. 

Potential bridge on NW quadrant of lot over 

river 

N/A N/A N/A Church on SW corner of lot near the 

intersection of 76 Line and 129 Road 



N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SW quadrant near 76 line N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on NE quadrant of part lot N Belden: 1879

54 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

T. Harron 75 acres east 

section of lot 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on NW quadrant of part lot N Belden: 1879 

C9 L13 James Fleming 200 acres N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SE quadrant of lot N Belden: 1879 

C9 L14 Ed. Glenn 150 acres N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SE quadrant N Belden: 1879 

Ed. Glenn 

150 acres, 

southern 

section 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SE quadrant N Belden: 1879 

C9 L15 N. Berringer 50 acres, 

southernmost 

quarter 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SW quadrant near 76 line Y Belden: 1879 

J. Oesch 50 acres, 

north half of 

south half 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on NE quadrant of part lot near 

121 Road 


C9 L16 S. Ferguson 100 acres 

west half 

John Campbell 

John Campbell 

100 acres east 

half 


half 

C9 L17 J. Harron 50 acres, west 

section 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on NW quadrant near 121 Road N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SE quadrant near 76 line N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SE quadrant near 76 line N Belden: 1879 


76 line 


T. Reid 100 acres, 

east section 

C9 L18 H. Pommer 99.5 acres, 

south half 

C8 L1 John Hymers 75 acres, west 

section, north 

half 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SW quadrant of part lot near 

76 line 


N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SE quadrant near 76 line Y Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on NW quadrant near 

intersection of 76 Line and Road 140 


J. Freeman 25 acres, east 

section, north 

half 

N/A N/A N/A No built feature N Belden: 1879

55 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

C8 L2 R J&J Baty 150 acres, 

northern 

section 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on NW quadrant N Belden: 1879 

C8 L3 George Hurst 75 acres north 

west section 

of lot 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on south edge of property N Belden: 1879 

R. Baty 25 acres, west 

section of east 

half 


D. Tait 25 acres, west 

section of east 

half 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on NE corner of lot near the 

intersection of 76 Line and 136 Road 


C8 L4 William Jones 99.5 acres, 

north half 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on NW quadrant near 76 Line N Belden: 1879 

William Jones 

99.5 acres, 

north half 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on NW quadrant near 76 Line N Belden: 1879 

C8 L5 

William 

McGorman 

99 acres, 

north half 


C8 L6 

Thomas 

McGorman 

124.5 acres, 

northern 

section 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on SE quadrant near 131 Road N Belden: 1879 

C8 L7 J.R Jones 99.5 acres, 

north half 

C8 L8 

C8 L9 

School House 

Andrew 

Anderson 

Samuel Boyd 

Sr. 

.5 acres, NW 

corner 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature on the south edge of lot near 

131 Road 

N/A N/A N/A School house on NW corner of lot near 





100 acres, 

north half 

C8 L10 Mrs. Leitch 40 acres, NW 

corner 

William 

Burnett 


half 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NE corner at intersection of 

76 Line and Road 129 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in NW corner at intersection of 

76 Line and Road 129 



N/A N/A N/A Built feature in NW quadrant near Line 76 N Belden: 1879

56 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

C8 L11 H. Albrecht 100 acres 

west half 

James Smith 

Estate 


half 

C8 L12 A. Carley 100 acres, 

north half 

C8 L13 James Fleming 50 acres, NW 

quarter 

William Lucas 

50 acres, NE 

quarter 

C8 L14 John Swain 100 acres 

west half 

Andrew & Alex 

Scott 

50 acres, NE 

quarter 

C8 L15 George Grey 100 acres, 

north half 

C8 L16 

William 

Crawford 

William 

Crawford 

100 acres, 

north half 

100 acres, 

north half 

C8 L17 Mrs. Crawford 100 acres 

west half 

Mrs. J.C. 

Crawford 


half 

C8 L18 H. Nicholls 65 acres, SE 

corner 

George Vogan 

100 acres, 

mostly west 

half 


N/A N/A N/A Two Built Features in NW quadrant near Line 

76 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 


N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in north end of lot near Line 76 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in NE corner along Road 124 and 

near Line 76 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in NW corner along Road 124 

and near Line 76 



N/A N/A N/A Built feature in SE quadrant N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in south half near 73 Line N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in SE quadrant N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in NW quadrant near Line 76 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in SW quadrant near Road 121 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in SW quadrant near Road 121 N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in south half near 73 Line N Belden: 1879 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in SW quadrant of part lot near 

Line 73 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature in SE quadrant of part lot near 

Road 121 and Line 73 

N/A N/A N/A Built Feature in small east section of part lot 

near Road 121 




Wellesley 

C13 West 

L1 

C13 West 

L2 

J.B. 

10 acres, NE 

corner 

N/A N/A N/A Built feature near Road 121 and 76 Line N Belden: 1879 

No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Parsell: 1881 


No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Parsell: 1881

57 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 

C13 West 

L3 

C13 West 

L4 

C13 West 

L5 


Settled 

M. Nettle 110 acres Farmer Hesse 

Darmstadt, 

Germany 


Darmstadt, 

Germany 


Darmstadt, 

Germany 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 

1853 No Built Feature N Parsell: 1881 







C13 West 

L6 

C13 West 

L7 

C13 West 

L8 

C13 West 

L9 

C13 West 

L10 

C13 West 

L11 

C13 West 

L12 


School House N/A N/A N/A N/A One school house on SE corner of lot at Y Parsell: 1881 

(No Owner 

intersection of Buehler Line and Lichty Road. 

Listed) 

No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y Parsell: 1881 









58 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 


C12 West 

L1 

C12 West 

L2 

C12 West 

L3 





C12 West 

L4 

C12 West 

L5 




C12 West 

L6 

C12 West 

L7 

C12 West 

L8 





C12 West 

L9 




C12 West 

L10 



C12 West 

L11 

Jacob Mackus 100 acres Farmer Scotland 1845 No Built Feature N Parsell: 1881 

Jacob Mackus 100 acres Farmer Scotland 1845 No Built Feature N Parsell: 1881

59 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 

C12 West 

L12 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 

Jacob Mackus 50 acres Farmer Scotland 1845 No Built Feature N Parsell: 1881 

C15 L7 No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Parsell: 1881 















C14 L5 No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y Parsell: 1881 

School House 

(No Owner 

Listed) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A School house located on west side of lot 

along Moser-Young Line 

Y Parsell: 1881 

No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y Parsell: 1881 




C14 L2 

William 

Martinson 

150 acres Farmer; 

Stock 

Raiser 

New York, 

United States 

N/A 

Built feature on NW quadrant of lot near 

Herrgott Road, north of Conestogo River 

N Parsell: 1881 




C13 L4 No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Parsell: 1881

60 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 

C13 L3 George Stone 100 acres Farmer Simcoe Co., 

Ontario, 

Canada 


1854 Built Feature on NE quadrant of property 

near Lawson Road 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 


George Stone 100 acres Farmer Simcoe Co., 

Ontario, 

Canada 





Ontario, 

Canada 





Ontario, 

Canada 





Ontario, 

Canada 





C9 West L1 No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Parsell: 1881 






C9 West L4 

Lodge Rooms 

(No Owner 

Listed) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A Built Feature on SW quadrant of lot on the 

intersection of Schummer line and Chalmers 

Forest Road. Parsell lists it as Lodge Rooms 


C9 West L5 No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Parsell: 1881

61 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 












C9 L12 John Hayes 200 acres Farmer; 

Stock 

dealer; 

Township 

treasurer 

Simcoe Co., 

Ontario, 

Canada 

1846 Built feature on SE quadrant of lot at the 

intersection of Schummer line and Lavery 

Road 


John Hayes 200 acres Farmer; 

Stock 

dealer; 

Township 

treasurer 

Simcoe Co., 

Ontario, 

Canada 

1846 Built feature on SE quadrant of lot at the 

intersection of Schummer line and Lavery 

Road 


C8 West L1 Robert J. 

Brownlee 

100 acres Farmer Victoria Co., 

Ontario, 

Canada 

1847 Built feature on the NW quadrant of lot near 

Road 116 




62 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 


C8 West L3 

No Owner 

(Church) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A Church illustrated on NE quadrant of lot at 

the intersection of Schummer Line and 

Chalmers Forrest Road 




C8 West L5 

School House 

(No Owner 

Listed) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A School house not NE corner of lot near 

Schummer 


School House 

(No Owner 

Listed) 


Schummer 


School House 

(No Owner 

Listed) 


Schummer 





C8 West L7 

Thomas 

Brimstone 


School 

Trustee 

Fermanagh 

Co., Ireland 

1869 Built feature on SW quadrant of lot near 

Lichty Road 




C8 West 

L10 

C8 West 

L11 




63 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 

C8 West 

L12 

C10 West 

L12 


Settled 

Chas Coote 100 acres Farmer; 

Stock raiser 

Chas Coote 100 acres Farmer; 

Stock raiser 

Tyrone Co., 

Ireland 

Tyrone Co., 

Ireland 

N/A 

N/A 


Built feature on the NE quadrant of lot near 

the intersection of Schummer Line and Lavery 

Road 

Built feature on the NE quadrant of lot near 

the intersection of Schummer Line and Lavery 

Road 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 








C12 L7 Benjamin 

James Ballard 

100 acres Farmer Uvbridge, 

Ontario, 

Canada 

1847 Built feature on SE quadrant of lot near 

Ament Line 


Benjamin 

James Ballard 

100 acres Farmer Uvbridge, 

Ontario, 

Canada 

C12 L6 George Foster 150 acres Farmer Yorkshire, 

England 

George Foster 150 acres Farmer Yorkshire, 

England 

C12 L5 Junior Kuhl 100 acres Farmer Woolwich Tp., 

Canada 

Junior Kuhl 100 acres Farmer Woolwich Tp., 

Canada 

1847 Built feature located on SE of lot near Ament 

Line 

1860 Built Feature on SW quadrant of lot near 

Ament Line 

1860 Built Feature on SW quadrant of lot near 

Ament Line 

N/A 

N/A 

Built feature on SW quadrant of lot near the 

intersection of Ament Line and Moser Young 

Road 

Built feature on SW quadrant of lot near the 

intersection of Ament Line and Moser Young 

Road 







C12 L3 School House 

(No Owner 

Listed) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y Parsell: 1881 

C12 L2 No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A East side of lot appears to be partitioned for 

the town of Hawkesville 

No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A East side of lot appears to be partitioned for 



Y Parsell: 1881

64 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 

C12 L1 E. G. 

Woodward 


Settled 












9 acres Teacher; 

Fire 

Insurance 

Agent 

Waterloo Co., 

Canada 

N/A 

Built feature located on SE of lot near Ament 

Line 

Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 







E. G. 

Woodward 


Fire 

Insurance 

Agent 

Waterloo Co., 

Canada 

N/A 


Line 


E. G. 

Woodward 


Fire 

Insurance 

Agent 

Waterloo Co., 

Canada 

N/A 


Line 


C11 L9 

School House 

(No Owner 

Listed) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A School house on NE quadrant of lot near the 

intersection of Ament Line and Hutchinson 

Road 


C11 L8 William Hawk 211 acres Farmer; 

Stock 

dealer; 

Director of 

Waterloo 

Fire 

Insurance 

Company; 

Former 

Councillor 

York Co., 

Ontario, 

Canada 

1848 Built feature on the NW quadrant of lot near 

Hutchinson Road 





65 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 






C11 L3 F.G. Lackner 300 acres Farmer; 

Blacksmith 

C11 L2 

No Owner- 

Waterwheel 

shown 

Baden, 

Germany 

1833 Built feature on NE quadrant of lot near the 

intersection of Ament Line and Herrgott Road 

N/A N/A N/A N/A Waterwheel shown on map on NE quadrant 

along the river 










C10 L8 Robert Rowe .74 acres Farmer; 

School 

Trustee 

Norfolk Co., 

England 

1844 Built feature on the NW quadrant near 

Hackbart Road 









66 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 













C9 L9 

Thomas 

Wilford 


Stock raiser 

Northampton, 

England 


intersection of Boomer line and Hackbart 

Road 


Thomas 

Wilford 


Stock raiser 

Northampton, 

England 


intersection of Boomer line and Hackbart 

Road 








67 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 







C9 L4 

School House 

(No Owner 

Listed) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A School house on the NE quadrant of lot near 

Boomer Line 


School House 

(No Owner 

Listed) 


Boomer Line 


School House 

(No Owner 

Listed) 


Boomer Line 






C9 L1 

No Owner- 

Cemetery 

Shown 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Parsell: 1881 

No Owner- 

Cemetery 

Shown 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Parsell: 1881 

CA L19 No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Parsell: 1881 


68 

Township 

Lot and 

Concession 


Settled 


Within 25m 

of 

Transmission 

Lines (Y/N 


Date 






















Woolwich GCT L50 H.W Peterson 300 acres Farmer Pennsylvania, 

United States 

1846 Built feature on SE quadrant of lot near 

Ament Line 


GCT L16 No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Parsell: 1881 

GCT L15 No Owner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Parsell: 1881

69 

Table 3 – Abstract Indices for Lot Histories 

n.b. acres have been transcribed directly from the abstract index as such, and have not 

been converted to hectares 

Table 3.1 – Concession I, Lot 57, (South Half). 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 

Patent Apl. 18, 

1346 Grant Mar. 9, 

2239 Grant Feb. 27, 

2995 Grant Oct. 21, 


12055 Grant Jul. 11, 

1905 

12541 Grant Feb. 16, 

1907 

13139 Grant Mar. 12, 

1909 

167628 Grant May 1, 

1973 

Date Grantor Grantee Payment Land and 

other 

Remarks 

Crown Thomas Mann Sr. S ½ 

1866 

Thomas Mann Sr. James W. Huff $372 S ½ 

1869 et ux 

James W. Huff et Samuel Mayberry $1500 S ½ 

1873 ux 

Estate of Stephen Trustees of U.S.S. $40 ½ ac. of N 

1875 Borton 

No. 1, Elma 

½ 

Samuel Mayberry Thomas Gibb and $1800 S ½ 

1876 et ux 

Mary Jane Gibb 

Estate of Mary Robert J. Gray $8900 S ½ 

Jane Gibb 

Robert J. Gray et 

al 


al 

John E. Johnson 

et ux 

The Guelph and 

Goderich Railway 

Company 

$121.50 Pt. of S ½ 

Willis Johnson & son $9600 S ½ &Other 


Lands (OL) 

Wallace J. Storry $30,000 S ½ &Other 

Lands (OL) 

Table 3.2 – Concession II, Lot 32 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Patent May 21, Crown Samuel Mayberry 100 ac 

1872 

4889 B&S Nov. 22, Samuel Mayberry James Keating $3000 100 ac 

1880 

6073 B&S Jan. 1, James Keating et ux James Mayberry $4000 100 ac 

1887 

20299 Grant Sep. 12, James Mayberry David E. Lennox $3300 100 ac 

1944 

139101 Grant Oct. 7, 

1968 

David E. Lennox Donald C. Gibson $25,000 100 ac 

Table 3.3 – Concession IV, Lot 22 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

24 Grant Jan 1, Nathan Coghlin John Coghlin 100 ac 

1859 

759 Patent May 29, 

1865 

Crown Archibald J. Keillor W ½

70 

1157 Patent Feb. 11, 

1868 

1804 Grant Nov. 30, 

1870 

2209 Grant Jan. 25, 

1873 

2403 Grant Sep. 29, 

1873 


1878 


1883 


1883 

13270 Will Sep. 22, 

1909 

13588 Will Oct. 29, 

1910 


1943 

21983 Will Sep. 20, 

1952 

21985 Agmt. Nov. 24, 

For 1952 

sale 

73152 Will Oct. 15, 

1955 

Crown Peter Coghlin E ½ 

Peter Coghlin Robert Cleland Sr. $900 E ½ 

Archibald J. Keillor John Aiken $1000 W ½ 

John Aiken William Burton $1000 W ½ 

William Burton Nathaniel Harris $1800 W ½ 

Nathaniel Harris James Tudhope $1775 W ½ 

James Tudhope Thomas M. Jickling $1775 W ½ 

Walter Jickling, exor. 

Thomas Jickling 

Exors. Robert 

Cleland Sr. 

Robert Cleland Jr. 

William and Christina 

Cleland 

Donald R. Cleland 

Exors. Walter 

Jickling 

Walter Jickling $1 W ½ 

Robert Cleland Jr. $1 E ½ 

William and Christina $1 E ½ 

Cleland 

Donald R. Cleland $1 E ½ 

The Andrew 

Nicholson Furniture 

Co. Ltd. 

$1 and 

other considerations 

10 ac. E ½ 

Roger F. Dickson $1 W 1/2 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Patent Jul. 9, Crown John G. Alexander 200 ac 

1869 

3635 Grant May. 10, John G. Alexander S&H Railroad $167 Pt. lot 

4545 Agmt. 

For 

sale of 

timber 

1877 

Jan. 14, 

1880 

108499 Grant Jul. 28, 

1901 

17304 Grant Jun. 26, 

1926 

18096 Grant Jun. 26, 

1931 

12929 Grant Jan. 23, 

1937 

155348 Grant Jul. 7, 

1971 

Company 

John G. Alexander Andrew Nicholson $400 Pt. lot 

Exors. John G. 

Alexander 

George Sanderson $3200 200 ac 

Exors. George Sarah and Margaret $1 200 ac 

Sanderson 

McMillan 

Sarah and 

Allan Weber $1 200 ac due 

Margaret McMillan 

to defaulted 

mtg. 

Allan Weber Glen Weber $3000 200 ac. 

Glen Weber Arnold A. Noble $1 200 ac.

71 

Table 3.5 – Concession V, Lot 22 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

84 Patent Jan. 7, Crown Barbara Capling 100 ac 

1861 

149 B&S Feb. 27, Barbara Capling William Capling $3000 100 ac 

1863 

477 Grant Nov. 19, William Capling Robert Wallace $3000 100 ac 

1864 

689 B&S Jul. 18, Robert Wallace John Murray $3000 100 ac 

1865 

1327 B&S Nov. 27, John Murray Robert Forrest $3000 100 ac 

1869 

2495 B&S Feb. 7, Robert Forrest James Porterfield $5200 100 ac + OL 

1874 

20193 Grant Apl. 12, Exors. James Robert Galbraith $8000 100 ac + OL 

1944 Porterfield 

99114 Grant May 8, Robert Galbraith John Galbraith $4000 100 ac + OL 

1961 

207783 Grant Jan. 2, 

1977 

Doris Galbraith et 

al, Exors. John 

Galbraith 

Galbraith Farms Ltd. $33,333 100 ac + OL 

Table 3.6 – Concession VI, Lot 22 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Much of the land registry documentation here is illegible. The records of some ownership changes 

have been compiled from other sources, and some details are uncertain. 

Grant 1855 Philip Donohue John B. Hyde 100 ac 

55 Grant Sep. 22, John B. Hyde John Schmidt $500 (Not 100 ac 

1859 

certain) 

Patent 1864 Crown John Schmidt 100 ac 

1868 John Schmidt Stephen Cossens 100 ac 

1873 Stephen Cossens Andrew Newbigging 100 ac 

1906 Andrew Newbigging John Newbigging 100 ac 

1911 John Newbigging Robert J. Farrell 100 ac 

20884 Grant Jul. 3, 

1945 

Robert J. Farrell Russell Farrell $6000 100 ac 

207783 Grant Jan. 2, 

1977 

1954 Russell Farrell John W. Galbraith 100 ac 

Doris Galbraith et al, Galbraith Farms Ltd. $33,333 100 ac + 

Exors. John 

OL 

Galbraith

72 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Some of the land registry documentation here is illegible. The records of some ownership 

changes have been compiled from other sources, and some details are uncertain. 

1895 Deed June 29, Warden and John McCauley $500 100 ac 

1871 Treasurer 

7291 B&S Jan. 17, John McCauley Samuel McCauley $2000 100 ac 

1889 

Patent Jan. 12, Crown John McCauley 100 ac 

1889 

10736 Grant Jun. 4, Samuel McCauley Richard M. Long $2000 100 ac 

1900 

10737 Grant Apl. 3, Richard M. Long Henry McNichol S ½ 

1901 

10738 Grant Apl. 3, Richard M. Long George Jarvis N ½ 

1901 

11581 Grant Mar. 3, George Jarvis Charles McNichol N ½ 

1904 

1935 Charles McNichol Eli and Dalton Pitz, 

through The 

Agricultural 

Development Board 

$3500 N ½ + OL 

18932 Deed Nov. 19, 

1936 

Eli and Dalton Pitz 

and spouses 

John McNichol, 

through The 

Commission of 

Agricultural Loans 

$3500 N ½ + OL 

Grant Henry McNichol John E. Barton S ½ 

(property 

received by 

Barton due 

to lapsed 

mortgage) 

22028 Grant Mar. 18, 

1953 

22240 Grant Aug. 13, 

1953 

22523 Grant Jun. 15, 

1955 

John E. Barton John S. Cole $12000 S ½ 

John S. Cole et ux The Director, 

Veteran’s Land Act 

$8500 S ½ 

John McNichol Hendrick J. Zyta $1 and other N ½ 

consideration 

Table 3.8 – Concession VII, Lot 26 (East Half) 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

1245 Patent Jun. 17, Crown Thomas Smith W ½ 

1868 

Patent Jun. 5, Crown James Hammond E ½ 

1874 

2743 B&S Nov. 24, James Hammond George Hammond $1 E ½ 

1876 

6127 B&S Dec. 2, George Hammond William Hammond $2000 E ½ 

1884 

10534 Deed Dec. 12, 

1900 

et ux 

Exors. William 

Hammond 

William J. 

Hammond, his son. 

$2674 E ½

73 

11661 B&S Apl. 18, 

1904 

17774 B&S Apl. 18, 

1904 

15470 Deed May 13, 

1918 

15849 Grant Dec. 13, 

1919 


1943 

20886 Grant Jul. 28, 

1947 

175418 Grant Mar. 29, 

1974 

William J. 

Abraham Baker $2000 E ½ 

Hammond 

Abraham Baker John J. Hammond $2700 E ½ 

John J. Hammond Albert E. Hammond $7500 E ½ 

Exors. Albert E. 

Hammond 

Nolton C. Parker 

Harvey Parker and 

Meredith 

Livingston 

W. Elmer Johnston G. Donald & Carolyn 

Horshel 

Nolton C. Parker $8800 E ½ 

Harvey Parker and $1500 E ½ 

Meredith Livingston 

W. Elmer Johnston $10,000 E ½ 

$100,000 E ½ 

Table 3.9 – Concession VII, Lot 27 (West part) 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Patent Jun. 5, Crown James Hammond All, + OL 

1874 

2662 B&S Jul. 24, 

1874 

James Hammond William Hammond $200 20 easterly 

acres 

2742 B&S Nov. 24, James Hammond Edward Hammond $1 80 westerly 

1874 

5341 Grant Apl. 12, 

1882 

11538 Deed Dec. 4, 

1903 

15470 Deed May 13, 

1918 

15849 Grant Dec. 13, 

1919 


1943 

20886 Grant Jul. 28, 

1947 

175418 Grant Mar. 29, 

1974 

acres 

Edward Hammond William Hammond $315 10 acres off 

the E pt. of 

the W pt. 

Exors. William John J. Hammond $1 W 70 ac. 

Hammond 

John J. Hammond Albert E. Hammond $7500 W 70 ac. 


Hammond 



Meredith 

Livingston 

W. Elmer Johnston G. Donald & Carolyn 

Horshel 

Nolton C. Parker $8800 W 70 ac. 

Harvey Parker and $1500 W 70 ac. 

Meredith Livingston 

W. Elmer Johnston $10,000 W 70 ac. 

$100,000 W 70 ac. 

Table 3.10 – Concession VIII, Lot 21 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

377 Patent May 27, Crown Francis Curtis 100 ac 

1863 

7585 Patent Jan. 2, Francis Curtis et Algernon and $500 100 ac 

1889 ux 

Frederick Curtis 

30263 Will Nov. 22, Exors. Frederick Bessie Curtis $6500 100 ac 

1921 Curtis 

16646 Grant Mar. 1, Bessie Curtis Walter m. Scott $6200 100 ac

74 

1923 

79788 Grant Feb. 22, 

1957 

298128 Trans. May. 30, 

1989 

Walter M. Scott 

Carl and Phyllis 

Bentley 


Bentley 

Danny and Ethel 

Bentley 

$21000 100 ac 

$236,043 100 ac 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Patent Dec. 20, Crown Newson Richardson 100 ac 

1879 

9004 B&S Apl. 2, Exors. Newson John Adams $4000 100 ac 

1895 Richardson 

10334 B&S Apl. 2, John Adams Robert S. Ballantyne $5000 100 ac 

1900 

14725 B&S Mar. 10, Robert S. 

William Hume $6000 100 ac 

1915 Ballantyne 

18512 Grant Apl. 5, William Hume John J. Hymers $1 100 ac 

1935 

19219 Grant Dec. 28, John J. Hymers Olive M. Parrish $4900 100 ac 

1938 

21752 Grant Jun. 1, Olive M. Parrish George H. Parrish $1 100 ac 

1951 

80874 Grant Mar. 14, 

1957 

George H. Parrish 

Dirk & Wilempje Van 

Leeuwen 

$1 100 ac 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

218 Patent Sep. 20, Crown Alexander McTavish 100 ac 

1862 

1264 B&S Oct. 1, Alexander 

Thomas Gibson $1800 

1868 McTavish 

8136 B&S Jul. 4, Exors. Thomas George Hargreaves $4800 

1892 Gibson 

8392 B&S Jul. 1, George 

William H. Jolly $1200 

1873 Hargreaves 

8847 B&S Nov. 3, William H. Jolly George Hume $1680 

1894 

12809 B&S Mar. 3, George Hume William Hume $3300 

1908 

13119 B&S Mar. 1, William Hume William G. Dickson $6700 

1909 

14277 B&S Mar. 15, William G. Dickson William Inglis $6700 

1913 


1919 

15807 Grant Oct. 24, 

1919 


1921 

William G. Inglis The Soldier 

Settlement Board of 

Canada 

$4700 E pt. 

William G. Inglis William Hume $2700 W pt. 

The Soldier 

Settlement Board 

R. Roy Cleland $4700 E pt.

75 


1921 


1924 

17738 Grant Mar. 20, 

1929 


1932 

19422 Grant Apl. 30, 

1940 

20047 Grant Dec. 4, 

1943 

of Canada 

R. Roy Cleland Sidney R. Bisset $5500 E pt. 

Sidney R. Bisset John H. Reid $5500 E pt. 

John H. Reid Robert Stone $5000 E pt. 

William Hume Henry Duncan $1 W pt. 

Henry Duncan Robert Stone $1500 W pt. 

Robert Stone James Henderson $7000 All 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

204 Patent Jul. 14, Crown William F. Murray 100 ac 

1862 

738 B&S Jul. 12, William F. Murray Thomas C. Kerr & $225 100 ac 

1866 

John Brown 

1139 B&S Jan. 13, Thomas C. Kerr & John Innes 

$825 100 ac 

1865 John Brown MacKenzie 

1335 B&S Feb. 18, John Innes William Forrest $825 100 ac 

1869 MacKenzie 

7257 B&S Jan. 3, William Forrest William Little $4800 100 ac 

1889 

9959 B&S Dec. 29, William Little Michael Little $2000 100 ac 

1898 

21692 Grant Dec. 29, Michael Little John Maurice Little $1 100 ac 

1950 

127993 Grant Mar. 30, John Maurice Little J. Michael Little $1 100 ac 

1967 

189801 Grant Jan. 5, 

1976 

John M. Little 

John M. Little and 

Patricia A. Little 

$20,000 100 ac 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

752 Patent Apl. 15, Crown Robert Mills 100 ac 

1865 

2412 B&S Sep. 26, Robert Mills et ux Joseph Mills $2000 W ½ 

1873 

4943 B&S Mar. 14, Robert Mills James Fisher $109 E ½ 

1881 

5027 B&S Jun. 27, James Fisher et ux Mary J. Thomas $1825 E ½ 

5321 B&S Apl. 3, Joseph Mills Francis R. Curtis $7138 W ½ 

1882 

7577 B&S Dec. 28, Mary Jane Thomas Francis R. Curtis $1 E ½ 

1889 


1905 

Exors. Francis R. 

Curtis 

William Matheson $5000 100 ac

76 

16452 Grant Feb. 25, 

1922 

16943 Grant Jan. 30, 

1924 


1930 

18703 Grant Apl. 

1935 


1939 

145983 Grant Dec. 29, 

1969 

William Matheson Walter C. Sage $5000 100 ac 

Walter C. Sage Charles McNichol $3000 100 ac 

Charles McNichol Robert Buchanan $3000 100 ac 

Robert Buchanan Thomas Buchanan $1 100 ac 

Thomas Buchanan Leslie and Mary $2500 100 ac 

Hymers 

Mary Hymers John M. Zyta $18,000 100 ac 

Table 3.15 – Concession IX, Lot 19 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

217 Patent Aug. 25, Crown 

William Morrison 

1862 

868 Grant Jun. 18, William Morrison Archibald Simpson $1675 

1866 

13026 Grant Nov. 21, Archibald Simpson William A. Simpson $4000 

1908 

14064 Grant Apl. 10, William A. 

Joseph Blatchford $7000 

1912 Simpson 

16066 Grant Jun. 1, Joseph Blatchford William J. Blatchford $7500 

1920 

229037 Grant Jun. 12, 

1979 

William J. 

Blatchford 

Joseph C. And 

Brenda Y. Blatchford 

$65,000 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Patent Apl. 6, Crown Hugh Wilson 100 ac 

1886 

11073 Will May 27, Hugh Wilson Ann Wilson $1 100 ac 

1896 

12245 Deed May 22, Ann Wilson Hugh Wilson Jr. $1 100 ac 

1903 

15667 Grant Mar. 15, Hugh Wilson Jr. Edwin W. Leslie $7150 100 ac 

1919 

18572 Grant Mar. 4, Edwin W. Leslie Hugh Wilson Jr. $1 100 ac 

1931 

Estate 

18058 Grant Mar. 10, Hugh Wilson Jr. W. Joseph Acheson $4500 100 ac 

1931 Estate 

20716 Grant Jan. 1, W. Joseph Samuel M. Acheson $1 100 ac 

1946 Acheson 

83134 Grant Mar. 26, Samuel m. Henry R. Danbrook $1 100 ac 

1958 

160329 Grant Feb. 15, 

1972 

Acheson 

Henry R. Danbrook 

Murray and Jean 

Allin 

$1 100 ac

77 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Patent Mar. 29, Crown 

John Nixon 

1864 

676 B&S May 4, John Nixon Donegal Wesleyan $1 ½ ac 

1864 

Methodist Church 

1960 B&S Mar. 26, John Nixon Samuel Vipond $1800 99 ½ ac 

1872 

3177 B&S Mar. 28, Samuel Vipond Elisha G. Harris $5 ½ ac 

1876 

5418 B&S Feb. 16, Elisha G. Harris Samuel Vipond $30 ½ ac 

1887 

15902 Grant Feb. 25, Exors. Samuel Emerson Vipond $1 All ex. Part 

1920 

17642 Grant Jun. 30, 

1923 

13517 Grant Jan. 26, 

1955 

Table 3.18 – Concession X, Lot 18 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 

390 Patent Jul. 24, 

2423 Deed Sep. 30, 

3145 Deed Mar. 1, 

6313 Deed Sep. 1, 

6313 Deed Sep. 1, 

11157 Deed Jun. 1, 

13918 Deed Nov. 1, 

14181 B&S Dec. 9, 

14588 B&S Jul. 4, 

14797 B&S Jul. 28, 


20689 Grant Jul. 31, 

1946 

119652 Grant Jun. 28, 

1965 

Vipond 

Emerson Vipond 

and other trustees 

of Donegal 


S. John Vipond, 

Exor. Emerson 

Vipond 

for cemetery 

Donegal Cemetery $1 ½ ac 

Angus Matheson $1 All ex. Part 

for cemetery 


other 

Remarks 

Crown 

Arthur Gordon 

1863 

Arthur Gordon James Redford $2800 100 ac 

1873 

James Redford Charles McMane Sr. $2800 

1876 

Charles McMane Sr. Charles McMane Jr. $1 East 25 ac 

1885 

Charles McMane Sr. Robert McMane $1 West 75 ac 

1885 

Robert McMane Charles H McMane $1 West 75 ac 

1902 

Charles McMane Jr. Norman and Allan $1 East 25 ac 

1911 

McMane 

Norman and Allan William and Allan $11,000 East 25 ac 

1912 McMane 

McMane 

William and Allan Charles McMane Jr. $11,000 East 25 ac 

1914 McMane 

Exors. Robert Charles H. McMane $1800 West 75 ac 

1915 McMane 

Allan R. McMane Frederick R. Long $3950 East 25 ac 

1944 

Charles H. McMane The Director, $6000 West 75 ac 

The Director, 



John G. Whyte $1 West 75 ac

78 

133430 Grant Jan. 4, 

1968 

Frederick R. Long William F. Long $28,000 East 25 ac 

Table 3.19 – Concession X, Lot 23 (East 10 hectares) 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

163 Patent Apl. 23, Crown 

John Sydney Smith 

1862 

5681 B&S Apl. 21, John Sydney Adam Gray Sr. $2555 E ½ 

1883 Smith 

5683 B&S Apl. 21, John Sydney John C. Flood $10110 W ½ 

1883 Smith 

8073 B&S Oct. 22, John C. Flood Robert Gray $1100 W ½ 

1891 

10325 B&S Jul. 30, Adam Gray Jr. Robert Gray $1 W ½ of E ½ 

1900 

10325 B&S Jul. 30, 

1900 

Adam Gray Jr. Adam Gray Jr. $1 E ½ of E ½, 

25 ac 

20337 Grant Mar. 19, 

1945 

Adam Gray Jr. John E. Rock $6000 E ½ of E ½, 

25 ac 

20605 Grant Mar. 29, John E. Rock Gordon Danbrook $6250 E ½ of E ½, 

1946 

135236 Grant Jun. 21, 

1968 

25 ac 

Gordon Danbrook Russell E. Danbrook $1 E ½ of E ½, 

25 ac 

Table 3.20 – Concession I, Lot 57 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Patent Jun. 11, Crown William Anderson 100 ac 

1874 

2657 B&S Jul. 7, William Anderson John Tawse $600 W ½ 

1874 

2677 B&S Sep. 3, John Tawse William S. Cowan $1100 W ½ 

1874 

2844 B&S Mar. 24, William S. Cowan Adam Gray Sr. $1450 W ½ 

1875 

10325 B&S Jul. 23, Adam Gray Sr. Adam Gray Jr. $1 W ½ 

1892 

11066 Will Jul. 20, William Anderson Hugh Anderson $1 E ½ 

1894 

14129 B&S Mar. 1, Hugh Anderson James Anderson $1 E ½ 

1912 

15445 Grant Sep. 3, Exors. James Adam Gray Jr. $4700 E ½ 

1919 Anderson 

20337 Grant Mar. 19, Adam Gray Jr. John E. Rock $6000 100 ac + OL 

1945 

20605 Grant Mar. 29, John E. Rock Gordon Danbrook $6250 100 ac + OL 

1946 

135236 Grant Jun. 21, 

1968 

Gordon Danbrook Russell E. Danbrook $1 100 ac + OL

79 

Table 3.21 – Mornington Concession XI, Lot 6 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

381 Patent May 24, Crown 

James Grayson 

N ½ 

1864 

Smith 

475 Patent Jun. 21, Crown Samuel Watson S ½ 

1865 

497 B&S Jun. 20, James Grayson William Clark $1800 N ½ 

1866 Smith 

831 B&S Apl. 6, William Clark Alexander Patterson $800 N ½ 

1869 

819 B&S Jun. 9, 

1896 

Alexander Patterson William Johnston $1500 N 25 ac of 

lot 

1071 B&S Apl. 6, 

1870 

William Johnston Benjamin Johnston $1800 N 25 ac of 

lot 

1266 B&S Feb. 3, Alexander Patterson John Glenn $3000 S 75 ac of N 

1873 

1600 B&S Jun. 12, 

1878 

2676 B&S Feb. 10, 

1879 

6027 B&S Feb. 29, 

1896 


1900 


1906 


1928 


1934 


1940 


1946 


1957 


1956 

112796 Grant Jun. 23, 

1964 

Samuel Watson 

Alexander Patterson 

and other trustees of 

the Church 

½ 

$60 ½ acre for 

church 

grounds 

John Glenn John Campbell $3600 S 75 ac of N 

½ 

Samuel Watson Levi Watson $4000 S ½ exlu. 

Church 

grounds 

John Campbell Levi Watson $3200 S ½ of N ½, 

50 ac 

Benjamin Johnston Robert Gamble (and $4800 N ¼ 

son James in 1922) 

Levi Watson Elton Gordie $9000 S ¾, 149 ½ 

(Mortgage with the 

ac, subject 

Perth Insurance 

to mortgage 

Company) 


Company 

Levi Watson $3800 S ¾, 149 ½ 

ac 

Levi Watson George Bast $5150 S ¾, 149 ½ 

ac 

George Bast The Public School $3500 Pt. S ¾, ¾ 

Board Number Six 

of an acre 

of the Township of 

Mornington 

James Gamble L. Douglas Taumer $5000 N ¼ 

George Bast Dermond Bast et ux $18,000 S ¾ 

The Public School 



Mornington 

Frederick H. Pugh $1300 Pt. S ¾, ¾ 

of an acre

80 

Table 3.22 – Mornington Concession XII, Lot 5 (North Half) 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

712 Patent Apl. 27, Crown Alexander Glenn S ½ 

1868 

Patent Jun. 10, Crown William Campbell N ½ 

1876 

4062 Grant Nov. 13, William Campbell William Campbell Jr. $6000 N ½ 

1884 Sr. 

7896 Grant Nov. 11, William Campbell Jr. James Riddell $4100 N ½ 

1904 

10081 Grant Mar. 31, James Riddell Albert Johnston $9000 N ½ 

1919 

10320 Grant Apl. 23, Albert Johnston Benjamin Johnston $3000 N ½ 

1920 

12710 Grant Dec. 10, Benjamin Johnston Austine Rennie $4300 N ½ 

1941 

13420 Grant Dec. 10, Austine Rennie Alexander Fritz et ux $5500 N ½ 

1946 

14363 Grant Apl. 23, 

1953 

Alexander Fritz et ux Jerome Frielung $1 N ½ 

Table 3.23 – Concession XIII, Lot 4 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Patent Jul. 31, Crown Alexander Walker N 125 ac 

1862 

Patent Mar. 25, Crown John Gibron S 75 ac 

1868 

815 B&S Mar. 5, John Gibron Robert Moore $970 S 75 ac 

1869 

7712 Will Aug. 5, Robert Moore James Moore (26 $1 S 75 ac 

1903 

years old) 

10113 Will Jan. 30, Exors. Alexander Edward Wood $4900 N 125 ac 

1919 Walker 

11876 Deed Mar. 18, Edward Wood The Agricultural $1 N 125 ac 

1933 

12974 Grant Jan. 19, 

1944 


1944 


1947 


1956 

The Agricultural 

Development 

Board 

Development Board 

Albert Tindall $4500 N 125 ac 

James Moore Frederick W. Ellis $4000 S 75 ac 

Frederick W. Ellis Earl Gabel $4000 S 75 ac 

Albert Tindall Donald Hoffman $7000 N 125 ac

FIGURES 

81

- 

83

86 

Figure 2 New France 1718 

Figure 3 Point-of-Interconnect

Figure 4 Historic Atlas Map of Study Area 

Wellesley Township 

87

88 

Figure 5 Historic Atlas Maps of Perth County 

Perth County, Municipality of North Perth, former Mornington Township 

Green is project area, red area - collection line, blue area – leased lots 

Figure 5a – Historic Atlas Map of Mornington Township within the Project Area

Figure 5b – Historic Atlas Map of the NW quarter of the Mornington Township within Project Area 

89

Figure 5c – Historic Atlas Map of the NE quarter of the Mornington Township within Project Area 

90

Figure 5d – Historic Atlas Map of the SW quarter of the Mornington Township within Project Area 

91

Figure 5e – Historic Atlas Map of the NW quarter of the Mornington Township within Project Area 

92

Figure 5f – Historic Atlas Map of Mornington Township within the Project Area 

93

Figure 5g – Historic Atlas Map of the NW quarter of the Elma Township within Project Area 

94

Figure 5h – Historic Atlas Map of the NE quarter of the Elma Township within Project Area 

95

Figure 5i – Historic Atlas Map of the SW quarter of the Elma Township within Project Area 

96

Figure 5j – Historic Atlas Map of the SE quarter of the Elma Township within Project Area 

97

Figure 6 

Perth County Plaque 

98

Figure 7 

Waterloo County Plaque 

99

100 

Figure 8 Physiography 

Scale 1:1,000,000 

Figure 9 Ontario Island

Figure 10 Perth County Soil Map 

1:63,360 

101

Figure 11 Waterloo County Soil Map 

Scale 1:100,000 

102

103 

Figure 12 

Drainage Map of Study Area 

1:150,000 

atlas.nrcan.gc.ca

Figure 13 Archaeological Potential Mapping for Regional Municipality of Waterloo and Part of Perth County 

Scale 1:65,068 

104

Figure 14 Archaeological Potential for Remainder of Study Area 

Entire Study area on this figure exhibits potential for archaeological resources 

105

Figure 15 Archaeological Potential for Remainder of Study Area 

Entire Study area on this figure exhibits potential for archaeological resources 

106

107

108

108

110 

PHOTOGRAPHS 

Photograph 1 Area of Turbine 17 facing North 

Photograph 2 Area of T21 Facing South

111 

Photograph 3 

Area of T20 facing North 

Photograph 4 

Area of T19 facing South

112 

Photograph 5 

Area of T22 and T23 facing South 

Photograph 6 

Area of T24 and T25 facing N

113 

Photograph 7 

Area of T26 facing South 

Photograph 8 

Area of T14 facing N

114 

Photograph 9 

Area of Turning Radius, facing west, 78 Line and 158 Road 

Photograph 10 

Area of T11 and T12 facing North

115 

Photograph 11 

Area of T13 facing South (use of existing agricultural roadway) 

Photograph 12 

Area of T15 and T16 facing West

116 

Photograph 13 

Area of T5, T6, and T7 facing South 

Photograph 14 

Area of T3 facing South

117 

Photograph 15 

Area of T1 and T2 facing North 

Photograph 16 

Area of T4 facing East

118 

Photograph 17 

Area of T8 and T9 facing East 

Photograph 18 

Area of T10 facing North

119 

Photograph 19 

Area of Proposed Substation facing South 

Photograph 20 

Study Area along Line 72 facing East

120 

Photograph 21 

Study Area near #5771 Line 72, facing east 

Photograph 22 

Study Area at Perth Road 147 facing North

121 

Photograph 23 

Study Area at 75 Line and Perth Road 147 facing South 

Photograph 24 

Study Area, Boomer Line facing West

122 

Photograph 25 

Study Area, Lavery Road, facing South 

Photograph 26 

Study Area, Buehler Line facing West

123 

Photograph 27 

Study Area, Line 83 facing East 

Photograph 28 

Study Area, Ament Line facing West

APPENDIX B 

CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT 



& TOWNSHIP OF PERTH EAST 

in the COUNTY OF PERTH 

and 

WELLESLEY TOWNSHIP 

in the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO 

FIT # FF91BT0 

Prepared for: 


Invenergy Canada 

and 


SCARLETT JANUSAS 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE 

CONSULTING AND EDUCATION 

269 Cameron Lake Road 

Tobermory, Ontario N0H 2R0 

phone and fax 519-596-8243 cell 519-374-1119 

jscarlett@amtelecom.net 

Submitted 29 th October 2012 

©

TABLE OF CONTENTS 




v 

v 

vi 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 

2.0 CURRENT HERITAGE STATUS 3 

2.1 National Heritage Inventory 3 

2.2 Provincial Heritage Inventory 3 

2.3 Municipal Heritage Inventory 3 

2.4 Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Heritage Landscapes 4 

3.0 HISTORIC SUMMARY 6 

3.1 Location and Environment 6 

3.2 Historic Settlement and Development 6 

3.3 Historic Period 7 

3.3.1 Elma Township 8 

3.3.2 Mornington Township 9 

3.3.3 Wellesley Township 10 

3.4 Detailed Lot Histories 11 

3.4.1 Elma, Concession I, Lot 57 (South Half) 12 

3.4.2 Elma, Concession II, Lot 32 12 

3.4.3 Elma, Concession VI, Lot 22 13 


3.4.5 Elma, Concession V, Lot 22 13 

3.4.6 Elma, Concession IV, Lot 22 13 


3.4.8 Elma, Concession VII, Lot 26 (East Half) 14 

3.4.9 Elma, Concession VII, Lot 27 (West Part) 14 

3.4.10 Elma, Concession VIII, Lot 21 15 





3.4.15 Elma, Concession IX, Lot 19 16 



i

3.4.18 Elma, Concession X, Lot 18 17 

3.4.19 Elma, Concession X, Lot 23 (East 25 Acres) 17 

3.4.20 Elma, Concession X, Lot 24 18 

3.4.21 Mornington, Concession XI, Lot 6 18 

3.4.22 Mornington, Concession XII, Lot 5 (North Half) 19 

3.4.23 Mornington, Concession XIII, Lot 4 19 

3.5 Plaques and Monuments 19 

4.0 CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 20 

4.1 Inventory of Landscape Features 20 

5.0 BUILT FEATURES 21 

5.1 Inventory of Built Features 21 

6.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 22 

6.1 Summary of Previously Identified Heritage Significance 22 

6.2 Landscape Features 23 

6.3 Built Features 24 

6.4 Summary Evaluation of Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 25 

7.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT 27 

7.1 Wind Turbines and Foundations 27 

7.2 Step-up Transformers & Collection System 28 

7.3 Substation 28 

7.4 Turbine Access Roads 28 

7.5 Staging Areas 29 

7.6 Concrete Batch Point 29 

8.0 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 30 

8.1 Potential Impacts 30 

8.2 Assessment of Impacts to Landscape and Built Features 32 

8.3 Summary Assessment of Direct and Indirect Impacts 34 

9.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 36 

10.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING SCHEDULES 37 

11.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 38 

ii

12.0 REFERENCES CITED AND CONSULTED 39 

APPENDICES 

A Glossary of Key Terms 43 

B Provincial Heritage Inventory 44 

C Municipal Heritage Inventory 45 

TABLES 

1 Protected Properties 5 

2a Determination of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest – Landscape Features 47 

2b Determination of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest – Built Features 50 

2c Notes for Criteria for Determination of Heritage Value or Interest 70 

3 Assessment of Impacts to Landscape and Built Features 32 

4 Chain of Title for Lots within the Project Area 71 

MAPS 

1 Study Area and Turbine Locations for Conestogo Wind Energy Centre 87 

2 Study Area and Transmission Line Routes 88 

3 Location of Study Area 89 

4 Maps for Feature Locations (includes Maps 4a to 4h) 90 

FIGURES 

1 Perth County (Location of Elma and Mornington Townships) 99 

2 Elma and Mornington Townships 100 

3 Historic Map of Elma Township, 1878 101 

4 Historic Map of Elma Township, 1917 102 

5 Historic Map of Mornington Township, 1878 103 

6 Current Map of Mornington Township 104 

7 Index Map: Elma, Conc I, Lot 57; Conc II, Lot 32 105 

8 Index Map: Elma, Conc VI, Lot 22, 29 and 32; Conc V, Lot 22; Conc IV, Lot 22; Conc 

VII, Lot 26 and 27 106 

9 Index Map: Elma, Conc IX, Lot 19; Conc X, Lot 18 107 

10 Index Map: Elma, Conc VIII, Lots 21, 22, 23, 27, 29; Conc IX, Lots 22, 27; 

Conc X, Lots, 23, 24 108 

11 Index Map: Mornington, Conc XI, Lot 6; Conc XII, Lot 5; Conc XIII, Lot 4 109 

12 S.S. North Mornington School, Concession XI, Lot 6 110 

13 Roy McMane, Cy Harvey, Joseph Blatchford Woodcutting in Elma, Conc X, Lot 18 110 

14 The Little Family House in Elma, Concession VIII, Lot 27 (west) 111 

iii

15 George and Olive Parrish and Family in Elma, Concession VIII, Lot 22 111 

16 James Mayberry and Wife, Elma, Concession II, Lot 32 112 

INVENTORIES 

1 Landscape Features 113 

2 Built Features 145 

iv


Project Manager 

Principal Researcher and 

Report Preparation 

Historians 

Research Assistants 

Analysis and Report Preparation 

Field Assistants 

Scarlett Janusas, B.A., M.A., CAHP 

Member, Association of Professional Archaeologists 

Spencer McBride, B.A., M.A. 

Stefan Bouchard, B.A. 

Yasmin Oliva, B.A. 


Chelsea Robert, B.A. 

John Grenville, B.A., M.B.A. 

Stefan Bouchard, B.A. 

Yasmin Oliva, B.A. 


Chelsea Robert, B.A.. 


Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education (SJAHCE) extend our 

thanks to Don McKinnon, and Geoff MacDonald of Dillon Consulting for providing maps and 

data, and to Mr. Richard Deacon, Invenergy Canada, for providing a tour of the study area. We 

acknowledge the assistance provided by the Province of Ontario Registrar, and the County of 

Perth, the Municipalities of North Perth and West Perth, Wellesley Township and the Regional 

Municipality of Waterloo in providing information regarding the project area and heritage 

concerns. 

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education (SJAHCE) was retained 

by the proponent to conduct a cultural heritage assessment of the project area known as the 

Conestogo Wind Energy Centre. 

The Conestogo Wind Energy Centre is currently being developed by Conestogo Wind Power 

Partnership (CWPP). The proposed wind farm will consist of up to 27 wind turbines for a total 

nameplate capacity of up to 69 MW. The wind turbines will be situated entirely on privately 

owned land that is currently under agricultural production. Municipal lands (rights-of-way or 

road allowances) will be used for transmission lines to connect to the provincial grid. 

The wind farm is to be located within the Municipality of North Perth and the Township of 

Perth East within the County of Perth, approximately 5 km north from the community of 

Milverton and 30 km west from the City of Waterloo. The study area is bordered by Highway 86 

(Main Street E./ Wellington Road 86) to the north, Highway 23 to the west, Perth Line 72 to the 

south, and Perth Road 121 to the east. The actual area occupied by turbines, roads, 

construction laydown area, collector circuits and electrical substation for the project is much 

smaller and will be referred to within the report as the project area. 

To connect the project to the provincial grid it will be necessary to run low voltage (34.5 or 

44kV) power line within road rights-of-way to a connection point that is located approximate 

20- 25 km east of the proposed wind farm location. 

The project will require approval under Ontario Regulation 359/09 – Renewable Energy 

Approval under Section V.0.1 of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act. In accordance with 

sections 19-23 of the regulations, the project location must be evaluated to determine if 

protected properties or heritage resources are present. The cultural heritage was evaluated 

using the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest, from the Ontario Heritage 

Act, Ontario Regulation 9/06. 

Background research was conducted to determine the historical significance of the property. 

The research was complemented by a number of field visits to the project area in September 

and October of 2012. This report provides a description of the historical context of the area, an 

inventory of the built features and landscape features, an evaluation of heritage value or 

interest, an assessment of impacts, and mitigation recommendations. 

A search was made for heritage designations by the national, provincial or municipal 

governments that are already in place. There are no federally or provincially designated 

properties within the study area or along the transmission route. In terms of municipal 

designations, there are no municipally designated sites within the study area. In Wellesley 

Township there are two non-designated heritage sites (including one cemetery) and three 

sections of “scenic” road that are located adjacent to the municipal right-of-way (road 

allowance) that may be used for the transmission lines. 

vi

The field work resulted in compiling an extensive inventory of 74 landscape features and 557 

built features. Of these 20 landscape features and 193 built features were identified as having 

potential heritage value or interest. However, when the criteria in Regulation 9/06 of the 

Ontario Heritage Act are applied to the cultural landscapes and built features found within the 

study area and along the transmission route, there were no structures or landscapes that were 

evaluated as having cultural heritage value or interest. Although important to an 

understanding of the local history, there were no landscapes or buildings that appeared to be 

significant enough to justify further investigation or consideration for designation. 

Despite being no buildings or landscapes that are significant enough to be considered for 

designation at this time, there are two built features, one landscape feature and three sections 

of road that are of interest to Wellesley Township. Because they are located along part of the 

transmission route they could be affected by the project. None of these features were assessed 

as significant in accordance with the criteria under Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 

However, because they have been identified by Wellesley Township as important to the local 

community, it was deemed prudent to assess the impact of the project on the abovementioned 

features to ensure that their heritage values were preserved. 

In considering the features that are of interest to Wellesley Township, the impact assessment 

concluded that in the event that the transmission lines are mounted on new poles, this visual 

intrusion could have an impact on the heritage values of the 3 “scenic” roads where the new 

poles are installed. However, if the other optional route is chosen or the transmission lines are 

placed underground, there will be no impact. 

As a result of the impact assessment, it is recommended that: 

 

 

The protection of the heritage values associated with the “scenic” roads in Wellesley 

Township be taken into account by CWPP in selecting which option is chosen to run the 

transmission line to the substation and connection with Hydro One. 

If the route chosen includes portions of the scenic roads it is recommended that the 

transmission lines be buried, (as CWPP has indicated as the preferred option), along the 

sections of the route that Wellesley Township has designated as scenic. 

The recommendation for mitigation should be implemented as part of the pre-construction 

design phase of the project. It is anticipated that further details regarding the construction 

phase will be outlined in the Construction Plan Report which is being developed as part of the 

REA submission and will be available for public review. 

vii

CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT 



& TOWNSHIP OF PERTH EAST 

in the COUNTY OF PERTH 

and 

WELLESLEY TOWNSHIP 

in the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO 

FIT # FF91BT0 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education (SJAHCE) was retained 

by the proponent to conduct a cultural heritage assessment of the project area known as the 

Conestogo Wind Energy Centre (CWEC). 

The Conestogo Wind Energy Centre is currently being developed by Conestogo Wind Power 

Partnership. The proposed wind farm will consist of up to 27 wind turbines for a total 

nameplate capacity of up to 69 MW. Based on the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) 

Regulations, this project is a “Class 4” wind facility. The wind turbines will be situated entirely 

on privately owned land that is currently under agricultural production. Municipal lands (rightsof-way) 

will be used in some cases for transmission lines to connect to the provincial grid. 

The project will require approval under Ontario Regulation 359/09 – Renewable Energy 

Approval under Section V.0.1 of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act. In accordance with 

sections 19-23 of the regulations, the project location must be evaluated to determine if 

protected properties, archaeological or heritage resources are present. The cultural heritage 

was evaluated using the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest, from the 

Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 9/06. In addition the Ontario Heritage Toolkit was 

consulted for this project. 

The wind farm is to be located within the Municipality of North Perth and the Township of 

Perth East within the County of Perth, approximately 5 km north from the community of 

Milverton and 30 km west from the City of Waterloo. Map 1 shows the study area. It is 

bordered by Highway 86 (Main Street E./ Wellington Road 86) to the north, Highway 23 to the 

west, Perth Line 72 to the south, and Perth Road 121 to the east. The actual area occupied by 

turbines, roads, construction laydown area, collector circuits and electrical substation for the 

project is much smaller and will be referred to within the report as the project area. 

To connect the project to the provincial grid it will be necessary to run an approximate 20- 25 

km low voltage (34.5 or 44kV) power line within road rights-of-way to a connection point 

with the provincial 115 kV transmission line that is located to the east of the proposed wind 

1

farm location – see Map 2. An electrical substation will be required at the point-ofinterconnect 

with the grid that will increase the voltage from 34.5/44kV to 115 kV. Three 

collector circuits will connect the turbines to the electrical substation. At this point in project 

planning each of the three collector circuits has two alternate routes, all of which were 

assessed as part of the cultural heritage assessment. The two alternate routes run through the 

above-mentioned townships into Wellesley Township to the east where the point-ofinterconnect 

with the grid. 

The study area consists of examination of affected lots, and abutting lots to ensure all heritage 

concerns are captured in the cultural heritage assessment of this project. 

Background research was conducted to determine the historical significance of the property. 

The research was complemented by a number of field visits to the project area in September 

and October of 2012. 

The research and field visits were conducted by Scarlett Janusas, B.A, M.A., CAHP, Spencer 

McBride, BA, MA, Stefan Bouchard, BA, Yasmin Oliva, BA, Michelle Potts, and Chelsea Robert, 

BA of SJAHCE. 

This report provides a description of the historical context of the area, an inventory of the built 

features and landscape features, an evaluation of heritage value or interest, an assessment of 

impacts, and mitigation recommendations. 

2

2.0 CURRENT HERITAGE STATUS 

2.1 National Heritage Inventory 

The Canadian Register of Historic Places was thoroughly examined. There are no national 

historic sites or other federally designated properties listed for the Township of Perth East, the 

Municipality of North Perth or Wellesley Township. There are 9 properties in the database 

listed for Wellesley Township, all designated by the municipality under the Ontario Heritage Act 

and included below in section 2.3. None of the properties listed for Wellesley Township are 

national historic sites. 

The study area is located within the Maitland and Upper Grand tertiary watersheds. The Grand 

River has been designated by the Government of Canada as a heritage river. Neither the Grand 

River nor any of its four tributaries (Speed River, Nith River, Conestogo River, Eramosa River) 

run through the study area. 

2.2 Provincial Heritage Inventory 

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Ontario Heritage Properties Database was 

examined for properties in the Municipality of North Perth, the Township of Perth East and the 

Township of Wellesley. There are no properties listed for the Municipality of North Perth. The 

list for the Township of Perth East and the Township of Wellesley is included in Appendix B. 

None of the buildings listed are within the study area or are situated adjacent to the buried 

transmission line. 

2.3 Municipal Heritage Inventory 

Perth County was contacted (Dave Hanley, Planner, 519 271-0531) to determine if there were 

any heritage features listed on a municipal heritage inventory for the Township of Perth East or 

the Municipality of North Perth. Their response: 

No municipal heritage committee for either the Township of Perth East or the 

Municipality of North Perth. 

No designated structures in either Perth East or North Perth. 

No list or inventory maintained by the County. 

No ANSIs (Area of Natural and Scientific Interest) shown in the Official Plan last 

amended five years ago. 

Perth East does have an Old Order Mennonite community which is considered 

significant, although this is not “written” anywhere. 

Wellesley Township is part of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMW). RMW was 

contacted (Kate Hagerman, Cultural Heritage Specialist, 519 575-4094) and provided maps (see 

Appendix C) showing the following information: 

Designated structures and unofficially identified heritage resources for Wellesley 

Township 

3

Scenic roads, pre-1950 bridges,/culverts and pre-1900 structures 

The list of designated structures includes the following: 

1063 Doering Street – Schmehl House 

4862 William Hastings Line – Hastings Belmont House 

1215 Queen’s Bush Road – Queen’s Tavern 

70 Arthur Road – Ament-Burrell House 

4805 William Hastings Line – Council Chambers 

1137 Henry Street – Old School 

3851 Weimar Line – Franzel-Kuebert House 

2086 Perth Line – H & E Forrest House 

4260 Hessen Strasse – St. John’s Lutheran Church 

None of these structures are located within or adjacent to the project area, nor in the study 

area. 

In terms of the non-designated heritage sites, none are located within the study area. There 

are two sites which are adjacent to the transmission route: 

4347 Ament Line (BF #364) 

4401 Ament Line, Martin’s Mennonite Church (BF# 363) and Cemetery (LF# 55) 

In terms of “scenic roads”, there are some portions of the scenic roads in Wellesley Township 

where cable will be buried within the road allowance: 

Herrgott Road from Lawson Line to Ament Line (some scenic qualities) 

Ament Line from Hackbart Road to Steffler Road (extremely scenic) 

Steffler Road – Ament Line to Hawkesville Road (extremely scenic) 

The heritage planner for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo provided a map showing the 

roads (see Appendix C) and stated that Ament Line was “ranked as Extremely Scenic, especially 

between Hergott and Kressler due to the elevation of the road. There are long vistas and 

panoramic views of the agricultural landscape (interesting, well maintained Mennonite 

farmsteads); a conservative Mennonite meeting house on both sides of the road; and views of 

Hawkesville to the North East. Hergott Road was also ranked as having some scenic qualities 

north of Ament Line. This was due to the views of farmland and vegetation, the presence of 

the Nith River, the landscape features associated with the conservative Mennonite population, 

and views of Hawkeville.” 

2.4 Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Heritage Landscapes 

Under Section 19 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act – O. Reg. 359/09 (Government of 

Ontario 2009:19), the following table is to be used with respect to determining if the project 

location is located on a protected property. Based on this table, it has been determined that 

the study area is not located on any of the identified types of protected properties. 

4

TABLE 1 – PROTECTED PROPERTIES 

Description of property 

1. A property that is the subject of an agreement, covenant or easement 

entered into under clause 10 (1) (b) of the Ontario Heritage Act. 

2. A property in respect of which a notice of intention to designate the 

property to be of cultural heritage value or interest has been given in 

accordance with section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 

3. A property designated by a municipal by-law made under section 29 of the 

Ontario Heritage Act as a property of cultural heritage value or interest. 

4. A property designated by order of the Minister of Culture made under 

section 34.5 of the Ontario Heritage Act as a property of cultural heritage 

value or interest of provincial significance. 

5. A property in respect of which a notice of intention to designate the 

property as property of cultural heritage value or interest of provincial 

significance has been given in accordance with section 34.6 of the Ontario 

Heritage Act. 

6. A property that is the subject of an easement or a covenant entered into 

under section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 

7. A property that is part of an area designated by a municipal by-law made 

under section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act as a heritage conservation 

district. 

8. A property designated as a historic site under Regulation 880 of the 

Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1990 (Historic Sites) made under the 

Ontario Heritage Act. 

Project 

location 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

5

3.0 HISTORIC SUMMARY 

3.1 Location and Environment 

The project area is located in Perth County, in the geographic townships of Elma and 

Mornington, (now East Perth and North Perth) north of the town of Stratford. The project area 

is located on 23 lots located on 12 different concessions, nine of these in Elma and three in 

Mornington. 

In Elma, there is: 

Concession 1, lot 57; 

Concession 2, Lot 32; 

Concession 4, Lots 22 and 32; 




Concession 8, Lots 21-23, Lot 27, and Lot 29; 

Concession 9, Lots 19, 22, and 27; and 

Concession 10, Lots 18 and 23-24. 

In Mornington Township, the three parts of the Project Area are: 


Concession 12, Lot 5; and 

Concession 13, Lot 4. 

For purposes of the transmission line, the project area also includes Wellesley Township now 

part of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (former Waterloo County). 

In both Elma and Mornington Townships where the turbines will be erected, the project area 

does not include the entirety of the lot, with small portions of the lot or even half of the lot’s 

area being excluded from the project description. Each of these lots is 100 acres, with the 

exception of Concession 1 and those lots within Mornington Township, which are each 200 

acres. All relevant lots are to the southeast of Listowel and to the northeast of Milverton. As to 

geographical features, the area is almost completely flat, with some areas lacking any kind of 

topographical undulation. The Maitland River runs through some of the lots, and there are 

some manmade undulations due to the railroad crossing through one of the lots, but otherwise 

the project area has few geographical impediments. Most of the land in and surrounding the 

project area is either cultivated farmland or pasture. 

3.2 Historic Settlement and Development 

The first act of European development in the region took place long before the arrival of the 

first settlers, when on July 24, 1788, the Governor-General to the Crown, Lord Dorchester, 

issued a proclamation dividing Ontario into a series of geographic regions. Elma and 

6

Mornington Townships, fell within what would eventually become known as the Western 

District. 

Within what was then known as Upper Canada, the district encompassed the area extending 

from Lake Simcoe in the east to the American border in the west, and south of Lake Huron 

excluding the more developed areas along the shore of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. After John 

Graves Simcoe was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada in 1791, he made the 

district system more specific by dividing the districts into counties, and Huron County, then 

came into existence. Later, Huron County was divided up, and Perth County established in 

1847. 

Little European exploration took place in Perth County until the 19 th century. Earlier explorers 

like Champlain had seen its swamps and tangled forests as an impediment rather than a worthy 

discovery, and the almost unpopulated area was consistently passed by even by Christian 

missionaries. However, in 1827 Perth County became part of the recently acquired Huron 

Tract. The county remained relatively unpopulated until the 1850s. 

3.3 Historic Period 

Perth County first emerged from underneath a glacier along with the rest of Ontario more than 

14,000 years ago. The back and forth advances and retreats of the glacier over the land led to 

ridges and moraines covering the area with Perth County falling between two prominent 

moraines. The first people arrived about 11,000 years ago, living off the land by hunting the 

diverse species that walked the hilly region, later developing stone tools and loosely-organized 

groups. The first evidence of pottery in the region dates to about 2900 years ago with various 

examples coming from the Early, Middle, and Late Woodland periods. The native groups 

inhabiting the region are thought to have been Algonquin such as the Ojibwa, Ottawa, and 

Cree. However, they would often travel out of the area during the summer months due to the 

fierceness of the mosquitoes coming out of the swamps. From 700 to 900 CE, these tribes were 

gradually replaced by Iroquoian nations like the Neutral, Huron, and Petun. By 1500, the 

troubles of the Five Nations Iroquois Confederacy in Eastern Ontario forced many native 

peoples to move to this region. By the early 1600s they had created the Neutral Confederacy, 

also called the Attiwandaron. During the 1650s the Five Nations Confederacy destroyed most 

of the villages in the region and dispersed the local native peoples throughout southwest 

Ontario. In the early 1700s, however, the power of the Five Nations had decreased significantly 

and Algonquin groups such as the Ojibwa, Ottawa, and Pottawatomi moved back into the area. 

Native ascendency in the area continued until 1827 when the Ojibawa Chief Wawanosh ceded 

the land to the British Crown and moved his people elsewhere in southern Ontario. 

Perth County had few European settlers until the mid 1800s when famine and economic 

hardship in Europe, especially Ireland, meant that many sought their fortunes, or even just their 

sustenance, in North America. Upper Canada opened up new tracts of land for development, 

and as Bruce, Grey, Wellington, and Perth Counties were surveyed, their rough conditions gave 

them the name “The Queen’s Bush”. In the very earliest days of the county there would have 

7

een no roads, only blazes on trees to mark the paths through the wilderness, and it had been 

considered far too distant from civilization to be the site of United Empire Loyalist settlements. 

As mentioned above, Perth County was originally part of the much bigger Huron District, which 

stretched from Stratford to the southern limits of Lake Huron. The difficulty with the district 

system was that so much of the business of the area had to be done in the county capital, 

Goderich, which was over a week of travel distant for most of Perth County. This trip was 

exacerbated by the irresponsible behaviour of some district officials and the lack of control that 

could be exerted by distant communities. In 1847 fierce agitation on the part of many 

communities in Perth and elsewhere resulted in the establishment of Perth County along with 

many other counties in the region. 

3.3.1 Elma Township 

It was around this time that Elma Township began to develop as farmers began to realize that 

once cleared, most of the Township’s 29,379 hectares were highly fertile. The Township was 

named after Lady Elma Bruce, the young daughter of Canada’s new Governor-General, James 

Bruce, 8 th Earl of Elgin and 12 th Earl of Kincardine. His success in bringing about selfgovernment 

in the colony and ensuring multi-lingual cooperation in the wake of the 1837 

Rebellion made him a revered figure, thought to be well worth honouring. However, the 

honour must have meant little at the time, since Elma was very slow to develop after its 

acquisition in 1827. The south of the county, especially Stratford, began earlier, but it was only 

in April 1847 that the first road through the area of Elma Township was surveyed by Alexander 

Wilkinson who drew a line from the northwest corner of Mornington Township to Lake Huron. 

He laid out 100 acre lots along each side of the road, but his measuring equipment had certain 

imitations, which meant that he had to create lots that were half their normal width and twice 

their normal length. This became the oddly-shaped First Concession of Elma Township. 

The question of the first settler to Elma Township is somewhat difficult to determine. The first 

people to arrive in the region were frustrated with how slowly development was moving, and 

so set out on their own, squatting illegally on land they cleared. By the time the Township was 

fully surveyed by John Grant in 1852-53, many settler families had been established for some 

time. This often led to difficulties with the law, as some were forced to abandon their 

properties and improvements to legal newcomers. The most prominent of these squatters 

were the Code, Squire, Graham, Huges, Caircross, McCulloch, Gibson, Twamley, Bingham, and 

Elliot families. With so many unrecorded early settlers, the task of determining the very first is 

almost impossible. However, it seems as though the search can be narrowed just enough to 

determine that either the Code or the Buchanan family was the first to arrive in the area. The 

presence of roads in the area indicate that there were people living there as early as 1848, 

mostly along the road between Elma and Mornington Townships, in what is now known as lot 

36 in each concession. 

As with most other pioneer settlements, log cabins were initially the only form of residence and 

remained so until the region was mostly cleared. By 1851, The Township boasted a log tavern 

8

erected by William Blair, but it wouldn’t be until 1900 that the inhabitants had access to houses 

with any significant degree of comfort or civilization. 

The land in Elma Township was first sold by the government in 1854. Concessions 1-10 were 

considered the best lots, and therefore sold as “school lots” meaning that they cost $0.50 for 

every acre, and all money was given to the improvement of the province’s schools. Regular 

Crown Lands, by contrast, were sold for $0.37 per acre, with the money going to the province’s 

general accounts. Many of the lots were sold, but some lots in the poorer sections of land were 

soon abandoned, and were eventually resold several times. The purchaser was required to 

fulfill several terms in order for the sale to be finalized, namely that they had to make 

improvements to the land or lose the rights to it, and that all payments had to be made before 

that patent was granted. Often, fulfilling these requirements could take ten or more years. 

However, many immigrants, especially the Irish and Scottish, were willing to agree to these 

terms for the chance to own a relatively inexpensive tract of land. The sometimes fierce 

competition for land in the area gave some difficulties to the new immigrants. There was quite 

a lot of conflict between the Scottish and Irish in particular in the early days of Elma County. 

The two groups were on opposite sides of almost every policy, and fights were not uncommon 

in the larger towns. There were also a large number of German immigrants to the Township, 

especially around Monkton. The Mennonite religion was popular in the area as early as 1871, 

but the large population of Mennonites that are established there today is fairly recent in its 

origin, most of them having spread into Elma from other surrounding Townships and counties. 

The most popular religions in the region in the 19 th century were by far Presbyterian, 

Methodist, Anglican, and Lutheran. 

Elma presented many difficulties for farmers, since it was wholly level, not even undulating, and 

much of it was dominated by swamps. However, swamplands, once drained, make for 

excellent grass, and it is this grass that made the dairy farming in the region so successful. 

Before long, clearing land for pasture was the main focus of the pioneers, and cheese factories 

would proliferate over the years. The Ballantyne family, in the west of the Township, soon 

became one of the most important figures in the cheese industry of the County and the 

Province. By 1861 Elma had 7,445 acres under cultivation. Over 3,000 acres of wheat, and the 

rest made up of corn, peas, potatoes, carrots, oats, barley, turnips, and pasture for dairy cows. 

The expansion was greatly helped in later years by the creation of a railway running through the 

Township. There was initially some conflict behind the creation of the route, as very few in the 

south of Perth County wanted to fund a railway intended only for the northern-most regions of 

the county. The act passed narrowly by only one vote in 1873, and struggled severely with 

funding until its completion in 1877. The route that now runs through the Project Area is the 

1877 Stratford & Huron route, part of the Canadian National System. 

3.3.2 Mornington Township 

The history of Mornington Township is for the most part very similar to that of Elma Township. 

It shares the same general history, and a similar early history, with squatter-settlers infiltrating 

both townships to an equal extent. Mornington was surveyed in 1848 by James Bridgeland, but 

9

it was not defined as a separate township until 1853, at which time it was pure geography, with 

no recorded population or political history, and no government. It was a busy year, however, 

and there was a reeve elected the next year, chosen from out of the several illegal settlers. 

Mornington is 50,725 acres of very fertile land. Like Elma, it is mostly flat, but tends more 

towards undulation than does Elma. The settlement of the Township began in the south half in 

what is now Concession 2. A resurveying of lands in the mid 1850s meant that new roads were 

constructed some distance from the old roads, meaning that many farms were as much as 50 

meters away from the new roads. Similarly, many farmers were removed from the land they 

had already built on or cultivated, and even if they were not and were simply told to go register 

their ownership, the land registry was over 40 miles away. 

As the Township grew, the farms developed, and the practice of mixed farming prevailed: all 

sorts of grains and vegetables were cultivated, as were dairy cows, though the later proved less 

successful than in Elma. The early farmers also faced extreme difficulty in developing the harsh 

land, and were unable to build homes of any significance until the advent of the twentieth 

century, at which time development of farms in the region increased slightly. Likewise, the 

towns within the area developed at a relatively slow rate. The nearest village to the project 

area in Mornington is Carthage, which lies in the 12 th concession. In 1900 it had a population of 

75, and was known in the area for its Orange Hall, cheese factory, and temperance hotel. Some 

of those owning property in the project area lived in this hamlet. 

Like Elma, the farmers in the region were, throughout the 19 th century, mostly recent European 

immigrants from Ireland, Scotland, or Germany. The religion in the area was overwhelmingly 

Presbyterian, though the first pioneer missionary in the area was Rev. John Armstrong, a 

Methodist minister. 

Throughout its history, Elma and Mornington Townships have been slow to develop and 

difficult to get to. However, the farming and cheese industries kept the inhabitants of both 

Townships relatively prosperous, and it remained a successful and important farming centre 

throughout its history. 

3.3.3 Wellesley Township 

Wellesley is bounded north east by Peel; north by Maryboro, east by Woolwich, west by North 

Easthope and south by Wilmot. The township was first surveyed in 1843 by William Walker and 

first land conveyed was in 1847 to William Cunningham, Josiah Hall in 1848 and John Hawke in 

1851. The township developed rapidly due to excellent quality soil, hardwood forests and the 

fact that it was well watered by branches of the Nith and Conestogo Rivers. In 1837 the 

township contained 63 inhabitants and by 1861 had almost 6000 (1867 Gazetteer: 22). 

Hawkesville, a small hamlet today once vied with Berlin and Galt for the county seat. The 

railways bypassed the area, so the township remained rural and the villages declined as centers 

of promise. (Corporation of the Township of Wellesley) 

10

The township is located in the northwest corner of the Region of Waterloo, and was once part 

of a vast Clergy Reserve known as the Queen’s Bush. This area stretched from the Township of 

Waterloo to Lake Huron. The Clergy Reserves were areas set aside for the maintenance of the 

Anglican Church in Canada. Proceeds from sales and rent provided income for the church. In 

most cases every seventh lot were set aside, but in the case of Wellesley the entire township 

was set aside. (Wellesley Township Heritage and Historical Society) 

The ‘Queen’s Bush’ was largely unpopulated during the early 1800s. By the 1840s it had 

become home to more than 1500 formerly enslaved Afro-Americans. They pioneered scattered 

farms throughout this area including Wellesley Township and the town of Hawkesville. By the 

1840s businesses had been established, including a sawmill, grist mill, store and hotel. The first 

church was erected south of the Conestogo River in Peel Township. In Peel township two 

missionary schools were built but these were closed by 1853 due to the departure of Black 

settlers from the area. 

After the land was surveyed many of these early settlers, both Afro-Americans and European 

could not afford to purchase the lands they had lived on. While those that were willing to make 

improvements on their lands were allowed to pay by installments, many could still not afford to 

and abandoned their homes. By the 1850s these early settlers had begun to migrate out of 

these lands, many of them heading back to the United States. 

While freed slaves initially settled the land, the majority of the settlers during the 1840s were of 

German and Anglo-Saxon heritage. By 1901 almost two thirds of the inhabitants were of 

German heritage. Today more than half the people of Wellesley Township now belong to the 

Amish or Mennonite faith. A lot of the Amish families crossed into Wellesley from Wilmot 

Township and settled along the First Line, while many Roman Catholics settled along the Third 

Line in the eastern section. For the most part these two groups were of Alsatian descent and 

spoke the same German dialect, which can still be heard today. 

The heaviest settlement of the area occurred along the Wilmot, Woolwich and Waterloo 

Township borders in areas that usually had availability of waterpower. There were four 

sawmills in the area, a gristmill and a woolen mill but industrial development was somewhat 

less when compared to other townships in the area because the two major rivers in the area, 

the Conestogo and Nith ran to the north and south of the township respectively, and no major 

tributaries existed in Wellesley. This inclined the township towards an economy based on 

farming. It also missed out on the economic benefits of the railway boom of the mid-19 th 

century, as the township’s first railway line was not laid until 1907. 

3.4 Detailed Lot Histories 

As a general trend of the Project Area, the lot histories are relatively simple, usually involving 

few divisions of the lot, consistent family inheritance, and long periods of ownership by a single 

owner. Generally not included in the histories or the chain of title tables are mortgages, which 

were frequent for many lots, but involve no change in inhabitants on the property. Mentions of 

11

historic houses from 1878 or before can all be referenced on Fig. 3 for Elma Township, and Fig. 

5 for Mornington Township. 

The chain of title for each of the lots is presented below in Table 4 

3.4.1 Elma, Concession I, Lot 57 (South Half) (Fig. 7) 

Lot 57 was one of the many lots in the area upon which squatters lived before a patent was 

assigned. As with all such cases, the tables show no names before the patent as these 

squatters were unrecorded by the land registry, but their names are often known all the same. 

The first settler to move on to the land on lot 57 was William Woods, who came to the area in 

1854. However, Woods built his home on the north of the lot, near what was then the best 

road in the region. The study is only concerned with the south half of the lot, making irrelevant 

much of the early history of the lot, which take place in the north half. For instance, one of the 

first schools in the area was established along what is now known as Highway 86 at the northmost 

edge of the lot. The other men who settled illegally on the lot were James Johnston in 

1863, James Halsted and John W. Scott in 1864, and Thomas Mann Sr. in 1865, the last of whom 

allowed his son Thomas Jr. to claim the patent the next year. Each of these men followed 

Woods’ pattern of settling in the north of the lot. 

In the south of the lot, the most significant family after the first granting of the patent was the 

Gibb family, Irish immigrants who had moved to the region in the 1870s, and had built a house 

on the lot within two years of acquiring the property in 1876. There is a house at that location, 

5338 Perth Line 84 – see BF#175. In addition, in 1907, part of the land was used by the Guelph 

and Goderich Railway Company for the creation of an east-west segment of rail that divided the 

property in half, north and south. Otherwise, most of the inhabitants of the land left few traces 

on the soil, apart from allowing much of it to be used as pasture for Holstein dairy cows. The 

milk was mostly sent to the nearby Britton Cheese Factory. Few families owned the lot for 

more than a decade at a time before 1909, when Willis Johnston and his son John began their 

tenure over the land, which would last until 1973. During that time, several buildings were 

added, and in 1977, significant renovations were done to the original house, dramatically 

modifying it from its 19 th century materials while maintaining the style of the original. 

3.4.2 Elma, Concession II, Lot 32 (Fig. 7) 

The only owner of the lot before the patent was granted was Samuel Mayberry, who acquired 

the land in 1854. By 1872 he had made enough progress working the land that he was allowed 

to keep it, and was granted the patent by the Crown on May of that year. He built a house on 

the land significant enough to be noted in the 1878 Belden map, but it was torn down in 1980 

and there is currently no building on the lot. In 1880 Mayberry sold the land to James Keating, 

who kept it for only seven years before selling it to James Mayberry (Fig. 16), Samuel’s son. 

Mayberry raised a large family there before selling to David and Marion Lennox in 1944, who 

used it as a successful mixed farming operation. When the lot was sold to the Gibsons, who 

lived off the lot, in 1968, the house fell into disrepair and was torn down 12 years later. 

12

3.4.3 Elma, Concession VI, Lot 22 (Fig. 8) 

Early Scottish immigrants to a harsh land, the Coghlins laid long claim to this lot, owning it long 

before it was legal to do so. Nathaniel Coghlin began work on the land in 1854, and his son 

Peter took over the east side of the lot in 1867, gaining the patent the next year. In 1870, they 

sold to the Cleland family, who kept control of the land for more than one hundred years after 

that, making the east half of the lot a Century Farm. The Robert Cleland built a house and a 

barn there in the 1870s, but they were destroyed in 1977 to make way for a new brick home on 

the same location, 5645 Perth Line 78 – see BF#99 

On the west half of the property, the land was more dynamic, changing hands frequently. 

However, most of the owners lived elsewhere, and purchased the land mostly to take 

advantage of the nearby cheese factory on lot 21 in the same concession. 


John G. Alexander was the first to own this property, both illegally and legally, in 1854 and 

1869, respectively. He built a house in 1886 and a barn in 1900, both in the northeast part of 

the lot, but neither has survived. The other major building project on the lot was the Guelph to 

Goderich Railway, built in 1877 by the S&H Railroad Company. Nothing remains of the track, 

but the alterations to the topography to create the track bed can still be seen. Other families 

owning this lot chose to live in the nearby town of Britton, reserving the land almost entirely for 

cow and pig pasture. Alexander’s buildings gradually fell into disrepair and were destroyed in 

the latter half of the 20 th century. 

3.4.5 Elma, Concession V, Lot 22 (Fig. 8) 

As with lot 22 in Concession IV, the Coghlin family was the first to settle this land in 1854, 

selling it to the Capling family in 1858 just before it was patented. The land passed through 

several hands before coming to the Porterfield family in 1874. The Porterfields had known the 

Cleland family from Concession IV from their mutual home in Scotland, and had in fact only 

come to the area to visit, staying because of the inexpensiveness and fertility of the land. It was 

under their tenure in 1880 that the yellow brick house that currently stands on the lot was built 

– 5660 Perth Line 78, see BF#100. The brick were dragged to the location from Gorrie by a 

team of horses, and the timbers came directly from the work felling trees on the lot. The farm 

buildings were upgraded during the 1980s, with the outsides being covered in steel and several 

additions added to the house and the barn. In 1944, the lot was sold to Robert Galbraith, who 

had been born on the boat in which his Irish parents immigrated to Canada. 

3.4.6 Elma, Concession IV, Lot 22 (Fig. 8) 

Like the 22 nd lots in both concessions to the north of it, this lot was first cultivated in 1854, long 

before a patent was granted. Philip Donohue worked the land for only a year before giving it to 

13

John B. Hyde, who developed the land for seven years before selling it to John Schmidt in 1862. 

Schmidt obtained a patent just two years later and worked the land until 1868. The Cosens and 

Newbigging families lived there over the next few decades, the latter family building a stable 

house that lasted for some time after the construction, but is not currently standing. It 

probably fell into disrepair in the first half of the 20 th century, when the farms owners, the 

Farrells, chose to live elsewhere in the Township. There is currently a modern building on the 

property, apparently built by the Galbraith family on the south half of the lot. The lots have 

been used as pasture for some time, and since the 1970s it has been owned by a series of 

incorporated farm owners, some of whom did chose to live on the property. 


Little of significance can be said of this lot. It was always owned in conjunction with other lots, 

usually Lot 29 in the fifth concession. The lot was first held by the McCauley family, who had 

been sold the lot by the warden and treasurer of the Township in 1871, before being granted a 

patent for the land in 1889. They soon after sold the land to Richard Long, who divided it into 

two halves, the north and the south. This division meant that the centre of the land was left 

unfarmed, and is currently a forest. 

3.4.8 Elma, Concession VII, Lot 26 (East Half) (Fig. 8) 

This lot had only one owner before the patent was granted, James Hammond, who had the land 

in 1854. Thomas Smith acquired the west half of the lot in 1868, getting the patent for it later 

that year, while Hammond kept the east part and received the patent for it in 1874. James also 

owned lot 27 in this concession, and upon his death, he divided the land and gave it to his three 

sons, George, Edward, and William. George inherited the east half of this lot, and Edward 

inherited the west part of lot 27. They used the land for livestock pasture, but also planted an 

apple orchard and kept enough forest to draw maple sugar in the winter. The two built homes 

on their respective lots, but in the early 1880s they both sold their farms to their brother 

William. William soon knocked down the house on lot 26, and after passing through several 

hands, the east half of lot 26 and the west part of lot 27 were sold in conjunction. The Parker 

family moved on to lot 27 and built no further buildings on lot 26. Today, the east half of the 

lot is used for cultivation, pasture, and woodland. 

3.4.9 Elma, Concession VII, Lot 27 (West Part) (Fig. 8) 

The history of this lot is highly connected to the history of Lot 26 in the same concession, 

discussed above. The most significant difference between the two lots is that a house remains 

on lot 27 - see BF#119, 5430 Perth Line 75. Early maps of the region clearly show a house on 

this lot, but it is unlikely to be the house that is currently on the property. 

14

3.4.10 Elma, Concession VIII, Lot 21 (Fig. 10) 

This lot was first owned by John Large, who began clearing the land and cultivating it even 

before 1854. The lot then passed to John Bonner in 1859, and from him to Francis Curtis in 

1863. Curtis obtained the patent the same year, and built a log cabin for his family in the 

southwest corner of the lot. His sons Algernon and Frederick took over the land after his death, 

and after each of their deaths, Francis’ daughter Bessie gained control in 1922, selling the lot to 

Walter M. Scott. Scott allowed the house to fall into disrepair, eventually destroying it and 

building a house in the north half of the lot in 1944 – 5679 Line 75, see BF#112 - that currently 

stands on the property. The land is now made up partly of forest, partly of pasture for a large 

dairy herd, and partly of cultivated land. 


Abraham Matthews built a log cabin on this lot in 1854, but when he moved off the land some 

years later, no one replaced him, and the house decayed. Newson Richardson obtained the 

patent for the land in 1879, and built a new house in the northeast corner of the lot. The house 

lasted through the tenure of John Adams, but Robert S. Ballantyne, a highly successful local 

dairy farmer who purchased the land in 1900, lived elsewhere, and allowed the log house to 

decay. It was eventually knocked down, and when the Parrish family (Fig. 15) moved to Elma 

from Saskatchewan in 1937, they built a new house – 5638 Line 75, see BF#114. They 

continued updating the house throughout their years there, adding hydro and other 

improvements to the house and barn, many of them meant to incorporate modern farming 

equipment that was mostly unheard of elsewhere in Elma. The rest of the lot is used almost 

entirely for pasture, with some forest still remaining in the southeast of the lot. 


The first person to own this lot was Finley Dundas, an Irish immigrant who worked the land for 

only a year before giving it over to Robert Bingham. Bingham was followed five years later by 

George Sangster, who lived there until he sold the lot to Alexander McTavish in 1862. McTavish 

claimed the patent for the land later the same year, and built a house in the northeast corner of 

the lot. The Gibson, Hargreaves, Hume, Dickson, and Inglis families all lived on the lot for 

periods of a few years before the lot was split up in 1919, and the east and west halves sold 

separately. After this time, each of the owners of the farm lived elsewhere, and only purchased 

the half lots to supplement their existing farms. The house was allowed to decay, and no 

buildings currently stand on the property, only some forest and some cultivated land. 


This property was first owned by William Johnston in 1854, but he did little with the land, and 

left after just a few years. The lot was left unclaimed until 1862, when William F. Murray 

received a patent on the land and lived there for four years. Over the next few years, the 

property changed hands several times, and a house was built on the lot by either Thomas Kerr, 

15

John MacKenzie, or William Forrest, most likely the latter, as his sale of the property involved 

the largest increase to the price. In 1889, Forrest sold the property and the house to William 

Little, who worked the lot with his two sons, William and Michael. The front 40 acres had 

already been cleared when the Littles took over, and they turned it into a successful mixed 

farming operation, with horses, cattle, dairy products, and maple sugar as their main products. 

The Littles got rid of the old log cabin on the land and built a yellow brick house on the centre 

of the northern border of the lot. (Fig. 14) This house still stands today (5427 Perth Line 75, see 

BF#120), with several modern additions connected to the original house. The Little family 

owned the lot for more than one hundred years, making this a century farm. 


William Cooper and William Cossley both owned the farm for several years before granting it to 

Robert Mills in 1860, who obtained the patent in 1865. In 1873, Mills divided the land into east 

and west sections, giving the west half to his son Joseph and the east to James Fisher in 1873. 

The Mills family lived elsewhere in Elma, but Fisher built a house on the land, in the northeast 

corner. The two lands were reunited in 1889 under the auspices of Francis Curtis, but Curtis 

lived on lot 22 in the same concession, and paid little attention to the farmhouse. Still, in 1905 

William Matheson moved to the lot and repaired the house, keeping its historic flavour. The 

house forthwith stayed on the lot until 1935, when Thomas Buchanan sold the house to Wilfred 

Cockwell, who had it uprooted and moved across the road to his own farm. There was also a 

barn on the property until the early 1940s, when a strawblower exploded into a fireball that 

took out most of the year’s harvest and the entire barn. The lot is currently used as a cash crop 

farm for farmers living off the lot, and has no buildings at all. 

3.4.15 Elma, Concession IX, Lot 19 (Fig. 9) 

William Morrison owned the lot for 8 years before obtaining the patent in 1862. The Simpson 

family built the longest lasting wood farmhouse on the lot in 1878, which remained standing 

until the 1920s, when William Blatchford and his family moved to the nearby village of Atwood. 

In 1978, Joseph and Brenda Blatchford moved a wartime house from London onto the property, 

moved to the farm in 1978 as a second home. It lasted for only two years before it burnt to the 

ground in 1980 due to a chimney fire. The next year, the original wood barn burnt to the 

ground as well after straw heating ignited a fire. The family rebuilt after a local fundraising 

initiative, and the metal barns that now stand on the lot are all of recent origin. The rest of the 

lot is used as pasture for the cows on the dairy farm. 


Thomas Gibbs owned the lot as early as 1854, but did little with it other than harvest sap for 

maple syrup, and it fell to Hugh Wilson, who came to the area from Carleton County, to clear 

room for a farm out of the forest. Wilson built a house on the centre of the south border of the 

lot, and in the 1930s, W. Joseph Acheson made several improvements to the house, as well as 

building a silo and barn nearby. However, the barn burnt down in 1956, taking with it the 

16

house and the silo. The only current evidence of the former existence of the buildings is a dirt 

path surrounded by trees, which leads to the former location of the house. Otherwise, the land 

is mostly cultivated, and is now owned by large scale farmers living elsewhere in Elma. 


Before John Nixon received the patent for the land in 1864, the land was owned by Robert 

Cathers in 1854, John Carol in 1856, and James Trow later the same year. Nixon cleared some 

of the land, but built no lasting structures. However, he did sell part of his land to the Donegal 

Wesleyan Methodist Church, who began a pioneer cemetery in the southeast corner of the lot. 

(see LF#12) When he sold to Samuel Vipond in 1872, Vipond built a house in the centre of the 

lot on the south side, with a curved pathway leading up to it. He knocked this house down in 

1880 and built a better one slightly to the west of the original, making use of the curved road. 

A well dug nearby in 1864 lasted through the 20 th century, and became the only dug well in 

Elma that provided enough water to run the entire lot. The house lasted until it was 

demolished within the past 15 years. 

In 1876 Vipond took the important step of selling half an acre of his farm to Elisha Harris, who 

used it to build a cheese factory in the southeast corner, next to the cemetery. The factory was 

operated by Elisha’s son Charles until it was destroyed in a fire in 1881. This was most 

unfortunate for the farm, as all of the following occupants were dairy farmers, using the 

original barn and house for the farms operations and for livestock such as cows, pigs, sheep, 

lambs, ducks, and geese. The lot is currently owned as part of a large incorporated farm. 

3.4.18 Elma, Concession X, Lot 18 (Fig. 9) 

Arthur Gordon owned this lot long before he was granted the patent in 1863, with his tenure 

beginning in 1854. After he sold the lot to James Redford in 1873, Redford built a wood house 

in the northeast corner of the lot. The house did not last long before it was torn down, but 

each subsequent homestead was built on its location, each with slightly more modern 

accoutrements and additions. In 1876 Redford sold the property to Charles McMane, who 

divided the property in 1885, selling the east 25 acres of it to his son, Charles McMane Jr., who 

lived on lot 19 in the same concession. (Fig. 13) The McMane family continued to hold both 

lots, making the previously mentioned improvements to the buildings, until the 1940s, when 

they sold the west part and the east part to the Whyte family and the Long family, respectively. 

The Whyte family lived on the lot until quite recently, continuing to make modern 

improvements to the original house. See the built heritage inventory - BF#87, 5872A Perth Line 

72. 

3.4.19 Elma, Concession X, Lot 23 (East 25 Acres) (Fig. 10) 

Lot 23 was first owned in 1854 by Michael J. Hamilton, who soon after passed it to Robert 

Cathers, who passed the land to Richard Bell. John Sydney Smith moved Bell off the land in 

1862, as he had the legal patent for the lot. Smith lived elsewhere in the concession, however, 

17

and by 1878 no house had been built on the lot. In 1883, the land east half of the land was sold 

to Adam Gray Sr., the owner of lot 24, who cultivated the lot until 1900, when he gave the west 

half of the east half of the lot to his son Robert, and the east half of the west half of the lot to 

his son Adam Gray Jr., who lived on lot 24. Henceforth, nothing was built on these 25 acres, 

being used purely for cultivation or pasture, and they were bought and sold in conjunction with 

lot 24. These 25 acres are the only part of lot 23 involved in the study area. 

3.4.20 Elma, Concession X, Lot 24 (Fig. 10) 

The first owner of lot 24 was Archibald Lillico, who attempted to clear the land for only a few 

years before abandoning the lot. The lot lay undeveloped until 1874, when William Anderson 

obtained its patent and built a wood house in the northeast corner. The Anderson family 

proceeded to hold the east side of the lot for three generations, selling to Adam Gray Jr. in 

1919. William Anderson had sold the west side of the lot in 1874 to William S. Cowen through 

the landholder John Tawse. Cowen built a house in the northwest corner of the lot which has 

had a myriad of improvements and modernizations added on. When Adam Gray acquired both 

halves of the lot in 1919, he had already made his family’s home in the house on the west half 

of the lot, and had no more need for the east house, knocking it down for room to expand his 

cultivation, and leaving no trace of where it stood. From 1919 onwards, the lot follows the 

same pattern of purchase as the east quarter of lot 23, passing through the hands of John E. 

Rock to the Danbrook family, who have lived in the Anderson house since 1946. 

3.4.21 Mornington, Concession XI, Lot 6 (Fig. 11) 

There were two patents given out for this lot, one for the north 100 acres to James Grayson 

Smith, and one for the South 100 acres to Samuel Watson. The north half was divided up into 

sections, and by 1878, Benjamin Johnston and John Campbell had built houses on the north 50 

acres and the south 50 acres of the north half, while Samuel Watson had built a house on the 

south half. The house built by Campbell burnt down in the early 1900s, shortly after the south 

half of the north half started being sold in conjunction with the south half. The houses built by 

Johnston and Watson were both maintained by the following inhabitants of the farm, who 

made constant refurbishments and modernizations to the wood houses over the years. Though 

the current houses are on the same location as the original 19 th century houses, it is uncertain 

to what degree they retained the pioneer buildings. 

By 1878, there was also a pioneer cemetery situated in the northeast corner of the south half of 

the lot. It was a Methodist Cemetery, and remains there today – see LF#42. However, the 

most important development on the lot lies on the south border of the lot, the S.S. No. 6 

Mornington Public School. (Fig. 12) The ¾ acre lot was sold to the school board by George Bast 

in 1946 for $3500, but the school house itself had been there long before. It was first opened in 

1864, although originally located in a different lot. The first building on the present location 

was made in 1872, but destroyed by a cyclone in 1903. The current red brick building (4652 

Perth Line 80, see BF#235) was finished just a year later, and was in operation as a school until 

its closure in 1964. It has since been used as a work shed and as a small home, and stands as 

18

the most important heritage building on the lot. The rest of the lot is either cultivated farmland 

or pasture, with the exception of Black Creek running through the centre of the lot from south 

to north. 

3.4.22 Mornington, Concession XII, Lot 5 (North Half) (Fig. 11) 

The south half of this lot was first owned by Alexander Glen of Carthage, a farmer from Ireland 

who settled here in 1851 and became one of the contributors to the Belden historic atlas. The 

first owner of the north half of this lot, however, was William Campbell Sr. in 1876, who built a 

house on north part of the lot’s centre line almost immediately after his purchase. After 

passing through the hands of the Riddell, Johnston, Rennie, Fritz, and Frielung families, the 

house remained in the same location, although here, as elsewhere in the township, dramatic 

modernization efforts were applied to the original building. The structure that now stands in 

the place of the 19 th century building (4719 Perth Line 83, see BF#246) is quite different from its 

predecessor. Other than this building, the north half of the lot contains cultivated land, 

pasture, and part of the Black Creek waterway. 

3.4.23 Mornington, Concession XIII, Lot 4 (Fig. 11) 

The first owner of the lot was Alexander Walker, who purchased the patent for the north 125 

acres of the lot, all of which is part of the study area, in 1862. He built a wood house on the 

west border of the lot near the Black Creek, and farmed the land until his death in 1919. At this 

time, the land was sold to Edward Wood, who maintained the house and added significantly to 

its modernization before passing it to The Agricultural Development Board near the beginning 

of the depression. The Board then maintained the house until granting it to Albert Tinadall in 

1944. The house that currently stands on the location of the original house has several barns 

and silos added onto it. The southern 75 acres of the lot are not part of the study area. 

3.5 Plaques and Monuments 

There are no historic plaques located within or near the study area that relate to cultural 

resources – built heritage or landscape features. 

19

4.0 CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

4.1 Inventory of Landscape Features 

The Ontario Government’s InfoSheet #5 in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process 

defines a cultural heritage landscape as 

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. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage 

conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; and villages, parks, 

gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways and 

industrial complexes of cultural heritage value. (Government of Ontario 2005: InfoSheet 

#5, 3) 

An inventory of landscape features was developed based on site visits to the study area in 

September and October 2012 – see Inventory 1. The inventory includes photographs, a brief 

description and a preliminary assessment as to whether there is potential for cultural heritage 

value or interest. The location of the photographs is mapped – see Map 4. Within the 

inventory, the “Status” section indicate whether the property owner is “Participating” in the 

development, that is whether the property owner is leasing land to the proponent for the 

potential location of a turbine or other component of the development. An indication of “Non- 

Participating” means that the property owner has no link with the development proposal and 

that access to the property was not possible. Where a landscape feature is identified as having 

potential cultural heritage value (√), it is further evaluated in the next section – see Table 3. 

20

5.0 BUILT FEATURES 

5.1 Inventory of Built Features 

An inventory of the built features within the project area and along the transmission line is 

included in the report – see Inventory 2. Each built feature is located on Map 4 with a related 

map number. Not all of the built features have heritage value or interest. Where a built 

feature is identified as having potential cultural heritage value (√), it is further evaluated in the 

next section – see Table 3. As indicated in the introduction, the study area encompassed the 

project area (area of turbines and access roads, etc.), and the proposed transmission line. The 

exact siting of the transmission line had not been determined at the time of this assessment, 

therefore, both sides of the roadway along which the two optional routes for the transmission 

line, have been included in this assessment. 

Photographs have been taken of the built features where possible. It was not possible to get 

good quality images (or in some cases, any images at all) where the built feature was located a 

distance away from the public road or behind a vegetation screen and the property owner was 

not participating in the development project. 

Within the table, the “Status” section indicates whether the property owner was “Participating” 

in the development, that is, whether the property owner was leasing land to the proponent for 

the potential location of a turbine or other component of the development. An indication of 

“Non-Participating” means that the property owner has no link with the development proposal 

and that access to the property was not possible. 

In some cases, where the built features which were well back from the road or partially 

screened by vegetation, it was possible to do only a cursory evaluation for potential heritage 

value. In a number of cases it was difficult to ascertain whether there was any possibility of 

heritage value. In most cases, the features were deemed to be “not heritage” and no further 

work was done in terms of assessing value. 

If a built feature was not visible at all, it was not considered to have cultural heritage value 

unless there was other available information such as historical research or other evidence that 

would indicate a possibility of heritage value. In these instances, it was confirmed based on the 

project payout, or distance from proposed transmission line, that there would be no impact, 

and therefore the lack of information was not considered a concern. 

For those built features that were deemed to have no potential cultural heritage value, 

indicated with an X, they were screened out at this stage and no longer considered. Where 

there was potential cultural heritage value, with a check mark (√ ) were carried through to the 

next stage in the assessment. See Inventory 2 for the details on the properties that were 

considered. 

21

6.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 

The next stage of the process is an assessment of those properties that are deemed to have 

potential cultural heritage value or interest in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, 

Ontario Regulation 9/06. A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets 

one or more of the following criteria: 

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. 

It is noted that a property may be designated under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act if it 

meets one or more of the criteria listed above and presented in Table 2. However, the 

evaluation is done on a case-by-case basis and the absence or presence of any of the criteria is 

neither sufficient nor required for designation. 

The evaluation was based on extensive historical research – section 3.0. In addition, during the 

site visits, all features either within the project area, on property adjacent to the project area, 

or along the transmission line (both options) were photographed and examined to the extent 

possible under the circumstances. The visual examination along with the historical research 

provided the input for the assessment that follows. 

6.1 Summary of Previously Identified Heritage Significance 

As outlined in sections 2.1 and 2.2 there are no buildings or landscapes recognized at the 

federal or provincial level, nor are there any plaques located within the study area or on land 

adjacent to the study area. As indicated in section 2.3, there is no municipal heritage 

22

committee for either the Township of Perth East or the Municipality of North Perth and 

accordingly there are no properties that are listed or designated under the Ontario Heritage 

Act. There was, however, recognition that Perth East does have an Old Order Mennonite 

community which is considered significant, although this is not “written” anywhere. In 

assessing the built features and cultural landscapes, this was given careful consideration. 

Wellesley Township (part of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo) does have a municipal 

heritage committee and has both designated and non-designated heritage properties. There 

are no turbines proposed for Wellesley Township. The area is included in the impact 

assessment only because the municipal road allowance will be used to carry the transmission 

lines from the study area to the point of intersection with Hydro One. There are two nondesignated 

heritage properties: 

4347 Ament Line (BF #364) 

4401 Ament Line, Martin’s Mennonite Church (BF# 363) and Cemetery (LF# 55) 

that are adjacent to one of the two alternatives for the transmission line route. In addition, 

Wellesley Township has also identified several roads that were identified as “scenic roads,” 

although no further information was provided as to their heritage attributes. One of the two 

options for the transmission line will traverse three short sections of these “scenic roads” 

where cable might be buried within the road allowance: 

Herrgott Road from Lawson Line to Ament Line (some scenic qualities) 

Ament Line from Hackbart Road to Steffler Road (extremely scenic) 

Steffler Road – Ament Line to Hawkesville Road (extremely scenic) 

6.2 Landscape Features 

The area under consideration for installation of the turbines and the transmission line to the 

point of intersection with Hydro One is a rural landscape with relatively large farmsteads, fields, 

pastures and some woodlots. There are a number of small village-like areas at some of the 

intersections of major roads, often where the churches, schools or other social institutions are 

located which are as much a part of the rural landscape as the farms. As with most parts of 

Ontario that were settled in the mid-19 th century, the older farms are located along the 

concession roads running east-west (usually referred to as a “line”), with the later 20th century 

settlement occurring along the side roads when there was an interest in severing parcels of 

land for residential rather than farm use. 

There were two types of landscapes in the study area that were evaluated as part of the impact 

assessment: roadscapes and cemeteries. The road pattern reflects the grid that was imposed 

by the survey that was completed in all three townships in the late 1840s. The concession 

roads that run along the lot fronts are straight and intersect with the side roads at right angles 

to create the rectangular 100 acre farm lots. There were seven roadscapes and one trailway 

identified for consideration. 

There were twelve cemeteries that were identified within the study area and along the possible 

transmission routes. Some are still in use while others were used for a period of time and are 

23

now closed. The number of cemeteries, most of them relatively small, is a reflection of the 

variety of cultural and religious groups that reside within these three townships. Attention was 

drawn to one cemetery, Martin’s Mennonite Cemetery (LF#55) because it was included by 

Wellesley Township as non-designated heritage property. 

Although there were a number of roads and cemeteries that were evaluated using the criteria 

from the Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, none of the roadscapes or cemeteries 

that are located within the study area or along the transmission routes, have been determined 

to have cultural heritage value or interest as defined in the regulation. 

6.3 Built Features 

Built features that are located on or adjacent to properties where turbines, associated 

transmission lines, substations and related infrastructure are to be constructed were visually 

examined, photographed and evaluated in accordance with Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario 

Heritage Act. This extensive list of properties is included in Table 2 which provides one or two 

photographs, a description of the built features, and whether the preliminary review indicates a 

need for “further evaluation for potential cultural heritage value or interest.” In addition the 

listing provides a map number, which shows the location. 

The inventory included built features on 557 properties. In terms of residential buildings, they 

ranged from mid-19 th century simple rural vernacular style built in southwestern Ontario to 

larger late Victorian or Edwardian houses built before the First World War during a period of 

relative wealth and growth of the area. Most of the houses are vernacular adaptations of more 

formal styles and reflect more the form than the detailed elements of the style. In terms of 

later 20 th century residences, there are a large number of post 1950 dwellings that reflect the 

need for homes for expanding rural families and the interest in a sector of the population that 

was seeking a larger plot of land than would be found within the urban areas. 

One of the interesting residential developments in this area was the “dawdy house,” either an 

addition to the main house or a separate structure built very close to the main house by Amish 

or Mennonites. This house served as a residence for parents who may still be working the farm 

with their grown children or who may be retired. The dawdy house (dawdy is the word for 

father in Pennsylvania Dutch) can be traced to Swiss and southern German traditions. This 

tradition accounts for the exceptionally large additions to many of the houses as well as the 

properties that have more than one residence to accommodate the multi-generational families 

that are operating the farms. 

In terms of barns, they ranged from a few simple mid-19 th century timber-frame structures to a 

significant number of very large farm complexes with many barns, often intersecting or 

adjoining, a large number of silos and equipment sheds. Although they could be considered as 

cultural landscapes, especially the larger complexes, they were considered as part of the built 

heritage inventory. Because this area contains large numbers of successful farms with 

continuing re-investment in the farm buildings, most of the farm buildings were part of a 

24

continuing evolution as opposed to buildings from a point in time. They are very difficult, if not 

impossible to date. Although most of them had modern cladding, a number of them, perhaps 

many, have timber-frame structural components. In most cases where a date has been 

provided it has been based on the style of the house or historical research information related 

to the house because of the difficulty of dating the farm structures. 

In addition to the houses and farm structures, there were a relatively large number of schools 

or former schools (10) and church buildings (9) reflecting the importance of these two social 

institutions in the history of the area. Many of the schools were closed and converted to 

residential use although a number of the early 20 th century institutions were continuing in their 

original use. Some of the churches were no longer in use reflecting changes in the organization 

of religious bodies and changing needs of the local population. However, there were also a 

number of newer church buildings reflecting the strength of the institutions in the 21 st century. 

A large number of built features were evaluated, many more than might otherwise be 

evaluated because of the length of the transmission route (20-25 km) and the need to evaluate 

two options for the transmission route. This was supplemented by a review of federal and 

provincial designations, consultation with municipal authorities, extensive historical research 

and the visual examination of the area. Particular attention was paid to the two properties 

which Wellesley Township has listed as non-designated heritage property: 4347 Ament Line (BF 

#364) and 4401 Ament Line, Martin’s Mennonite Church (BF# 363). 

Although there were a large number of built features that were evaluated using the criteria 

from the Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, none of the built features that are 

located within the study area or adjacent to the transmission routes, have been determined to 

have cultural heritage value or interest as defined in the regulation. 

6.4 Summary Evaluation of Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 

The study area and larger area incorporating the transmission routes is a rural landscape with 

relatively large farmsteads, fields, pastures and some woodlots, with a number of small villagelike 

areas at some of the intersections of major roads, often where the churches, schools or 

other social institutions are located. Roadscapes and cemeteries were considered as cultural 

landscapes within the rural landscape of the larger area. The roadscapes have contextual value 

in the contribution that they make to the scenic and picturesque notion of the rural landscape. 

The cemeteries make a contribution to an understanding of local history, especially at the 

family or individual level. The roadscapes and cemeteries can be classified only as “typical” of 

those that are found in many parts of southwestern Ontario and do not merit further research 

or investigation. 

The inventory of built features includes houses, barns, churches and schools included an 

assessment of 193 properties. The houses are vernacular adaptations of more formal styles 

and reflect more the form than the detailed elements of various styles including Gothic Revival, 

Italianate, Victorian and Edwardian classicism. Many of the houses reflect the Mennonite 

25

tradition of adding extensions or second houses to the property. The barns or barn complexes 

are often quite extensive reflecting the strength of the agricultural economy in the area and the 

continuing investment in farm buildings. 

In summary, when the criteria in Regulation 9/06 are applied to the cultural landscapes and 

built features found within the study area and along the transmission route, there were no 

structures or landscapes that were evaluated as having cultural heritage value or interest. 

Although important to an understanding of the local history, there were no buildings that 

appeared to be significant enough to justify further investigation or consideration for 

designation. 

26

7.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT 

The following information is taken from Conestogo Wind Energy Centre Renewable Energy 

Approval (REA) Draft Submission: Draft Project Description Report, May 2, 2012 (Dillon, 

2012:8-11) 

The major components of the project are as follows: 

Up to twenty-seven wind turbines; 

400-600V /34.5 kV (located in the turbine base); or 400-600V/44 kV step up 

transformers (with a pad mounted switch located outside the tower); 

34.5 or 44 kV collection system to link the wind turbines to the substation; 

Substation (34.5 or 44 kV to 115 kV) and switch station at the point of connection 

with the provincial grid; 

Wind turbine access roads; 

One permanent meteorological tower; 

Staging areas for assembly and erection of the wind turbines, only during 

construction; 

Operation and maintenance building; and 

A temporary concrete batch plant (only required if concrete cannot be sourced 

through local suppliers). 

7.1 Wind Turbines and Foundations 

The basic components of the project include up to 27 wind turbines with an installed capacity 

of up to 69 MW. The specific model of turbine to be used is being determined. Turbine tower 

height is anticipated to be 85 to 105 m. The wind turbines consist of the supporting tower, 

tower foundation, rotor blades, and gearbox/electrical generator housing. The nacelle includes 

the gearbox and electric generator, as well as blade and turbine control equipment, sensor and 

cooling equipment. These components are located at the top of the supporting tower, and are 

connected to the blades via a main shaft. The tower will require the construction of a pouredin-place 

concrete foundation with depths depending on sub-surface conditions. During 

construction, gravel crane pads will be installed. These pads will be capable of supporting the 

necessary cranes and equipment required for installation of the wind turbines. 

Based upon the local wind regime, and technical specifications of the wind turbines selected, 

the blades will have 5 to 20 revolutions per minute. The land base (foundation, compacted fill, 

round grid and pad mount transformer) required for each turbine, excluding the access road, is 

less than half an acre once in operation. 

Acoustic information, including the sound power level and frequency spectrum (in terms of 

octave-band sound power levels) will be made available in the Wind Turbine Specifications 

Report once completed and submitted separately. 

27

7.2 Step-up Transformers & Collection System 

A small pad mount transformer will be located adjacent to the base of each turbine to 

transform the electricity from 400-600 V to 34.5-44 kV through the collection system. The 

collection system will be composed of a combination of underground and overhead lines all 

connecting to the substation (see below). CWPP is endeavoring to place all electrical lines 

underground. Efforts are being made to ensure the feeder lines will generally follow the turbine 

access roads, although in some cases, at landowners request and to reduce the distance of the 

lines, they may divert from the roads. It is expected that no above ground sections of overhead 

lines will be required on private property. If overhead lines are required they would be 

supported by single poles in most locations, although double poles could be required in some 

locations due to soil conditions or angles in the line route. The substation will be located about 

20- 25 km to the east of the wind farm adjacent to the provincial 115 kV transmission line, 

therefore it will be necessary to connect the project to the substation with a 34.5 or 44 kV low 

voltage power line(s) that would run within municipal road right of way. 

7.3 Substation 

A substation will be required to increase the voltage of the electricity from 34.5 or 44 kV to 115 

kV. The higher voltage is required to allow connection with the provincial grid. The design of the 

substation is being confirmed. The substation would be surrounded by a security fence and 

would have security lighting. The substation would require an area of about 50 m x 80 m of 

land. A containment system would be utilized to capture any oil leaks from the transformer. 

The containment system would be sized so that it would contain all of the oil in the transformer 

should there be a complete failure of it (which would be a rare and unexpected event). Water 

captured by the containment system (from a rain event) would exit through an oil/water 

separator or contaminated water would be pumped to a tanker truck for off-site disposal at a 

licensed facility. 

7.4 Turbine Access Roads 

Access roads will be required to deliver the wind turbine components and for operation and 

maintenance activities on the wind turbines. Wherever possible, CWPP will use existing 

roadways and accesses to reach the construction site for the turbines. Road work will include 

upgrades (e.g., upgraded turning radii, road widening and strengthening) to existing roads 

where necessary, in particular the existing side-roads that are not winter maintained. However, 

where access is not available, or not of a standard to support construction and transportation 

vehicles, upgraded access roads will have to be constructed. Additional temporary crane travel 

paths may be required during construction. CWPP is endeavoring to minimize land disturbance 

and remove as little land from agricultural use as possible. 

Along the temporary construction access roads topsoil will be stripped, temporarily stored and 

re-spread around permanent access roads. Aggregate of crushed stone or gravel of sufficient 

28

depth and width, underlain by geotextile fabric or cement-stabilized or lime stabilized 

subgrade, will be installed on access roads to facilitate movement of heavy construction 

equipment and maintenance equipment. The location of the permanent access roads will be 

determined based upon turbine locations, accessibility of equipment to adjacent sites, and 

consultations with the affected landowner and township(s), with the objective of minimizing 

effects on agricultural operations and local roads. 

It is expected that only a few new water crossings will be required to access the turbine sites. 

Further, it is expected that some of the existing township road water crossings will need to be 

improved/widened to accommodate the construction vehicles. The specific location of these 

crossings will be identified and assessed through the REA process and presented in the REA 

submission package. Watercourse crossings would be facilitated through the use of culverts to 

maintain stream flow. 

7.5 Staging Areas 

Turbine staging areas are located at each turbine site. The turbine staging area is comprised of: 

A crane pad (approx. 12 m by 36.5 m) to support the crane used for construction 

A staging and equipment storage area for the erection of the towers and the lift and 

securing of the nacelle and blades. 

A total leveled surface of approximately 40m by 40m will be required at each turbine. A 360 

degree radius around the base of the turbine to a distance of 50 meters at a 5% grade is also 

needed for the assembly and erection of the turbines. 

The land for the staging area will be restored to as close to an original state as possible after the 

construction period. 

7.6 Concrete Batch Plant 

It is anticipated that concrete can be supplied by a local supplier. If the required amount of 

concrete cannot be sourced from an existing licensed local facility in the area, a project specific 

batch plant will be required during the construction period. If a new batch plant is needed, it 

would be operated by a contractor and would require approximately 2 ha of land. Water 

requirements for the plant would exceed 50,000 litres/day, and as such, a Ministry of 

the Environment (MOE) Permit to Take Water would be required. 

The batch plant will be operated by a contractor and would have its own environmental 

compliance requirements. 

29

8.0 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

8.1 Potential Impacts 

The Provincial Policy Statement requires that “any impact (direct or indirect, physical or 

aesthetic) of the proposed development or site alteration on a cultural heritage resource must 

be identified.” (PPS, 2005, InfoSheet #5, 3) 

InfoSheet #5 in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process identifies a list of negative 

impacts that should be considered in preparing a heritage assessment: 

Direct Impacts 

Destruction – of any, or part of any, significant heritage attribute or feature. 

Alteration – that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric or 

appearance. 

Indirect Impacts 

Shadows – created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the 

visibility of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden. 

Isolation – of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a 

significant relationship. 

Land disturbance – such as a change in grade that alters historic patterns or topography 

or drainage. 

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. 

Obstruction – of significant views or vistas from, within, or to a built and natural feature. 

The Draft Project Plan for the Conestogo Wind Energy Centre (prepared by Dillon Consulting, 

May 2012) provides a description of the environmental effects that are anticipated as a result 

of constructing, operating and maintaining a wind farm. In terms of the project effects on 

specific components of the environment, the section on Heritage and Archaeological Resources 

(Dillon Consulting Inc: 16) states: 

 

 

A Stage 1 Archeological Assessment and Cultural Heritage assessment will be 

undertaken as part of the REA approval process. 

The project is not expected to affect any built heritage features or designated 

landscapes or properties but consideration will be given for protected areas. 

In addition, the project could also have the following impacts: 

Minimal visual effects to built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes due 

to construction activity. However, the visual effects will be temporary, that is, only for 

the duration of the construction phase. 

30

Alteration of the visual character of a built heritage feature or cultural heritage 

landscape due to the presence of the turbines or transmission lines. 

As was outlined in section 6 – Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment, when the criteria in 

Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act are applied to the cultural landscapes and built 

features found within the project area or along the corridor for the transmission line, there 

were no structures or landscapes that were evaluated as having cultural heritage value or 

interest. Although important to an understanding of the local history, there were no buildings 

that appeared to be significant enough to justify further investigation or consideration for 

designation. 

However, as noted in section 2.3 and summarized in section 6.1, there are two built features, 

one landscape feature and three sections of road that are of interest to Wellesley Township. 

Because they are located along part of the transmission route they could be affected by the 

project. Specifically these are the following: 

4347 Ament Line 

4401 Ament Line, Martin’s Mennonite Church 

4401 Ament Line, Martin’s Mennonite Cemetery 

Herrgott Road from Lawson Line to Ament Line 

Ament Line from Hackbart Road to Steffler Road 

Steffler Road from Ament Line to Hawkesville Road 

None of these features were assessed as significant in accordance with the criteria under 

Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. However, they have been identified by Wellesley 

Township as important to the local community. In order to minimize the chances of error in 

judgment and the possible impairment of values associated with these cultural resources, it 

was deemed prudent to assess the impact of the project on the above-mentioned features to 

ensure that their heritage values were preserved. This does not suggest, however, that the 

impact assessment also means that these resources merit further investigation at this time nor 

the development of a statement of cultural heritage value and a list of heritage attributes. 

31

32 

8.2 Assessment of Impacts to Landscape and Built Features 

TABLE 3 – ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS TO LANDSCAPE AND BUILT FEATURES 

Feature Values Impact Assessment of Impacts 

4347 Ament Line A1 – House is representative of mid to late 19 th 

century Gothic Revival style or type found in rural 

southwestern Ontario. 

A4 – House is representative of the evolution of 

homes to accommodate multi-generational Amish 

and Mennonite families. 

B4 - Illustrates the connection and 

impact that Mennonites have had in this part of 

Ontario. 

C1 – Contributes to the character of the rural 

landscape of the area. 


Martin’s 

Mennonite 

Church 


Martin’s 

Mennonite 

Cemetery 

B2 – Church makes an important contribution to 

demonstrating the historic importance of religion in 

the area. 



Ontario. 

B3 – Directly associated with the religious life of the 

community. 



Ontario. 

B5 - Contributes to an understanding of the history, 

especially at the family or individual level, of the 

area. 

These features are not on 

lands or adjoining lots where 

turbines, substations or 

other major infrastructure is 

being constructed or 

operated. 

These features are located 

adjacent to the road 

allowance (that portion of 

the road that is adjacent to 

the road bed and road 

shoulder) that may be used 

to carry the transmission 

lines to the point of 

intersection for ultimate 

connection to the Hydro 

One system. 

CWPP has indicated that it is 

their intention to bury the 

transmission lines if 

possible. However, in some 

cases it may be necessary to 

use conventional hydro 

poles. 

There will be some minor 

disruption during the 

construction phase but no 

permanent impairment of 

values. Once construction is 

completed the buried 

transmission lines will not 

have any impact on the 

values associated with these 

features.

33 

Feature Values Impact Assessment of Impacts 

Herrgott Road 

from Lawson Line 

to Ament Line 

Ament Line from 

Hackbart Road to 

Steffler Road 

Steffler Road 

from Ament Line 

to Hawkesville 

Road 



C4 - Contributes to the scenic and picturesque 

notion of the rural landscape of the area. 









These features are not on 

lands or adjoining lots where 

turbines, substations or 

other major infrastructure is 

being constructed or 

operated. 

These features are part of 

the land where the 

transmission lines may be 

buried or where poles may 

be erected to carry the 

generated power to the 

point of intersection with 

Hydro One. 

CWPP has indicated that it is 

their intention to bury the 

transmission lines if 

possible. However, in some 

cases it may be necessary to 

use conventional hydro 

poles. 

During the construction 

phase the installation of the 

transmission line will have a 

temporary impact but it will 

not have a long term 

impairment of the values. 

A buried transmission line 

will not impair the values of 

the landscape features as 

long as the construction 

area is returned to its preconstruction 

appearance. 

A transmission line that is 

mounted on poles will not 

impair the heritage values as 

long as no new poles are 

added, that is, if the 

transmission lines can be 

mounted on existing poles. 

A transmission line that is 

mounted on new poles will 

have some impact on the 

heritage values associated 

with these features.

8.3 Summary Assessment of Direct and Indirect Impacts 

The potential impacts outlined in InfoSheet #5 in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning 

Process were examined in the context of this project. 

Direct Impacts 

Destruction – of any, or part of any, significant heritage attribute or feature. 

o No heritage features will be demolished 

Alteration – that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric or 

appearance. 

o It is anticipated that there will be no alteration of the historic fabric or 

appearance. However, in the unlikely event that the transmission lines are 

mounted on new poles along the three sections of road that are deemed to be 

“scenic”, some impact on the values associated with the roadscapes should be 

anticipated. 

Indirect Impacts 

Shadows – created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the 

visibility of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden. 

o All identified features are more than 1 km from the turbines; shadows are not 

anticipated as an indirect impact. 

Isolation – of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a 

significant relationship. 

o The installation of the turbines and the transmission lines to the substation will 

not isolate any heritage features. 

Land disturbance – such as a change in grade that alters historic patterns or topography 

or drainage. 

o There will be no changes to the historic patterns or topography. 

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. 

o Agriculture is the primary land use. This will not be changed, although some land 

may be removed from agricultural use. The land base (foundation, compacted 

fill, ground grid and pad mount transformer) required for each turbine, excluding 

the access road is less than 0.2 hectares once in operation. This change in land 

use will be insignificant. 

Obstruction – of significant views or vistas from, within, or to a built and natural feature. 

o The inventory does not contain any significant views. 

There will be short term reduction (not permanent) in the aesthetic qualities of the area during 

the construction phase and decommissioning phase. The operational phase will be long term 

and there will be some visual impact. In terms of the turbines, the visual impact on the 2 

identified built features (farmstead and church) and 4 identified landscape features (cemetery 

and 3 roadscapes) is considered to be insignificant and perhaps even non-existent. In terms of 

the transmission lines, CWPP has indicated that they are considering two options for the 

34

outing and that they are endeavoring to place all transmission lines underground. In the event 

that the transmission lines are mounted on new poles, this visual intrusion could have an 

impact on the heritage values of the 3 “scenic” roads where the new poles are installed. 

However, if the other optional route is chosen or the transmission lines are placed 

underground, there will be no impact. 

35

9.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 

In accordance with the Environmental Protection Act – Ontario Regulation 359/09 (Government 

of Ontario 2009:22), the heritage impact assessment must include an evaluation of any impact 

of the renewable energy project on any heritage resources which may exist on or abutting the 

property and proposed measures to avoid, eliminate or mitigate the impact. 

As was outlined in section 6 – Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment, when the criteria in 

Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act are applied to the cultural landscapes and built 

features found within the project area or along the corridor for the transmission line, there 

were no structures or landscapes that were evaluated as having cultural heritage value or 

interest. Although important to an understanding of the local history, there were no features 

that appeared to be significant enough to justify further investigation or consideration for 

designation. 

However, as noted in section 2.3 and summarized in section 6.1, there are two built features, 

one cemetery and three sections of road that are of interest to Wellesley Township and on 

which the proposed project could have an impact. None of these 6 features were assessed as 

significant in accordance with the criteria under Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 

However, in order to minimize the possible impairment of values associated with these cultural 

resources, it was deemed prudent to assess the impact of the project on the six features to 

ensure that their heritage values were preserved. This does not suggest, however, that the 

impact assessment also means that these resources merit further investigation and the 

development of a statement of cultural heritage value and a list of heritage attributes, at this 

time. 

In terms of mitigation recommendations the project has the potential for an impact on 3 

sections of “scenic” roads, if these roads are selected to carry the transmission lines and if new 

poles are installed. If the transmission lines are mounted on existing poles or if they are buried 

underground, there will be no long term change in the existing landscape and the values 

associated with these 3 sections of “scenic” roads. 

It is recommended that: 

 

 

The protection of the heritage values associated with the “scenic” roads identified 

above, be taken into account by CWPP in selecting which option is chosen to run the 





36

10.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING SCHEDULES 

The routing of the transmission lines along the 3 portions of roads that have been identified by 

Wellesley Township as “scenic” could potentially have an impact on the values associated with 

those roadscapes. There would be an impact if the lines were mounted on new poles rather 

than being placed underground which CWPP has indicated that it will endeavour to do. 

The recommendation for mitigation contained in section 9.0 should be implemented as part of 

the pre-construction design phase of the project. It is anticipated that further details regarding 

the construction phase will be outlined in the Construction Plan Report which is being 

developed as part of the REA submission and will be available for public review. 

The remaining elements of the project will have no impact on the historic values associated 

with the cultural heritage in the study area and along the transmission route, and therefore, for 

those elements no implementation and monitoring schedule is required. 

37

11.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 

In preparing for the impact assessment of the Conestogo Wind Energy Centre, field work 

resulted in compiling an extensive inventory of 74 landscape features and 557 built features. 

Of these 20 landscape features and 193 built features were identified as having potential 

heritage value or interest. When the criteria in Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act 

were applied to the cultural landscapes and built features found within the study area and 

along the transmission route, there were no structures or landscapes that were evaluated as 

having cultural heritage value or interest. Although important to an understanding of the local 

history, there were no buildings that appeared to be significant enough to justify further 

investigation or consideration for designation. 

Despite being no buildings or landscapes that are significant enough to be considered for 

designation at this time, there are two built features, one landscape feature and three sections 

of road that are of interest to Wellesley Township. Because they are located along part of the 

transmission route they could be affected by the project. None of these features were assessed 

as significant in accordance with the criteria under Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 

However, because they have been identified by Wellesley Township as important to the local 

community, it was deemed prudent to assess the impact of the project on the abovementioned 

features to ensure that their heritage values are preserved. 

In considering the features that are of interest to Wellesley Township, the impact assessment 

concluded that in the event that the transmission lines are mounted on new poles, this visual 

intrusion could have an impact on the heritage values of portions of three “scenic” roads where 

the new poles are installed. However, if the other optional route is chosen or the transmission 

lines are placed underground, there will be no impact. 

As a result of the impact assessment, it is recommended that: 

 

 

The protection of the heritage values associated with the “scenic” roads in Wellesley 

Township be taken into account by CWPP in selecting which option is chosen to run the 





The recommendation for mitigation should be implemented as part of the pre-construction 

design phase of the project. It is anticipated that further details regarding the construction 

phase will be outlined in the Construction Plan Report which will be developed as part of the 

REA submission and will be available for public review. 

38

12.0 REFERENCES CITED AND CONSULTED 

Belden, H. 

1879 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Perth. H. Belden & Co., Toronto. 

Careless, J.M.S. 

1991 Ontario – A Celebration of Our Heritage. Heritage Publishing House, Mississauga. 

Cuming, David J. 

1984 Discovering Heritage Bridges on Ontario’s Roads. The Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario. 

Dillon Consulting Ltd. 

2012 Conestogo Wind Energy Centre Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Draft Submission: 

Draft Project Description Report, May 2012 

Government of Ontario 

1990a The Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O. 1990. Ontario Regulation 9/06, made under the 

Ontario Heritage Act. Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. 

Queen's Printer, Toronto. 

1990b The Planning Act. R.S.O. 1990. 

1997 Conserving a Future for Our Past: Archaeology, Land-Use Planning & Development in 

Ontario. An Educational Primer and Comprehensive Guide for Non-Specialists. Ministry 

of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology & 

Heritage Planning Unit. 

2005 Mandatory Standards and Guidelines for Provincial Heritage Properties, under Part III, 1 

of the Ontario Heritage Act. 

2005 Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and 

Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 

2009 Environmental Protection Act. O. Reg. 359/09. 

Halsted, Bryon D. (editor) 

1985 Barns, Sheds and Outbuildings, Placement, Design and Construction. The Stephen 

Greene Press, Massachusetts. 

Johnston, W. Stafford and Johnston, Hugh J.M. 

1967 History of Perth County to 1967. The B-H Press, Stratford. 

Johnston, William. 

1903 History of Perth County 1825-1902. W.M. O’Beirne, Stratford. 

39

MacRae, Marion and Anthony Adamson 

1963 The Ancestral Roof: Domestic Architecture of Upper Canada. Ed Clark, Publisher. 

Magel, Ralph 

1998 A History – 200 Years Yonge. Hignell Printing Limited, Toronto. 

Middleton, Jesse Edgar and Fred Landon 

1927 Province of Ontario – A History, 1615 – 1927. Dominion Publishing Co., Toronto. 

Mikel, Robert 

2004 Ontario House Styles: The distinctive architecture of the province’s 18 th and 19 th 

century homes. James Lorimer & Company Ltd., Toronto. 

Milverton Centennial Committee (ed.) 

1957 A Century of Progress 1857-1957. Sun Print, Milverton. 

Ministry of Culture 

2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation – A Guide to Listing, 

Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities. 

Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 

Ministry of Natural Resources 

2006 A Technical Guideline for Cultural Heritage Resources for Projects Planned under the 

Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility 

Development Project and the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and 

Conservation Reserves. On file with the Ministry of Natural Resources and on-line. 

Ministry of Transportation 

2008 Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines for Provincially Owned Bridges. Interim Guidelines, 

2008. 

Mornington Old Boys and Girls Reunion (ed.) 

1981 Paths of History: Milverton’s 100 th Anniversary as an Incorporated Village. Sun Print, 

Milverton. 

Parks Canada 

2010 Canada’s Historic Places. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic 

Places in Canada. Parks Canada. 

Parsell 

1881 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo. Parsell, Toronto. 

40

Radojkovic, Jon 

2009 Barns of the Queens Bush. 3 rd printing. Brucedale Press, Port Elgin. 

Rawson, Richard 

1982 Old Barn Plans. Bonanza Books, New York. 

Rempel, John I. 

1980 Building with Wood and other aspects of nineteenth-century building in central 

Canada. Revised edition. University of Toronto Press. Toronto. 

Smith, Wm. H. 

1846 Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer. H. & W. Rowsell, Toronto. 

Versteeg, Jenny (ed.) 

2000 Elmenac: A History of Elma Township, the Heart of the Farming Community. The 

Straford Beacon Herald Fine Print Division, Stratford. 

No author 

1867 Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Waterloo, Irwin & Burnham, Toronto 

No author 

n.d. People of Ontario, 1600 – 1900. Alphabetized Dictionary of the People, Places and 

Vital Dates. Noel Montgomery Elliot (ed.), The Genealogical Research Library, London, 

England. 

On-Line and Primary Sources 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Historic bridges - http://www.historicbridges.org/map_ont.htm 

Cemeteries - www.geneofun.on.ca 

http://geneofun.on.ca/cems/ON/ONGRY10959?PHPSESSID=5b9f01c702cee4aa2b7f6c36 

a0cfadab 

Ontario Architecture - http://OntarioArchitecture.com 

Ontario Vital Statistics, www.ancestry.ca 

Ontario Census Records, www.ancestry.ca 

Library and Archives Canada Records, http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/index-e.html 

Canadiana Records, http://www.canadiana.ca/en/home 

District Map of Ontario, http://www.brocku.ca/maplibrary/digital/in-house.php 

Aerial Maps, Elma and Mornington Townships, www.maps.google.ca 

Upper Canada and the First Nations, 1780s to 1820s, www.canata.ca 

County Land Records, Perth County Land Registry Office #44, Ontario and the Archives 

of Ontario, 5 Huron Street, Stratford, Ontario 

Library and Archives, Perth County Archives, 5 Huron St., Stratford, Ontario 

41

H. Belden and Co. Historic Atlas for Perth County, including supplement. 1878. 

Stratford Archives, Stratford, Ontario. 

Corporation of the Township of Wellesley 

http://www.township.wellesley.on.ca/Tourism%20-%20home.html 

Waterloo Regional Museum http://www.waterlooregionmuseum.com/historical-placenames/wellesely.aspx 

Guelph Museums http://guelph.ca/museumsites/BlackHistory/queens.htm 

Wellesley Township Heritage and History Society 

http://www.wellesleyhistory.org/history-of-wellesley-township.html 

Ontario Heritage Plaques 

http://www.ontarioplaques.com/Plaques_VWZ/Plaque_Wellington31.html 

42

APPENDIX A – GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS 

From Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2003:2) and 

Types of Railroad Bridges | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_7291787_types-railroadbridges.html#ixzz1hnKWk9a7 

Bridge: A structure that provides a roadway or walkway for the passage of vehicles, 

pedestrians, or cyclists across an obstruction, gap or facility that is greater than 3 meters in 

span. (Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code). In the context of this guideline, this term refers 

to those bridge structures owned by the provincial government. 

Character-defining elements: The materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and 

cultural associations or meanings that contribute to the heritage value of a historic place, which 

must be retained in order to preserve its heritage value. 

Conservation: All actions or processes that are aimed at safeguarding the character-defining 

elements of a cultural resource so as to retain its heritage value and extend its physical life. 

This may involve “Preservation,” “Rehabilitation,” “Restoration,” or a combination of these 

actions or processes. 

Guidelines: Statements that provide practical guidance in applying the Standards for the 

Conservation of Historic Places. They are presented herein as recommended and nonrecommended 

actions. 

Heritage value: The aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or 

significance for past, present or future generations. The heritage value of a historic place is 

embodied in its character-defining materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and 

cultural associations or meaning. 

Historic place: A structure, building, group of buildings, district, landscape, archaeological site 

or other place in Canada that has been formally recognized for its heritage value. 

Intervention: Any action, other than demolition or destruction, that results in a physical change 

to an element of a historic place. 

Maintenance: Routine, cyclical, non-destructive actions necessary to slow the deterioration of a 

historic place. It entails periodic inspection; routine, cyclical, non-destructive cleaning; minor 

repair and refinishing operations; replacement of damaged or deteriorated materials that are 

impractical to save. 

Minimal Intervention: The approach that allows functional goals to be met with the least 

physical intervention. 

Standards: Norms for the respectful conservation of historical places. 

43

APPENDIX B – PROVINCIAL HERITAGE INVENTORY 

Ontario Heritage Properties Database 

Screenshot from the OHP Database for Township of Perth East 

Screenshot from the OHP Database for Township of Wellesley 

44

APPENDIX C – MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY 

Wellesley Township – Map of Designated, Non-Designated and Municipal Registered Properties 

45

Wellesley Township – Map of Scenic Roads 

46

47 

TABLE 2a – DETERMINATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST – LANDSCAPE FEATURES 

Criteria for Determination of Heritage Value or Interest 

A - Design Value or 

Physical Value 

B - Historical Value 

or Associative Value 

C - Contextual Value 

Question 

Rare, unique, representative or early 

example of a style, type, expression, 

material or construction method? 

Displays a high degree of craftsmanship 

or artistic merit? 

Demonstrate a high degree of technical 

or scientific achievement? 

Direct associations with a theme, event, 

belief, person, activity, organization, or 

institution? 

Yields or has the potential to yield 

information that contributes to an 

understanding of a community / culture? 

Demonstrates or reflects the work or 

ideas of an architect, artist, builder, 

designer, or theorist? 

Important in defining, maintaining or 

supporting the character of an area? 

Physically, functionally, visually or 

historically linked to its surroundings? 

A landmark? 

Notes on heritage value or interest are in 

Table 4c following. See also section 4.1 

Notes 

LF# Property 

3 3240 Boomer Line (cemetery) 

11 5401 Perth Line 72 (cemetery) 

B3, B4, 

B5 

√ √ 

√ √ B3, B5 

19 Perth Line 75 (roadscape) √ √ A8, C4 

20 154 Road (roadscape) √ 

22 Perth Line 78 (roadscape) √ 

23 158 Road (roadscape) √ 

25 Line 81 (roadscape) √ 



√ A8, C4 

√ A8, C4 

√ A8, C4 

√ A8, C4 

√ √ B3, B5 

√ A8, C4

48 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

LF# Property 


41 7800 Road 131 (cemetery) 

√ A8, C4 

√ √ B3, B5 


√ √ B3, B5 



√ √ B3, B5 

√ √ 

B3, B4, 

B5 

55 4407 Ament Line (cemetery) 

√ √ 

B3, B4, 

B5 


√ √ B3, B5 

√ C4 

65 Kissing Bridge Trailway 


72 6252 Buehler Road (cemetery) 

√ √ B3, B5 

√ √ 

B3, B4, 

B5

49 







Question 










institution? 









Notes 



A landmark? 



B3, B4, 

B5 

LF# Property 

74 4010 Moser-Young Road (cemetery) 

√ √

15 3494 Empey Road √ √ A5, C1 

50 

TABLE 2b – DETERMINATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST – BUILT FEATURES 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

2 3342 Kressler Road √ √ A1, C1 

5 2972 Kressler Road √ √ A2, C2 

8 3169 Boomer Line √ √ A2, C2 

9 3240 Boomer Line √ √ √ 

A3, A4, 

B4, C1 

10 3255 Boomer Line √ √ A1, C1 

11 3080 Boomer Line √ √ √ 

14 3497 Empey Road √ √ √ 

A3, A4, 

B4, C1 

A4, A5, 

B4, C1

51 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

16 3290 Boomer Line √ √ √ 

17 3451 Boomer Line √ √ √ 

18 3031 Herrgott Road √ √ √ 

A4, A5, 

B4, C1 

A4, A5, 

B4, C1 

A4, A5, 

B4, C1 

20 3621 Boomer Line (school) √ B1 

21 2965 Hergott Road √ √ √ 

23 2970 Hergott Road √ √ A3. C1 

24 3756/62 Boomer Line √ √ A3, C1 

25 3761 Boomer Line √ √ A6, C1 

27 3799 Boomer Line √ √ 

A1, A4, 

B4, C1 

A5, C1, 

A2, C2

37 2872/2868 Moser-Young Line √ √ A2, C2 

40 4181 Boomer Line √ √ A2, C2 

43 4227/5235 Boomer Line √ √ A5, C1, 

52 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

31 4011 Boomer Line √ √ √ 

A1, A4, 

B4, C1 

32 4026 Boomer Line √ √ A5, C1 

33 2995 Moser-Young Line √ √ A1, C1 

35 2942 Moser-Young Line √ √ √ 

A1, A4, 

B4, C1 

38 3060 Moser-Young Line √ √ √ 

39 4144 Boomer Line √ √ √ 

A2, A4, 

B4, C1, 

C2 

A4, B4, 

C1

45 4336 Boomer Line √ √ A7, C1 

47 4369 Boomer Line √ √ A3, C1 

53 7021 Perth 149 Line (church) √ B2 

63 5373 Perth 72 Line √ √ A6, C1 

64 5400 Perth 72 Line √ √ A6, C1 

66 5437 Perth 72 Line √ √ A3, C1 

69 5479 Perth 72 Line √ √ A5, C1 

70 7021 Road 154 √ √ A3, C1 

53 







Question 










institution? 









Notes 



A landmark? 



A2, C2 

BF# Property 

44 4269 Boomer Line √ √ √ 

A1, A4, 

B4, C1

79 5643 Perth 72 Line √ √ A1, C1 

82 7037 Road 158 √ √ A5, C1 

86 5839 Perth 72 Line √ √ A1, C1 

90 5602 Perth 71 Line √ √ A3, C1 

91 5514 Perth 71 Line √ √ A3, C1 

98 5598 Line 78 √ √ A6, C1 

101 7530 158 Road √ √ A3, C1 

102 7582 158 Road √ √ A1, C1 

103 7583 158 Road √ √ A6, C1 

54 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

72 5521 Perth 72 Line √ √ A5, C1

105 5694 Line 81 (school) √ B1 

107 5599 Perth Line 81 √ √ A6, C1 

108 7433 158 Road √ √ A3, C1 

110 5715 Perth Line 75 √ √ A3, C1 

113 5680 Perth Line 75 √ √ A1, C1 

115 5600 Perth Line 75 √ √ A3, C1 

117 5565 Perth Line 75 √ √ A3, C1 

119 5430 Perth Line 75 √ √ A3, C1 

120 5427 Perth Line 75 √ √ A1, C1 

55 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

104 7642 158 Road √ √ A1, C1

124 5384 Perth Line 75 √ √ A1, C1 

125 5310 Perth Line 75 √ √ A3, C1 

129 7341 Perth 147 Road √ √ A1, C1 

138 5243 Perth Line 78 √ √ A2, C1 

139 5202 Perth Line 78 √ √ A3, C1 

140 5172 Perth Line 78 √ √ A3, C1 

141 5437 Perth Line 78 √ √ A1, C1 

142 7520 Perth 147 Line √ √ A3, C1 

154 7703 Perth 147 Line (church behind house) √ B2 

56 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

123 5384 Perth Line 75 √ √ A3, C1

158 5201 Perth Line 82 √ √ A3, C1 

160 7827 Perth 147 Line √ √ A1, C1 

165 5279 Perth 72 Line √ √ A1, C1 

166 Perth 147 Line & Perth Line 72 (church) √ B2 

169 5562 Perth Line 78 √ √ A3, C1 

171 7698 Perth Line 147 (Loyal Orange Lodge) √ B6 

175 5338 Perth Line 84 √ √ A3, C1 

178 5369/71 Regional Road 86 √ √ A1, C1 

180 5363 Regional Road 86 (former school) √ B1 

57 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

157 7761 Perth 147 Line √ √ A1, C1

189 5120 Perth Line 84 √ √ A3, C1 

191 5014 Perth Line 84 √ √ A1, C1 

194 4950 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

195 4916 Perth Line 83 √ √ A3, C1 

201 8590 Regional Road 86 √ √ A1, C1 



58 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

185 8087 Perth Line 147 √ √ A3, C1 

196 4894 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

197 4891 Perth Line 83 √ √ √ 

A1, A4, 

B4, C1

206 7848 Perth Road 131 √ √ A1, C1 

207 4640 Perth Line 83 √ √ A5, C1 

211 4623 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

222 7808 Perth Road 131 √ √ A3, C1 

223 7793 Perth Road 131 √ √ A1, C1 

225 7786 Perth Road 131 √ √ A3, C1 

228 7720 Perth Road 131 √ √ A3, C1 

231 4652 Perth Line 80 √ √ A1, C1 

232 4620 Perth Lin e80 √ √ A1, C1 

59 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

205 7870 Perth Road 131 √ √ A3, C1

238 4762 Perth Line 80 √ √ A6, C1 

241 4817 Perth Line 80 (church) √ B2 

246 4719 Perth Line 83 √ √ A3, C1 

247 4678 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

258 4688 Perth Line 76 √ √ A3, C1 

266 4859 Perth Line 76 √ √ A3, C1 

267 4884 Perth Line 76 √ √ A3, C1 

60 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

235 4662 Perth Line 80 (former school) √ B1 

259 4731 Perth Line 76 √ √ A1, C1 

261 4800 Perth Line 76 √ √ √ 

A1, A4, 

B4, C1

276 4604 Perth Line 76 √ √ A1, C1 

278 4534 Perth Line 76 √ √ A3, C1 

280 7302 Road 129 √ √ A3, C1 

283 4373 Perth Line 76 √ √ A1, C1 

284 4376 Perth Line 76 √ √ A1, C1 

285 4349 Perth Line 76 √ √ A1, C1 

296 7374 Road 121 √ √ A5, C1 

61 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

269 5072 Perth Line 76 √ √ A3, C1 

297 7386 Road 121 (church) √ B2 

298 4059 Perth Line 76 √ √ √ 

A3, A4, 

B4, C1

307 6234 Schummer Line √ √ A3, A1 

310 6160 Schummer Line √ √ A1, C1 


313 3134 Chalmers-Forrest Road √ √ A3, C1 

316 5899/5903 Schummer Line √ √ A6, C1 

320 5790 Schummer Line (former school) √ B1 




62 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

303 7278 Road 116 √ √ A1, C1

352 3379 Hutchison Road √ √ A1, C1 

353 3378 Hutchison Road √ √ A1, C1 

354 3497 Hutchison Road (school) √ B1 

63 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 





341 4850 Schummer Line √ √ √ 

348 4470 Boomer Line √ √ √ 

350 4378 Boomer Line √ √ √ 

A1, A4, 

B4, C1 

A1, A4, 

B4, C1 

A3, A4, 

B4, C1

374 5131 Buehler Line √ √ A1, C1 



390 5737 Buehler Line (school) √ B1 

64 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

359 4550 Ament Line √ √ A1, C1 

360 4551 Ament Line √ √ A6, C1 

363 4401 Ament Line √ √ B2 

364 4347 Ament Line √ √ √ 

367 4198 Lavery Road √ √ 

373 3030 Buehler Line √ √ √ 

A1, A4, 

B4, C1 

A1, A 4, 

C1 

A3, A4, 

B4, C1



397 4311 Chalmers-Forrest Road √ √ A1, C1 




406 6252 Buehler Line √ B2 

65 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 


408 7793 Road 116 √ √ A1, C1 

409 3954 Perth Line 83 √ √ √ 

A1, A4, 

B4, C1

417 4079 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

419 4085 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

421 4091B Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

422 4097 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

424 4104 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

426 4110 Perth Line 83 √ √ A3, C1 

427 4112 Perth Line 83 (school) √ B1 

428 4116 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

431 4124 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

66 







Question 










institution? 









Notes 



A landmark? 



A1, A4, 

B4, C1 

BF# Property 

412 4022 Perth Line 83 √ √ √

448 4107 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

449 4105 Perth Line 83 (church) √ √ √ 

450 7831 Perth Road 121 √ √ A3, C1 

452 7850 Perth Road 121 √ √ A1, C1 

460 7892 Perth Road 121 (church) √ B2 

466 4198 Perth Line 83 √ √ A3, C1 

468 4226 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

469 4233 Perth Line 83 √ √ A3, C1 

470 4254 Perth Line 83 √ √ A3, C1 

A1, B2, 

C3 

67 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

446 4113 Perth Line 83 √ √ A3, C1

473 4315 Perth Line 83 √ √ A3, C1 

474 4344 Perth Line 83 √ √ A1, C1 

489 4722 Posey Line √ √ A1, C1 

491 4485 Posey Line √ √ A1, C1 

499 3991 Posey Line √ √ A5, C1 

506 3668 Lawson Road √ √ A1, C1 

513 4107 Moser-Young Road (former school) √ B1 

68 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

471 4304 Perth Line 83 (school) √ B2 

476 4498 Perth Line 83 √ √ A3, C1 

488 4299 Lavery Road √ √ √ 

A1, A4, 

B4, C1

519 3874 Moser-Young Road √ √ A6, C1 

530 3347 Ament Line √ √ A3, C1 

531 3363 Ament Line √ √ A5, C1 

538 1002 Geddes Street √ √ A6, C1 

539 3590 Ament Line √ √ A5, C1 

547 3700 Herrgott Road √ √ A6, C1 

69 







Question 










institution? 











A landmark? 



Notes 

BF# Property 

515 4100 Moser-Young Road (church) √ B2

Table 2c - Notes for Criteria for Determination of Heritage Value or Interest 

A. Design Value or Physical Value 

A1a House is representative of mid to late 19 th century Gothic Revival style or type found in 

rural southwestern Ontario. 

A1b Church is representative of mid to late 19 th century Gothic Revival style or type. 

A2 Barn(s) is (are) representative of mid-19 th to early 20 th century timber-frame farming 

structures that are found in this area. 

A3 Late Victorian / Edwardian classicism house is representative of early 20 th century style or 

type and the continuing evolution of the style of rural homes found in southwestern 

Ontario. 

A4 House is representative of the evolution of homes to accommodate multi-generational 

Mennonite families. 

A5 House is representative of a simple vernacular style or type found in rural southwestern 

Ontario in mid to late 19 th century. 

A6 Italianate style house is representative of a 1870 to 1890s type and the continuing 

evolution of the style of rural homes found in southwestern Ontario. 

A7 House is representative of early 20 th century style or type and the continuing evolution of 

rural homes found in southwestern Ontario. 

A8 Roadscape provides an opportunity to view the interesting agricultural landscape. 

B. Historical Value or Associative Value 

B1 

B2 

B3 

B4 

B5 

B6 

School makes an important contribution to demonstrating the historic importance of local 

education in the late 19 th century and early 20 th century. 

Church makes an important contribution to demonstrating the historic importance of 

religion in the area. 

Directly associated with the religious life of the area. 

Illustrates the connection and impact that Mennonites have had in this part of Ontario. 

Contributes to an understanding of the history, especially at the family or individual level, 

of the area. 

Building is associated with the importance of fraternal associations in rural Ontario 

especially in the 19 th century. 

C. Contextual Value 

C1 

C2 

C3 

C4 

Contributes to the character of the rural landscape of the area. 

Barns contribute to the later 19th century to mid-20 th century agricultural landscape of 

the area. 

The church is a landmark because of its prominent location, imposing built form and 

importance within the community. 

Contributes to the scenic and picturesque notion of the rural landscape of the area. 

70

TABLE 4 – CHAIN OF TITLE FOR LOTS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA 

Table 4.1 – Concession I, Lot 57, (South Half). 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 






12055 Grant Jul. 11, 

1905 

12541 Grant Feb. 16, 

1907 

13139 Grant Mar. 12, 

1909 


1973 

Table 4.2 – Concession II, Lot 32 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Crown Thomas Mann Sr. S ½ 

1866 

Thomas Mann Sr. James W. Huff $372 S ½ 

1869 et ux 

James W. Huff et Samuel Mayberry $1500 S ½ 

1873 ux 

Estate of Trustees of U.S.S. $40 ½ ac. of N 

1875 Stephen Borton No. 1, Elma 

½ 

Samuel 

Thomas Gibb and $1800 S ½ 

1876 Mayberry et ux Mary Jane Gibb 

Estate of Mary Robert J. Gray $8900 S ½ 

Jane Gibb 


al 


al 


et ux 

The Guelph and 

Goderich Railway 

Company 

Willis Johnson & 

son John E. 

$121.50 Pt. of S ½ 

$9600 S ½ &Other 

Lands (OL) 

Johnson 

Wallace J. Storry $30,000 S ½ &Other 

Lands (OL) 


other 

Remarks 

Crown Samuel Mayberry 100 ac 

1872 

Samuel Mayberry James Keating $3000 100 ac 

1880 

James Keating et James Mayberry $4000 100 ac 

1887 ux 

James Mayberry David E. Lennox $3300 100 ac 

Patent May 21, 

4889 B&S Nov. 22, 

6073 B&S Jan. 1, 

20299 Grant Sep. 12, 

1944 

139101 Grant Oct. 7, 

1968 

David E. Lennox Donald C. Gibson $25,000 100 ac 

71


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 

24 Grant Jan 1, 


1157 Patent Feb. 11, 







1883 

13270 Will Sep. 22, 

1909 

13588 Will Oct. 29, 

1910 


1943 

21983 Will Sep. 20, 

1952 

21985 Agmt. Nov. 24, 

For 1952 

sale 

73152 Will Oct. 15, 

1955 


Instru. 

# 

Instru 

. type 

Paten 

t 


other 

Remarks 

Nathan Coghlin John Coghlin 100 ac 

1859 

Crown Archibald J. Keillor W ½ 

1865 

Crown Peter Coghlin E ½ 

1868 

Peter Coghlin Robert Cleland Sr. $900 E ½ 

1870 

Archibald J. Keillor John Aiken $1000 W ½ 

1873 

John Aiken William Burton $1000 W ½ 

1873 

William Burton Nathaniel Harris $1800 W ½ 

1878 

Nathaniel Harris James Tudhope $1775 W ½ 

1883 

James Tudhope Thomas M. Jickling $1775 W ½ 

Walter Jickling, 

exor. Thomas 

Jickling 

Exors. Robert 

Cleland Sr. 

Robert Cleland Jr. 

William and 

Christina Cleland 

Donald R. Cleland 

Exors. Walter 

Jickling 

Walter Jickling $1 W ½ 

Robert Cleland Jr. $1 E ½ 

William and $1 E ½ 

Christina Cleland 

Donald R. Cleland $1 E ½ 

The Andrew 

Nicholson 

Furniture Co. Ltd. 

$1 and 

other considerations 

10 ac. E ½ 

Roger F. Dickson $1 W 1/2 


other 

Remarks 

Jul. 9, Crown John G. Alexander 200 ac 

1869 

72

3635 Grant May. 10, 

1877 

4545 Agmt. Jan. 14, 

For 1880 

sale 

of 

timbe 

r 

108499 Grant Jul. 28, 

1901 

17304 Grant Jun. 26, 

1926 

18096 Grant Jun. 26, 

1931 

12929 Grant Jan. 23, 

1937 

155348 Grant Jul. 7, 

1971 

John G. Alexander S&H Railroad $167 Pt. lot 

Company 

John G. Alexander Andrew Nicholson $400 Pt. lot 

Exors. John G. 

Alexander 

George Sanderson $3200 200 ac 

Exors. George Sarah and 

$1 200 ac 

Sanderson Margaret McMillan 

Sarah and Allan Weber $1 200 ac due 

Margaret 

to 

McMillan 

defaulted 

mtg. 

Allan Weber Glen Weber $3000 200 ac. 

Glen Weber Arnold A. Noble $1 200 ac. 

Table 4.5 – Concession V, Lot 22 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 

84 Patent Jan. 7, 

149 B&S Feb. 27, 


689 B&S Jul. 18, 

1327 B&S Nov. 27, 

2495 B&S Feb. 7, 

20193 Grant Apl. 12, 

1944 


1961 


other 

Remarks 

Crown Barbara Capling 100 ac 

1861 

Barbara Capling William Capling $3000 100 ac 

1863 

William Capling Robert Wallace $3000 100 ac 

1864 

Robert Wallace John Murray $3000 100 ac 

1865 

John Murray Robert Forrest $3000 100 ac 

1869 

Robert Forrest James Porterfield $5200 100 ac + 

1874 

OL 

Exors. James Robert Galbraith $8000 100 ac + 

Porterfield 

OL 

Robert Galbraith John Galbraith $4000 100 ac + 

OL 

73

207783 Grant Jan. 2, 

1977 

Doris Galbraith 

et al, Exors. John 

Galbraith 

Galbraith Farms 

Ltd. 

$33,333 100 ac + 

OL 


Instru. 

# 

Instru 

. type 


other 

Remarks 

Much of the land registry documentation here is illegible. The records of some ownership 


Grant 1855 Philip Donohue John B. Hyde 100 ac 

55 Grant Sep. 22, John B. Hyde John Schmidt $500 (Not 100 ac 

Paten 

t 

1859 

certain) 

1864 Crown John Schmidt 100 ac 

1868 John Schmidt Stephen Cossens 100 ac 

1873 Stephen Cossens Andrew 

100 ac 

Newbigging 

1906 Andrew 

John Newbigging 

100 ac 

Newbigging 

1911 John Newbigging Robert J. Farrell 100 ac 

20884 Grant Jul. 3, Robert J. Farrell Russell Farrell $6000 100 ac 

1945 

1954 Russell Farrell John W. Galbraith 100 ac 

207783 Grant Jan. 2, 

1977 

Galbraith Farms 

Ltd. 

$33,333 100 ac + 

OL 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 

Doris Galbraith et 

al, Exors. John 

Galbraith 


other 

Remarks 

Some of the land registry documentation here is illegible. The records of some ownership 


1895 Deed June 29, Warden and John McCauley $500 100 ac 

1871 Treasurer 

7291 B&S Jan. 17, John McCauley Samuel McCauley $2000 100 ac 

1889 

Patent Jan. 12, Crown John McCauley 100 ac 

1889 

10736 Grant Jun. 4, 

1900 

Samuel 

McCauley 

Richard M. Long $2000 100 ac 

74

10737 Grant Apl. 3, Richard M. Long Henry McNichol S ½ 

1901 

10738 Grant Apl. 3, Richard M. Long George Jarvis N ½ 

1901 

11581 Grant Mar. 3, George Jarvis Charles McNichol N ½ 

1904 

1935 Charles 

Eli and Dalton $3500 N ½ + OL 

McNichol Pitz, through The 

Agricultural 

Development 

Board 

18932 Deed Nov. 19, 

1936 

$3500 N ½ + OL 

Eli and Dalton 

Pitz and 

spouses 

John McNichol, 

through The 

Commission of 

Agricultural Loans 

Grant Henry McNichol John E. Barton S ½ 

(property 

received 

by Barton 

due to 

lapsed 

mortgage) 

22028 Grant Mar. 18, 

1953 

22240 Grant Aug. 13, 

1953 

22523 Grant Jun. 15, 

1955 

John E. Barton John S. Cole $12000 S ½ 

John S. Cole et 

ux 

Table 4.8 – Concession VII, Lot 26 (East Half) 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 

1245 Patent Jun. 17, 

Patent Jun. 5, 

2743 B&S Nov. 24, 

1876 

6127 B&S Dec. 2, 

1884 

The Director, 

Veteran’s Land 

Act 

$8500 S ½ 

John McNichol Hendrick J. Zyta $1 and other 

consideration 

N ½ 


other 

Remarks 

Crown Thomas Smith W ½ 

1868 

Crown James Hammond E ½ 

1874 

James Hammond George Hammond $1 E ½ 

George 

Hammond et ux 

William Hammond $2000 E ½ 

75

10534 Deed Dec. 12, 

1900 

11661 B&S Apl. 18, 

1904 

17774 B&S Apl. 18, 

1904 

15470 Deed May 13, 

1918 

15849 Grant Dec. 13, 

1919 


1943 

20886 Grant Jul. 28, 

1947 

175418 Grant Mar. 29, 

1974 


Hammond 

William J. 

Hammond, his 

son. 

$2674 E ½ 

Abraham Baker $2000 E ½ 

William J. 

Hammond 

Abraham Baker John J. Hammond $2700 E ½ 

John J. 

Hammond 


Hammond 


Harvey Parker 

and Meredith 

Livingston 

W. Elmer 

Johnston 

Albert E. 

$7500 E ½ 

Hammond 

Nolton C. Parker $8800 E ½ 


Meredith 

Livingston 

$1500 E ½ 

W. Elmer Johnston $10,000 E ½ 

G. Donald & 

Carolyn Horshel 

$100,000 E ½ 

Table 4.9 – Concession VII, Lot 27 (West part) 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


2662 B&S Jul. 24, 

1874 

2742 B&S Nov. 24, 

1874 


1882 

11538 Deed Dec. 4, 

1903 

15470 Deed May 13, 

1918 

15849 Grant Dec. 13, 

1919 


other 

Remarks 

Crown James Hammond All, + OL 

1874 

James Hammond William Hammond $200 20 easterly 

acres 

James Hammond Edward Hammond $1 80 

westerly 

acres 

Edward 

Hammond 


Hammond 

John J. 

Hammond 


Hammond 

William Hammond $315 10 acres 

off the E 

pt. of the 

W pt. 

John J. Hammond $1 W 70 ac. 

Albert E. 

$7500 W 70 ac. 

Hammond 

Nolton C. Parker $8800 W 70 ac. 

76


1943 

20886 Grant Jul. 28, 

1947 

175418 Grant Mar. 29, 

1974 


Harvey Parker 

and Meredith 

Livingston 

W. Elmer 

Johnston 


Meredith 

Livingston 

$1500 W 70 ac. 

W. Elmer Johnston $10,000 W 70 ac. 

G. Donald & 

Carolyn Horshel 

$100,000 W 70 ac. 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


7585 Patent Jan. 2, 

30263 Will Nov. 22, 


79788 Grant Feb. 22, 

1957 

298128 Trans. May. 30, 

1989 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Crown Francis Curtis 100 ac 

1863 

Francis Curtis et Algernon and $500 100 ac 

1889 ux 

Frederick Curtis 

Exors. Frederick Bessie Curtis $6500 100 ac 

1921 Curtis 

Bessie Curtis Walter m. Scott $6200 100 ac 

1923 

Walter M. Scott Carl and Phyllis $21000 100 ac 


Bentley 

Bentley 

Danny and Ethel 

Bentley 

$236,043 100 ac 


other 

Remarks 

Crown 

Newson 

100 ac 

1879 

Richardson 

Exors. Newson John Adams $4000 100 ac 

1895 Richardson 

John Adams Robert S. 

$5000 100 ac 

1900 

Ballantyne 

Robert S. William Hume $6000 100 ac 

1915 Ballantyne 

William Hume John J. Hymers $1 100 ac 

Patent Dec. 20, 

9004 B&S Apl. 2, 

10334 B&S Apl. 2, 

14725 B&S Mar. 10, 


1935 

19219 Grant Dec. 28, 

1938 

John J. Hymers Olive M. Parrish $4900 100 ac 

77


1951 

80874 Grant Mar. 14, 

1957 

Olive M. Parrish George H. Parrish $1 100 ac 

George H. Parrish 

Dirk & Wilempje 

Van Leeuwen 

$1 100 ac 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 

218 Patent Sep. 20, 

1264 B&S Oct. 1, 

8136 B&S Jul. 4, 

8392 B&S Jul. 1, 

8847 B&S Nov. 3, 

12809 B&S Mar. 3, 

13119 B&S Mar. 1, 

14277 B&S Mar. 15, 

1913 


1919 

15807 Grant Oct. 24, 

1919 


1921 


1921 


1924 

17738 Grant Mar. 20, 

1929 


1932 

19422 Grant Apl. 30, 

1940 


other 

Remarks 

Crown 

Alexander 

100 ac 

1862 

McTavish 

Alexander Thomas Gibson $1800 

1868 McTavish 

Exors. Thomas George 

$4800 

1892 Gibson 

Hargreaves 

George 

William H. Jolly $1200 

1873 Hargreaves 

William H. Jolly George Hume $1680 

1894 

George Hume William Hume $3300 

1908 

William Hume William G. Dickson $6700 

1909 

William G. William Inglis $6700 

Dickson 

William G. Inglis 

The Soldier 

Settlement Board 

of Canada 

$4700 E pt. 

William G. Inglis William Hume $2700 W pt. 

The Soldier 

Settlement 

Board of Canada 

R. Roy Cleland $4700 E pt. 

R. Roy Cleland Sidney R. Bisset $5500 E pt. 

Sidney R. Bisset John H. Reid $5500 E pt. 

John H. Reid Robert Stone $5000 E pt. 

William Hume Henry Duncan $1 W pt. 

Henry Duncan Robert Stone $1500 W pt. 

78


1943 

Robert Stone James Henderson $7000 All 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


738 B&S Jul. 12, 

1139 B&S Jan. 13, 

1335 B&S Feb. 18, 

7257 B&S Jan. 3, 

9959 B&S Dec. 29, 

21692 Grant Dec. 29, 

127993 Grant Mar. 30, 

1967 

189801 Grant Jan. 5, 

1976 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 

752 Patent Apl. 15, 

2412 B&S Sep. 26, 

4943 B&S Mar. 14, 


other 

Remarks 

Crown William F. Murray 100 ac 

1862 

William F. Thomas C. Kerr & $225 100 ac 

1866 Murray 

John Brown 

Thomas C. Kerr & John Innes $825 100 ac 

1865 John Brown MacKenzie 

John Innes William Forrest $825 100 ac 

1869 MacKenzie 

William Forrest William Little $4800 100 ac 

1889 

William Little Michael Little $2000 100 ac 

1898 

Michael Little John Maurice Little $1 100 ac 

1950 

John Maurice J. Michael Little $1 100 ac 

Little 

John M. Little 

John M. Little and 

Patricia A. Little 

$20,000 100 ac 


other 

Remarks 

Crown Robert Mills 100 ac 

1865 

Robert Mills et Joseph Mills $2000 W ½ 

1873 ux 

Robert Mills James Fisher $109 E ½ 

1881 

Mary J. Thomas $1825 E ½ 

ux 

Joseph Mills Francis R. Curtis $7138 W ½ 

5027 B&S Jun. 27, James Fisher et 

5321 B&S Apl. 3, 

1882 

7577 B&S Dec. 28, 

1889 

Mary Jane 

Thomas 

Francis R. Curtis $1 E ½ 

79


1905 

16452 Grant Feb. 25, 

1922 

16943 Grant Jan. 30, 

1924 


1930 

18703 Grant Apl. 

1935 


1939 

145983 Grant Dec. 29, 

1969 

Exors. Francis R. 

Curtis 

William Matheson $5000 100 ac 

William 

Walter C. Sage $5000 100 ac 

Matheson 

Walter C. Sage Charles McNichol $3000 100 ac 

Charles McNichol Robert Buchanan $3000 100 ac 

Robert Buchanan Thomas Buchanan $1 100 ac 

Thomas 

Leslie and Mary $2500 100 ac 

Buchanan Hymers 

Mary Hymers John M. Zyta $18,000 100 ac 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 

217 Patent Aug. 25, 


13026 Grant Nov. 21, 

14064 Grant Apl. 10, 


1920 

229037 Grant Jun. 12, 

1979 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


11073 Will May 27, 

1896 

12245 Deed May 22, 

1903 


other 

Remarks 

Crown 

William Morrison 

1862 

William Morrison Archibald Simpson $1675 

1866 

Archibald William A. $4000 

1908 Simpson 

Simpson 

William A. Joseph Blatchford $7000 

1912 Simpson 

Joseph 

William J. 

$7500 

Blatchford 

William J. 

Blatchford 

Blatchford 

Joseph C. And 

Brenda Y. 

Blatchford 

$65,000 


other 

Remarks 

Crown Hugh Wilson 100 ac 

1886 

Hugh Wilson Ann Wilson $1 100 ac 

Ann Wilson Hugh Wilson Jr. $1 100 ac 

80

15667 Grant Mar. 15, 

1919 


1931 

18058 Grant Mar. 10, 

1931 


1946 

83134 Grant Mar. 26, 

1958 

160329 Grant Feb. 15, 

1972 

Hugh Wilson Jr. Edwin W. Leslie $7150 100 ac 

Edwin W. Leslie 

Hugh Wilson Jr. 

Estate 

W. Joseph 

Acheson 

Samuel m. 

Acheson 

Henry R. 

Danbrook 

Hugh Wilson Jr. 

Estate 

$1 100 ac 

W. Joseph $4500 100 ac 

Acheson 

Samuel M. $1 100 ac 

Acheson 

Henry R. Danbrook $1 100 ac 

Murray and Jean 

Allin 

$1 100 ac 


Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


other 

Remarks 

Crown 

John Nixon 

1864 

John Nixon Donegal Wesleyan $1 ½ ac 

1864 


John Nixon Samuel Vipond $1800 99 ½ ac 

1872 

Samuel Vipond Elisha G. Harris $5 ½ ac 

1876 

Elisha G. Harris Samuel Vipond $30 ½ ac 

Patent Mar. 29, 

676 B&S May 4, 

1960 B&S Mar. 26, 

3177 B&S Mar. 28, 

5418 B&S Feb. 16, 

1887 

15902 Grant Feb. 25, 

1920 

17642 Grant Jun. 30, 

1923 

13517 Grant Jan. 26, 

1955 

Exors. Samuel 

Vipond 

Emerson Vipond 

and other 

trustees of 

Donegal 

Methodist 

Church 

S. John Vipond, 

Exor. Emerson 

Vipond 

Emerson Vipond $1 All ex. Part 

for 

cemetery 

Donegal Cemetery $1 ½ ac 

Angus Matheson $1 All ex. Part 

for 

cemetery 

81

Table 4.18 – Concession X, Lot 18 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


2423 Deed Sep. 30, 

3145 Deed Mar. 1, 

6313 Deed Sep. 1, 

6313 Deed Sep. 1, 

11157 Deed Jun. 1, 

13918 Deed Nov. 1, 

14181 B&S Dec. 9, 

14588 B&S Jul. 4, 

14797 B&S Jul. 28, 


20689 Grant Jul. 31, 

119652 Grant Jun. 28, 

1965 

133430 Grant Jan. 4, 

1968 


other 

Remarks 

Crown 

Arthur Gordon 

1863 

Arthur Gordon James Redford $2800 100 ac 

1873 

James Redford Charles McMane $2800 

1876 

Sr. 

Charles McMane Charles McMane $1 East 25 ac 

1885 Sr. 

Jr. 

Charles McMane Robert McMane $1 West 75 ac 

1885 Sr. 

Robert McMane Charles H 

$1 West 75 ac 

1902 

McMane 

Charles McMane Norman and Allan $1 East 25 ac 

1911 Jr. 

McMane 

Norman and Allan William and Allan $11,000 East 25 ac 

1912 McMane 

McMane 

William and Allan Charles McMane $11,000 East 25 ac 

1914 McMane 

Jr. 

Exors. Robert Charles H. $1800 West 75 ac 

1915 McMane 

McMane 

Allan R. McMane Frederick R. Long $3950 East 25 ac 

1944 

Charles H. The Director, $6000 West 75 ac 

1946 McMane 


The Director, John G. Whyte $1 West 75 ac 

Table 4.19 – Concession X, Lot 23 (East 25 ac.) 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


5681 B&S Apl. 21, 

1883 

5683 B&S Apl. 21, 

1883 


Frederick R. Long William F. Long $28,000 East 25 ac 


other 

Remarks 

Crown 

John Sydney Smith 

1862 

John Sydney Adam Gray Sr. $2555 E ½ 

Smith 

John Sydney 

Smith 

John C. Flood $10110 W ½ 

82

8073 B&S Oct. 22, 

1891 

10325 B&S Jul. 30, 

1900 

10325 B&S Jul. 30, 

1900 

20337 Grant Mar. 19, 

1945 

20605 Grant Mar. 29, 

1946 

135236 Grant Jun. 21, 

1968 

John C. Flood Robert Gray $1100 W ½ 

Adam Gray Jr. Robert Gray $1 W ½ of E ½ 

Adam Gray Jr. Adam Gray Jr. $1 E ½ of E ½, 

25 ac 

Adam Gray Jr. John E. Rock $6000 E ½ of E ½, 

25 ac 

John E. Rock Gordon Danbrook $6250 E ½ of E ½, 

25 ac 

Gordon 

Russell E. 

$1 E ½ of E ½, 

Danbrook Danbrook 

25 ac 

Table 4.20 – Concession I, Lot 57 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


2657 B&S Jul. 7, 

2677 B&S Sep. 3, 

2844 B&S Mar. 24, 

10325 B&S Jul. 23, 

11066 Will Jul. 20, 

14129 B&S Mar. 1, 


20337 Grant Mar. 19, 

20605 Grant Mar. 29, 

1946 

135236 Grant Jun. 21, 

1968 


other 

Remarks 

Crown William Anderson 100 ac 

1874 

William Anderson John Tawse $600 W ½ 

1874 

John Tawse William S. Cowan $1100 W ½ 

1874 

William S. Cowan Adam Gray Sr. $1450 W ½ 

1875 

Adam Gray Sr. Adam Gray Jr. $1 W ½ 

1892 

William Anderson Hugh Anderson $1 E ½ 

1894 

Hugh Anderson James Anderson $1 E ½ 

1912 

Exors. James Adam Gray Jr. $4700 E ½ 

1919 Anderson 

Adam Gray Jr. John E. Rock $6000 100 ac + 

1945 

OL 

John E. Rock Gordon Danbrook $6250 100 ac + 

Gordon Danbrook Russell E. 

Danbrook 

OL 

$1 100 ac + 

OL 

83

Table 4.21 – Mornington Concession XI, Lot 6 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 


475 Patent Jun. 21, 

497 B&S Jun. 20, 

831 B&S Apl. 6, 

819 B&S Jun. 9, 

1071 B&S Apl. 6, 

1266 B&S Feb. 3, 

1873 

1600 B&S Jun. 12, 

1878 

2676 B&S Feb. 10, 

1879 

6027 B&S Feb. 29, 

1896 


1900 


1906 


1928 


1934 


1940 


other 

Remarks 

Crown 

James Grayson 

N ½ 

1864 

Smith 

Crown Samuel Watson S ½ 

1865 

James Grayson William Clark $1800 N ½ 

1866 Smith 

William Clark Alexander $800 N ½ 

1869 

Patterson 

Alexander William Johnston $1500 N 25 ac of 

1896 Patterson 

lot 

William Johnston Benjamin 

$1800 N 25 ac of 

1870 

Johnston 

lot 

Alexander John Glenn $3000 S 75 ac of 

Patterson 

Samuel Watson 

Alexander 

Patterson and 

other trustees of 

the Church 

N ½ 

$60 ½ acre for 

church 

grounds 

John Glenn John Campbell $3600 S 75 ac of 

N ½ 

Samuel Watson Levi Watson $4000 S ½ exlu. 

Church 

grounds 

John Campbell Levi Watson $3200 S ½ of N ½, 

50 ac 

Benjamin 

Robert Gamble $4800 N ¼ 

Johnston 

(and son James in 

Levi Watson 

1922) 

Elton Gordie 

(Mortgage with 

the Perth 

Insurance 

Company) 

$9000 S ¾, 149 ½ 

ac, subject 

to 

mortgage 


Company 

Levi Watson $3800 S ¾, 149 ½ 

ac 

Levi Watson George Bast $5150 S ¾, 149 ½ 

ac 

84


1946 


1957 


1956 

112796 Grant Jun. 23, 

1964 

George Bast 




Mornington 

$3500 Pt. S ¾, ¾ 

of an acre 

James Gamble L. Douglas Taumer $5000 N ¼ 

George Bast 




Mornington 

Dermond Bast et 

ux 

$18,000 S ¾ 

Frederick H. Pugh $1300 Pt. S ¾, ¾ 

of an acre 

Table 4.22 – Mornington Concession XII, Lot 5 (North Half) 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 





10081 Grant Mar. 31, 

10320 Grant Apl. 23, 

12710 Grant Dec. 10, 

13420 Grant Dec. 10, 

1946 

14363 Grant Apl. 23, 

1953 


other 

Remarks 

Crown Alexander Glenn S ½ 

1868 

Crown William Campbell N ½ 

1876 

William Campbell William Campbell $6000 N ½ 

1884 Sr. 

Jr. 

William Campbell James Riddell $4100 N ½ 

1904 Jr. 

James Riddell Albert Johnston $9000 N ½ 

1919 

Albert Johnston Benjamin 

$3000 N ½ 

1920 

Johnston 

Benjamin 

Austine Rennie $4300 N ½ 

1941 Johnston 

Austine Rennie Alexander Fritz et $5500 N ½ 

Alexander Fritz et 

ux 

ux 

Jerome Frielung $1 N ½ 

85

Table 4.23 – Concession XIII, Lot 4 

Instru. 

# 

Instru. 

type 

Patent Jul. 31, 


other 

Remarks 

Crown Alexander Walker N 125 ac 

1862 

Crown John Gibron S 75 ac 

1868 

John Gibron Robert Moore $970 S 75 ac 

1869 

Robert Moore James Moore (26 $1 S 75 ac 

1903 

years old) 

Exors. Alexander Edward Wood $4900 N 125 ac 

Patent Mar. 25, 

815 B&S Mar. 5, 

7712 Will Aug. 5, 

10113 Will Jan. 30, 

1919 

11876 Deed Mar. 18, 

1933 

12974 Grant Jan. 19, 

1944 


1944 


1947 


1956 

Walker 

Edward Wood 


Development 

Board 


Development 

Board 

$1 N 125 ac 

Albert Tindall $4500 N 125 ac 

James Moore Frederick W. Ellis $4000 S 75 ac 

Frederick W. Ellis Earl Gabel $4000 S 75 ac 

Albert Tindall Donald Hoffman $7000 N 125 ac 

86

Map 1 – Study Area (orange) and Turbine Locations for Conestogo Wind Energy Centre 

87

Map 2 – Study Area and Transmission Line Routes 

88

Map 3 – Location of Study Area 

General Location of 

Study Area 

89

Map 4 – Key Map for Feature Locations 

90

Map 4a – Feature Locations 

91

Map 4b – Feature Locations 

92

Map 4c – Feature Locations 

93

Map 4d – Feature Locations 

94

Map 4e – Feature Locations 

95

Map 4f – Feature Locations 

96

Map 4g – Feature Locations 

97

Map 4h – Feature Locations 

98

Figure 1 – Perth County (Location of Elma and Mornington Townships) 

99

Figure 2 – Elma and Mornington Townships 

100

Figure 3 – Historic Map of Elma Township, 1878 (Project Area outlined in black) 

101

Figure 4 – Historic Map of Elma Township, 1917 (Project Area outlined in black) 

102

Figure 5 – Historic Map of Mornington Township, 1878 (Project Area outlined in black) 

103

Figure 6 – Current Map of Mornington Township 

104

Figure 7 – Index Map: Concession I Lot 57, and Concession 2 Lot 32 

105

Figure 8 – Index Maps: Elma, Concession VI, Lot 22, 29 and 32,Concession V, Lot 22; Concession 

IV, Lot 22; Concession VII, Lot 26 and 27 

106

Figure 9 – Index Maps: Elma, Concession IX Lot 19 and Concession X Lot 18 

107

Figure 10 – Index Maps: Concession VIII Lots 21-23, 27, and 29, Concession IX Lots 22 and 27, 

and Concession X Lots 23 and 24 

108

Figure 11 – Index Maps: Mornington Township, Concession XI Lot 6, Concession XII Lot 5, and 

Concession XIII Lot 4 

109

Figure 12 – S.S. 6 North Mornington School: Concession XI, Lot 6; see section 3.4.21 

Figure 13 – Roy McMane, Cy Harvey, and J Blatchford woodcutting in Elma on Conc X, Lot 18 

110

Figure 14 – Little Family House in Elma on Concession VIII Lot 27 (west part); see section 3.4.13, 

and also BF#120 – 5427 Line 75, Map #146 

Figure 15 – George and Olive Parrish and Family in Elma on Conc VIII, Lot 22. See section 3.4.11 

111

Figure 16 – James Mayberry and wife lived in Elma, Conc II, Lot 32. See section 3.4.2 

112

Draft Construction Plan Report - Invenergy

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?