archaeological potential pending Stage 2 field inspection, a separate map detailing zones of archaeological potential is not provided herein (as per Section 7.7.4 Standard 1 and 7.7.6 Standards 1 and 2 of 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists).

3.0    STAGE 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

3.1     Field Methods

All fieldwork was undertaken in good weather and lighting conditions. No conditions were encountered that would hinder the identification or recovery of artifacts. The property boundaries were determined in the field based on proponent mapping, landscape features, aerial photography, existing fencing and GPS coordinates.

The portion of the subject property consisting of non-ploughable grass was recommended for test pit survey at a 5 m transect interval. It was anticipated that test pits measuring at least 30 cm (shovel-width) would be excavated through the first 5 cm of subsoil with all fill screened through 6 mm hardware cloth. Once screening was finished, the stratigraphy in the test pits would be examined and then the pits backfilled as best as possible, tamped down by foot and shovel and re-capped with sod. Test pitting extended up to 1 m from all standing features, including trees and fences, when present. It was anticipated that when cultural material was found, the test pit survey would be intensified (reduced to 2.5 m) to determine the size of the site. If not enough archaeological materials were recovered from the intensification test pits, a 1 m2 test unit would be excavated atop of one of the positive test pits to gather additional information.

Deep disturbance was encountered throughout the grassed area of the subject property and consequently, the transect interval was increased to 10 m (Image 1; 0.02 ha; 6%). The disturbed test pits within the property consisted of approximately 5 cm of brown sand with modern debris over an impenetrable gravel layer (Image 2). No intact soil layers were encountered within the subject property.

As per Section 2.1, Standard 2 of the Standards and Guidelines (MTC 2011:28-29), certain physical features and deep land alterations are considered as having low archaeological potential and are thus exempt from the standard test pit survey.

Approximately 94% (0.32 ha) of the subject property consists of an existing structure and parking lot (Images 3 to 7); these were recorded as disturbed and photo-documented.

Map 19 illustrates the Stage 2 field conditions and assessment methods; the location and orientation of all photographs appearing in this report are also shown on this map. Map 20 presents the Stage 2 results on the proponent mapping. Unaltered proponent maps are presented as Maps 3 and 4.