Section 13

SECTION 13
ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Environmental Assessment Certificate Application for the RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit Project
13
13.1
Archaeological Impact Assessment

Executive Summary
This section of the EAC Application presents the results of an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) of the RAV line, conducted by Millennia Research Limited in 2003. The objectives of the assessment were to identify and evaluate the extent and significance of archaeological deposits within the RAV Project area, if any, and to propose management recommendations that could be used to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts from the development. The AIA was conducted under the terms and conditions of the BC Heritage Conservation Act and permits from the Musqueam Indian Band and Sto:lo Nation. The study area is located within the traditional territories of the Musqueam Indian Band, the Squamish Nation, the Sto:lo Nation, the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. Field work for the assessment was completed during September 2003. The AIA involved a field survey conducted on foot and from vehicles, as well as an examination of geotechnical samples. No cultural deposits were identified in either the field survey or the core sample examination. The assessment results generally support the Low/Moderate potential rankings presented in earlier Archaeological Overview Assessments (AOAs) (Alexander 2003; Wada 2003; Woods 2003). It should be noted, however, that some areas with potential for deeply buried deposits could not be tested and core logs and core samples cannot be used as the sole means of site detection. Therefore, there is a small possibility that archaeological sites are present but undiscovered within the RAV development zone. Potential impacts to known archaeological sites were not identified during the assessment and no further archaeological work is recommended prior to final design planning. Additional investigative work may be required, however, once a Concessionaire is selected and final designs are known. These investigations, which will proceed prior to construction, will be conducted at the following approximate locations: south side of False Creek, near Cambie and 2nd Avenue, close to the former shoreline; and
13-1
December 2004
north shore of the Fraser River at the site of the proposed North Arm crossing.
These investigations will take place following final design planning but well in advance of construction so as to provide sufficient time for mitigation of any archaeological remains found. Further direction regarding the need to monitor construction excavation in these areas may result from this work and will be addressed in the Concessionaires Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Prior to construction, the Concessionaire will be required to provide RAVCo with an Archaeological Monitoring Plan that addresses the entire RAV alignment. This plan will likely be based on similar plans developed for the VIAAs International Terminal Building Third Runway Expansion Project, as well as the Millennium Line SkyTrain Project. In addition to the locations listed above, the Plan should describe archaeological monitoring to be conducted on Lulu Island near old slough channels and at the Middle Arm (Moray Channel) crossing. All monitoring should be conducted by a professional consulting archaeologist accompanied by First Nations representatives, as appropriate. These individuals should be present during construction if the grade is to be excavated below the level of modern fill. Monitoring should be conducted on a continuous basis until the archaeologist considers that there is no further potential to encounter deeply buried archaeological sites. Monitoring on Sea Island should consider the potential for intact wetsite deposits deeply buried within old slough channels. Monitoring elsewhere along the RAV corridor should be performed on an intermittent and sporadic basis. Archaeological testing and monitoring must be conducted under a Heritage Conservation Act Section 14 Heritage Inspection Permit. The permit will include provisions for emergency assessment and data recovery should any archaeological remains be uncovered by construction anywhere along the RAV corridor. As part of the Archaeological Monitoring Plan terms of reference, RAVCo should ensure that the Concessionaire is aware that archaeological sites in BC are protected from disturbance, whether intentional or inadvertent, by the Heritage Conservation Act. In the event that suspected archaeological remains are
December 2004
13-2
encountered when an Archaeological Monitor is not present, all ground disturbances in the immediate vicinity of the site should be suspended at once. The Archaeology and Registry Services Branch of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the appropriate First Nation communities should be informed, as soon as possible, of the location and type of archaeological remains, and the nature of the disturbance. As well, a professional archaeologist should attend the site immediately.
13.2
Introduction
The objectives of the AIA were to identify and evaluate the extent and significance of cultural deposits within the RAV Project area, if any, and to propose management recommendations to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts from the development. The assessment was conducted under the terms and conditions of Provincial Permit 2003-300 (issued under Heritage Conservation Act, Section 14), Musqueam Traditional Territories Permit 106-2003-MB and Sto:lo Nation Heritage Investigation Permit 2003-31. Field work was completed during September 2003, with a brief revisit to Sea Island in October 2003.
13.3
Study Area
The proposed RAV line will run primarily through areas of long-standing residential and commercial development in Vancouver and on Lulu Island, where the City of Richmond is located (Figure 13.1). The main exception is the Sea Island extension which, given the presence of the Vancouver International Airport, has not been developed to the same degree as the two urban centres. Sea Island, however, has a long history of agricultural use starting in the 1860s, and much of the island has been subject to some level of previous disturbance. Extant and potential historical sites in the vicinity of the proposed RAV corridor are summarized in SECTION 14: HISTORICAL AND HERITAGE ASSESSMENT).
13-3
December 2004
Figure 13.1
RAV Project Study Area
False Creek has been an industrial area since the late 1800s. Its industrial uses have included sawmills, foundries, shipbuilding, metalworking, a salt distribution centre, warehousing and the city's Public Works Yard (Cambie Yard) (City of Vancouver 2000). Background research shows that, prior to development in this area, the southern shore of False Creek was close to 1st Avenue (City of Vancouver 2000). The land to the north of 1st Avenue is comprised of fill from many sources, including the Grandview Cut and ash from a former incinerator in the Cambie Yard (City of Vancouver 2000). Mr. Len Ham, archaeologist for the Musqueam Indian Band, provided Millennia with several early maps and references relating to False Creek. Based on his research, Ham (2003) suggests that within the immediate study area, the archaeological potential of the south shore of False Creek, particularly near the mouth of a creek close to Cambie Street, is High. He notes that several archaeological sites are recorded in the False Creek area and refers to archaeological resources that are known from historical sources but that have not been recorded by archaeologists (Ham 2003). Reimer (2003) notes that there are three former salmon-bearing creeks that drain into False Creek between Ash and Cambie streets and provides the Squamish name Aun-mayt-sut getting
December 2004
13-4
ready to commit suicide for the area. Reimer (2003) references eight other Squamish place names for locations on False Creek, including the village of Senakw Indian Reserve (IR) 6 on the southern shore of False Creek, near its entrance. Reimer (2003) and Alexander (2003) both note the use of Little Mountain as a hunting and gathering area for the Musqueam. Ham (2004) suggests that, in addition to hunting, gathering of forest products was likely conducted in the vicinity of Little Mountain with camps established near the base of the mountain near the site of the proposed 33rd Avenue Station. Similarly, the north and south banks of the Fraser River have been continually modified by natural sediment deposition and by industrial expansion, dredging and fill, and log boom operations. On the south shore, rip rap prevented examination of the shoreline during the impact assessment; on the north shore, the property along the alignment was inaccessible because it is privately owned.
13.3.1
First Nations with Interests in the Study Area
The RAV study area falls in whole or in part within the traditional territories of the Musqueam Indian Band, the Squamish Nation, the Sto:lo Nation, the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. These groups are classified on the basis of cultural and linguistic similarities as Central Coast Salish. With the exception of the Squamish, these groups speak regional variants of Halkomelem; the Squamish speak a related language that is unique to them. Concise ethnographic summaries of the Central Coast Salish are presented in Alexander (2003) and Woods (2003). In early project-related discussions with First Nations (see SECTION 4.2), archaeological matters and meaningful participation in archaeological investigations were commonly expressed concerns. RAVCo committed to the active participation of First Nations in the investigation and allocated funds for measures such as designated contacts for each First Nation, independent permit application and report review by archaeologists selected by First Nations, etc. In completing the AIA, Millennia sought the input of Ms. Leona Sparrow (Director, Treaty, Lands, and Resources, Musqueam Indian Band), Mr. Len Ham (archaeologist for the Musqueam Indian Band), Mr. Ian Campbell and Mr. Tony Moody (Squamish Nation), Mr. Rudy Reimer (archaeologist for the
13-5
December 2004
Squamish Nation), Mr. Dave Schaepe (Archaeologist, Department of Aboriginal Rights and Title, Sto:lo Nation), Mr. Andrew Bak (Treaty Department, Tsawwassen First Nation), Mr. Doug Aberley (Tsleil-Waututh First Nation) and Ms. Diana Alexander (archaeologist for the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation). A log of communications between Millennia and these and other First Nation representatives is provided in Appendix 13-A, as are copies of written correspondence and permits.
13.3.2
Previous Archaeological Assessments
Three Archaeological Overview Assessments were conducted in advance of geotechnical testing for the RAV Project: one for the Richmond and Vancouver International Airport segments (Alexander 2003); one for the Fraser River crossings of the North Arm (for the Richmond segment of the line) and Middle Arm (for the Sea Island segment) (Woods 2003); and one from downtown Vancouver to Southwest Marine Drive, near the North Arm (Wada 2003).
The Alexander (2003) and Woods (2003) AOAs provide concise summaries of the environmental, ethnographic, historic and archaeological setting of the RAV Project. Since these summaries are generally available, the information they provide is not repeated in detail in this section. Wada (2003), in reviewing the archaeological potential of borehole locations along the Vancouver segments of the RAV line, notes that the majority of the testing is located in previously disturbed areas (e.g., existing roadways, road shoulders, and parking lots) and on landforms that typically do not correlate with archaeological site locations. Wada (2003) concludes that the potential for unrecorded sites along the drill corridor in Vancouver is Low. Equinox Research and Consulting (Woods 2003) examined the archaeological potential of 18 borehole locations on the North and Middle Arm crossings of the Fraser River. The majority of the proposed locations were assessed as having Low or Very Low archaeological potential; LowMedium potential locations include four test sites on Lulu Island (BHT16C-
December 2004
13-6
DH03-610, 611 and R and R alternate) and two test sites near the former north bank of the North Arm (BHT16C-Dh03-601, 602). Woods (2003) recommended that an archaeologist examine the cores/core logs from Low potential and Low-Medium potential areas. Alexander (2003) reviewed the potential for archaeological deposits at the site of 19 borehole locations between No. 3 Road and Granville Avenue in Richmond, northward along No. 3 Road to the Cambie Street Bridge, and 10 borehole locations from the Moray Bridge westward to the Vancouver International Airport. Alexander (2003) concluded the environmental, ethnographic, historic, and archaeological evidence indicates that most of the study area has a low potential for archaeological sites. The exception is land within 100 m of old slough channels, which are assessed to have Moderate archaeological potential. Alexander suggests that maintenance of a 100 m buffer on the Ham channel maps is appropriate due to map scale and the uncertain accuracy of the original documents used to produce the maps (D. Alexander, pers. comm., 2004). Alexander suggests that any intact archaeological deposits associated with the sloughs, such as wetsites, would be deeply capped by fill or natural deposition. Alexander (2003) recommended that core logs and samples of interest be examined by an archaeologist for evidence of archaeological deposits or buried soil horizons that may contain archaeological evidence. Several archaeological sites are recorded for the general study area (see Alexander 2003, Wada 2003, Woods 2003) and two previously recorded sites (DhRt-058 and DhRs-026) are located on Sea Island close to the RAV Project area. DhRt-058 is located on Miller Road, near the main terminal of Vancouver International Airport. A single nephrite adze blade was collected from the surface of this site in the 1960s. Revisits to the site revealed it to be relatively clean of intrusive historic materials, in spite of the proximity of three major roads. Soils throughout consisted of 30 cm of light greyish-brown silts on grey silts (1990 and 1997 siteform updates). No evidence of further archaeological remains was observed. In 1997, Ham (1997a) monitored further development in the area; no evidence of archaeological remains was identified. DhRs-026 is located at the west and east footings of the Arthur Laing Bridge, on the northeast corner of Sea Island. Mr. Stan Copp of Langara College
13-7
December 2004
recorded the site in 1982 as a possible pre-contact midden. In 1989, Ms. Sandra Zacharias of Deva Heritage Consulting monitored backhoe excavations at the site; a small amount of stratified midden was observed although it is buried beneath recent landfill, at depths of 1 to 3 m (siteform update). A survey of the intertidal area near DhRs-026 in 1993 did not locate tidal deposits in the area (Eldridge and Mackie 1993). Ham conducted archaeological work at or near the site in 1995 and 1996. He makes a persuasive argument that the cultural deposits were imported as fill from DhRs-001 when the original North Arm and Middle Arm bridges were built in 1889 (Ham 2004). Sea Island has been the subject of numerous archaeological investigations, many conducted by Ham for the VIAA (1990, 1992, 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997b, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999, 2001, 2002). Ham (2004) has found that the majority of archaeological sites on Sea Island are located inland from the river distributaries.Two thirds of these sites are isolated finds where tools and equipment were lost or abandoned. Ham (2004) also notes that much of the island has been historically farmed and that ploughing has increased the visibility of shell midden deposits; he has not observed a midden within the RAV Project area. Backhoe trenching conducted on Sea Island during an AIA of the Moray Bridge crossing did not produce archaeological remains (Franck 1995). Based on his findings, Ham has produced and continues to update a map showing the archaeological potential of Sea Island (Figure 13.2). As shown, with the exception of the area of previously recorded site DhRs-026, the whole of the area in the vicinity of the proposed RAV transit line is assessed as having Low potential or Unknown potential as the original ground surface has been obscured or developed. Further, Ham found that the areas around sloughs on Sea Island have Low potential for archaeological deposits, in contrast to sloughs on Lulu Island which have Low-Medium potential (Ham 1998c; Ham 2001).
December 2004
13-8
Figure 13.2
Archaeological Site Potential of Sea Island (Ham 2002)
13-9
December 2004
13.4
Methodology
Millennia digitized the original False Creek shoreline from an 1893 Admiralty chart (updated to 1902, Admiralty 1902), supplied by Ham, in order to address concerns regarding the potential for archaeological deposits within the footprint of proposed RAV stations. The chart inset was scanned, then geo-referenced and rubber-sheeted in ArcMap using the street grid of downtown Vancouver. The shoreline was then heads-up digitized as a new shapefile1 which could be placed across other map layers to establish common reference points. Similar attempts to treat an 1873 map (Richards 1873) were unsuccessful because the map was too inaccurate to use. Millennia also digitized the slough channels mapped by Ham (1987) in the vicinity of the RAV corridor and applied a 100 m buffer to the line work. Hams map was scanned and geo-referenced using the methods described above. Buffers were created using standard ArcMap tools. Field work for the AIA was conducted in September 2003 under Provincial Permit 2003-300 (issued under Section 14 of the Heritage Conservation Act), Musqueam Traditional Territories Permit 106-2003-MB, Sto:lo Nation Heritage Investigation Permit 2003-31, and a Squamish Nation Permit. The crew for the field survey included Mr. Rudy Reimer (Squamish Nation), Mr. Ed Thomas (Tsleil-Waututh), and Mr. Rob Vincent and Ms. Jennifer Lindberg (Millennia Research). Repeated requests for a field assistant were made to Ms. Chrystalyn Wilson, Human Resources, Tsawwassen First Nation with no response. Mr. Dave Schaepe, Archaeologist, Sto:lo Nation, was not available on the day of the scheduled field work. On the day of the field work, the assistant from the Musqueam Indian Band notified the crew that he was no longer available. In conducting the field portion of the AIA, the crew drove the proposed RAV corridor several times and segments were walked by a crew of four. The survey concentrated on identifying the oldest landforms and shorelines. Unpaved, exposed, or otherwise undeveloped soils were searched for and were walked by the crew. Areas examined included:
Although not included in the Application, shapefiles are available for review at the RAV Project Office.
December 2004
13-10
exposures provided at unrelated construction sites and road work along Cambie Street and at Queen Elizabeth Park; the section of the RAV corridor through Queen Elizabeth Park; the public trail at Langara Golf Course; public access points on the north and south banks of the Fraser River; two undeveloped sale lots on No. 3 Road in Richmond; and publicly accessible lands on Sea Island.
All permits included a provision for subsurface testing, where it was possible. The location and number of tests were to be determined in the field at the discretion of the Project Archaeologist, taking into consideration the findings of overview studies conducted for portions of the RAV corridor and archaeological potential, based on landform features such as sloughs, terrace edges, previous disturbance, etc. No shovel tests were conducted; much of the proposed corridor was inaccessible to the survey crew because of fill and pavement of low archaeological potential, or because properties along the corridor had not been acquired by RAVCo at the time of field work. Mr. Rob Vincent of Millennia Research revisited portions of the corridor on October 27, 2003.
13.4.1
Geotechnical Core Sample Analysis
In addition to traditional archaeological survey methods, the AIA included a review of geotechnical core logs and an examination of selected core samples. Representatives of the above-noted First Nations were invited to participate in the review of core samples at the EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. and Klohn Crippen Consultants Ltd. offices; Mr. Rudy Reimer and Ms. Diana Alexander, archaeologists for the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations, respectively, participated. All available core logs recommended for review by the Alexander (2003) and Woods (2003) AOAs were examined. If the review of the logs for these cores showed no evidence of potentially cultural soils, then a visual examination of the core samples was not conducted. In cases such as this, the following notations appear in the tables of results (see TABLES 13.1 TO 13.4, SECTION 13.5):
13-11
December 2004
Core log showed no indication of cultural material or Core not examined. Independent of the AOA recommended reviews, all available core logs were examined for indicators of archaeological potential. Core records indicating the presence of subsurface organic or humic horizons, orange mottled silts, peat or fibres were highlighted and their corresponding samples were requested by Millennia archaeologists for analysis. Samples were sorted by hand to identify archaeological remains, potential archaeological soils, or any palaeo-environmental information indicating the presence of palaeo-landscape features associated with higher archaeological potential. The samples averaged approximately a litre of material which was often disturbed (the exceptions being the Shelby tube and spoon samples) and water-saturated. In general, the Lulu Island and Sea Island samples were of much smaller volume than the river crossing samples. While the chance of recovering archaeological materials from the cores was anticipated to be low, there was an expectation that palaeo-environmental information signaling the presence of palaeo-landscape features of archaeological potential could be identified.
13.5
Results
The findings of the field work and geotechnical review are provided below. The results are presented in five parts: i) ii) iii) iv) v) North end of Granville Street to 37th Avenue 37th Avenue to 63rd Avenue 63rd Avenue to Bridgeport Station (North Arm Crossing of Fraser River) Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre Bridgeport to Sea Island (Middle Arm Crossing of Fraser River)
December 2004
13-12
The field work, geotechnical core sample analysis and background research generally support the largely Low potential assessments presented in earlier AOAs (Alexander 2003; Wada 2003; Woods 2003). The logs of 97 cores were reviewed for the AIA. Of these, 19 samples were requested from the engineering consultants for visual examination and screening (more than one sample was requested from several of the cores). Of the requested samples, 10 were examined; the remaining nine samples were unavailable for archaeological review due to one of a number of reasons. In several cases, for example, geotechnical testing exhausted samples, leaving little or no material to be reviewed by the archaeologists. Of 10 core samples requested from the Sea Island Richmond Segment, only three had not been exhausted by in-house testing (G. Viehweger, pers. comm. 2003). In Tables 13.1 to 13.4, below, these samples are indicated by the phrase Sample exhausted by laboratory testing. The drill contractor for the Golder Associates Vancouver segment vacuumed the upper two to three metres of matrix from most of the borehole locations to avoid affecting utilities and underground services (T. Bryski, pers. comm. 2003). In many cases, archaeological potential was restricted to these upper 3 m. Although the geotechnical engineer conducted a visual inspection and description of the vacuumed matrices, it was not possible to gather samples for analysis.
13.5.1
North End of Granville Street to 37th Avenue
This part of the proposed RAV corridor, which includes False Creek, was first driven to identify areas where foot survey would be possible. With the exception of Queen Elizabeth Park, the western portion of which falls within the study area, this section has been entirely developed and/or landscaped and consists primarily of commercial buildings in the north and residential housing in the south. The original shoreline at False Creek was very different from the present one, with fill narrowing the waterway by hundreds of metres over the past hundred years. The digitized contour near the original shoreline (circa 1893 - 1902) is shown in Figure 13.3. Even by this time, the south shoreline had been partially filled, with a large sawmill on the point under what are now the Cambie Bridge approach ramps. It is likely that the original shoreline was located somewhat further back at this point, but Richards (1873) shows a
13-13
December 2004
point about this location, so the sawmill presumably expanded an existing projection. Several cores (i.e., BH-T16a-03-106, BH-T16a-03-110 and BHT16a-03-206) were collected in the vicinity of the original shoreline. The logs of these cores were examined but showed no evidence of cultural deposits. The area retains archaeological potential should any station portals be located in the vicinity. The western part of Queen Elizabeth Park was surveyed on foot. Most of this portion of the park was found to be altered, likely due to activities relating to the quarry, and more recently, landscaping. The area between the north end of Granville Street and 37th Avenue is relatively flat, with no obvious terrain features that would suggest the possibility of sub-surface deposits (Photo 13.1). Shovel and auger testing were not conducted because of the absence of suitable terrain features, the developed nature of this area and the limited surficial disturbance to be associated with the RAV Project in this portion of the corridor (i.e., twin-bored tunnels with station portals). Crew members examined exposures for the presence of cultural material, and cedar and hemlock trees for evidence of cultural modifications, with negative results.
December 2004
13-14
Photo 13.1
Queen Elizabeth Park (Facing north with Cambie Street in background)
Little Mountain, where the quarry gardens, the Bloedel Conservatory, and the water treatment plant are situated, lies just outside the immediate study area. Moderate slopes characterize the area (see Photos 13.2 and 13.3), with secondary (i.e., non-groomed) paths and cuts providing excellent exposures which were examined for cultural material, also with negative results. Photo 13.2 Ground Exposures on Little Mountain
During the AIA, there was a development on top of Little Mountain to upgrade the water treatment plant and, while the working area was fenced off, excavation wall profiles could be seen at a distance, and back piles of dirt (situated outside the fence) could be inspected. Neither showed evidence of cultural materials.
13-15
December 2004
Photo 13.3
Exposure Near Water Treatment Plant on Little Mountain
The logs from 43 geotechnical cores conducted in this section were reviewed (Appendix 13-B); of these, three core samples were selected for examination (Table 13.1). The core samples (BH-T16a-03111, BH-T16a-03-202, and BH-T16a-03-211) were requested for review but were exhausted by laboratory testing or were not released for review until after the survey portion of the AIA had been completed. The logs for these cores have indicators of possible cultural content in the upper 4 m.
December 2004
13-16
Table 13.1
Geotechnical Core Review - North End of Granville Street to 37th Avenue Potential Rationale2 Assessment for (Overview) Examination
Moderate (Wada 2003) PA CLR
Selected Core # & Location
Indicators of Possible Cultural Content
Sample Examined Yes (Y) No (N)

N
Results
BH-T16a-03-111 South side of False Creek Cambie & 2

nd
0.23 m - moist dark brown to black silty sand, trace gravel 1.07 m - moist grey sandy silt with orange staining and black organic inclusions
Sample exhausted by lab testing; black organic inclusions may be associated with high hydrocarbon contaminants (T. Bryski, pers comm. 2003)
BH-T16a-03-202 Granville & Georgia BH-T16a-03-211 19 & Cambie

th
Low (Wada 2003)
CLR
3.65 m - mottled orange/grey sandy silt with black staining
Sample exhausted by laboratory testing
Low (Wada 2003)
CLR
0.15 m - asphalt 2.13 m - stiff moist, brown mottled with orange silt, trace gravel and sand 3.05 m - black sandy silts
Sample not available as of 27/10/03
PA Archaeological Overview Assessment Potential Assessment CLR Core log review OR Archaeological Overview Assessment Recommendation
13-17
December 2004
Figure 13.3
False Creek Shoreline (circa 1892-1902)
December 2004
13-18
13.5.2
37th Avenue to 63rd Avenue
This section of the RAV corridor consists predominantly of residential housing and is largely developed and landscaped. The Langara Golf Course, situated off Cambie Street between 49th Avenue and 58th Avenue, provided opportunities for ground examination. While it was not possible to survey the course itself, a public path that runs between the course and Cambie Street was walked. Since the path is covered with gravel, exposures located immediately adjacent to the path were examined. No cultural materials were identified. Areas with potential for sub-surface deposits were not encountered, and subsurface testing was not conducted. The portion of the golf course that was visible from the path has been heavily landscaped and altered, with the exception of a stand of trees that appears to have been left untouched and could be relatively undisturbed. Alternatively, as these trees are situated approximately 30 m from the fence at Cambie and 57th Avenue (Photo 13.4) and the trees are not very large, they may have been planted at the time of the course construction in 1926. Photo 13.4 Stand of Trees at Langara Golf Course (Cambie & 57th)
Of the 13 core logs reviewed for this section, no cores with potential for archaeological deposits were identified.
13-19
December 2004
13.5.3
63rd Avenue to Bridgeport Station (North Arm Crossing of Fraser River)
This section of the proposed RAV corridor contains residential and commercial buildings to Marine Drive and industrial sites south of Marine Drive on both sides of the Fraser River. Little of the accessible land has not been developed or significantly disturbed. Much of the north shore of the Fraser River in the vicinity of the North Arm crossing was inaccessible to the field crew, either because development restricted areas available for testing or because of private property considerations. Visual inspection suggests that once footing locations have been established, backhoe testing or additional geotechnical information is warranted for the vicinity of the former shoreline. Although the original shoreline is likely near the SW Marine Drive Station in the vicinity of the present rail yard, it is possible that channel infilling in this area was extensive, with the ancient shoreline originating as far north as 64th Avenue. The industrial properties situated on the north shore of the Fraser River in the vicinity of the proposed RAV line crossing constitute a built-up environment with limited potential for archaeological deposits. An examination of core samples taken here, discussed below, showed that wood waste is present as deep as 1.9 m below the surface. Sub-surface testing was not conducted on the south shore of the North Arm crossing due to a number of factors generally consistent with those noted for the north shore. An inspection of the shore showed it to be filled with rip rap and other materials behind a dyke, while further back, much of the area has been paved over or covered with dense blackberry bushes. Train tracks also pass through the area. The apparent Low archaeological potential of the area, as observed in the field, supports the Low to Low-Moderate findings of the AOA (Woods 2003), and is supported by the results of the core log review where cultural sediments were not observed. The logs for 12 geotechnical cores conducted in this section of the RAV corridor were reviewed (Appendix 13-B). Of these, samples from three cores were examined (see TABLE 13.2); two of the samples (BHT16C-DH03603, BHT16C-DH03-604) showed no evidence of cultural or potentially cultural deposits. One of the core samples (BHT16C-DH03-610) selected for
December 2004
13-20
examination was too small to allow conclusions regarding archaeological potential. This sample was collected from a low island (Duck Island) that is now infilled as part of Lulu Island but which was mapped as a separate island as early as the 1850s. The area was rated as having Low-Moderate archaeological potential in the AOA (Woods 2003) and is considered to have Low potential by Ham (2004).
13-21
December 2004
Table 13.2
Geotechnical Core Log Review and Core Review 63rd Avenue to Bridgeport Station Potential Assessment (Overview)
Moderate (Alexander 2003)
Rationale3 for Examination

PA

None found

N
Results
CPT/AH-T16B-03401
Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined Core log showed no indication of cultural material. Core not examined Sample showed no indication of cultural material. Woodwaste likely related to subpavement. Test taken in lumber yard. Charcoal present. Sample showed no indication
BHT16C-DH03- 601 (Woods 2003 G)
Low-Medium (Woods 2003)
OR CLR
Location of drill site near original river bank Location of drill site near original river bank 1.97 m - silt, some peat-like fibres, woodwaste
BHT16C-DH03- 602 (Woods 2003 H)
OR CLR
BHT16C-DH03- 603 Kent Ave S and Ash (Woods 2003 I )
Low (Woods 2003)
OR PA
BHT16C-DH03- 604
Low
OR
1.82 m - silt, dark
December 2004
13-22
Potential Assessment (Overview)

(Woods 2003)

CLR PA

brown, some woodwaste
Results
Upper north shore of Fraser River (Woods 2003 J)
of cultural material. Woodwaste related to log in higher stratum; test taken in lumber yard. Y Sample insufficient to make conclusions regarding potential
BHT16C-DH03- 610 South shore of Fraser River (Woods 2003 P)
OR CLR
2.74 m - silt with roots, brown and black organic inclusions, organic odour None found
BHT16C-AH03- 611
Moderate
PA
Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined Core sample not drilled
Proposed Test R
Low-Medium (Woods 2003) Low-Medium (Woods 2003)
OR
Core sample not drilled Core sample not drilled
Proposed alternate
Test
R-
OR
Core sample not drilled
13-23
December 2004
13.5.4
Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre
The RAV corridor from Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre has been completely developed by commercial buildings, with the exception of one stretch of land on the east side of No. 3 Road, between Sea Island Way and Capstan Way (address numbers 3200, 3220, 3240, 3280, 3300, 3320, and 3360, all on No 3 Road, from north to south). No areas suitable for subsurface testing were identified in this section of the corridor. With the exception of 3220 No. 3 Road, all of the above-mentioned properties are vacant and characterized by flat, leveled terrain, patches of old pavement, and overgrown with trees and blackberry bushes. The property at 3220 No. 3 Road contains an abandoned house with a garage and is also overgrown with blackberry bushes. As these properties have not yet been acquired by RAVCo, only a visual inspection was carried out. Based on observations made from the road, there appeared to be little potential for archaeological deposits. Photo 13.5 Abandoned House at 3220 No. 3 Road
December 2004
13-24
Photo 13.6
Undeveloped Properties on No. 3 Road
Thirteen geotechnical core tests were conducted in this section of the RAV corridor (Appendix 13-B). Based on a review of the core logs, nine core samples were requested (see TABLE 13.3). Two of the samples (AH-03-416 Spit 1, AH-03-417, Grab 2) showed no indication of cultural material. Five of the core samples (MH-03-409 Sample 1, MH-03-412 Samples 1 & 2, AH-03413 Spit 2, AH-03-416 Spit 2) were exhausted by laboratory testing and two (AH-03-413 Spit 1, AH-03-417 Spit 1) were too small to allow for conclusions regarding archaeological potential.
13-25
December 2004
Table 13.3
Geotechnical Core Log Review and Core Review - Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre Potential Assessment (Overview)

None found

N
Results
CPT/AH-T16B03-405
PA
Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined Sample exhausted by laboratory testing
CPT/AH-T16B03-408
PA
None found
MH-03-409 Cambie Station (Richmond)
Low (Alexander 2003)
CLR
1.4 m - silt, some sand, some wood pieces, grey with black mottle None found
N (Sample #1)
CPT/AH-T16B03-410
PA
CPT/AH-T16B-
Moderate
PA
None found
Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined Core log showed no
December 2004
13-26

(Alexander 2003)
Results
03-411
indication of cultural material; core not examined CLR/PA CLR/PA 2.5 m - trace wood pieces 1.0 m - silt with black mottle 3.0 m - occasional rootlet, fibre N (Sample 2) N (Sample 1) Sample exhausted by laboratory testing Sample exhausted by laboratory testing Sample size insufficient to make conclusions regarding potential. Fibres and rootlet present. Sample exhausted by laboratory testing Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined Sample showed no indication of cultural material
MH-03-412 #3 Road & Alderbridge Alderbridge Station AH-03-413 # 3 Road & Landsdowne
Moderate (Alexander 2003) Moderate (Alexander 2003) Moderate (Alexander 2003)
CLR
Y (Spit 1)
Low (Alexander 2003) CPT/AH-T16B03-415 Moderate
CLR
PA
1.8 m - silt, occasional organic layer (black) None found
N (Spit 2)
AH-03-416 Richmond Centre
CLR
0.4 + m - silt trace clay, trace peat and fibre. 3.0+ m - becomes silt, some organics
Y (Spit 1)
13-27
December 2004


Sand fine- to medium-grained, loose wet dark grey, no odour 1.8 m - silt some organics (i.e., fibrous peat and rootlets) 3.0 m - silt occasional fibre, rootlet, inclusion of black organics.

N (Spit 2)
Results
CLR
Sample exhausted by laboratory testing
AH-03-417 Richmond Centre Station
CLR/PA
Y (Grab sample 2)
Sample showed no indication of cultural material Sample insufficient to make conclusions regarding potential. Black organics, burnt wood.
CLR/PA
Y (Spit 1)
December 2004
13-28
13.5.5
Bridgeport Station to Sea Island (Middle Arm Crossing of Fraser River)
Much of the corridor in this section passes through built environment with little opportunity for shovel testing and few exposures. After driving this section, the only area judged suitable for foot survey was the RAV corridor on the east side of Sea Island. The rest has been developed to the point where few exposures or opportunities for sub-surface testing exist. This determination is supported by Hams (2002) map of the archaeological potential for Sea Island. The area surveyed on foot was characterized by flat grasses, with fill deposits noted on the surface (Photo ditches had been dug throughout the area; the ditches the time of survey. Some of the ditches followed old identified by Ham (1987). terrain covered with 13.7). A network of were full of water at slough channels, as
Photo 13.7
General Area - Sea Island
While re-visiting the site on October 27, 2003, it was noted that the ditches running along the northern and western sides of the area had been scraped (Figure 13.4), providing excellent exposures for subsurface deposits (see Photos 13.8 - 13.13). No sediments characteristic of cultural deposits were observed.
13-29
December 2004
Figure 13.4
Location of Ditch Exposure Photos, Sea Island.
December 2004
13-30
Photo 13.8. Ditch Exposure
The original shore of the Fraser River in the vicinity of the Middle Arm crossing was not evident, having been covered with fill and debris (Photo 13.14).
13-31
December 2004
Photo 13.14 Sea Island Shoreline The previously recorded site DhRs026 is located approximately 200 m away from the proposed RAV corridor and so is not in apparent conflict with the RAV Project. The site consists of archaeological material that has been re-deposited from the Marpole midden site on the opposite side of the river (see above). Geotechnical test BHT16C-DH03-615 was located closest to site DhRs-026. A review of core logs and samples showed no indication of cultural material. No archaeological materials were observed in the ditch exposures. No attempt was made to relocate previously recorded site DhRt-58 as the area is now developed and Ham reports that the site has been destroyed (1997 siteform update). Given observations made in the field, particularly the exposures noted in the ditches and the fill noted on the surface and along the shore, and from the results of past archaeological investigations (Ham 1990, Ham 1995a, Ham 1995b, Ham 1996, Ham 1997, Ham 1998a, Ham 1998b, Ham 1998c, Ham 1999, Ham 2001, Ham 2002, Ham 2003) and AOAs (Alexander 2003, Woods 2003), sub-surface testing was not conducted. Observations in the field clearly showed the area has been largely disturbed and covered with fill, supporting the Low potential assigned to it in earlier assessments. The logs of 15 geotechnical cores collected in this section of the RAV corridor were reviewed, including four of the logs recommended for examination by Woods (2003). Samples from three cores were examined; two of these showed no evidence of cultural or potentially cultural deposits (Table 13.4),
December 2004
13-32
and one (BHT16c-611) was too small to allow for conclusions regarding archaeological potential.
13-33
December 2004
Table 13.4
Geotechnical Core Log Review and Core Review - Bridgeport Station to Sea Island Potential Rationale5 Assessment for (Overview) Examination
Moderate PA

None found

N
Results
CPT/AH-T16B-03501
Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined Sample exhausted by laboratory testing
MH-03-502; Sea Island north of Grant McConachie Way
CLR
Surface silt, some sand, some wood pieces, grass, soft, dry brown None found
N (Sample 1 )
CPT/AH-T16B-03503
Moderate
PA
Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined
CPT/AH-T16B-03504
Moderate
PA
None found
December 2004
13-34
Potential Rationale5 Assessment for (Overview) Examination

Moderate PA

None found

N
Results
CPT/AH-T16B-03505
Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined Sample showed no indication of cultural material
BHT16C-DH03615 Sea Island, off Airport Road (Woods 2003 C) BHT16c- 607 North Arm, Fraser River BHT16c- 611 Lulu Island, immediately south of River Drive
Very Low (Woods 2003)
OR CLR
6+ m - bed of fine sand and silt, grey with occasional black mottles
Y (Grab 10, 12 )
Very Low (Woods 2003)
OR CLR
Sand loose dark grey to black, moist 1.21 m siltfibrous inclusions and organic mottles 3.5 m - sand occasional decaying wood pieces Core log showed no indication of cultural material
Y (Spit 1,2 N)
Sample showed no indication of cultural material
LowModerate (Woods 2003) Moderate (Alexander 2003)
OR CLR
Y (Dps 3,4 Q)
Sample too small to make conclusions regarding archaeological potential
BHT16c-616 Sea Island, west of Grant McConachie
Low (Woods 2003)
OR CLR
13-35
December 2004
Potential Rationale5 Assessment for (Overview) Examination
Results
Way BHT16c-617 Sea Island, west of Grant McConachie Way Low (Woods 2003) CLR Core log showed no indication of cultural material N Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined
December 2004
13-36
13.5.6
Summary
No cultural deposits were identified in either the field survey or the core sample examination. Several samples were unavailable for examination, however, the majority of these were collected in areas rated as having Low or Very Low archaeological potential and it is unlikely that cultural deposits are present. Three samples of Undetermined or Low-Moderate potential were unavailable for examination; these are addressed specifically in the AIA recommendations.
13.6
Impact Assessment
This section is divided into five parts, each reflecting a particular section of the proposed RAV corridor and the nature of development within that section.
13.6.1
North End of Granville Street to 37th Avenue
No sites or potential cultural deposits were identified during the field survey or the review of core logs/core samples. The site of the future station at 2nd Avenue near the former south shoreline of False Creek retains potential for archaeological deposits. With the above consideration in mind, impacts to unidentified archaeological deposits due to drilling of the twin-bored tunnels, construction of the four other RAV stations proposed for this section and excavation of a construction portal are unlikely. If the tunnels proposed for this portion of the corridor run at least 12 m below the surface of competent substrata, the potential for impacts to unidentified, deeply buried deposits during tunnel construction is considered to be extremely Low. The specific location of the construction portal and the area to be excavated for drill machine access to the tunnel elevation is unknown. It is known, however, that the portal will not be excavated on the shoreline of Vancouver Harbour. The tunnels will also run well below the upper layers of any stranded False Creek shorelines.
13-37
December 2004
13.6.2
37th Avenue to 63rd Avenue
No sites or potential cultural deposits were identified during the field survey or geotechnical core/core log review. Both the cut-and-cover and at-grade sections of the RAV alignment and construction of the two proposed RAV stations will involve alteration of the ground surface. The potential for encountering unidentified archaeological deposits in this segment of the corridor is Low.
13.6.3
63rd Avenue to Bridgeport Station (North Arm Crossing of Fraser River)
No sites or potentially cultural deposits were identified during the field survey. The core log and sample review indicated one area of archaeological potential on the south shore of the Fraser River. Since the RAV line between 63rd Avenue and Bridgeport Station is to be elevated, potential impacts will be limited to the area of the two proposed stations, the footings for the elevated line, and the bridge footings and staging areas. Generally, the potential for encountering unidentified archaeological deposits in this segment of the RAV corridor is Low. The area near the proposed SW Marine Drive Station, however, retains potential for cultural deposits beneath modern fill.
13.6.4
Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre
No sites or potential cultural deposits were identified during the field survey, geotechnical core log or core sample review. The RAV corridor is to follow No. 3 Road, either at-grade or in an elevated guideway. If constructed atgrade, the ground surface between Bridgeport Station and Cook Road/Park Road will be disturbed. If the line is elevated, impacts will be limited to the area of the footings. This section also includes two proposed stations, the construction of which will require ground alteration. The potential for encountering unidentified archaeological deposits in this segment of the RAV corridor is Low, except for areas near slough channels.
December 2004
13-38
13.6.5
Bridgeport Station to Sea Island (Middle Arm Crossing of Fraser River)
No sites or potential cultural deposits were identified during the field survey. One core sample requested for examination was too small to allow for a determination regarding archaeological potential. This sample was from Lulu Island at the site of the proposed crossing; this area retains potential for archaeological deposits. As the RAV alignment is to be elevated for the duration of this section, impacts will be limited to the site of the four proposed stations, the footings for the line, and the bridge footings, approaches and staging areas. Overall, the potential for encountering unidentified archaeological deposits in this segment of the RAV corridor is Low. Some slough channels may be present under fill, but these sloughs have been rated as having Low potential by Ham (pers. comm. 2003).
13.7
Recommendations
No further archaeological work is recommended prior to final design planning for the RAV Project. There is a small possibility that archaeological sites are present but undiscovered within the development zone. The Concessionaire will be required to provide RAVCo with an Archaeological Monitoring Plan for construction. It is likely that this monitoring plan will be based on similar plans developed for the VIAA and International Terminal Building Third Runway Expansion Project, as well as the Millennium Line SkyTrain Project. The monitoring plan should include provision for archaeological testing of impact areas within the corridor at the 2nd Avenue Station and construction staging area (Figure 13.5) and the north shore of the Fraser River between 64th Avenue and the rail line, north of the Doman Forest Products property (Figure 13.6). This testing should take place following final design planning but well in advance of construction. Further direction on the need to monitor construction in these areas may result from this work. The Archaeological Monitoring Plan should require construction monitoring within areas on Lulu Island near old slough channels and at the Middle Arm (Moray
13-39
December 2004
Channel) crossing (Appendix 13-C: Maps 6 to 8). All monitoring should be conducted by a professional consulting archaeologist accompanied by First Nations representatives, as appropriate. These individuals should be present during construction if the grade is to be excavated below the level of modern fill. The monitoring should be conducted on a continuous basis until the archaeologist considers that there is no further potential to encounter deeply buried archaeological sites. Monitoring on Sea Island should consider the potential for intact wetsite deposits deeply buried within old slough channels. Monitoring elsewhere along the RAV corridor should be performed on an intermittent and sporadic basis. Archaeological testing and monitoring must be conducted under a Heritage Conservation Act Section 14 Heritage Inspection Permit. The permit will include provisions for emergency assessment and data recovery of any archaeological remains uncovered by construction anywhere along the RAV corridor. As part of the Archaeological Monitoring Plan terms of reference, RAVCo should ensure that the Concessionaire is aware that archaeological sites in BC are protected from disturbance, whether it be intentional or inadvertent, by the Heritage Conservation Act. In the event that suspected archaeological remains are encountered when an Archaeological Monitor is not present, all ground disturbances in the immediate vicinity of the site should be suspended at once. The Archaeology and Registry Services Branch of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the appropriate First Nation communities should be informed, as soon as possible, of the location and type of archaeological remains, and the nature of the disturbance. s well, a professional archaeologist should attend the site immediately.
December 2004
13-40
Figure 13.5
Recommended Location for Further Archaeological Testing, South Shore False Creek
13-41
December 2004
Figure 13.6
Recommended Location for Further Archaeological Testing, SW Marine Drive
December 2004
13-42
13.8
References
Alexander, D. 2003. Archaeological Overview Assessment of Geotechnical Investigations for the Richmond and Airport Segment of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. Alexander Heritage Consulting, Vancouver, B.C. Alexander, D. 2004. Personal Communication Alexander Heritage Consulting, Vancouver, B.C City of Vancouver. 2000. Southeast False Creek, A Historical Overview. March 16, 2000. Available online at: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/planning/history.htm. Eldridge, M. and A. Mackie. 1993 Fraser River Intertidal Wetsite Survey. Report on file at the Archaeology and Registry Services Branch. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, B.C. Franck, I. 1995. "Letter Report" Regarding Our Findings From an Archaeological Impact Assessment of the M.O.T.H.'s Proposed Middle Arm (Moray Channel) Crossing, Richmond, B.C. Prepared by Equinox Research and Consulting Ltd., New Westminster, B.C. Ham, L. 2004. Review of Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Archaeological Impact Assessment (Draft) dated November 17, 2003. Ham, L. 2003. Personal Communication. September 2, 2003. Ham, L. 2002. Archaeological Potential Model for the Marpole Midden. Prepared for Canadian Heritage Parks Canada. Ham, L. 2001. Archaeological Reviews Conducted for the Vancouver International Airport Authority from December 1, 2000 to November 30, 2001. Prepared for Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority.
13-43
December 2004
Ham, L. 1999. Archaeological Monitoring Soil Densification Arthur Laing Bridge (DhRs-026). Letter report dated 1999/05/29, prepared for Ms. Anne Murray, Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority, Richmond, B.C. Ham, L. 1998a. Archaeological Monitoring Environmental Testing Program, North Fraser Harbour Commission Lease #60420. Letter report dated 1998/04/29, prepared for Ms. Anne Murray, Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority, Richmond, B.C. Report on file at Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority. Ham, L. 1998b. Archaeological Reviews Conducted for the Vancouver International Airport Authority from December 1, 1997 to November 30, 1998. Prepared for the Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority. Ham, L. 1998c. Revised Statement of Airport Connector Archaeological Site Potential. Prepared for Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority, Richmond, B.C. Report on file at Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority. Ham, L. 1997a. Site Alteration DhRt-058. Letter report to Al Mackie, Archaeology and Registry Services Branch, Victoria, dated 1997/08/13. Heritage Conservation Act Permit 1997-204 & Musqueam Permit 97-104MB. Ham, L. 1997b. Archaeological Reviews Conducted for the Vancouver International Airport Authority from December 1, 1996 to November 30, 1997. Prepared for the Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority. Ham, L. 1996. Archaeological Impact Assessment, DhRs-026. Permit 1996156. Letter report to Dr. Stephen Acheson, Archaeology Branch, Victoria, dated 1996/11/30. Prepared for the Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority.
December 2004
13-44
Ham, L. 1995a. Letter re: Status Archaeological Studies: (Ferguson Tote Road Sites, DhRt 57, DhRs 1, DhRs 26 & Monitoring Ditch Cleaning and Tank Removals. Letter report dated 1995/11/14 prepared for Ms. Anne Murray, Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority, Richmond, B.C. Report on file at Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority. Ham, L.1995b. Seismic Upgrading Arthur Laing Bridge: Archaeological Sites. Letter report dated 1995/10/18, prepared for Ms. Anne Murray, Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority, Richmond, B.C. Report on file at Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority. Ham, L. 1992. Letter re: Archaeological inspection office trailer site YVR, dated 1992/08/27 to Ms. Anne Murray, Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority. Letter on file at Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority, Richmond, B.C. Ham, L. 1990. Archaeology and Heritage Resources, Chapter 9, In: Vancouver International Airport, Parallel Runway Project, Environmental Impact Statement. Report prepared by Transport Canada. Report on file at Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority. Ham, L. 1987. An Archaeological Heritage Resource Overview of Richmond, BC. Prepared for the Richmond Heritage Advisory Council, Richmond, B.C. Owens, D. 2004. Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Project: Heritage and Historical Assessment. Report on file with RAV Project Office, Vancouver, B.C. Reimer, R. 2003. Ethnographic Background of the Squamish Nation. Document on file at Millennia Research Limited, Victoria, B.C. Wada, G. 2003. Archaeological Overview Assessment of the RAVP Transit Cambie Corridor (Downtown Vancouver to SW Marine Drive) Geotechnical Drilling Program. Letter report prepared by Golder Associates Ltd., Burnaby, B.C.
13-45
December 2004
Woods, S. 2003. Archaeological Overview Assessment of Richmond/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project - Geotechnical Borehole Locations for the Fraser River North Arm and Middle Arm Crossings. Equinox Research and Consulting Ltd., New Westminster, B.C.
December 2004
13-46
APPENDIX 13-A
Communications with First Nations Concerning RAV Project
510 Alpha Street, Victoria BC, V8Z 1B2 Phone: (250)360-0919 Fax: 360-0975 e m a i l : admin@millennia-research. c o m
http://www.millennia-research.com
2520 Graveley Street, Vancouver BC, V5K 3J6 Phone/Fax: (604)215-9430 email: millennia.van@telus.net
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L C O N S U L T I N G
A N D
H E R I T A G E
MR file 0335 Contact sheet and briefs re: Core screening as part of AIA component: Date July 21 Contact Squamish Nation: Ian Campbell Detail/Action t/c to discuss RAVP core samples and permit details, who to contact regarding the project and Squamish Nation information/concerns etc. Squamish Nation people would like to look over maps etc. to do with the RAVP, JL advised she would send them a copy of the Archaeology Branch Permit Letters Faxed to First Nation Admin. Re core samples (outside of permit)
Aug 5
Squamish Nation: Tony Moody
Aug 18
Musqueam ATTN: Leona Sparrow cc Len Ham; Tsleil-Waututh: ATTN: Doug Aberley; Tsawwassen: ATTN: Andrew Bak; Squamish ATTN: Tony Moody, cc Rudy Reimer ; Sto:lo ATTN Dave
December 2004
Date Aug 18
Contact Schaepe Doug Aberley of Tsleil-Waututh
Detail/Action JL Follow up t/c to DA re; fax, and assistant availability. Will call DA to schedule fieldwork. Also Diana Alexander should be notified JL Follow up t/c re fax, and assistant availability. AB had not sent letter to Arch. Branch was planning to. He had no comments on the permit or the core sampling letter. JL asked to contact Chrystalyn Wilson re: assistants Unable to reach Rudy Reimer and Tony Moody. Messages left at the Band Office for both. To the best of JLs knowledge Reimer has not seen core letter. Follow up t/c as DS is away wanted to touch base with Ian. Core work will go under current Sto:lo permit as per IF. Follow up t/c to core letter. Ms Sparrow had no additional comments or questions, requested that Len Ham be involved, thanked JL for keeping her up to date. In Musqueam context: in airport research JL left message Discussed methods and availability. Doug A. wants her to review log and screening program. Program review, he had recd nothing from Squamish Admin, prior to JLs messages of last week. Sent again via fax permit application, and core letter. Discussion of project methods. He will review docs sent and get back to JL with comment. Recd Reimers
Andrew Bak of Tsawwassen
Squamish
Aug 21
Ian Franck acting for Dave Schaepe of Sto:lo Musqueam: Leona Sparrow
Len Ham Aug 25 Frm Diana Alexander, TsleilWaututh Frm Tony Moody Squamish Nation
Aug 25
December 2004
Date
Contact
Detail/Action number and Kevin Rivers suggested assistant. Message rtn. He will require a couple more days to review permit. Will send squamish permit tomorrow 100$ fee. He has no comments, but wants to make sure there is nothing that he missed. Left message DS back in office, sent a short email to update him on core sample component Hadnt reviewed permit, will do so and get back to JL and the Branch. Its on her to-do list Advised JL to call Len Ham Left message Voice mail and fax of permit application Left specific message regarding needing Musqueam permit Site potential discussion, and permit issues. JL to update references in permit application and send to Musqueam and cc Len. To expedite Musqueam Permit Left JL message. He is working on getting the Squamish permit. (Contact in Admin is ill) expect next few days to be issued. Left voice mail, re: upcoming issuance of Prov permit, and conversation with LH. Will be forwarding her a letter addressing Lens concerns. Mentioned that if she
Aug 26
Frm Tony Moody Squamish
Aug 27
Rudy Reimer Squamish Dave Schaepe Sto:Lo Leona Sparrow, Musqueam
Aug 28
Tony Moody, Squamish Maureen Thomas, Squamish Len Ham Sept 2 Len Ham
Sept 2
Frm Tony Moody Squamish
Sept 2
Musqueam; Leona Sparrow
December 2004
Date
Contact
Detail/Action requires an extension that she must contact Steven Acheson today by 4:30. Permit is in process, should get it this week Lft message regarding the Musqueam permit Inquired status of Musqueam permit. Left message re permit status Message to JL: has correspondence regarding permit Rtn call, message left Mess. Left re permit Left message re permit status. Permit should be on its way TM will check on it. Field work is a go Left message re permit status. Reached DH on cell, brief introduction, asked him to check on Heritage Permit. DH asked how JL got his cell number, said hed get back to JL this afternoon FW sched for Mon Tues. went over EBA log for possible samples to look at next week. JL to email list, DA to add and JL to get back to EBA Left voice mail: Checking in after the heritage permit. FW will go Mon and Tues; JL will hire Les Guerrin, if its a problem LS to contact JL with alternative. Left msg to work next week if available.
Sept 3 Sept 8
Frm Tony Moody Squamish Musqueam: L Sparrow Musqueam: Len Ham Musqueam: Paula Point Frm Paula Point Musqueam Paula Point Musqueam Musqueam: P. Point Squamish: Tony Moody Rtn T Moody Squamish Musqueam: Paula Point Musqueam: Band Manager, Daryl Hargitt
Sept 9
Sept 11 Sept 12
Sept 15 Sept 16
Sept 18
Tsleil-Waututh: Diana Alexander
Sept 18
Musqueam : L Sparrow
Tsleil-Waututh: Ed Thomas, field
December 2004
Date
Contact assistant Tsawwassen: Chrystalyn Wilson, human resources Sto:lo: Dave Schaepe Squamish: Rudy Reimer Musqueam: Les Guerrin
Detail/Action Left message re FW and need of assistant Mon tues. Left mess re: FW and need a recommendation for assistant Left message: re: FW and need for assistant. Call after 6 pm. Re upcoming FW mon and tues
JL = Lindberg t/c is telephone call frm JL MR = Millennia Head office
December 2004
Musqueam Indian Band Written Communication and Permit 1062003-MB
December 2004
December 2004
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L
A N D
H E R I T A G E
C O N S U L T I N G
MR file: 0335 August 18, 2003
Leona Sparrow Treaty Director Musqueam Indian Band VIA FACSIMILE: 604- 263-4212 Re: Upcoming archaeological project; screening of Geotechnical Core Samples taken for Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Project. Dear Ms Sparrow: In the next week we would like to initiate the geotechnical core-screening component of the Archaeological Impact Assessment related to the RichmondAirport-Vancouver rapid transit project. Three companies conducted the geotechnical drilling this spring and summer, EBA Engineering Consultants (Richmond and Airport segments), Klohn Crippen Consultants (North and Middle Arms Fraser River) and Golder Associates Ltd (Downtown Vancouver to SW Marine Drive). The companies have subsequently reposited the soil cores and core records for further analysis.
December 2004
We propose that the core logs be reviewed and that the core samples be analysed by the archaeological project team in hopes of identifying archaeologically significant materials, or palaeobotanical elements that may be evidence of particular landscapes that have archaeological potential. I am currently gathering logistical information and will forward details as they become known. We are requesting that a researcher from Musqueam attend and participate in the screening as part of the archaeology project team. I anticipate 1 to 2 days work. This is in addition to archaeological fieldwork that has yet to be scheduled. The screening component is only cursorily mentioned in the Musqueam heritage research application sent to your attention last month. Will you please advise me whether you require further information? I appreciate your consideration and I look forward to talking with you. Sincerely
Jennifer Lindberg, MA, RPCA Senior Archaeologist Millennia Research Limited
Cc Leonard Ham PhD by Fax
December 2004
10
2520 Graveley Street, Vancouver BC, V5K 3J6 Phone/Fax: (604)215-9430 email: millennia.van@telus.net A R C H A E O L O G I C A L A N D H E R I T A G E C O N S U L T I N G
MR file 0335 July 24, 2003 Leona Sparrow Musqueam Indian Band Via Fax: Re: Archaeological permit for research in Musqueam traditional lands: RAV transit line Dear Ms. Sparrow: I would like to amend the permit sent to your office July 16, 2003. I believe we neglected to include that we will be working with Dr. Len Ham, Archaeologist and Heritage Consultant throughout the project. He will act as an advisor; review the permit, methods and reporting. I trust this amendment will be satisfactory. Please call if you have any comments or questions. Thank you
Jennifer Lindberg MA RPCA Senior Archaeologist Millennia Research Limited
11
December 2004
A N D
H E R I T A G E
C O N S U L T I N G
MR file:0335 September 3, 2003 Leona Sparrow Treaty Department Musqueam Band VIA FACSIMILE: 263-4212 Re: Upcoming archaeological work in Musqueam territory for the proposed RAV transit Dear Ms Sparrow: Following our brief telephone call last week, I have had a chance to speak with Len Ham about the above captioned project and the associated permits. He would like me to address some errors and omissions in the background research (page 3) of our HCA permit application, due to be issued shortly. Because this is the foundation of our Musqueam Heritage Permit Id like you to note that I have taken Lens concerns into consideration and have the following amendments: On page 3 paragraph 3: The area around the site was designated in 1990 by Leonard Ham as having moderate archaeological potential, due to its proximity to the Fraser River. Is an unknown reference and is vague according to L.Ham (pers. comm. Sept 2, 2003).
13
December 2004
Reference page 3, last paragraph on: In 1999, Ham returned to the site to monitor development on the portion of midden is a typo and should be 1996, (referring to permit 1996-156) (pers. comm. Sept 2, 2003) Page 5, first paragraph: reference in footnote is incorrect, and should be referring to the Sea Island archaeological reviews (1996-present) for In our conversation, Len Ham further expanded on the nature of the deposits of DhRs-026. Millennia reported that these are poorly understood. To the contrary, Len is confident in describing them as well understood, reporting that the deposits are disturbed; mined from the Marpole site (DhRs-001). Len told me that the boundaries of the site are also known. (L Ham pers. comm Sept 2, 2003) Much of the information Len discussed with me yesterday was not available to us at the time of our permit application; we relied at the time on information in the Archaeological Site Inventory Forms of the provincial registry. Len referred me to the summary of his work in the Equinox AOA (Woods 2003) of the Fraser River Crossings and of course his work for the VIAA over the last several years. I am confident that the detailed information and the pertinent reports Len will be providing will be of utmost use. In the meantime, we await the issuance of the Musqueam Heritage Permit. Please call if there is any other information you require for that issuance to be expedited. Thank you for your attention to this. Sincerely,
Jennifer Lindberg MA, RPCA Millennia Research Limited
Cc Len Ham
December 2004
14
Musqueam Indian Band Chief & Council Agreement to conduct archaeological research within Musqueam traditional lands. STATEMENT OF POLICY The Musqueam Nation will not condone nor support any research or investigations conducted at archaeological sites within our traditional lands unless the Principal Investigator has contacted the Musqueam Band Council and entered into an AGREEMENT TO CONDUCT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH WITHIN MUSQUEAM TRADITIONAL LANDS. Musqueam Indian Band Chief and Council 6735 Salish Drive Vancouver, B.C. V6N 2C6 Applicant please complete 1 to 5 and attach supporting documents. 1) Name of Principal Investigator: Jennifer Lindberg Address: c/o Millennia Research Limited (Vancouver Office) 2520 Graveley Street, Vancouver, BC, V5K 3J6 Telephone #: (604) 215-9430 2) Name of Thesis Advisor: N/A 3) Site(s) to be Investigated: Known sites DhRs-26 and DhRt-58 (Provide Borden Designations) 4) Proposed Repository: University of British Columbia Museum of Anthropology 5) Duration of Research: mid July-August 2003 6) Other Conditions: See attached Section 14 British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act Permit Application for additional information I have attached my vita, research proposal and/or British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act Permit Application, and will provide the Musqueam Band with a copy of my Permit upon receipt, and a copy of all reports which may be written as a result of this agreement. I agree to deposit human remains recovered under
15
December 2004
this agreement with the Musqueam Band with a catalogue of all complete and partial human burial finds to be analysed. I understand and willingly abide by the terms of this agreement.
______________________________________ Principal Investigator
_______________________ Date
_____________________________________ _______________________ Received By
Date
December 2004
16
Leonard C. Ham, Ph.D., RPCA. Archologist & Heritage Consultant 1141 Walalee Drive, Delta, B.C. V4M 2L9 (tel\fax 604-948-9857)
2004 01 14 simon_robinson@yvr.ca
Mr. Simon Robinson Environment Department Vancouver International Airport Authority P.O. Box 23750 APO Richmond, B.C. V7B 1Y7
Re: Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Archaeological Impact Assessment DRAFT November 17, 2003. ________________________________________________________________ ______ Attached please find material I have forwarded to Millennia Research for the cited report. Please call if you have questions. Thank you.
Member British Columbia Association of Professional Consulting Archaeologists.
17
December 2004
Leonard C. Ham, Ph.D., RPCA. Archologist & Heritage Consultant 1141 Walalee Drive, Delta, B.C. V4M 2L9 (tel\fax 604-948-9857)
2004 01 14 Att: Ms. DAnn Owens Millennia Research #510 Alpha Street, Victoria, B.C. V8Z 1B2 Re: Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Archaeological Impact Assessment DRAFT November 17, 2003. ________________________________________________________________ ______ p.1, 1st para., .... fieldwork completed during September.... - but pp. 8 & 21 report fieldwork on Oct 27th. p.1, 2nd para. ? How much compaction at surface from construction vibrations, and later from transit vehicles ? The end of this paragraph may leave the reader with the impression that as long as the line is 12 m below a site it will be safe. I doubt if this is true (compaction from traffic vibration at DgRs 1 has damaged the stratigraphy - Ham 2002:22). You should point out any sites above or adjacent to the line may face impacts from vibration remember the long term, an almost imperceptible vibration could over decades destroy site stratigraphy (I know this is unlikely to happen on this development, but best have the facts straight).
p.5
SEA ISLAND / Previous Archaeology / Site Potential (Use following as you wish)
December 2004
18
1) Shoreline sites Shoreline archaeological sites are rare on Sea Island and consist of two historic villages, DhRt-24H and DhRt-22H (Trutch 1859; see Ham 1990:14), and one isolated find of undetermined age from DhRt-59 (Ham 1992a). Both villages appear to have been re-located to the shoreline during the early historic period from former locations up slough channels (Ham 1990:35-36, 37-38). This probably resulted from the political stabilization of the delta following establishment of the HBCo. post at Fort Langley. Neither of these village sites are in the Sea Island RAV study area.
19
December 2004
L. Ham to DAnn Owens, 2004-01-14 Re: RAV Project Archaeological Impact Assessment DRAFT November 17, 2003. ___________________________________________________________ p. 6, para. 1, last sentence makes no sense (from out-of-date site form), keep Copp & Zacharias refs., delete last sentence & use following: The other shoreline midden site known from Sea Island is DhRs-26 at Eburne which consists of relocated midden material (Ham 1996). In 1995 work commenced on the seismic upgrading of the Arthur Laing Bridge. A shallow (0.50 m), disturbed shell midden deposit was observed in the eastern portion of an excavation around bridge footing S2 (Ham 1995:3). No midden was observed in the western 2/3s of the excavation, nor was any observed in the excavations around the other bridge footings (i.e., S3, S4, S5). In addition, no midden was observed in the October 1995 excavation between bridge footings S2 and S3 for an underground storage tank associated with the old Eburne service station (Ham 1995:4, 1996:1-2, 10). In 1996 a series of 8 back hoe tests were excavated at DhRs-26, four within the proposed densification zone, and four outside of it (Ham 1996). These tests encountered between 1.40 and 2.20 m of disturbed deposits consisting of imported sand, gravel, humic soil and shell midden (Tests 2 & 4 only) mixed with historic garbage (sawn wood, glass, rusty metal) resting on grey Fraser River silt (Ham 1996:2). In the lower portion of Test 2 sawn wood and china fragments were found between the midden deposits and the Fraser River clays. On the east side of Airport Road the Fraser River clays were reached between 1.40 and 2.20 m below the surface, while 5 m to the west on the opposite side of the road, these materials are only 0.30-0.50 m below the surface. The alignment of the 1889 North Arm and Middle Arm bridges required filling in a strip of foreshore before the road bed could be built. The contract for the bridge approaches was held by William Oliver, who also had the contract for Old River Road across the Marpole Midden (Ham 2002:15; British Columbia 1890:154; Public Works 1890). The shell midden deposits at DhRs-26 are discontinuously aligned in a narrow c.10 m wide band along the eastern edge of the old river bank (Ham 1996:6). Subsequent archaeological monitoring and inspections
December 2004
20
have not identified shell midden in any other area at Eburne (Ham 1997e, 1999b, 1999c). The isolated find from DhRt-59, a barbed bone point, was recovered in a fishing net from the north side of the Middle Arm in 1932 (Ham 1992a). This is not the only isolated find recovered from the Fraser River distributary channels. In the 1950s a carved wooden club was recovered from the North Arm distributary by a bridge building crew (Oak St. bridge?) (Bernick 1991:117-18; Fladmark et al., 1987:6-7). Additional isolated finds may be present in any spoil brought out of the river channels. 2) Inland Sites The majority of the archaeological sites on Sea Island are located inland from the river distributaries (e.g.,DhRs 299, 310, DhRt 24, 22, 57, 58, 88, 89, 92)(see YVRAA Site Potential map). Slough channel proximity is an important determinant of site location as all are located on a slough bank, or within 25 m of one. Site distribution is also influenced by historic vegetation communities, possibly grassland and shrub land ecotones (cf., Ham 1990:7, 8, 16). Two-thirds of these sites are isolated finds where tools and equipment were lost or abandoned.
21
December 2004
L. Ham to DAnn Owens, 2004-01-14 Re:RAV Project Archaeological Impact Assessment DRAFT November 17, 2003. ___________________________________________________________ Most of the study area has been levelled and manicured, and is best classed as Built Environment. There is an isolated find site within the Sea Island study area and there may be others. The environmental parameters, slough channels and vegetation zones are both present. Monitoring soil stripping and inspection of spoil is an effective means of examining the mass of soil necessary to recover isolated finds (shovel testing is not effective). The study area was farmland and has thus been cleared, drained and plowed. The latter activity both scatters and tracks shell midden material around a field and thus will increase its archaeological visibility. On Sea Island, midden shell is easily visible in exposed soil between grass plants. No evidence suggesting the presence of a shell midden has been observed within the Sea Island study area (Ham 1990, 1997a, 1998, 1999, 2001). DhRt-058 Miller Rd. Site DhRt 58 was located between Grant McConachie Way & North Service Rd., immediately west of MacDonald Rd. (extended). This is an isolated find site where Mr. Ken McDonald found a nephrite adze blade while plowing in the 1960s (Ham 1990:34). Mr. McDonald indicated he was familiar with shell midden deposits as he had seen them at the Marpole Midden. He had never seen any on his farm. Several archaeological inspections have been conducted in the vicinity of DhRt058. In 1992 soil stripping was monitored during site preparation for the Project Office trailers (Ham 1992b). Observed soils consisted of 0.15-0.25 m of fine grained brown (7.5YR 4/2) silt with occasional pieces of decayed wood and chunks of coarsely crushed granite (5x10cm). Immediately north of the Project Offices pieces of cement were exposed on the surface from fill imported in 1988 (see YVR 1989 airphoto). Other archaeological inspections were made in the area during construction of the Parallel Runway and ancillary developments including re-opening of MacDonald Road (Ham 1997b, 1997c). In 1997, 1,200 m of soil were inspected at DhRt-58 when the site area was stripped for a parking
December 2004
22
lot (Ham 1997d). observed.
No evidence of archaeological remains or deposits were
p. 6, para. 2: ? Ham (2002)? Site Potential Map of Sea Island - this is revised every year The most recent assessment of the archaeological site potential of Sea Island available to this study was YVRAA 2002. The archaeological resource potential of eastern Sea Island consists of one recorded site of relocated midden, one privately held isolated find, and a low potential area with vegetation community ecotones and a slough channel. Most, if not all of this low potential area has been modified by historic and modern activities. However soil modifying activities should be monitored and inspected by an archaeologist for isolated finds.
23
December 2004
L. Ham to DAnn Owens, 2004-01-14 Re:RAV Project Archaeological Impact Assessment DRAFT November 17, 2003. ___________________________________________________________ Duck Island: The Duck Island sample (#612) would be through imported fill to a thin organic layer from the intertidal grassland which blanketed much of the island for 50-60 years. Originally forested, it was intertidal grass more recently and may have been mined for fill by William Oliver when the bridges were built in 1889. [It is curious that the 1859 land survey notes Duck Island as a mixed wet coniferous forest North et al. (1979), while the 1921 GSC map shows sand at either end of the island, while those portions adjacent to bridge is noted as wet grass community - may indicate the island logged & mined for fill in 1889]. Comments only, additional archaeology investigation not warranted. Smith (1903:144) ... on Lulu Island opposite small shell heap at Eburne [to east of Hudson & Marine, late Musqueam village, unrecorded site not seen since 1920s] & due east of Sea Island - long hexagonal slate spear point found by farmer...). There has probably been less disturbance to original soil on Lulu Island to the north of Bridgeport Rd., than to the south of it. Any excavations (station, etc.) along northern Lulu island should be monitored and inspected by an archaeologist. (p.26). The portion of Lulu Island from Bridgeport Rd. south to Granville Ave, has overall low site potential, in fact most of this area is best classed as Built Environment, and has been cleared and drained, plowed, and developed from farm to residential to high density industrial-commercial and residential. The opportunity for survival of any native soil is very low. Like Sea Island, soils here were thin and any archaeological deposits are located in the uppermost soil layers. Additional archaeology probably not warranted.
Lulu Island:
December 2004
24
Foot Cambie:
original shoreline was about way between Marine Drive and Kent Street. To the north was mixed wet coniferous forest, and to the south tidal wet grass community. Basically everything south of Cambie & 70th/71th extended has been filled. I have no evidence of any creek in this immediate area and concur with a low site potential, lower than what you have proposed (p. 25). Additional archaeology probably not warranted. Little Mountain was a Musqueam hunting area. To the southwest of Little Mountain, the flat area around 41st and Cambie was mapped by North et al. (1979) as a mixed wet coniferous forest dominated by western red cedar and hemlock (+ spruce, alder, cottonwood, willow, yew, crab apple & ferns). People would have been attracted to this area both for forest products (bark, roots, etc.) and for hunting. I would anticipate any camp area might be located on the southwest slope of Little Mountain, possibly in the vicinity of the proposed 33rd Avenue Station. Initial grubbing and site preparation for the station should be monitored by an archaeologist.
Little Mtn:
25
December 2004
L. Ham to DAnn Owens, 2004-01-14 Re:RAV Project Archaeological Impact Assessment DRAFT November 17, 2003. ___________________________________________________________ 2nd Ave. This proposed station location may be far enough south to miss the original southern Station: shoreline of False Creek, however, I concur with your evaluation (p.25). Initial grubbing and site preparation for the station should be monitored by an archaeologist. p.23, para 1: dump it ? p.23, Table 4. 2nd entry BHT16C etc. ...of Grauer Rd. Airport Rd. should read
I hope this works ok for you. Please give me a call if you have questions.
Sincerely;
Simon Robinson YVRAA Environment Dept. Leona Sparrow Musqueam Treaty Dept.
December 2004
26
L. Ham to DAnn Owens, 2004-01-14 Re:RAV Project Archaeological Impact Assessment DRAFT November 17, 2003. REFERENCES Bernick (1991). Water Hazard Site (DgRs-030. In, Wet Site Archaeology in the Lower Mainland Region of British Columbia. British Columbia Heritage Trust, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, and Laboratory of Archaeology, University of British Columbia. British Columbia.(1890). Report of Public Works. Report of the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works of the Province of British Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ending 31ST December, 1889. Sessional Papers, Richard Wolfenden, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. Fladmark, K.R., D.E. Nelson, T.A. Brown, J.S. Vogel, and J.R. Southan. (1987). AMS Dating of Two Wooden Artifacts from the Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 11:1-11. Ham, L.C. (1990). An Archaeological Resource Overview of Sea Island, Richmond, British Columbia. Airside Capacity Enhancement Project. H.C.A. Permit 1990-15. On file YVRAA Environment Department. (1992a). Additional Information, DhRt-59 British Columbia Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file, Archaeology and Registry Services Branch, Victoria. (1992b).Re: Archaeological inspection office trailer site YVR.. Letter dated 1992 08 27 to Ms Anne Murray, Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority. On file YVRAA Environment Department. (1995). Status Archaeological Studies (Ferguson Tote Road Sites, DhRt 57, DhRs 1, DhRs 26, & monitoring ditch cleaning and tank removals. Letter report dated November 14, 1995 to Ms. Anne Murray Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority. On file YVRAA Environment Department. pp. 3- 4, 11-12. (Appended to 1996 report for permit 1996-156).
27
December 2004
(1996). Archaeological Impact Assessment, Eburne, DhRs-026. Letter report prepared for Winfred Liu (Engineering Department, YVRAA) and submitted to Dr. Steven Acheson (Archaeology Branch Permit 1996-156) dated 1996 11 30. On file YVRAA Environment Department. (1997a). Re: Archaeological Inspections of Widening Eastbound Lane of Grant McConachie Way (1997 07 02), & Widening Eastbound Lane Grant McConachie Way: Archaeological Concerns (1997 04 01) (Tab #12). In, Archaeological Reviews 1997. Compilation of 30 reviews conducted for the Vancouver International Airport Authority, December 1, 1996 to November 30, 1997. On file Environment Department, YVRAA. (1997b). Re: Archaeological Concerns: Proposed Hudson General Maintenance Workshop (1997 03 24)(Tab #19). In, Archaeological Reviews 1997. Compilation of 30 reviews conducted for the Vancouver International Airport Authority, December 1, 1996 to November 30, 1997. On file Environment Department, YVRAA. (1997c). Re: Archaeological Concerns: Proposed New East De-icing Lagoon, YVR (1997 03 26)(Tab #10). In, Archaeological Reviews 1997. Compilation of 30 reviews conducted for the Vancouver International Airport Authority, December 1, 1996 to November 30, 1997. On file Environment Department, YVRAA. (1997d). Site Alteration DhRt-058. Letter report to Mr. Al Mackie, Archaeology and Registry Services Branch, Victoria. H.C.A. Permit 1997-204 & Musqueam Permit 97-104-MB. 1997 08 13. On file YVRAA Environment Department.
December 2004
28
L. Ham to DAnn Owens, 2004-01-14 Re:RAV Project Archaeological Impact Assessment DRAFT November 17, 2003. (1997e). Re: Archaeological Monitoring North Arm Bank Repair at Eburne (1997 10 15)(Tab #27). In, Archaeological Reviews 1997. Compilation of 30 reviews conducted for the Vancouver International Airport Authority, December 1, 1996 to November 30, 1997. On file Environment Department, YVRAA. (1998). Re: Geotechnical Testing, Grant McConachie Way Westbound Site Potential (1998 06 09)(Tab #14). In, Archaeological Reviews 1998. Compilation of 22 reviews conducted for the Vancouver International Airport Authority, December 1, 1997 to November 30, 1998. On file Environment Department, YVRAA. (1999a). Re: Archaeological Inspection Lot JR17 Geotechnical Testing (1999 02 02)(Tab #7). In, Archaeological Reviews 1999. Compilation of 18 reviews conducted for the Vancouver International Airport Authority, December 1, 1998 to November 30, 1999. On file Environment Department, YVRAA. (1999b). Re: Archaeological monitoring environmental testing program North Fraser Harbour Commission Lease #60420 (1998 04 29)(Tab #1). In, Archaeological Reviews 1999. Compilation of 18 reviews conducted for the Vancouver International Airport Authority, December 1, 1998 to November 30, 1999. On file Environment Department, YVRAA. (1999c). Re: Archaeological Monitoring Soil Densification Arthur Laing Bridge (DhRs-026) (1999 05 29)(Tab #12). In, Archaeological Reviews 1999. Compilation of 18 reviews conducted for the Vancouver International Airport Authority, December 1, 1998 to November 30, 1999. On file Environment Department, YVRAA. (2001). Re: final Report Archaeological Monitoring YVR Connector & Middle Arm Bridge. Letter report to Mr. Ray Kenny Archaeology and Registry Services Branch, Victoria (2001 12 31). In, Archaeological Reviews 1999 (Tab #7). Compilation of 7 reviews conducted for the
29
December 2004
Vancouver International Airport Authority, December 1, 2000 to November 30, 2001. On file Environment Department, YVRAA. (2002a). The Corporation of Delta 2001 Capital Works: Archaeological Reviews. Heritage Conservation Act permit 2001-268. Prepared for Tom Ng, P.Eng., Engineering Department, The Corporation of Delta. (2002b). Archaeological Potential Model for the Marpole Midden. Prepared under Musqueam Band Council Permit Number 2001-01-MB. Prepared for Martin Magne, Ph.D., Canadian Heritage (Parks Canada), Calgary, North, M.E.A., M.W. Dunn, and J.M. Teversham. (1979). Vegetation of the Southwestern Fraser Lowland 1858-1880. Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, Vancouver. Public Works. (1889). Contract No. 5 to San Francisco Bridge Co. for the construction of certain combination truss bridges over the North Arms of the Fraser River to connect Lulu and Sea Islands with the mainland, May 22, 1889. Province of British Columbia Public Works, Victoria. BCARS GR 087 Box 28 file 9. Public Works. (1890). Province of British Columbia Public Works, Victoria. New Westminster District, Special Works, Revised List. BCARS GR 087 B28 f8. Smith, H.I. (1903). Shell-Heaps of the Lower Fraser River, British Columbia. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History. Volume 2, Part IV, pp. 133-191. New York Trutch, J.W. (1859). Fieldbook 7/59, P.H. 1, Group 2, N.W.D. On file Surveyor General, Victoria. YVRAA. (2002). Archaeological Site Potential of Sea Island. Prepared for the Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority, under Musqueam Band Council Permit 101-2002-MB, by L.C. Ham & Jones Maps & Diagrams. 2002 12 31.
December 2004
30
Tsleil-Waututh First Nation Written Communication
31
December 2004
MR file: 0335 August 18, 2003 Doug Aberley Tsleil-Waututh First Nation VIA Fax: Re: Upcoming archaeological project; screening of Geotechnical Core Samples taken for Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Project. Dear Mr Aberley: In the next week we would like to initiate the geotechnical core-screening component of the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) related to the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project (RAVP). As you know, three companies conducted the geotechnical drilling this spring and summer, EBA Engineering Consultants (Richmond and Airport segments), Klohn Crippen Consultants (North and Middle Arms Fraser River) and Golder Associates Ltd (Downtown Vancouver to SW Marine Drive). The geotechnical companies have subsequently reposited the soil cores and core records for further analysis. Each of the geotechnical programs was preceded by an archaeological overview1. The Overviews assessed the segments in question as having low
1
Alexander, D.
33
December 2004
potential for archaeological remains generally because of the great amount of development and land altering that has occurred within the proposed project area. We propose that the core logs be reviewed and that the core samples be analysed by the archaeological team in the event of identifying archaeologically significant materials, and more likely to identify palaeobotanical/or geophysical elements present in the cores that may be evidence of particular landscapes of archaeological potential. I am currently gathering logistical information and will forward details as they become known. I anticipate 1 to 2 days work for a researcher from TsleilWaututh to participate in the screening as part of the archaeology project team. This is in addition to upcoming archaeological fieldwork that has yet to be scheduled. The results of the screening program will be reported in the AIA final report due in October. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to talking with you. Sincerely,
Jennifer Lindberg, MA, RPCA
Senior Archaeologist
Millennia Research Limited Vancouver CC Diana Alexander
2003 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Geotechnical Investigations for the Richmond and Airport Segment of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. Prepared for EBA Engineering Vancouver. Woods, Sue 2003 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Geotechnical Borehole Locations for the Fraser River North Arm and Middle Arm Crossings. Report prepare for RAVP by Equinox Research and Consulting Ltd. Wada, Gail 2003 Archaeological Overview Assessment of the RAVP Transit Cambie Corridor (Downtown Vancouver to SW Marine Drive) Geotechnical Drilling Program. Golder Associates Ltd, Letter prepared for Richmond Vancouver Airport Project Vancouver
December 2004
34
35
December 2004
December 2004
36
37
December 2004
Sto:lo Nation Written Communication and Permit 2003-31
39
December 2004
41
December 2004
A N D
H E R I T A G E
C O N S U L T I N G
Dave Schaepe Archaeologist Department of Aboriginal Rights and Title Sto:lo Nation
VIA Fax: Re: Upcoming archaeological project; screening of Geotechnical Core Samples taken for Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Project. Dear Mr Schaepe: In the next week we would like to initiate the geotechnical core-screening component of the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) related to the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project (RAVP). The screening component is only cursorily mentioned in the heritage research application sent to your attention last month.
43
December 2004
As you know, three companies conducted the geotechnical drilling this spring and summer, EBA Engineering Consultants (Richmond and Airport segments), Klohn Crippen Consultants (North and Middle Arms Fraser River) and Golder Associates Ltd (Downtown Vancouver to SW Marine Drive). The geotechnical companies have subsequently reposited the soil cores and core records for further analysis. Each of the geotechnical programs was preceded by an archaeological overviewi. The Overviews assessed the segments in question as having low potential for archaeological remains generally because of the great amount of development and land altering that has occurred within the proposed project area. We propose that the core logs be reviewed and that the core samples be analysed by the archaeological team in the event of identifying archaeologically significant materials, and more likely to identify palaeobotanical/or geophysical elements present in the cores that may be evidence of particular landscapes of archaeological potential. I am currently gathering logistical information and will forward details as they become known. I anticipate 1 to 2 days work for a researcher from Sto:lo to participate in the screening as part of the archaeology project team. This is in addition to upcoming archaeological fieldwork that has yet to be scheduled. The results of the screening program will be reported in the AIA final report due in October. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to talking with you. Sincerely,
Jennifer Lindberg, MA, RPCA Senior Archaeologist Millennia Research Limited Vancouver
December 2004
44
ST:L NATION
Department of Aboriginal Rights and Title
1-7201 Vedder Road, Chilliwack, B.C. V2R 4G5 Phone (604) 858-3366 Fax (604) 824-5226
To:
Jennifer Lindberg
From: David Schaepe, Archaeologist
Fax:
1-604-215-9430 (email: millennia.van@telus.net) Page 1 (to follow) s:
Phone 1-604-215-9430 : Re: St:l Nation Heritage Investigation Permit #2003-31
Date: July 22, 2003
CC:
Ray Kenny
X F.Y.I
For Review
Please Comment
Please Reply
Please Recycle
Jennifer As permit signatory for St:l Nation, I have approved your permit application for the project entitled Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project CHIA.. I have assigned you St:l Nation Heritage Investigation Permit #2003-31 for this project as noted on the following permit document. Please note that issuance of this permit is separate and apart from the consultation process associated with any development proposal(s) to which this project is linked. The issuance of this permit in no way contributes to or in any way relieves the project proponent's consultative duties with St:l Nation or any other associated First Nations. This document is issued as a result of having
45
December 2004
satisfied the process of technical review associated with the proposed program of archaeological investigation. In addition, please submit a recent copy of your CV for inclusion in your permit application file. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at the above address. Good luck. Sincerely, Dave Schaepe Senior Archaeologist St:l Nation
December 2004
46
ST:L
No. 2003-31
NATION
HERITAGE INVESTIGATION PERMIT
Permittee: Jennifer Lindberg, Millennia Research Ltd. Project: Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project CHIA Permit Issuance/Expiry Dates: July 22, 2003/04 Permit Terms and Conditions: 1. The permit holder is responsible for ensuring that all staff working on this project are familiar with the St:l Nation Heritage Policy (a copy of this document will be provided upon request). The permit holder will make a concerted effort to hire at least one St:l individual (with an appropriate level of experience and training) to assist in conducting this project. In the event that human remains are identified at any time during the course of this project, the permit holder must immediately cease and stabilize any disturbance of the remains, inform both the St:l Nation Heritage Advisor and Archaeologist of the nature and location of the remains, and implement any instructions regarding the treatment of the remains. Prior to the production of the final report, the permit holder shall provide the St:l Nation Archaeologist an opportunity to review and comment on proposed management recommendations relating to any cultural heritage sites identified during the course of this project. Implementation and inclusion of editorial comments made by the St:l Nation with regard to management recommendations and/or any other portion of the project report will be negotiated between the permit holder and the St:l Nation Archaeologist, prior to report finalization. The permit holder shall provide the St:l Nation Archaeologist with one copy of the final report (including the St:l Nation permit number on the cover) for this project, prior to the expiration of this permit. All final reports are expected to meet or exceed the reporting standards developed by the provincial Archaeology Branch. In the event that provincial reporting
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
47
December 2004
standards and/or guidelines are not applicable to this project, the permit holder is responsible for developing such standards/guidelines in consultation with the St:l Nation Archaeologist. 7. The permit holder shall provide the St:l Nation Archaeologist one copy of any updated or newly recorded British Columbia Archaeological Site Inventory Form(s) resultant from the project. Site forms should be submitted with the final report. 8. Any application for extension of this permit must be made at least 30 days prior to the permit expiry date. 9. Reasonable amendments to this permit may be requested in writing on an as needed basis. 10. A representative of the St:l Nation may at any time inspect any project being conducted under this permit. Other: N/A
December 2004
48
St:l Nation
Bldg. #1 - 7201 Vedder Road, Chilliwack, B.C. V2R 4G5 Tel: 604-858-3366 Fax: 604-824-5226
Permit No. (to be assigned) Application Submission Date: Project Proponent: Chief Investigator / Company: Companm/CompCompaCompany/ Institution: Project Name: Project Location:
Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Jennifer Lindberg, Millennia Research Limited
Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Rapid Transit rail line from downtown Vancouver to Richmond Centre and Vancouver International Airport, (underground along Granville and Davie Streets in downtown Vnacouver, under False Creek, underground along Cambie to 49th, in trench or at-grade along Cambie to 63rd Avenue, elevated across Marine Drive and the North Arm of the Fraser River to Bridgeport, elevated across Moray Channel and along Grant McConnachie Way on Sea Island, and at-grade or elevated from Bridgeport to Richmond Centre)
See attached for details. Note: $100.00 Permit Processing Fee required with submission (please submit a check or money order payable to St:l Nation with your permit application)
Type of Heritage Project: (check approriate boxes) Heritage Overview Assessment Heritage Site Impact Assessment Heritage-related Research Project (non-resource management) YES
49
December 2004
Nature of Investigation: (check approriate box) Residential property development Mining-related development Industrial property development Other (specify): Transportation-related development Y Forestry-related development Estimated Project Timeframe: July 2003 Start Date: Day/Mo./Yr.
August 2003 End Date: Day/Mo./Yr. No:
Will you be interviewing St:l individuals in the course of this Yes: X research? Other Permits obtained for this Project: First Nations: Provincial: Federal:
Musqueam and Squamish heritage investigation permits HCA section 14 permit applied for
(Please Attach Copies with the Application)
ST:L NATION HERITAGE INVESTIGATION PERMIT APPLICATION Project description: (please describe the nature of the project in simple terms) As specific project details are unknown at this stage, we propose a detailed inventory of archaeological Sites, deposits, materials, and/or features that may be affected by the project. This inventory will provide enough information to prepare a preiliminary Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA), which includes formulating preliminarymanagement recommedations. Millennia Research Limited will consult with the Musqueam Indian Band, Squamish Nation, Sto:lo First Nation, Tsawassen First Nation, and TsleilWaututh First Nation regarding the proposed archaeological work, and will provide opportunities for employment of Aboriginal band members. Input will also be sought from archaeologists representing each of these First Nations. (please attach provincal HCA permit application with detailed methodology, etc.)
December 2004
50
Identified Curatorial Facility: Anthropology
University of British Comlumbia Museum of
Acceptance of Permit Conditions: As chief investigator for this project, I certify that I understand and hereby agree to abide by policies outlined in St:l Nations Heritage Policy (2003) and the specific permit conditions associated with this St:l Nation Heritage Investigation Permit: Chief Investigator: Name: Jennifer Lindberg, MA, RPCA Title: Senior Archaeologist Date: (Day/Month/Year) St:l# Nation Approval: Name: Title: Date: (Day/Month/Year) Signatory for St:l Nation Signature St:l Nation Heritage Investigation Permit Permit Terms and Conditions: 11. The permit holder is responsible for ensuring that all staff working on this project are familiar with the St:l Nation Heritage Policy (a copy of this document will be provided upon request). 12. The permit holder will make a concerted effort to hire at least one St:l community member (with an appropriate level of experience and training) to assist in conducting this project. 13. In the event that human remains are identified at any time during the course of this project, the permit holder must immediately cease and stabilize any disturbance of the remains, inform the St:l Nation Archaeologist of the nature and location of the remains, and implement any instructions provided by these individuals regarding the treatment of the remains.
Chief Investigator Signature
51
December 2004
14. Prior to the production of the final report, the permit holder will provide the St:l Nation Archaeologist an opportunity to review and comment on proposed management recommendations relating to any cultural heritage sites identified during the course of this project. 15. Implementation and inclusion of editorial comments made by the St:l Nation with regard to management recommendations and/or any other portion of the project report will be negotiated between the permit holder and the St:l Nation Archaeologist, prior to report finalization. 16. The permit holder shall provide the St:l Nation Archaeologist with one copy of the final report (including the St:l Nation permit number on the cover) for this project, prior to the expiration of this permit. All final reports are expected to meet or exceed the reporting standards developed by the provincial Archaeology Branch. In the event that provincial reporting standards and/or guidelines are not applicable to this project, the permit holder is responsible for developing such standards/guidelines in consultation with the St:l Nation Archaeologist. 17. The permit holder shall provide the St:l Nation Archaeologist one copy of any updated or newly recorded British Columbia Archaeological Site Inventory Form(s) resultant from the project. Site forms should be submitted with the final report. 18. Any application for extension of this permit must be made at least 30 days prior to the permit expiry date. 19. Reasonable amendments to this permit may be requested in writing on an as needed basis. 20. A representative of the St:l Nation may at any time inspect any project being conducted under this permit. 21. The permit holder shall provide the St:l Nation Archaeologist with one completed copy of the Heritage Investigation Project Summary Form upon submission of the final report. Other: (may be specified upon review of application)
December 2004
52
Dave Schaepe Archaeologist Department of Aboriginal Rights and Title Sto:lo Nation VIA Fax: Re: Upcoming archaeological project; screening of Geotechnical Core Samples taken for Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Project. Dear Mr Schaepe: In the next week we would like to initiate the geotechnical core-screening component of the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) related to the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project (RAVP). The screening component is only cursorily mentioned in the heritage research application sent to your attention last month. As you know, three companies conducted the geotechnical drilling this spring and summer, EBA Engineering Consultants (Richmond and Airport segments), Klohn Crippen Consultants (North and Middle Arms Fraser River) and Golder Associates Ltd (Downtown Vancouver to SW Marine Drive). The geotechnical
53
December 2004
companies have subsequently reposited the soil cores and core records for further analysis. Each of the geotechnical programs was preceded by an archaeological overviewii. The Overviews assessed the segments in question as having low potential for archaeological remains generally because of the great amount of development and land altering that has occurred within the proposed project area. We propose that the core logs be reviewed and that the core samples be analysed by the archaeological team in the event of identifying archaeologically significant materials, and more likely to identify palaeobotanical/or geophysical elements present in the cores that may be evidence of particular landscapes of archaeological potential. I am currently gathering logistical information and will forward details as they become known. I anticipate 1 to 2 days work for a researcher from Sto:lo to participate in the screening as part of the archaeology project team. This is in addition to upcoming archaeological fieldwork that has yet to be scheduled. The results of the screening program will be reported in the AIA final report due in October. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to talking with you. Sincerely,
December 2004
54
Tsawwassen First Nation Written Communication
55
December 2004
A N D
H E R I T A G E
C O N S U L T I N G
Fax
To: Fax: Phone: Re:
Tony Moody c/o Squamish Council 604-980-9601
From: Pages: Date:
Jen Lindberg 1 30/11/2004
RAV p rapid transit archaeology x For Review
CC:
Urgent
Please Comment
Please Reply
Hardcopy to follow
Dear Mr Moody: I just wanted to write a brief note about the status of the Archaeology associated with the Richmond Airport Vancouver project (RAV P). I am weaning myself into maternity leave and so am not presently available but will be finishing the draft reporting etc before I officially take leave. We have completed on the ground fieldwork and have completed the majority of the geotechnical review. On Sept 22nd, the crew which included Rudy Reimer walked over the proposed route, and as expected there was little opportunity for testing. We did not locate any archaeological remains, but we discussed areas of archaeological potential at False Creek and south of Queen Elizabeth Park
57
December 2004
and along the Fraser. We also briefly discussed possible management recommendations, the suggestion of monitoring station foundation excavation or for more machine testing. This week Diana Alexander, Rudy and I had the opportunity to go through the core samples taken from the geotechnical work conducted earlier this summer. No archaeological remains were found. Rudy thought hed be meeting with you in the near future, I expect youll hear from him soon. In the meantime I am drafting an operational letter report that will be sent out to you for review. Our final report is due at the end of October. Please call if you have any questions and Ill do my best to answer them. Also please know that D Ann Owens from our Victoria Office is taking over while Im on leave and shell be happy to answer any questions.
December 2004
58
A N D
H E R I T A G E
C O N S U L T I N G
Tony Moody Squamish Nation
VIA Fax: Re: Upcoming archaeological project; screening of Geotechnical Core Samples taken for Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Project. Dear Mr Moody: In the next week we would like to initiate the geotechnical core-screening component of the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) related to the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project (RAVP). As you know, three companies conducted the geotechnical drilling this spring and summer, EBA Engineering Consultants (Richmond and Airport segments), Klohn Crippen Consultants (North and Middle Arms Fraser River) and Golder Associates Ltd (Downtown Vancouver to SW Marine Drive). The geotechnical
59
December 2004
companies have subsequently reposited the soil cores and core records for further analysis. Each of the geotechnical programs was preceded by an archaeological overviewiii. The Overviews assessed the segments in question as having low potential for archaeological remains generally because of the great amount of development and land altering that has occurred within the proposed project area. We propose that the core logs be reviewed and that the core samples be analysed by the archaeological team in the event of identifying archaeologically significant materials, and more likely to identify palaeobotanical/or geophysical elements present in the cores that may be evidence of particular landscapes of archaeological potential. I am currently gathering logistical information and will forward details as they become known. I anticipate 1 to 2 days work for a researcher from Squamish to participate in the screening as part of the archaeology project team. This is in addition to upcoming archaeological fieldwork that has yet to be scheduled. The results of the screening program will be reported in the AIA final report due in October. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to talking with you. Sincerely,
Cc Rudy Reimer, First Heritage Archaeological Consulting
December 2004
60
Historical and Heritage Assessment

1 Alexander, D. Archaeological Overview Assessment of Geotechnical Investigations for the Richmond and Airport Segment of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. Prepared for EBA Engineering Vancouver. Woods, Sue 2003 Archaeological Overview Assessment of Richmond-AirportVancouver Rapid Transit Project Geotechnical Borehole Locations for the Fraser River North Arm and Middle Arm Crossings. Report prepare for RAVP by Equinox Research and Consulting Ltd. Wada, Gail Archaeological Overview Assessment of the RAVP Transit Cambie Corridor (Downtown Vancouver to SW Marine Drive) Geotechnical Drilling Program. Golder Associates Ltd, Letter prepared for Richmond Vancouver Airport Project Vancouver
61
December 2004
APPENDIX 13-B
Reviewed Borehole Logs
Appendix 13-B Reviewed Bore Hole Logs

Reviewed Bore Hole Logs - Granville to 37th Ave. Geotechnical Engineer Golder Associates Area of bore hole tests Granville (Downtown) to Cambie and 37th Test Identification No. BH-T16A-03-101 BH-T16A-03-102 BH-T16A-03-103 BH-T16A-03-104 BH-T16A-03-105 BH-T16A-03-106 BH-T16A-03-107 BH-T16A-03-107a BH-T16A-03-108 BH-T16A-03-108a BH-T16A-03-109 BH-T16A-03-110 BH-T16A-03-111 BH-T16A-03-112 BH-T16A-03-113 BH-T16A-03-114 BH-T16A-03-115 BH-T16A-03-116 BH-T16A-03-117 BH-T16A-03-201 BH-T16A-03-202 BH-T16A-03-203 BH-T16A-03-204 BH-T16A-03-205 BH-T16A-03-206 BH-T16A-03-207 BH-T16A-03-208 BH-T16A-03-209 BH-T16A-03-210
December 2004
Geotechnical Engineer
Area of bore hole tests
Test Identification No. BH-T16A-03-211 BH-T16A-03-212 BH-T16A-03-213 BH-T16A-03-214 SH-T16A-03-215 BH-T16A-03-216 BH-T16A-03-217 BH-T16A-03-218 SH-T16A-03-219 BH-T16A-03-301 BH-T16A-03-302 BH-T16A-03-303 BH-T16A-03-304 BH-T16A-03-305 BH-T16A-03-306 BH-T16A-03-307
December 2004
Reviewed Bore Hole Logs - 37th Ave. to 63rd Ave. Geotechnical Engineer Golder Associates Area of bore hole tests Test Identification No. Cambie and 37th to BH-T16A-03-118 Cambie and 63rd BH-T16A-03-119 BH-T16A-03-120 BH-T16A-03-121 BH-T16A-03-122 BH-T16A-03-220 SH-T16A-03-221 BH-T16A-03-222 BH-T16A-03-223 BH-T16A-03-224 BH-T16A-03-225 BH-T16A-03-226 BH-T16A-03-227 BH-T16A-03-228 BH-T16A-03-229
December 2004
Reviewed Bore Hole Logs - 63rd Ave. to Bridgeport Station Geotechnical Engineer Golder Associates EBA Klohn Crippen Area of bore hole tests Marine Drive Station to Bridgeport Station Marine Drive Station to Bridgeport Station Marine Drive Station south to the Mitchell Navigation Channel (Fraser Crossings Segment) North Arm Fraser Navigation Channel to River Drive (Fraser Crossings Segment) Test Identification No. BH-T16A-03-308 CPT/AH-T16B-03-401 SCPT-T16B-03-402 BHT16C-DH03-601 BHT16C-DH03-602 BHT16C-DH03-603 BHT16C-DH03-604 BHT16C-DH03-605 BHT16C-DH03-607 BHT16C-DH03-608 BHT16C-DH03-610 BHT16C-DH03-612 BHT16C-AH03-611 BHT16C-CPT03-606* BHT16C-CPT03-609* BHT16C-CPT03-610* BHT16C-CPT03-611*
December 2004
Reviewed Bore Hole Logs - Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre Geotechnical Engineer EBA Area of bore hole tests Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre Station Test Identification No. CPT/AH-T16B-03-405 MH-T16B-03-406 CPT/AH-T16B-03-407 CPT/AH-T16B-03-408 MH-T16B-03-409 CPT/AH-T16B-03-410 CPT/AH-T16B-03-411 MH-T16B-03-412 CPT/AH-T16B-03-413 CPT/AH-T16B-03-414 MH-T16B-03-415 CPT/AH-T16B-03-416 CPT/AH-T16B-03-417 CPT/AH-T16B-03-418*
*No core log was available from this test
December 2004
Reviewed Bore Hole Logs - Bridgeport Station to Sea Island Geotechnical Engineer Klohn Crippen Area of bore hole tests Middle Arm Fraser Navigation Channel to Grant McConachie Way on Sea Island (Fraser Crossings Segment) Test Identification No. BHT16C-DH03-612 BHT16C-AH03-615 BHT16C-DH03-616 BHT16C-AH03-617 BHT16C-CPT03-613* BHT16C-CPT03-614* BHT16C-CPT03-615* BHT16C-CPT03-617* CPT/AH-T16B-03-403 CPT/AH-T16B-03-404 CPT/AH-T16B-03-501 MH-T16B-03-502 CPT/AH-T16B-03-503 CPT/AH-T16B-03-504 MH-T16B-03-505 CPT/AH-T16B-03-506 CPT/AH-T16B-03-507 CPT/AH-T16B-03-508 SCPT-T16B-03-509
EBA
Sea Island
*No core log was available from this test
December 2004
APPENDIX 13-C
Maps Showing RAV Route Survey by Section
Appendix 13-C Maps Showing RAV Route Survey By Section

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. North Granville to False Creek False Creek to King Edward Avenue King Edward Avenue to West 45th Street West 45th Street to Marine Drive Marine Drive to Bridgeport Road Bridgeport Road to Alderbridge Station Cambie Station to Granville Avenue Bridgeport Road to Sea Island East Sea Island to Vancouver International Airport
December 2004
December 2004
December 2004
December 2004
December 2004
December 2004
December 2004
December 2004
11
December 2004
December 2004
12

Section 13 - Dec 2004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 13 - Dec 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Archaeological Impact Assessment

RAV Project Study Area

First Nations with Interests in the Study Area

Previous Archaeological Assessments

Archaeological Site Potential of Sea Island (Ham 2002)

Geotechnical Core Sample Analysis

North End of Granville Street to 37th Avenue

Queen Elizabeth Park (Facing north with Cambie Street in background)

Exposure Near Water Treatment Plant on Little Mountain

Selected Core # & Location

Indicators of Possible Cultural Content

Sample Examined Yes (Y) No (N)

BH-T16a-03-111 South side of False Creek Cambie & 2

BH-T16a-03-202 Granville & Georgia BH-T16a-03-211 19 & Cambie

Low (Wada 2003)

3.65 m - mottled orange/grey sandy silt with black staining

Sample exhausted by laboratory testing

Low (Wada 2003)

Sample not available as of 27/10/03

False Creek Shoreline (circa 1892-1902)

37th Avenue to 63rd Avenue

63rd Avenue to Bridgeport Station (North Arm Crossing of Fraser River)

Selected Core # & Location

Rationale3 for Examination

Indicators of Possible Cultural Content

Sample Examined Yes (Y) No (N)

BHT16C-DH03- 601 (Woods 2003 G)

Low-Medium (Woods 2003)

BHT16C-DH03- 602 (Woods 2003 H)

Low-Medium (Woods 2003)

BHT16C-DH03- 603 Kent Ave S and Ash (Woods 2003 I )

Low (Woods 2003)

1.82 m - silt, dark

Selected Core # & Location

Potential Assessment (Overview)

Rationale3 for Examination

Indicators of Possible Cultural Content

Sample Examined Yes (Y) No (N)

Upper north shore of Fraser River (Woods 2003 J)

BHT16C-DH03- 610 South shore of Fraser River (Woods 2003 P)

Low-Medium (Woods 2003)

Low-Medium (Woods 2003) Low-Medium (Woods 2003)

Core sample not drilled Core sample not drilled

Core sample not drilled

Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre

Undeveloped Properties on No. 3 Road

Selected Core # & Location

Rationale4 for Examination

Indicators of Possible Cultural Content

Sample Examined Yes (Y) No (N)

Moderate (Alexander 2003)

MH-03-409 Cambie Station (Richmond)

Low (Alexander 2003)

Moderate (Alexander 2003)

Selected Core # & Location

Potential Assessment (Overview)

Rationale4 for Examination

Indicators of Possible Cultural Content

Sample Examined Yes (Y) No (N)

Moderate (Alexander 2003) Moderate (Alexander 2003) Moderate (Alexander 2003)

_______________ _ Received By