(17) section 13 - dec 2004

ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTSECTION 13

Environmental Assessment Certificate Application for the Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Rapid Transit Project

13-1 December 2004

13 Archaeological Impact Assessment

13.1 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


December 2004 13-2

• 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 Concessionaire’s 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 VIAA’s 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


13-3 December 2004

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).


December 2004 13-4

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


13-5 December 2004

ready to commit suicide” for the area. Reimer (2003) references eight other Squamish place names for locations on False Creek, including the village of Sen’ak’w 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


December 2004 13-6

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; “Low-Medium” potential locations include four test sites on Lulu Island (BHT16C-


13-7 December 2004

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


December 2004 13-8

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).


13-9 December 2004

Figure 13.2 Archaeological Site Potential of Sea Island (Ham 2002)


December 2004 13-10

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. Ham’s 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:

1 Although not included in the Application, shapefiles are available for review at the RAV Project Office.


13-11 December 2004

• 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):


December 2004 13-12

“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) North end of Granville Street to 37th Avenue ii) 37th Avenue to 63rd Avenue iii) 63rd Avenue to Bridgeport Station (North Arm Crossing of Fraser River) iv) Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre v) Bridgeport to Sea Island (Middle Arm Crossing of Fraser River)


13-13 December 2004

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


December 2004 13-14

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 BH-T16a-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.


13-15 December 2004

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.


December 2004 13-16

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-03-111, 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.


13-17 December 2004

Table 13.1 Geotechnical Core Review - North End of Granville Street to 37th Avenue

Selected Core # & Location

Potential Assessment (Overview)

Rationale2 for

Examination

Indicators of Possible Cultural Content

Sample Examined

Yes (Y) No (N)

Results

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

“Moderate” (Wada 2003)

PA CLR

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

N 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

“Low” (Wada 2003)

CLR

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

N Sample exhausted by laboratory testing

BH-T16a-03-211 19th & Cambie

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

N Sample not available as of 27/10/03

2 PA – Archaeological Overview Assessment Potential Assessment

CLR – Core log review OR – Archaeological Overview Assessment Recommendation


December 2004 13-18

Figure 13.3 False Creek Shoreline (circa 1892-1902)


13-19 December 2004

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 sub-surface 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.


December 2004 13-20

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-DH03-603, BHT16C-DH03-604) showed no evidence of cultural or potentially cultural deposits. One of the core samples (BHT16C-DH03-610) selected for


13-21 December 2004

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).


December 2004 13-22

Table 13.2 Geotechnical Core Log Review and Core Review – 63rd Avenue to Bridgeport Station Selected Core # &

Location Potential

Assessment (Overview)

Rationale3 for

Examination


Sample Examined

Yes (Y) No (N)

Results

CPT/AH-T16B-03-401

“Moderate” (Alexander 2003)

PA None found N Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined

BHT16C-DH03- 601 (Woods 2003 ‘G’)

“Low-Medium” (Woods 2003)

OR CLR

Location of drill site — near original river bank

N Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined

BHT16C-DH03- 602 (Woods 2003 ‘H’)


OR CLR

Location of drill site — near original river bank

N Core log showed no indication of cultural material. Core not examined

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

“Low” (Woods 2003)

OR PA

1.97 m - silt, some peat-like fibres, woodwaste

Y Sample showed no indication of cultural material. Woodwaste likely related to subpavement. Test taken in lumber yard. Charcoal present.

BHT16C-DH03- 604 “Low” OR 1.82 m - silt, dark Y Sample showed no indication

3 PA – Archaeological Overview Assessment Potential Assessment CLR – Core log review OR – Archaeological Overview Assessment Recommendation


13-23 December 2004



Rationale3 for

Examination


Sample Examined

Yes (Y) No (N)

Results

Upper north shore of Fraser River (Woods 2003 ‘J’)

(Woods 2003) CLR PA

brown, some woodwaste

of cultural material. Woodwaste related to log in higher stratum; test taken in lumber yard.

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

Y Sample insufficient to make conclusions regarding potential

BHT16C-AH03- 611 “Moderate” PA None found N Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined

Proposed Test “R” “Low-Medium” (Woods 2003)

OR Core sample not drilled

N Core sample not drilled

Proposed Test “R-alternate”


OR Core sample not drilled

N Core sample not drilled


December 2004 13-24

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 sub-surface 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


13-25 December 2004

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-03-413 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.


December 2004 13-26

Table 13.3 Geotechnical Core Log Review and Core Review - Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre Selected Core # & Location


Rationale4 for Examination

Indicators of Possible Cultural

Content

Sample Examined

Yes (Y) No (N)

Results

CPT/AH-T16B-03-405



CPT/AH-T16B-03-408



MH-03-409 Cambie Station (Richmond)

“Low” (Alexander 2003)

CLR

1.4 m - silt, some sand, some wood pieces, grey with black mottle

N (Sample #1)

Sample exhausted by laboratory testing

CPT/AH-T16B-03-410



CPT/AH-T16B- “Moderate” PA None found N Core log showed no

4 PA – Archaeological Overview Assessment Potential Assessment

CLR – Core log review OR – Archaeological Overview Assessment Recommendation


13-27 December 2004





Content

Sample Examined

Yes (Y) No (N)

Results

03-411 (Alexander 2003) indication of cultural material; core not examined


CLR/PA

2.5 m - trace wood pieces

N (Sample 2) Sample exhausted by laboratory testing

MH-03-412 #3 Road & Alderbridge Alderbridge Station

Moderate (Alexander 2003)

CLR/PA

1.0 m - silt … with black mottle

N (Sample 1) Sample exhausted by laboratory testing


CLR 3.0 m - occasional rootlet, fibre

Y (Spit 1) Sample size insufficient to make conclusions regarding potential. Fibres and rootlet present.

AH-03-413 # 3 Road & Landsdowne


CLR

1.8 m - silt, occasional organic layer (black)

N (Spit 2) Sample exhausted by laboratory testing

CPT/AH-T16B-03-415

“Moderate”


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) Sample showed no indication of cultural material


December 2004 13-28





Content

Sample Examined

Yes (Y) No (N)

Results


CLR

Sand fine- to medium-grained, loose wet dark grey, no odour

N (Spit 2) Sample exhausted by laboratory testing


CLR/PA

1.8 m - silt some organics (i.e., fibrous peat and rootlets)…

Y (Grab sample 2)

Sample showed no indication of cultural material

AH-03-417 Richmond Centre Station


CLR/PA 3.0 m - silt occasional fibre, rootlet, inclusion of black organics….

Y (Spit 1) Sample insufficient to make conclusions regarding potential. Black organics, burnt wood.


13-29 December 2004

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 Ham’s (2002) map of the archaeological potential for Sea Island. The area surveyed on foot was characterized by flat terrain covered with grasses, with fill deposits noted on the surface (Photo 13.7). A network of ditches had been dug throughout the area; the ditches were full of water at the time of survey. Some of the ditches followed old slough channels, as identified by Ham (1987). 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 sub-surface deposits (see Photos 13.8 - 13.13). No sediments characteristic of cultural deposits were observed.


December 2004 13-30

Figure 13.4 Location of Ditch Exposure Photos, Sea Island.


13-31 December 2004

Photo 13.8. Ditch Exposure Photo 13.9. 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).


December 2004 13-32

Photo 13.14 Sea Island Shoreline The previously recorded site DhRs-026 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),


13-33 December 2004

and one (BHT16c-611) was too small to allow for conclusions regarding archaeological potential.


December 2004 13-34

Table 13.4 Geotechnical Core Log Review and Core Review - Bridgeport Station to Sea Island Selected Core #

& Location Potential

Assessment (Overview)

Rationale5

for Examination


Sample Examined

Yes (Y) No (N)

Results

CPT/AH-T16B-03-501

“Moderate” PA None found N Core log showed no indication of cultural material; core not examined

MH-03-502; Sea Island north of Grant McConachie Way


CLR

Surface – silt, some sand, some wood pieces, grass, soft, dry brown

N (Sample 1 ) Sample exhausted by laboratory testing

CPT/AH-T16B-03-503


CPT/AH-T16B-03-504


5 PA – Archaeological Overview Assessment Potential Assessment CLR – Core log review OR – Archaeological Overview Assessment Recommendation


13-35 December 2004



Rationale5

for Examination


Sample Examined

Yes (Y) No (N)

Results

CPT/AH-T16B-03-505


BHT16C-DH03- 615 Sea Island, off Airport Road (Woods 2003 ‘C’)

“Very Low” (Woods 2003)

OR CLR

6+ m - bed of fine sand and silt, grey with occasional black mottles

Y (Grab 10, 12 ) Sample showed no indication of cultural material

BHT16c- 607 North Arm, Fraser River

“Very Low” (Woods 2003)

OR CLR

Sand… loose dark grey to black, moist

Y (Spit 1,2 ‘N’) Sample showed no indication of cultural material

BHT16c- 611 Lulu Island, immediately south of River Drive

“Low-Moderate” (Woods 2003) “Moderate” (Alexander 2003)

OR CLR

1.21 m - silt…fibrous inclusions and organic mottles 3.5 m - sand… occasional decaying wood pieces

Y (Dps 3,4 ‘Q’) Sample too small to make conclusions regarding archaeological potential

BHT16c-616 Sea Island, west of Grant McConachie


OR CLR

Core log showed no indication of cultural material



December 2004 13-36



Rationale5

for Examination


Sample Examined

Yes (Y) No (N)

Results

Way

BHT16c-617 Sea Island, west of Grant McConachie Way


CLR Core log showed no indication of cultural material



13-37 December 2004

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.


December 2004 13-38

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 at-grade, 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.


13-39 December 2004

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


December 2004 13-40

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.


13-41 December 2004

Figure 13.5 Recommended Location for Further Archaeological Testing, South Shore False Creek


December 2004 13-42

Figure 13.6 Recommended Location for Further Archaeological Testing, SW Marine Drive


13-43 December 2004

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.


December 2004 13-44

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 97-104-MB.

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 1996-

156. Letter report to Dr. Stephen Acheson, Archaeology Branch, Victoria, dated 1996/11/30. Prepared for the Environment Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority.


13-45 December 2004

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.


December 2004 13-46

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.

Communications with First NationsConcerning RAV Project

APPENDIX 13-A


1 December 2004

510 Alpha Street, Victoria BC, V8Z 1B2

Phone: (250)360-0919 Fax: 360-0975

emai l : [email protected]

http://www.millennia-research.com

2520 Graveley Street, Vancouver BC, V5K 3J6

Phone/Fax: (604)215-9430

email: [email protected]

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 Contact sheet and briefs re: Core screening as part of AIA component: Date Contact Detail/Action July 21 Squamish Nation: Ian

Campbell t/c to discuss RAVP core samples and permit details, who to contact regarding the project and Squamish Nation information/concerns etc.

Aug 5 Squamish Nation: Tony Moody

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

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

Letters Faxed to First Nation Admin. Re core samples (outside of permit)


December 2004 2

Date Contact Detail/Action Schaepe

Aug 18 Doug Aberley of Tsleil-Waututh

JL Follow up t/c to DA re; fax, and assistant availability. Will call DA to schedule fieldwork. Also Diana Alexander should be notified

Andrew Bak of Tsawwassen

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

Squamish Unable to reach Rudy Reimer and Tony Moody. Messages left at the Band Office for both. To the best of JL’s knowledge Reimer has not seen core letter.

Aug 21

Ian Franck acting for Dave Schaepe of Sto:lo

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.

Musqueam: Leona Sparrow

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.

Len Ham In Musqueam context: in airport research JL left message

Aug 25 Frm Diana Alexander, Tsleil-Waututh

Discussed methods and availability. Doug A. wants her to review log and screening program.

Aug 25 Frm Tony Moody Squamish Nation

Program review, he had rec’d nothing from Squamish Admin, prior to JL’s 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. Rec’d Reimer’s


3 December 2004

Date Contact Detail/Action number and Kevin Rivers suggested assistant.

Aug 26 Frm Tony Moody Squamish

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.

Rudy Reimer Squamish

Left message

Aug 27 Dave Schaepe Sto:Lo

DS back in office, sent a short email to update him on core sample component

Aug 28 Leona Sparrow, Musqueam

Hadn’t reviewed permit, will do so and get back to JL and the Branch. ‘It’s on her to-do list’ Advised JL to call Len Ham

Tony Moody, Squamish

Left message

Maureen Thomas, Squamish

Voice mail and fax of permit application

Len Ham Left specific message regarding needing Musqueam permit

Sept 2 Len Ham Site potential discussion, and permit issues. JL to update references in permit application and send to Musqueam and cc Len. To expedite Musqueam Permit

Sept 2 Frm Tony Moody -Squamish

Left JL message. He is working on getting the Squamish permit. (Contact in Admin is ill) expect next few days to be issued.

Sept 2 Musqueam; Leona Sparrow

Left voice mail, re: upcoming issuance of Prov permit, and conversation with LH. Will be forwarding her a letter addressing Len’s concerns. Mentioned that if she


December 2004 4

Date Contact Detail/Action requires an extension that she must contact Steven Acheson today by 4:30.

Sept 3 Frm Tony Moody - Squamish

Permit is in process, should get it this week

Sept 8 Musqueam: L Sparrow

Lft message regarding the Musqueam permit

Musqueam: Len Ham Inquired status of Musqueam permit. Musqueam: Paula

Point Left message re permit status

Sept 9 Frm Paula Point Musqueam

Message to JL: has correspondence regarding permit

Paula Point Musqueam

Rtn call, message left

Sept 11 Musqueam: P. Point Mess. Left re permit Sept 12 Squamish: Tony

Moody Left message re permit status.

Rtn T Moody -Squamish

Permit should be on its way… TM will check on it. Field work is a go

Sept 15 Musqueam: Paula Point

Left message re permit status.

Sept 16 Musqueam: Band Manager, Daryl Hargitt

Reached DH on cell, brief introduction, asked him to check on Heritage Permit. DH asked how JL got his cell number, said he’d get back to JL this afternoon

Sept 18 Tsleil-Waututh: Diana Alexander

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

Sept 18 Musqueam : L Sparrow

Left voice mail: Checking in after the heritage permit. FW will go Mon and Tues; JL will hire Les Guerrin, if it’s a problem LS to contact JL with alternative.

Tsleil-Waututh: Ed Thomas, field

Left msg to work next week if available.


5 December 2004

Date Contact Detail/Action assistant

Tsawwassen: Chrystalyn Wilson, human resources

Left message re FW and need of assistant Mon tues.

Sto:lo: Dave Schaepe

Left mess re: FW and need a recommendation for assistant

Squamish: Rudy Reimer

Left message: re: FW and need for assistant.

Musqueam: Les Guerrin

Call after 6 pm. Re upcoming FW mon and tues

JL = Lindberg t/c is telephone call frm JL MR = Millennia Head office


7 December 2004

Musqueam Indian Band Written Communication and Permit 106-2003-MB


December 2004 8


9 December 2004


Phone: (250)360-0919 Fax: 360-0975




Phone/Fax: (604)215-9430


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 Richmond-Airport-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 10

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


11 December 2004


Phone: (250)360-0919 Fax: 360-0975




Phone/Fax: (604)215-9430

email: [email protected] 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


13 December 2004


Phone: (250)360-0919 Fax: 360-0975




Phone/Fax: (604)215-9430



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 I’d like you to note that I have taken Len’s 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).


December 2004 14

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


15 December 2004

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


December 2004 16

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


17 December 2004

Leonard C. Ham, Ph.D., RPCA. Archæologist & Heritage Consultant

1141 Walalee Drive, Delta, B.C. V4M 2L9

(tel\fax 604-948-9857) 2004 01 14 [email protected] 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.


December 2004 18

Leonard C. Ham, Ph.D., RPCA. Archæologist & Heritage Consultant

1141 Walalee Drive, Delta, B.C. V4M 2L9

(tel\fax 604-948-9857) 2004 01 14 Att: Ms. D’Ann 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)


19 December 2004

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.



December 2004 20

L. Ham to D’Ann 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


21 December 2004

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.



December 2004 22


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 DhRt-058. 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


23 December 2004

lot (Ham 1997d). No evidence of archaeological remains or deposits were observed. 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.



December 2004 24


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.

Lulu Island: 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.


25 December 2004

Foot Cambie: original shoreline was about ½ 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 Mtn: 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.



December 2004 26


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. - should read Airport Rd. 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.



27 December 2004


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).


December 2004 28

(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.



29 December 2004


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


December 2004 30

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.



31 December 2004

Tsleil-Waututh First Nation Written Communication


33 December 2004


Phone: (250)360-0919 Fax: 360-0975




Phone/Fax: (604)215-9430


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.


December 2004 34

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 Tsleil-Waututh 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


35 December 2004


December 2004 36


37 December 2004


39 December 2004

Sto:lo Nation Written Communication and Permit 2003-31


41 December 2004


43 December 2004


Phone: (250)360-0919 Fax: 360-0975




Phone/Fax: (604)215-9430



MR file: 0335 August 18, 2003 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.


December 2004 44

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


45 December 2004

STÓ:LŌ

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: [email protected]) Page

s:

1 (to follow)

Phone

:

1-604-215-9430 Date: July 22, 2003

Re: Stó:lō Nation Heritage Investigation Permit

#2003-31

CC: Ray Kenny

X F.Y.I ¨ For Review ̈ Please Comment ¨ Please Reply ̈ Please Recycle

Jennifer – As permit signatory for Stó:lō Nation, I have approved your permit application for the project entitled Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project CHIA.. I have assigned you Stó:lō 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 Stó:lō Nation or any other associated First Nations. This document is issued as a result of having


December 2004 46

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 Stó:lō Nation


47 December 2004

STÓ:LŌ NATION

HERITAGE INVESTIGATION PERMIT No. 2003-31 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 Stó:lō Nation Heritage Policy (a copy of this document will be provided upon request).

2. The permit holder will make a concerted effort to hire at least one Stó:lō individual (with an appropriate level of experience and training) to assist in conducting this project.

3. 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 Stó:lō Nation Heritage Advisor and Archaeologist of the nature and location of the remains, and implement any instructions regarding the treatment of the remains.

4. Prior to the production of the final report, the permit holder shall provide the Stó:lō 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.

5. Implementation and inclusion of editorial comments made by the Stó:lō Nation with regard to management recommendations and/or any other portion of the project report will be negotiated between the permit holder and the Stó:lō Nation Archaeologist, prior to report finalization.

6. The permit holder shall provide the Stó:lō Nation Archaeologist with one copy of the final report (including the Stó:lō 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


December 2004 48

standards and/or guidelines are not applicable to this project, the permit holder is responsible for developing such standards/guidelines in consultation with the Stó:lō Nation Archaeologist.

7. The permit holder shall provide the Stó:lō 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 Stó:lō Nation may at any time inspect any project being conducted under this permit.

Other: N/A


49 December 2004

Permit No. (to be assigned) Application Submission Date: Project Proponent: Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit

Project Chief Investigator / Company: Companm/CompCompaCompany/ Institution:

Jennifer Lindberg, Millennia Research Limited

Project Name: Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project

Project Location: 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 Stó:lō Nation with your permit application)

Type of Heritage Project: (check approriate boxes) Heritage Overview Assessment Heritage Site Impact Assessment YES Heritage-related Research Project (non-resource management)

Stó:lō Nation Bldg. #1 - 7201 Vedder Road, Chilliwack, B.C. V2R 4G5 Tel: 604-858-3366 Fax: 604-824-5226


December 2004 50

Nature of Investigation: (check approriate box) Residential property development Mining-related development Industrial property development Transportation-related development Y Forestry-related development

Other (specify):

Estimated Project Timeframe: July 2003 August 2003 Start Date: Day/Mo./Yr. End Date: Day/Mo./Yr.

Will you be interviewing Stó:lō individuals in the course of this research?

Yes: X No:

Other Permits obtained for this Project: First Nations: Musqueam and Squamish heritage investigation permits Provincial: HCA section 14 permit applied for Federal:

(Please Attach Copies with the Application)

STÓ:LŌ 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 Tsleil-Waututh 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.)


51 December 2004

Identified Curatorial Facility: University of British Comlumbia Museum of Anthropology Acceptance of Permit Conditions: As chief investigator for this project, I certify that I understand and hereby agree to abide by policies outlined in Stó:lō Nation’s Heritage Policy (2003) and the specific permit conditions associated with this Stó:lō Nation Heritage Investigation Permit: Chief Investigator: Name: Jennifer Lindberg, MA, RPCA

Title: Senior Archaeologist

Date: (Day/Month/Year) Chief Investigator – Signature Stó:lō Nation Approval: Name:

Title:

Date: (Day/Month/Year) Signatory for Stó:lō Nation – Signature Stó:lō 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 Stó:lō 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 Stó:lō 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 Stó:lō Nation Archaeologist of the nature and location of the remains, and implement any instructions provided by these individuals regarding the treatment of the remains.


December 2004 52

14. Prior to the production of the final report, the permit holder will provide the Stó:lō 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 Stó:lō Nation with regard to management recommendations and/or any other portion of the project report will be negotiated between the permit holder and the Stó:lō Nation Archaeologist, prior to report finalization.

16. The permit holder shall provide the Stó:lō Nation Archaeologist with one copy of the final report (including the Stó:lō 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 Stó:lō Nation Archaeologist.

17. The permit holder shall provide the Stó:lō 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 Stó:lō Nation may at any time inspect any project being conducted under this permit.

21. The permit holder shall provide the Stó:lō 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)


53 December 2004


Phone: (250)360-0919 Fax: 360-0975




Phone/Fax: (604)215-9430


MR file: 0335 August 18, 2003 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


December 2004 54

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, Jennifer Lindberg, MA, RPCA Senior Archaeologist Millennia Research Limited Vancouver


55 December 2004

Tsawwassen First Nation Written Communication


57 December 2004


Phone: (250)360-0919 Fax: 360-0975




Phone/Fax: (604)215-9430



Fax To: Tony Moody c/o Squamish Council From: Jen Lindberg

Fax: 604-980-9601 Pages: 1

Phone: Date: 30/11/2004

Re: RAV p rapid transit archaeology CC:

¨ Urgent x For Review ¨ 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


December 2004 58

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 he’d be meeting with you in the near future, I expect you’ll 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 I’ll do my best to answer them. Also please know that D’ Ann Owens from our Victoria Office is taking over while I’m on leave and she’ll be happy to answer any questions.


59 December 2004


Phone: (250)360-0919 Fax: 360-0975




Phone/Fax: (604)215-9430



MR file: 0335 August 18, 2003 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


December 2004 60

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, Jennifer Lindberg, MA, RPCA Senior Archaeologist Millennia Research Limited Vancouver Cc Rudy Reimer, First Heritage Archaeological Consulting


61 December 2004

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-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

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

APPENDIX 13-B

Reviewed Borehole Logs


1 December 2004

Appendix 13-B Reviewed Bore Hole Logs Reviewed Bore Hole Logs - Granville to 37th Ave. Geotechnical Engineer Area of bore hole tests 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

Golder Associates Granville (Downtown) to Cambie and 37th

BH-T16A-03-210


December 2004 2

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


3 December 2004

Reviewed Bore Hole Logs - 37th Ave. to 63rd Ave. Geotechnical Engineer Area of bore hole tests Test Identification No.

BH-T16A-03-118 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

Golder Associates Cambie and 37th to Cambie and 63rd

BH-T16A-03-229


December 2004 4

Reviewed Bore Hole Logs - 63rd Ave. to Bridgeport Station Geotechnical Engineer Area of bore hole tests Test Identification No. Golder Associates Marine Drive Station to

Bridgeport Station BH-T16A-03-308

CPT/AH-T16B-03-401 EBA Marine Drive Station to Bridgeport Station SCPT-T16B-03-402

BHT16C-DH03-601 BHT16C-DH03-602 BHT16C-DH03-603 BHT16C-DH03-604

Marine Drive Station south to the Mitchell Navigation Channel (Fraser Crossings Segment) 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*

Klohn Crippen

North Arm Fraser Navigation Channel to River Drive (Fraser Crossings Segment)

BHT16C-CPT03-611*


5 December 2004

Reviewed Bore Hole Logs - Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre Geotechnical Engineer Area of bore hole tests 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

EBA Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre Station

CPT/AH-T16B-03-418* *No core log was available from this test


December 2004 6

Reviewed Bore Hole Logs - Bridgeport Station to Sea Island Geotechnical Engineer Area of bore hole tests Test Identification No.

BHT16C-DH03-612 BHT16C-AH03-615 BHT16C-DH03-616 BHT16C-AH03-617 BHT16C-CPT03-613* BHT16C-CPT03-614* BHT16C-CPT03-615*

Klohn Crippen Middle Arm Fraser Navigation Channel to Grant McConachie Way on Sea Island (Fraser Crossings Segment)

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

EBA Sea Island

SCPT-T16B-03-509 *No core log was available from this test

APPENDIX 13-C

Maps Showing RAV Route Survey by Section


1 December 2004

Appendix 13-C Maps Showing RAV Route Survey By Section 1. North Granville to False Creek 2. False Creek to King Edward Avenue 3. King Edward Avenue to West 45th Street 4. West 45th Street to Marine Drive 5. Marine Drive to Bridgeport Road 6. Bridgeport Road to Alderbridge Station 7. Cambie Station to Granville Avenue 8. Bridgeport Road to Sea Island 9. East Sea Island to Vancouver International Airport


3 December 2004


December 2004 4


5 December 2004


December 2004 6


7 December 2004


December 2004 8


9 December 2004


11 December 2004


December 2004 12

(17) section 13 - dec 2004

Documents