peace river site c hydro project archaeological site reconciliation

PEACE RIVER SITE C HYDRO PROJECT Archaeological Site Reconciliation Peace River Fort St. John to Hudson’s Hope B.C.

Peace River Site C Hydro Project Archaeological Site Reconciliation

Peace River Fort St. John to Hudson’s Hope, B.C.

Prepared by Dave Hutchcroft

July 2009

I. R. Wilson Consultants Ltd.

13-6782 Veyaness Road, Victoria, British Columbia V8M 2C2

Tel: (250) 652-4652 Fax: (250) 652-2377 E-mail: [email protected]

Prepared for

B.C. Hydro

6911 Southpoint Drive

Transmission Engineering, 5th Floor

Burnaby, B.C.

V3N 4X8

i

Credits

Editors

Shane D. Bond Ian R. Wilson

Project Manager

Shane D. Bond

Author Dave Hutchcroft

Digital Imaging

Tracy Cardinal

Report Production Derece Powell

ii

Management Summary

The locations and dimensions of 337 previously recorded archaeological sites within B.C.

Hydro’s proposed Peace River Site C pondage area were examined, primarily by

comparing the original site inventory forms and locational information on the Remote

Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) application maintained by the Archaeology

Branch to orthophotographs and LiDAR images for the same area. Sites were found to

consist of five main types: 227 lithic scatters, 72 isolated finds (also lithics), 27 historic

sites, four palaeontological sites and two cultural depression sites. The records for five

additional sites were also examined, from which it was determined that three of these

were not archaeological in nature. Most of the examined sites were recorded during the

1970s during a multi-year site inventory project for the original Site C dam proposal.

Recommendations were made to the Archaeology Branch to move 219 of the sites on

RAAD from as little as 10 or 20 m to as much as approximately 800 m. Recommended

relocations were made with varying degrees of confidence due to extreme variation in the

quality of the original site form information. The locations of the remaining 118 sites

were left unchanged on RAAD with a similar range in confidence levels. Appendices are

attached to this report which list a complete site inventory for the study area, describe the

rationale for moving or leaving unchanged site polygons on a site-by-site basis, provide

comments regarding any difficulties in site form interpretation and note the relocation

confidence level rating for each site.

As approximately two-thirds of the examined sites in conflict with future development

activities were not subjected to subsurface testing at the time of their original

documentation, it is further recommended that additional fieldwork be completed at these

sites in order to accurately determine site nature, extent and significance.

An additional appendix summarizes comments from the Archaeology Branch regarding

the recommended site relocations. Only recommendations for seven of the 219 sites are

not accepted at this time, although future ground-truthing of these seven sites may result

in later Branch agreement with these recommendations.

iii

Table of Contents

CREDITS .........................................................................................................................................................i

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. iii

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

2. METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................2

3. THE SITES...........................................................................................................................................4

4. RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................6

5. PROBLEMS.......................................................................................................................................10

6. RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................................................................12

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Example of LiDAR Use for Replotting Site Boundaries .......................................................... 8

Figure 2: Example of Orthophotograph Use for Replotting Site Orientation ........................................... 9

APPENDICES: A. TABLE 1: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY TABLE

B. TABLE 2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECONCILIATION TABLE

C. EXAMPLE OF DEFICIENT SITE FORM

D. ARCHAEOLOGY BRANCH COMMENTS RE SITE RELOCATION

RECOMMENDATIONS

Peace River Site C Site Reconciliation Project

I. R. Wilson Consultants Ltd. Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

At the request of B.C. Hydro, I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd. (I.R. Wilson) reviewed the

locations of previously recorded archaeological sites situated along the Peace River and

its major tributaries in the vicinity of the potential Site C hydroelectric project. Most of

these sites were recorded during the studies completed for the Site C dam in the mid- to

late-1970s.

The primary goal of the present study was to reconcile site locations and polygons in the

study area presented on the Provincial Government’s online Remote Access to

Archaeological Data application (hereafter referred to as RAAD) with site locations and

other information described on British Columbia Archaeological Site Inventory forms.

As much of the information presented on RAAD is derived from the often sparse data

provided on early site inventory forms from the 1970s, inconsistencies and inaccuracies

are often present. In many cases, sites had been plotted on RAAD based solely on the

basis of the latitude and longitude coordinates on the original site forms due to the very

cursory nature of the rest of the information.

The Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts maintains and

regularly updates both the RAAD application and the archaeological site inventory

database based on site reconciliation work such as this.

Site verifications were undertaken within an identified study area, roughly a conservative

boundary within which engineering investigations might occur or within which impact

lines may be established.



2. METHODOLOGY

I.R. Wilson downloaded the RAAD information for this project from the Archaeology

Branch, thereby obtaining a list of all sites in the general project area. Hard copies of the

original inventory forms for these sites were then obtained from the same office for

comparative purposes on a site-by-site basis.

When comparing the two information sources, extensive use was also made of the

orthophotographs and LiDAR application provided by B.C. Hydro. The former was often

able to depict landmarks referenced on the site forms such as roads, paths or trails, fields,

forested areas, houses, watercourses, etc. They were also useful in measuring distances

described on site forms due to their ability to adjust for topographic relief and other

distortions present in normal air photographs. Use of LiDAR was also extremely valuable

due to its ability to depict terrain characteristics such as terraces, slopes, gullies, roads or

trails in forested areas, etc., not otherwise discernible on orthophotographs. Google Earth

was also used where possible to identify landmarks described on site forms, such as street

or creek names, which could not be otherwise confirmed.

Where possible and if necessary, site locations were moved and site polygons altered on

RAAD to more accurately reflect information provided on the site inventory forms.

A five point rating scheme (Low [L], Low-Moderate [LM], Moderate [M], Moderate-

High [MH], and High [H]) was employed to reflect the reviewers’ confidence in the site

location, whether unchanged or relocated. Factors contributing to this scheme included:

clarity and detail of the written site descriptions and access instructions on the

original site forms

quality of the forms’ sketch maps, where included

accuracy of the given site coordinates (GPS, noted on only two forms, provided

the highest degree of accuracy)

level of consistency between the site locations shown on the sketch maps and as

described in the site access instructions,

ability to discern landscape features, roads, structures, streams, etc. described on

the site forms on the associated orthophotographs and LiDAR application, and

reviewer intuition and knowledge regarding those physical landscape factors

supporting archaeological site presence.



Regardless of the rating level, in all cases where sites were relocated, confidence level

was higher in the new placements than in the original locations.



3. THE SITES

The archaeological review determined that 337 archaeological sites are recorded within

the general identified study area. Although most of these sites were recorded during the

initial Site C archaeological inventory undertaken in the 1970s and early 1980s, 25 were

found to have been documented since then in response to other proposed developments,

primarily associated with the oil and gas industry.

Five main site types were represented among these 337 reviewed sites and include lithic

scatters (227), isolated finds (72), historic sites (27), paleontological sites consisting of

bison remains (4), and cultural depression sites (2). Five additional recorded sites fell into

a miscellaneous category. Three of these five miscellaneous sites are not considered to be

archaeological.

Lithic scatters, the largest category, are defined as surface and/or subsurface dispersals of

lithic (i.e. stone) tools and/or chipped stone flakes left over from the manufacture of those

tools. One hundred and eighty-five (185) of these sites were confined to the surface, 28 to

subsurface, and 14 to both surface and subsurface. One of the lithic scatter sites, HaRl 2,

was reported to also contain at least four historic First Nations graves when recorded in

1973.

Isolated finds, the second largest site type, were represented by surface (54 sites) or

subsurface (18 sites) occurrences of a single artifact. All of the isolated finds reviewed

during this study consisted of lithic artifacts.

Cultural depression sites are those consisting of one or more surface-excavated pits that

may represent food cache pits, roasting pits or habitation features. Two such sites were

reviewed during this study, one consisting of five depressions and the other of two

depressions, all circular in shape. One was associated with a small lithic scatter and the

other with an isolated lithic artifact.

The 27 historic sites consisted of historic forts HbRe 1, HbRe 32 and HbRf 31

(respectively, Old Fort, Fort St. John II and Rocky Mountain Fort), nine log cabins, ten

sites containing historic buildings, one root cellar, one historic graveyard and three

miscellaneous occurrences of historic remains.



Three hundred and seven (307) sites, including four historic sites (the three fort sites and

the historic graveyard) are automatically protected by the Heritage Conservation Act

(HCA) and may not be disturbed except under authority of a permit issued by the

Archaeology Branch. The remaining 23 historic sites, all dating to the 20th century, the

four paleontological sites and the three non-archaeological sites are not automatically

protected by the Act.

A summary of site types and other relevant information, including site protection status

and the projected need for additional archaeological fieldwork where development

conflicts are present, is depicted in Appendix A, Table 1.



4. RESULTS

Two hundred and nineteen sites or 65% of the recorded 337 sites were moved on RAAD

in accordance with the above procedures. Of these, only 19 (8.6%) were moved with a

high degree of confidence. However, 44 sites (20.1%) were relocated with a moderate-

high confidence level, and 72 (32.9%) with a moderate confidence level. Thirty-nine sites

(17.8%) were moved with a low-moderate degree of confidence and 45 sites (20.6%)

with a low degree. In all cases, however, the reviewers were highly confident that the

new locations were more accurate than originally plotted. Relocations ranged in distance

from as little as 10 or 20 m to as much as approximately 800 m.

Of these 219 sites, 201 were classified as lithic scatters or isolated lithic finds, 13 were

historic sites, and three were paleontological sites. Two sites had been assigned a Legacy

status by the Archaeology Branch since they were determined to be non-heritage sites

subsequent to their initial documentation.

The locations of 118 sites (or 35%) were left unchanged on RAAD. Of these, there was a

high degree of confidence in only 17 (14.4%) of the original site locations. There was a

moderate-high level of confidence that another 17 sites (14.4%) were accurately mapped

a moderate degree and that a further 20 sites (16.9%) were originally accurately located.

Seven sites (5.9%) were left unchanged in location with low-moderate confidence level,

although all were felt to be in the general vicinity of the correct location. Finally, only a

low confidence level could be assigned to the original locations of 57 sites (48.3 %), with

no confidence assigned to three of these. This is due to the poor quality of the associated

site forms which would not allow these sites to be replotted with any degree of accuracy.

Of these 118 sites, 101 were classified as lithic scatters or isolated lithic finds, 14 were

historic sites, one was a historic site with a lithic scatter, one was a paleontological site,

and one was a site assigned Legacy status by the Archaeology Branch.

A summary table describing the rationale for moving site polygons (or not), is depicted

on a site-by-site basis in Appendix B, Table 2. Also included in this table are comments

regarding difficulties, where present, in site form interpretation as well as the confidence

level rating in the revised or unadjusted location for each site.



Figures 1 and 2 illustrate examples of sites relocated through the respective uses of

LiDAR and orthophotographs. In the first example, LiDAR was used to move HbRg 11

from its incorrect RAAD location down a terrace slope to the top of the terrace as

described on the site form (site length was also increased to match the sketch map). In the

second example, an orthophotograph was employed to slightly rotate the area of HbRf

13, as incorrectly shown on RAAD to extend downslope, to enable its correct orientation

and placement entirely on top of the slope and crossing into the adjacent field as depicted

on the sketch map.

HbRg-11

HbRg-13

HbRg-11

±

1:6,000

IRW 09-2162

Site C Overview

Original Archaeological Site Boundary

Revised Archaeological Site Boundary

Figure 1

Example of LiDAR Use for Replotting Site Orientation

I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd.


Page 8

Scale

0 150Meters

HbRf-13

HbRf-13

±

1:1,000

IRW 09-2162

Site C Overview

Original Archaeological Site Boundary

Revised Archaeological Site Boundary

Figure 2

Example of Orthophoto Use for Replotting Site Orientation

I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd.


Page 9

Scale

0 25Meters



5. PROBLEMS

Several difficulties with the site record were apparent during this study that, depending

on their level of accumulation, compromised the ability of the reviewers to effectively

plot accurate site locations. These include:

Lack of detailed site access information including distances to sites from

recognizable permanent landmarks. Too many forms were prepared giving

distances from wooden telephone poles, transmission line poles, wooden fence

posts, land survey markers, etc., most of which are not discernable on LiDAR or

orthophotographs, nor would be expected to exist some 35 years after the sites

were initially recorded;

Poor quality of site maps which, in eight cases, were completely absent. Many site

maps did not include distance scales, north arrows and legends, all of which are

required information. The best site location maps were those prepared from air

photos, or which otherwise included recognizable landmarks such as prominent

roads, creeks, bridges, bluffs, etc.;

Distance measurements given confusedly on the same form in feet and metres,

and/or miles and kilometers;

Lack of current LiDAR or orthophotograph coverage for some areas at the fringes

of the project area; and

Lack of sufficient subsurface testing at most archaeological sites to confidently

support site boundaries as described on their associated forms or to enable proper

assessments of site significance. For instance, of the 299 surface and/or

subsurface lithic scatters or isolated lithic find sites reviewed, approximately 230

had not been subjected to any subsurface testing in order to properly ascertain

their boundaries. Furthermore, of those 70 or so sites which had been tested, 26

had only been subjected to one shovel test or one 1 x 1 m excavation unit where

the potential for additional cultural deposits was extremely high. Only 15 lithic

sites appear to have had a sufficient level of testing completed to enable a high

confidence in their depicted site boundaries. An additional four sites may have

been sufficiently tested.

An example of a site form exhibiting some of the qualities noted above which inhibited

the site relocation process is included as Appendix C. Deficiencies include: no detailed

access information, including distances and directions; incorrect latitude/longitude

coordinates which place the site on the south side of the Peace River rather than the



correct north side; no reference to whether or not site material was collected, and; poor

sketch map which does not include a distance scale nor places the site in a wider

geographical context.



6. RECOMMENDATION

The primary recommendation resulting from this study relates mostly to the lack of

previous testing to confirm site boundaries and context. Owing to the absence or lack of

sufficient testing at most of the sites described in this report, as well as other above

described problems with site forms, the revised polygons as presented on RAAD should

not be taken as depicting site boundaries with any degree of accuracy. In almost all cases

where sites are in conflict with potential ground-altering development activities,

additional fieldwork is recommended to properly document those sites. This

recommendation applies to approximately two-thirds of the reviewed sites, as outlined in

Appendix A.

Fieldwork may include field verification of site locations where in doubt, testing to

accurately determine site nature, extent and significance, and/or mitigative excavation.

Any such undertaken activities must be conducted under the authority of one or more

Heritage Conservation Act permits issued by the Archaeology Branch.

This recommendation applies solely to physical archaeological evidence of past human

activity, and in no way attempts to encompass any traditional land use or heritage

concerns of the various First Nations people with traditional territories in the study area.

Appendix A

Appendix A: Table 1

I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd. Appendix A - 1

Site Type

Surface or Subsurface

Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?

Tested? # STs / EUs Fieldwk Needed?

Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

GlRk 1 LS Surface 2 flakes Y Y N Y N-340 m from TL 1977-009 1979-032

GlRk 3 IF Subsurface 1 flake in tree

root N Y Y 6 STs N ? on T/L RoW 1979-032

HaRe 18

LS Surface 2 flakes, 1

chipped knife ? Y N Y N – 600 m from T/L 1987-033

20 LS Subsurface 4 flakes Y-FSJNPM Y Y 28 STs (3 +) Y N - outside AZ 2000-166

HaRg 2 LS Subsurface 5 flakes Y-FSJNPM Y Y 15 STs N construction 2001-100

3 IF Subsurface Retouched

Flake Y-FSJNPM Y Y 28 STs (1+) N ? on T/L RoW 2006-068

4 LS Subsurface 1 point, 13

flakes Y-FSJNPM Y Y 134 STs (7+) N construction 2007-072

11 LS Subsurface 11 flakes Y-FSYNPM Y Y 156 STs (11 +) N N – off T/L but in TEM 2008-090

HaRh 1 LS Surface 3 flakes, 1

chipped knife N Y N Y

N – outside AZ but in TEM

1977-009 1979-032

HaRi 1 LS Surface Core, side-

notched point N Y N Y

N – outside AZ but in TEM

1977-009

HaRj 1 LS Surface Flakes N Y N Y Hwy relocation 74-29, 76-13, 78-14

2 LS Surface

Flakes (includes

retouched), cores, bifaces

Y/N Y N Y N – outside AZ 74-29/76-13/ 77-

09/78-14

3 IF Surface Flake Y Y N Y N- ~100 m outside

bdy 1976-013

4 LS Surface Flakes N/Y Y N Y slumpage 1974-029 5 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y slumpage 1974-029? 6 LS Surface Flakes (2) N Y N Y slumpage 1976-013 7 LS Surface Flakes (2) Y Y N Y slumpage 1976-013? 8 LS Surface Cores (2) N Y N Y Slumpage? 1976-013 9 LS Surface 1 core, 2 flakes N Y N Y slumpage 1976-013

10 LS Surface Cores (2) ? Y N Y slumpage 1976-013? 11 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y N – outside AZ 1976-013

HaRj 12 LS Surface Scraper/3

flakes N Y N Y N – 215 m outside AZ 1976-013

13 LS Surface Point, RF, flake N Y N Y slumpage 1976-013? 14 LS S/SS 7 surf flakes Y Y Y 1-1x2 EU Y slumpage ? 15 IF Subsurface Core Y Y N Y slumpage 77-9/78-14 16 LS Surface Flakes N Y N Y slumpage 1978-014 17 LS Surface Scraper/flake Y Y N Y ? - inside bdy 1978-014 18 LS Surface Flakes Y Y N Y Slumpage 77-9/78-14 19 LS Subsurface Flakes/tools Y Y Y 1-1x1 EU Y Flooding 77-9/78-14 21 LS S/SS Flakes N Y Y 1 ST Y Slumpage 1978-014

HaRj 22 IF Subsurface Flake Y Y Y 1 ST Y Slumpage? 1978-014

I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd. Appendix A- 2

Site Type


Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?


Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

H23 Log Cabin N/A Ca. 1920 N/A N N N Slumpage? 1978-014 24 IF Subsurface flake Y Y Y 1 ST Y Slumpage? 1978-014

HaRk 1 General Activity

S/SS Excavated 1979 Y Y Y 8-1x1 Units Y Flooding? 1978-14 1979-12

2 LS Surface Scraper, flakes Y Y N Y Flooding. Poor map &

desc. 76-13?

4 IF Surface Flake Y Y N Y ? - inside bdy ? 5 LS Surface Y Y N Y Slumpage? 1974-029 6 LS Surface ? Y N Y Flooding 1974-029 7 LS Surface ? Y N Y Flooding? 1974-029 8 LS Surface ? Y N Y Flooding 1974-029

H9 Log Cabin N/A 1900s, 4 C.D.s N/A N N N Flooding 1974-029 H10 Log Cabin N/A 1900s N/A N N N Flooding 74-29/79-12

11 LS Surface Incl. SN Point Y Y N Y N-65 m outside 1974-029 12 LS Surface Y/N Y N Y Flooding 1974-029 13 LS Surface With cabin Y Y N Y Flooding 1974-029 14 LS Surface 5 circ. Rings N Y N Y Flooding 1974-029? 15 LS Surface Y/N Y N Y Flooding 1974-029 16 LS Surface Y Y N Y Flooding 1974-029 17 LS Surface N Y N Y Flooding 74-29/76-13/78-14 18 LS Surface 1 Knife/1 point Y (owner) Y N Y Flooding 74-29/76-13/79-12 19 LS Surface 2 flakes N Y N Y Flooding 76-13/79-12 20 LS Subsurface 4 flakes Y Y Y 1-1x1 EU Y Outside? 77-9/78-14

HaRk

21 LS Surface 57 items Y/N Y N Y Mostly outside 77-9/78-14

22 LS Surface 4 flakes N Y Y? Y Slumpage 77-9/79-12 23 LS Subsurface Y Y N 1-1x1 EU Y Flooding 77-9/78-14 24 IF Surface Biface Y Y N Y Flooding 77-9/78-14 25 LS Surface 26 flakes Y Y N Y Flooding 77-9/78-14 26 LS Surface I flake/1 core N Y N Y Flooding 77-9/78-14 27 LS Surface Pt/3flakes N Y N Y Slumpage? 77-9/78-14

H29 Hist.Bldgs N/A 1920s, 3 bldgs N/A N N N Flooding 77-9/78-14 H30 Log Cabin N/A 20th century? N/A N N N Flooding 77-9/78-14 H31 Log Cabin N/A Ca. 1945 N/A N N N Flooding 77-9/78-14 H32 Log Cabin N/A 20th century? N/A N N N Flooding 77-9/78-14 H33 Log Cabin N/A 1920s-legacied N/A N N N Flooding 77-9/78-14

HaRk H34

Log Cabin N/A 1900 –1915 N/A N N N Flooding 77-9/78-14

35 LS Subsurface 11 flakes-? ret. Y Y Y 5-1x1 EUs Y Flooding 77-9/78-14 36 IF Surface Flake Y Y N Y Flood. Bad map 77-9/78-14 37 LS Surface 1core/1 flake N Y N Y Flooding 1978-014 38 LS Surface biface/18 flakes Y Y N Y Flooding 1978-014 40 LS Surface 2 flakes/2 tools Y Y N Y Slumpage 1978-014


Site Type


Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?


Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

41 LS Surface Large site Y Y N Y Slumpage 1978-014

42 LS Surface 20+ tools/

flakes Y Y N Y Slumpage? 1978-014

HaRl 1 Burial? S/SS Historic

gravehouses N Y N Y N – outside AZ.

1954 survey, 1978-014

2 LS/burial S/SS Scraper/flakes

& 4 historic graves?

Y- artifacts (RBCM)

Y N Y N – outside AZ 1973-028 1978-014

3 LS Surface 2 mounds Y (RBCM) Y N Y Flooding 73-28/78-14

4 LS Surface Incl. historic

bldgs Y (RBCM) Y N Y Flooding 73-28/78-14

5 TU Legacied-anecdotal

Ceremonial boulder

N/A N N N Flooding 73-28/78-14

6 LS Surface 4 flakes ? Y N Y Flooding 73-28/78-14

7 Non-site Legacied Pile of

sandstone blocks

N/A N N N Flooding 74-29/78-14

9 LS Surface Scraper/5

flakes Y Y N Y N – outside AZ 1974-029

10 LS Surface 2 flakes Y Y N Y Flooding ?

12 LS Surface Flakes etc. Y/N Y N Y Y? – if moved may be

in hwy realignment 1974-029

13 LS Surface 2 flakes Y Y N Y N-outside bdy 1974-029

14 LS Surface 5 flakes, 1 point Y-Flakes,N-

pt Y N Y Flooding 1974-029

15 LS Surface 2 flakes/3 cores N Y N Y Flooding. No site map 1976-013 16 IF Surface Chitoth N Y N Y N – outside AZ 1976-013 17 IF Surface Chitoth N Y N Y N – outside AZ 1976-013

18 LS Surface Flakes, cores, 2

ret flakes Y-flakes Y N Y Flooding 76-13/79-12

19 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Flooding 1976-013 20 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Flooding 1978-014 21 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Flooding 1978-014

H22 Historic Subsurface Hearth/burnt bone/sq. nail

Y (nail) N N N Flooding 1978-014

23 LS Surface

A: flakes, cores,

scraper, spall tools; B: adze

N-A; Y-B Y N Y Flooding 77-9/79-12

HaRl 24 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Flooding 1978-014

HbRe H1

Historic fort/burial

S/SS “Old Fort”-

bldgs & hist. native graves

N Y N Y N– downstream of

dam 1954 survey 1974-

029

H2 Hist.Bldg. N/A 1910 police

building N N N N

N– downstream of dam

1974-029


Site Type


Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?


Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

4 IF Surface 1 flake ? Y N Y N-downstream 1974-029 5 IF Surface Scraper ? Y N Y N-downstream 1974-029 6 IF Surface Chopper ? Y N Y N-downstream 1974-029

12 LS Surface 2 flakes ? Y N Y N-downstream 1974-029

H32 Historic fort S/SS Fort St John II Y Y Y-1987 6-50 x 50 cm

EUs Y

Just inside SL, till invest. area

1987-013

54 LS Subsurface 1742

flakes/tools Y-FSJNPM Y Y

15 STs, 6-1x1 m EU, 1-2x.5 m EU

N Site removed under

SAP 2002-110, 2002-

116 HbRe

55 LS Subsurface 177flakes/tools Y-FSJNPM Y Y

16 STs (2 +), 1 EU

Y? Till invest. area 2002-110

HbRf 1 LS Surface? 1957 site form Y-Nat Mus HCA N Y Inside SL. Poor form,

site unlocatable None

8 Feature S/SS Burnt sand-stone slabs

N/A Y N Y? Flooding 76-13/77-09/ 78-14/

9 IF Surface Flake Y Y N Y Slumpage 1974-029

10 LS Surface Non-specific ? Y N Y Poor form, site

unlocatable 1974-029

11 LS Surface 2 flakes ? Y N y Poor form, site


12 IF Surface Flake Y Y N Y Poor form, site


13 LS Surface Flakes/ 1 pp N/Y Y N Y slumpage 74-29/77-09/ 1978-

014

14 LS Surface 2 cores/6 flakes ? Y N Y Till invest.

Poor form, site unlocatable

1974-029

15 LS Surface 2 flakes Y Y N Y Till invest.


1974-029

16 LS Surface 11 flakes-road

cut ? Y N Y

Till invest. Poor form, site


17 LS surface 2 flakes ? Y N Y Till invest.


1974-029

18 IF Surface Flake ? Y N Y Slumpage? No map

on form 1974-029

19 LS Surface 2 flakes 100 m

apart ? Y N Y

Slumpage, till investigation

1974-029

20 LS Surface 3 flakes Y Y N Y Till invest. 1974-029 21 IF Surface Flake Y Y N Y? Flooding? 1974-029 22 IF Surface Flake Y Y N Y? Till invest. 1974-029

H23 Hist.Bldgs N/A Farmhses,

1900s N/A N N N Till invest. 1977-009


Site Type


Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?


Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

HbRf 24 LS Surface 15 flakes/tools N Y N Y Till invest. 1977-009 25 LS Surface 59 flakes/tools N Y Y 1975-unknown Y Till invest. 74-29/78-14n 26 IF Surface Flake Y Y N Y Till invest. 74-29/78-14 27 LS Surface 5 flakes ? Y N Y Slumpage? 1976-013? 28 LS Surface 2 flakes N Y N Y Slumpage? 1974-029

29 Non-

heritage S/SS

4 depressions (oval) tested

1981, assessed as non-cultural

N/A N Y-1981 2 trenches N Flooding 1974-029 MO

1981-18

30 LS Surface 21 flakes N Y Y-1981 STs- unknown

number Y?

Dam constr. D Alexander (81)

couldn’t find

1974-029 MO 1981-18

H31 Historic fort S/SS Rocky Mtn Fort Y Y Y-1975 Both-unknown

number Y Flooding

74-29/76-13/ 86-14/ 87-13

32 LS Surface Core, flake ? Y N Y

Dam constr. Site already destroyed?

May be outside application line

1974-029

33 IF Surface Flake Y Y N Y N – outside AZ 74-29/78-14 H34 Log cabin N/A HBC? N/A N N N N-outside bdy 74-29/79-32

35 LS Surface 3 flakes ? Y N Y Till invest. 74-29/76-13/ 1978-

014

36 IF Surface Flake ? Y N Y Till invest. 74-29/76-13/ 1978-

014

H37 Log bldgs N/A 20th century N/A N N N flooding 74-29/76-13/ 1978-

014

40 LS S/SS

11 flakes-1974 50 flakes-1981 Much debitage, core, scraper-

2008

N-74,Y-81, y-2008

(FSJNPM) Y Y-1981

1981: 10-1x1 EUs; 2008: 199 ATs, 1-1x10 m

trench

N Dam constr. 74-29/81-18/ 2008-

340

41 LS Surface 2 flakes N Y Y 1 ST? N Dam/flooding 76-13/78-14/ 77-

9/79-32

42 Buried deposit

Subsurface Ash/shell N Y N Y Flooding 76-13/77-09/ 1978-

014

HbRf 43 LS Surface 20 flakes Y Y Y-1979 20 neg tests Y Slumpage 77-9/78-14/ 1979-

032 HbRf 44 IF Surface Core N Y N Y Till invest. 77-9/78-14

45 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Slumpage? 77-9/78-14 46 LS Surface 3 flakes Y Y N Y Slumpage 77-9/78-14 47 LS Surface 3 flakes Y Y N Y Slumpage 77-9/78-14 48 IF Surface Core Y Y N Y Till invest. 1978-014 50 LS Surface 10 flakes/tools Y Y N Y Till invest. 74-29/78-14 51 LS Surface 5 flakes, 2 tools N Y N Y Till invest. 1978-014 54 LS Surface 5 flakes N Y N Y Till invest. 78-14/79-12


Site Type


Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?


Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

55 IF Surface Core N Y N Y Till invest. 1978-014 56 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Till invest. 1978-014? 57 IF Surface Core N Y N Y Till invest 1978-014 58 IF Surface Core N Y N Y Till invest. 1978-014 59 LS Surface 8 flakes N Y N Y Dam constr/ flooding 1978-014 60 LS Surface 7 flakes N Y N Y Flooding 1978-014

61 LS S/SS Several flakes

& tools Y-only 2 blue chert Flakes

Y Y 1978:1? 1x1 m EU; 1981: 21 1x1 m EUs

N? Dam constr./ flooding 78-14/81-18

62 LS S/SS Large site, 800 flakes & tools

Y Y Y ~100 1x1 (?) m

units Y? Dam constr./ flooding

1981-MO-18:pp 51-89

63 LS S/SS ~150 flakes in concentration

Y Y Y 34 STs (1+), 13-1x1 m EUs (2 +)

N? Dam constr. 1981-MO-18:pp 91-

96

64 IF Surface Flake Y Y Y 34 STs (neg) N Dam constr. 1981-MO-18:pp 97-

99

65 LS Surface 42 flakes/cores Y Y Y 4 EUs (neg) Y Dam constr. 81-MO-18: pp 100-

105

66 LS S/SS 20 flakes Y Y Y 32 STs, 1-80 x

80 cm unit Y? Dam constr.

81-MO-18: pp 106-109

67 LS Surface Point base,

flake Y Y Y

5-1x1 m EUs (neg)

N? Dam constr. 81-MO-18: pp 110,

111

68 Paleo SS-gravel pit Bison elements Y N N N Dam constr. 81-MO-18: pp 112-

115 69 Paleo SS-gravel pit Bison vertebra Y N N N Dam constr. 1981-MO-18 79 LS Surface 4 flakes Y-FSJNPM Y Y 201 neg STs N Till invest. 2002-116

80 LS Surface 15 flakes Y-FSJNPM Y Y 40 neg STs N? Till invest. 2002-116

81 LS Surface

1 point, 1 core, 1 retouched flake, flakes, scraper, bone

Y-FSJNPM Y N Y Till invest. 2003-054

HbRf 82 LS Subsurface 3 flakes Y-FSJNPM Y Y 29 STs (1 +) N Dam constr. 2004-094 HbRg 4 LS? Surface Flakes/bone ? Y N Y Flooding? 74-29: p 89

5 LS Surface Flakes N Y N Y Flooding? 74-29: p 89 6 LS Surface Flakes N Y N Y Flooding? 74-29: p 90 7 LS Surface Flakes Y/N Y N Y Flooding? 74-29: p 90

8 LS Surface Flakes Y Y N Y N-outside AZ 74-29/76-13/ 77-

09/78-14

9 LS Surface 3 flakes Y Y N Y N-outside AZ 74-29/76-13/ 77-

09/78-14

10 LS surface 4 flakes Y Y N Y N-outside AZ 74-29/76-13/ 77-

09/78-14 11 LS Surface Flakes N Y N Y Flooding 74-29: p 90


Site Type


Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?


Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

12 LS Surface Several flakes Y/N Y N Y N-outside AZ 74-29/76-13/ 77-

09/78-14 13 LS Surface Flakes Y Y N Y Slumpage?

14 LS Surface Flakes Y Y N Y Slumpage? 74-29/77-09/ 1978-

014

15 LS Surface Large site:non-specific lithics

?-1954 Y-1974

Y N Y Flooding? 74-29:p 87

16 LS Surface 2 flakes Y Y N Y Flooding

17 LS Surface 6 cores,12

flakes N Y N Y Flooding?

76-13/77-09/ 1978-014

18 LS Surface 10 flakes, 1

core N Y N Y Flooding?

76-13/77-09/ 1978-014

19 LS Surface 6 flakes N Y N Y Flooding?


core N Y N Y Hwy relocation

21 LS Surface 20 flakes N Y N Y Hwy relocation 22 IF Subsurface Flake N Y Y 1 ST Y Flooding 23 IF Subsurface Core Y Y Y 1-1 x 1 m unit Y Flooding 77-9/78-14 24 LS Surface Flakes, 1 pp N Y N Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14 25 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

HbRg

26 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y N-outside AZ 1977-009 1978-014

H27 Hist.Bldgs N/A 2 1920s barns N/A N N N Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14 H28 Hist.Bldgs N/A 3 1920s bldgs N/A N N N Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14 29 LS Surface 5 flakes N Y N Y Slumpage 77-9/78-14 30 LS Subsurface 1 core, flakes Y Y Y 1-1 x 1 m unit Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

31 IF Surface Projectile point Y Y N Y N-47 m outside

boundary 1978-014

32 LS Surface 2 flakes N Y N Y Hwy relocation 1978-014 33 LS Surface 44 flakes N Y N Y Hwy relocation 1978-014

HbRg 35

IF Subsurface 1 flake Y Y Y 1 ST Y Hwy relocation 1978-014

36 LS Subsurface 28

flakes/shatter Y-FSJNPM Y Y 11 STS (6+) Y Till invest. 2003-054

37 IF Subsurface Flake Y-FSJNPM Y Y 11 STs (1 +) Y Till invest. 2003-054 38 LS Surface Flakes Y-FSJNPM Y N Y Slumpage 2005-283

HbRh 1 LS Surface Several flakes & tools-’54 +

‘74 Y Y N Y Flooding 74-29/79-12

2 LS surface Flakes/scrapers

Rept’d burial Y Y N Y Flooding 74-29/79-12

6 LS Surface Core/flakes Y/N Y N Y Flooding 78-14/79-12 7 LS Surface Flakes Y Y N Y Hwy relocation 1974-029


Site Type


Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?


Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

8 LS Surface points

referenced Y Y Y-1976

6-1x1 m EUs, 4-50 x 100 cm

? Hwy relocation 74-29/76-13

10 LS Surface 7 flakes, 1 core Y Y N Y Hwy relocation 74-29/76-13/ 1979-

012 11 LS Surface 11 flakes Y Y N Y Hwy relocation 76-13/79-12

12 LS Surface Flakes,bifaces, hammerstone

Y Y N Y Hwy relocation 74-29/76-13

13 LS Surface Flakes (incl. retouched &

utilized) Y Y N Y N-outside AZ 1976-013

16 LS Surface 18 Flakes,

biface, core Y Y N Y Hwy relocation 74-29/79-12

17 LS S/SS Several flakes

& tools Y/N Y Y

STs – unknown #

Y Flooding ? 78/79 prelim

report

18 LS S/SS Sev.

flakes/tools Y/N Y Y 1? ST Y Flooding 1979-012

19 LS Surface 13 flakes ? Y N Y Flooding 1974-029

HbRh 20

LS Surface SN point, 2

flakes, 2 tools Y Y N Y Flooding 1974-029


points Y Y N Y Flooding 1974-029

22 LS Surface Flakes & ? Y Y N Y Hwy relocation 1974-029 23 LS Surface Flakes/biface Y Y N Y N-outside AZ 74-29/79-12

24 LS Surface Flakes/tools ? Y N Y Hwy relocation 74-29/76-13/ 77-

09/78-14 26 Paleo SS-gravel pit Lg vertebra Y-F&W N N N Hwy relocation 1976-013

27 LS Surface 8 Flakes, 5

cores, scraper ? Y N Y Flooding 1976-013

28 LS Surface Flake/scraper N Y N Y Flooding 1976-013 29 LS Surface 2 flakes Y(owner) Y N Y Flooding 1976-013

30 Paleo? Surface Bison bone,

creek deposit Y(owner) N N N Hwy relocation

76-13/77-9/ 1978-014

HbRh 31

IF Surface Core N Y N Y N-outside AZ 76-13/77-09

32 LS Surface Core & scraper N Y N Y Flooding 1976-013

33 LS S/SS 417

Flakes/tools ‘76(owner)

Y-1977 Y Y

’76: 20 units: 9 -1x1; 11-2x2

Y? Hwy relocation 76-13/77-9/ 1979-

012 34 LS Surface 1 core, 1 flake N Y N Y Flooding 1976-013

35 Historic Surface

3 depressions, glass frags,

bottles, iron – historic ford

N N N N Flooding 1976-013


Site Type


Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?


Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

36 LS S/SS

40 Flakes (1 retouched), 1 microblade, 3

cores

N Y Y-1976 ? – no report Y? Flooding 1976-013

37 LS Surface 1 core, 2 flakes N Y N Y Flooding 1976-013 38 LS Surface 2 flakes N Y N Y Flooding 1976-013 40 LS Surface Flakes, scraper N Y N Y Hwy relocation 1976-013 41 LS Surface 2 flakes ? Y N Y Hwy relocation 1976-013 42 LS Surface Flakes, chitoth ? Y N Y Hwy relocation 1976-013 44 LS Surface Flakes, 3 cores N Y N Y Flooding 1976-013

H45 Historic N/A Root cellar N/A N N N Flooding 46 IF Subsurface Core Y Y Y 1 ST Y Flooding 76-13/78-14 47 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Hwy relocation 76-13/78-14

48 LS Surface 3 flakes ? Y N Y Hwy relocation 76-13/78-14 49 LS Surface p. pt., flake Y(pt)/N Y N Y Hwy relocation 76-13/78-14 50 IF Surface Core N Y N Y Hwy relocation 76-13/78-14 51 LS Surface 3 flakes N Y N Y Hwy relocation 76-13/78-14 52 IF Subsurface Flake Y Y Y 1 ST Y Flooding 76-13/78-14

53 LS Surface Flakes in trail

cut N Y N Y Flooding 76-13/78-14

54 LS Subsurface 2 flakes Y Y Y 1 1x1 m EU Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14 55 LS Surface? 2 Flakes (1 ret.) Y Y Y? 1 ST? Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

56 LS Subsurface 500+ Flakes,

cores, ret Flakes

Y Y Y 1 1x1 m EU? Y N- 85 m outside

boundary 77-9/78-14

57 IF Subsurface Flake Y Y Y 1 1x1 m EU Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14 58 IF Surface Chithos Y(owner) Y N Y Flooding 77-9/78-14

H59 Hist.Bldgs N/A 2 log cabins, 2 barns-20th cent

N/A N N N Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

H60 Hist.Bldgs N/A 20th cent N/A N N N Flooding 77-9/78-14

H61 Hist.Bldgs N/A Log structure,

ca. 1944 N/A N N N Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

62 LS Subsurface 9 Flakes, 7

cores Y Y Y 2 STs Y N-60 m outside 1978-014

HbRh 63

LS Subsurface 30 flakes Y Y Y 3 STs Y Hwy relocation 1978-014

64 LS Subsurface 2 Flakes, 7

cores ? Y Y 1 ST Y Hwy relocation 1978-014

65 LS Surface 6-12 flakes N Y N Y Flooding 1978-014

66 LS Subsurface 39 Flakes, 3 bone frags

? Y Y 1 ST? Y Flooding 77-9/78-14

67 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Hwy relocation 1978-014 68 LS Subsurface 2 flakes Y Y Y 1 ST Y Hwy relocation 1978-014


Site Type


Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?


Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

69 LS Surface Scraper, core,

3 bifaces, Flakes

N Y N Y Hwy relocation 1978-014

70 LS Surface Core, quartzite N Y N Y N-72 m outside

boundary 1978-014

71 LS S/SS Flake, scraper Y Y Y 1 ST Y N-32 m outside 1978-014 72 IF Surface Hammerstone Y Y N Y N-outside AZ 1978-014 73 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y N-outside AZ 1978-014

74 LS Surface Core, pebble (retouched) p

N Y N Y N-outside AZ 1978-014

75 LS surface 5 Flakes, core Y Y N Y N-outside AZ 1978-014

76 LS Surface 10-12 flakes N Y N Y Hwy relocation 78-14/79-12 77 IF Surface Surface N Y N Y Hwy relocation 78-14/79-12

78 LS Surface 10-15 Flakes, 2 cores, scraper

N Y N Y Hwy relocation 78-14/79-12

79 LS Surface Several cores &

flakes N Y N Y N-109 m outside bdy 76-13/79-12

80 LS Surface Flakes & burnt

bone Few Flakes-

FSJNPM Y N

Y-needs relocat’n in

field Hwy relocation? 1992-059

81 LS Surface Flakes I Flake-

FSJNPM Y N

Y-needs field

verifying Hwy relocation? 1992-059

82 LS Surface Flakes (incl 1 obsidian), 2 split cores

Y-FSJNPM Y N Y-needs

field verifying

Hwy relocation? 1992-059

83 LS Surface Flakes I Flake-

FSJNPM Y N

Y-needs field


84 LS Surface Flakes (incl 1

obsidian) Few Flakes-

FSJNPM Y N

Y-needs field


85 IF Subsurface Flake Y-FSJNPM Y Y 58 STs (1 +) N but poss

SAP Hwy relocation? 2000-151

87 LS Subsurface 3 flakes Y Y Y 50 STs (1 +) N N – 45 m E of realigned hwy

2003-002 2003-098

HbRh 100

IF Subsurface Flake Y Y Y 15 STs (1 +) N Hwy relocation 2008-298

101 LS Subsurface 9 flakes Y Y Y 31 STs (4 +) N Hwy realignment 2008-298 102 LS Subsurface 25 flakes Y Y Y 27 tests N Slumpage 2008-365

HbRi 1 LS Surface Flakes, 1,piece

esquillee Y/N Y N Y

N -33 m outside AZ boundary

1974-029


Site Type


Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?


Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

2 LS Surface Scraper, flakes Y/N Y N Y N-87 m outside

boundary 74-29/79-12

3 LS Surface Flakes, bones N Y N Y N-33 m outside

boundary 1974-029

HbRi 4 LS Surface Flakes Y Y N Y N-65 m outside

boundary 1974-029

5 LS Surface 2 flakes N Y N Y Hwy relocation 74-29/77-9/ 1978-

014

6 LS Surface

Lge site in plowed field:

cores, bifaces PP, scrapers,

flakes

Y ’74-SFU; 2008

(FSJNPM) Y N Y Hwy relocation 74-29/08 NP

7 LS/CD Surface 4 flakes, 5 circ depressions

? Y N Y Hwy relocation 1974-029

8 IF/CD Surface 1 flake, 2 circ depressions

? Y N Y Hwy relocation 74-29/79-12

9 LS Surface 12 flakes ? Y N Y Flooding 74-29/79-12

10 LS Surface 15 cores, 28

flakes, hammerstone

? Y N Y Flooding 1976-013?

11 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Flooding 76-13/79-12

12 LS Surface 10 cores, 11

flakes (1 ret.), chopper

N Y N Y Flooding 1976-013?

13 LS Surface 5 flakes N Y N Y Hwy relocation 1976-013 14 LS Surface 2 flakes N Y N Y Hwy relocation 1976-013

15 IF Surface Retouched

Flake Y(owner) Y N Y Hwy relocation 1976-013

23 LS Surface 2 flakes Y Y N Y N-outside AZ 77-09/78-14 24 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Flooding 77-9/79-12 25 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Flooding 77-9/79-12

26 LS Subsurface 15 flakes Y Y Y 1-1x1 m unit Y N-340 m outside AZ

bdy 77-9/78-14

27 LS Subsurface 16 flakes Y Y Y 1-1x1 m unit Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

28 LS Subsurface 19 Flakes (1

ret.) Y Y Y 1-1x1 m unit Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

29 IF Subsurface Flake Y Y Y 1-1x1 m unit Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14 31 IF Subsurface adze-like tool Y Y Y 1-1x1 m unit Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

HbRi 32 IF Subsurface Flake Y Y Y 1-1x1 m unit Y N-outside AZ 77-9/78-14

33 LS Surface Lithics, may

join w/ HbRi 9 & 34

Y Y N Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14


Site Type


Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?


Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

34 LS Surface Non-specific

lithics, may join w/ HbRi 9 & 33

Y Y N Y Hwy relocation 1978-014

(35) LS Surface 3 cores, 2

Flakes N Y N

(36) LS Surface Core, chipped

cobble Y Y N

(37) LS Surface 3 Flakes, core Y Y N (38) IF Surface Scraper N Y N (39) LS Surface 2 flakes N Y N 40 IF Surface Flake N Y N

Y

Hwy relocation. These 6 sites have all been merged into one site – HbRi 40 – and a new polygon drawn

1978-014

41 LS S/SS 35-40 flakes, 10 cores, ret.

flake,biface tip Y/N Y Y 2 STs ? Y Flooding 1978-014

42 LS Surface 20-25 Flakes,

core N Y N Y Flooding 1978-014

43 LS Surface 9 Flakes (1

ret.), scraper N Y N Y Flooding 1978-014

44 LS Surface 1 core, 2 flakes N Y N Y Flooding 1978-014 46 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Flooding 1979-012 47 LS Surface 5 flakes N Y N Y Flooding 1979-012

HbRj 1 LS Surface Flakes. Bifaces also reported

Y Y N Y Hwy relocation 74-29/76-13/ 77-

9/78-14

2 IF Surface Flake Y Y N Y N-87 m outside AZ

boundary 1974-029

3 LS Surface 2 flakes ? Y N Y N-235 m outside bdy

4 LS Surface Flake, biface Y Y N Y N-65 m outside AZ

boundary 1974-029

5 IF Surface Flake ? Y N Y N-outside AZ

6 LS Surface Pt, 2 scrapers, flakes, glass,

ceramics Y/N Y N Y Flooding

7 LS Surface Flake/FCR N Y N Y Hwy relocation 1979-012 8 IF Surface Core ? Y N Y Hwy relocation 1976-013 9 IF Surface Flake N Y N Y Flooding 1976-013

H10 Historic Surface Logs, sq-head nails, cables

N N N N Flooding 1976-013

HbRj 11 IF Surface Chopper N Y N Y Hwy relocation 1978-014

20 LS Surface 9 flakes, 1 core N Y N Y Hwy relocation. Site

straddles AZ boundary

77-9/78-14

21 IF Subsurface Flake Y Y Y 1-1x1 m unit Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14


Site Type


Site Comments

Collected?

Protected (HCA)?


Conflict/ Comments

Permit #s

22 LS Subsurface 9 flakes Y Y Y 1-1x1 m unit Y N – outside TEM 1977-009 2005-163 23 LS Surface 5 flakes Y Y N Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

24 LS Surface 9 Flakes (1 util.), core

N Y N Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

25 LS Subsurface 2 flakes Y Y Y 1-1x1 m unit Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

26 LS Surface 300

Flakes/tools in 17 x 28 m area

N Y Y 1 neg 1x1 m unit Y Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

H27 Hist.Bldgs N/A Log cabin, 2

barns, ca 1944 N/A N N N Hwy relocation 77-9/78-14

28 LS Surface Flake, ret.

Flake ? Y N Y Hwy relocation 1976-013


Glossary:

HCA = Heritage Conservation Act

Site Type: LS = lithic scatter IF = isolated find

CD = cultural depression TU= traditional use site

Legacy = site determined by Archaeology Branch as non-cultural, not locatable, unprotected by HCA and/or of insufficient interest or significance to warrant documentation

Repositories:

FSJNPM = Fort St John/North Peace Museum, Fort St. John Nat. Mus. = Museum of Civilization (formerly National Museum), Hull

RBCM = Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria Owner = landowner at time of site documentation

Note: Collections all to SFU Dep’t of Archaeology unless otherwise noted.

Appendix B

Appendix B: Table 2

Arch Site Conflict Dam Area Slide AreaInundation

ZoneHighway

RelocationImpact Line

WorkTill

InvestigationOnly for

ModelingTransmission

LineComments on Site relocation and/or Verification Moved

Site Location

Confidence Level

Historic Paleontological Legacy Lithic Comment

GlRk 1Modeling purposes only

yLeft as is, in correct general location along eastern upper terrace of canyon

no l-m yes

~340 m away from transmission line

GlRk 3Transmission

yMoved slightly north to fall on transmission line cut, unable to determine exact location due to lack of detailed info

yes l yes

HaRe 18 Modeling purposes only

yLeft as is, site form too vague and distance inaccurate, appears to be outside transmission line and construction areas

no l yes~600 m from transmission line

HaRe 20 Modeling purposes only

y Not enough data to plot, no l yesmay not need to include in model

HaRg 2 Slide Area y Moved slightly south in accordance with sketch map yes h yes

HaRg 3Transmission

yLeft as is, cannot reconcile, likely impact negligible, artifact collected

no l yes

HaRg 4Slide Area

yConsistent with GPS coordinates, did not move, could not confirm with written access description

no m yes

HaRg 11 Modeling y Plots at given UTM coordinates taken from GPS in field, left no h yes

HaRh 1Modeling purposes only

yleave as is, cannot distinguish between road and railbed, site is on road

no m yes

HaRi 1Modeling purposes only

yLeft as is, site located on SE side of road at approximate distance from Big Lake given on site form

no l-m yes

HaRj 1Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y yMoved based on terrace edge, poor site description and map

yes l yes


y y Moved based on original site map and written description yes m-h yes

HaRj 11Modeling purposes only

y Left as is, isolated find in hay field no m yes


yMoved to approximate location as given on original site sketch map

yes l-m yes~215 m from permit app line


y y Confirmed based on original site description no h yes


y yMoved and expanded site area from 1 x 1 m to 30 x 8 m based on verbal description of measurements and location

yes m yes


y y Moved based on original site map and verbal description yes m yes




y yMoved southwest to edge of gravel pit in accordance with distance and bearing measurements on site form sketch map

yes m-h yes




y yMoved slightly back onto terrace edge, ~600 artifacts in one EU, site likely extends further

yes m yes


yMay be 600 m too far to the NE but too little information to move

no l yes


y yMoved to terrace edge - site form says 50 x 10 m, but left as 1 x 1 m as no site boundary on original map

yes l yes

HaRj 22Full Supply Level

yMoved both HaRj 22 and 24 to lower terrace and spaced ~89 m apart as per site form description

yes l yes


y y Moved based on association with HaRj 21 and site sketch yes l-m yes


yMoved both HaRj 22 and 24 to lower terrace and spaced ~89m apart as per site form description

yes l yes

HaRj 3 Modeling purposes only

yMoved south to "animal path" along edge of terrace in accordance with written description and extremely vague site sketch

yes l yes~100 m outside boundary


y yMoved based on location of gravel pit on ortho photo and tractor cut on lidar

yes l-m yes

I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd. Appendix B - 1

Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level



y y Moved based on sketch map and lidar scarp edge yes m yes


ymoved based on sketch map and description, 5 m from terrace edge as seen on lidar

yes m yes


y moved based on sketch map and description yes m yes


y y moved based on written description and site map yes m yes


y yMoved slightly towards terrace edge, site desciption says 50 m long, RAAD shows 75 m, left polygon same shape

yes m-h yes

HaRk 1

Inundation/Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y y y Left as is - already reconcilled by Archaeology Branch no h yes

HaRk 10


y y yLeft as is - site description seems to plot in approximately same location

no h yes

HaRk 11Modeling purposes only

y Moved onto field as per written instructions and sketch map yes h yes65 m outside boundary

HaRk 12


y y y Left as is based on site map and description no h yes

HaRk 13


y y yLeft as is, should be easy to locate in field as part of site is cabin

no h yes cabin on site

HaRk 14Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y yRe-drew site boundary to more accurately reflect site sketch map

no h yes


y yLeft as is, site dimensions may be inaccurate, site form says 20x40m but testing not done to confirm this

no h yes

HaRk 16


y y y Left as is, site dimensions appear correct no m-h yes


y ySite length doubled and moved to follow old Hwy 29 RoW to be more consistent with site sketch

yes m-h yes


y y Moved site SW to match written description and sketch map yes m-h yes


y y Left as is based on site description and sketch map no m yes

HaRk 2


y y y Impossible to reconcile, bad map, poor directions… no low to nil yes


y yLeft as is, moved to west based on pole location shown on HaRk 21 sketch map

no l yes


y yRe-drew according to written site dimensions along transmission line

no m-h yes


y yLeft as is based on sketch map, but distance from road junction to site is incorrect on site form (given in miles but should be km)

no m-h yes

HaRk 23


y y yMoved approximately 200m based on directional measurements given on sketch map

yes m yes


y yMoved to west and south based on site description and sketch measurements, moved to inside innundation zone, reduced site area to reflect site description as isolated find

yes l-m yes


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level



y yMoved south and west based on measurements on sketch map

yes l-m yes


y yMoved south and east to lie on road according to site sketch map and written description

yes m yes


y yMoved to east side of last pole in accordance with site form access information, enlarged site area to 10 x 10m

yes m-h yes


y yLocation unchanged; however site area given as 1/2 acre not a point as shown

no m-h yes


y yWritten site access instructions confusing, moved slightly west to match measurements from Zelinka's cabin (HaRk 31)

yes m yes


y yChanged polygon from point to include all three structures as seen on ortho photo

no m-h yes

HaRk 32


y y yReduced site size, moved slightly to NW into centre of field to match site description

no h yes

HaRk 33


y y ySite has been legacied by Arch Branch - did not adjust location

no low to nil yes

HaRk 34


y y yMoved closer to Farrell Creek in accordance with site description and site sketch map

yes m-h yes


y yPoor written directions, moved based on relationship to HaRk-30

yes m yes


y yLeft as is, site is in approximate location but not enough detail on site form to be confident in location

no l yes


y yMoved west and south to terrace edge as per sketch map and site description

yes l-m yes


y yMoved south and west to edge of forested area and across Peace River from stream to match site description; written site dimensions not consistent with map or RAAD polygon

yes l-m yes


y yLeft as is, could not determine from sketch or written info exact location

no l yes


y yReduced site dimensions to match written description and to move site entirely onto terrace

yesh for location

but m for length

yes


y yMoved slightly west and reduced size due to disbelief that site is as large as stated - missing decimal?

yes l yes


y yMoved slightly west and reduced size due to disbelief that site is as large as stated - missing decimal?

yes l yes


y yLeft as is as no site map - form for nearby site HaRk 4 also unsuccessfully examined for possible HaRk 5 location.

no m yes

HaRk 6


y y yMoved to top of terrace from creek bed. Immediately north of highway and east of dry creek bed, site dimensions not accurate, no map provided

yes m yes


y y Left as is - no map provided no m-h yes

HaRk 8


y y y Moved to top of terrace from creek bed. No map provided yes m-h yes

HaRk 9Full Supply Level

ySite description too vague to plot but is in general area of current polygon locations

no l yes


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level


HaRl 1 Modeling purposes only

yLeft as is, location of cemetery too vague from site form but should be locatable on ground once in Hudson's Hope. HaRl 1 and HaRl 2 may be same site.

no l yes native graveyard

HaRl 10


y y y Left as is - very poor site form and sketch map no low to nil yes


yAccess description on site form does not match site location shown on RAAD but may be 850 m to the NE in possible conflict with highway realignment

no l yes

HaRl 13Modeling purposes only

y Moved to power line cut and Lynx Creek yes m-h yes

HaRl 14Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y yMoved to end of previous access road as shown on LIDAR; site dimensions given as 30x30 m, not a point

yes m-h yes

HaRl 15 Impact Line y y Cannot verify, not shown on sketch map, directions poor no l yes


yMoved slightly to the north and west along terrace edge to approximate location shown on site sketch map

yes m yes


yMoved slightly to the west to top of terrace edge to match site form sketch map

yes m yes

HaRl 18


y y yMoved and rotated polygon to fit landform and match written description on site form

yes m yes


y y Moved to road based on sketch map and landform yes m yes


yMay be same site as HaRl 1, left as is, see comment for HaRl 1

no l yes yesPioneer Cemetery

HaRl 20Full Supply Level

yMoved to east side of road based on distance recorded on site form and sketch map

yes h yes


yMoved to east side of road based on distance recorded on site form and sketch map

yes h yes


yMoved to east side of road based on distance recorded on site form and sketch map and lidar

yes h yes


y

Site noted to be close to old ferry terminal; site dimensions not accurate on RAAD but could be as much as 150m long; moved to approximate location of white rock as noted in HaRl 24

yes l-m yes


y Moved based on site description and sketch maps yes m yes


y y Left as is at end of Bodekar Road, no site sketch no m-h yes


yMoved to edge of Peace River - site references ferry and historic building

yes m-h yesincludes historic buildings onsite

HaRl 5 Full Supply Level

ySite location based on unconfirmed anecdotal information - has been legacied by Archaeology Branch

no l yesreported ceremonial boulder


y yMoved to SW corner of Dudley & Rutledge to be more consistent with Lat/Long coordinates on site form

yes l yes

HaRl 7 Full Supply Level

yMoved to island in accordance with site form description; however site legacied by Archaeology Branch as non-site.

yes l-m yessandstone blocks


yLeft as is, written site form directions lead to current location, but sketch map shows roads that don't seem to exist

no l yes

HbRe 1 Modeling purposes only

yLeft as is, appears to be in correct location as described on 1954 form, but 1974 update states that site could not be re-located.

no l yes"Old Fort" - fur trade fort

HbRe 12Modeling purposes only

yMoved slightly east to place in road cut as per site sketch map

yes l-m yes


yMoved closer to Peace River as per written site form instructions

yes l-m yesPolice Building - 1910


yMoved to west, along bluff edge near apparent gas well as shown on ortho photo and as indicated on site form

yes m yes


yMoved west to top of 2nd bluff from west edge of field as indicated on site form

yes m yes


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level



y Moved onto bluff as indicated on site form yes l-m yes

HbRe 32Till Investigation

yLeft as is based on written site description and map, however coordinates given are inaccurate

no m yes Old Fort St John II

HbRe 54 Till Investigation

yLeft as is based on written site description and coordinates but site location appears to have been incorrectly switched with nearby site HbRe 55

no m-h yes

HbRe 55 Till Investigation

yLeft as is based on written site description and coordinates but site location appears to have been incorrectly switched with nearby site HbRe 54

no m-h yes

HbRf 1Till Investigation

y No data available to verify site location no l yes

HbRf 10Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation/Till Investigation

y y yNot locatable, coordinates incorrect, sketch map extremely poor

no l yes



no l yes



no l yes


y y yMoved slightly west and rotated polygon to align with landform and fences on ortho photo. Good site form sketch map, based on air photo

yes h yes


yNot locatable, coordinates incorrect, sketch map and directions extremely poor

no l yes



no l yes



no l yes



no l yes

HbRf 18

Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation/Till Investigation/Slide Area

y y y yNot locatable, coordinates incorrect, sketch map and directions extremely poor

no l yes


y y yMoved slightly to the north and east and rotated polygon to lie along edge of field as per written description and site sketch map

yes m yes


yMoved south into plowed field as per written site description and sketch map

yes l yes

HbRf 21Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y yMoved south and east to more closely resemble sketch map and approximate distance from road

yes m yes


y Left as is based on written description and sketch map no l-m yes


y y yLeft as is, unable to accurately choose the described 2 historic buildings from cluster of structures; should be obvious in field

no m yes


yReshaped and moved slightly north to lie along edge of old stream/dune, general location okay

yes m yes


y y yMoved north in accordance with distance measurements and sketch map

yes h yes


yMoved north in accordance with site sketch map and location of HbRf 25

yes l-m yes


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level


HbRf 27Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation/Slide Area

y y y Moved to north along bluff in accordance with sketch map yes m yes


y y yMoved north into plowed field as per written description and sketch map

yes l-m yes

HbRf 29Full Supply Level/Dam Location

y yMoved to south side of Moberly River; unsure which terrace site belongs on as well as its orientation and distance to Peace River

yes l yes 4 natural depressions, tested 1981

HbRf 30Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation/Dam Location

y y y

Left as is, Alexander in 1981 states that despite extensive testing site could not be relocated and is likely destroyed due to gravel extraction, site dimension not plotted accurately, location appears correct according to written access description

no l yes

HbRf 31Full Supply Level/Slide Area

y yAppears to be in correct location, moved slightly west to top of terrace

yes l-m yesRocky Mountain Fort

HbRf 32Dam Location

yLeft as is, gravel pits surrounding current location, need to re-examine, may be destroyed

no l yes on edge of area of permit area

HbRf 33 Modeling purposes only

yLeft as is, believed to be in general area based on access description, Lat/Long coordinates place site south of highway

no l yes

HbRf 34Modeling purposes only

y Left as is, site form too poor to replot no l yes






y yMoved to east to lie along landform and apparent bulldozer cut in accordance with site form.

yes l yes

HbRf 40Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation/Dam Location

y y yRe-drew site boundary in accordance with site form sketch maps and descriptions; 2008 update states 1974 site dimensions and configuration appear to be accurate

yes h yes

HbRf 41

Full Supply Level/Dam Location/Slide Area

y y yMoved to edge of highest terrace based on detailed sketch map and landform on LIDAR

yes m yes


y yMoved to edge of Peace River in apparent caterpillar cut in accordance with site form description

yes l yesash/shell deposit only

HbRf 43Slide Area

yMoved to terrace edge along "tractor cut" to more closely resemble sketch map

yes l yes


yMoved to edge of field based on written site description, bearings and distances and sketch map

yes m-h yes

HbRf 45Slide Area

yMoved south and west to lie along seismic line at approximate distance from intersection as per site form

yes l yes

HbRf 46Slide Area

yLeft as is; poor written directions and sketch map which are inconsistent, cannot move accurately

no l yes

HbRf 47Slide Area

yLeft as is; poor written directions and sketch map which are inconsistent, cannot move accurately

no l yes

HbRf 48 Till Investigation

yLeft as is, appears in appoximate location based on sketch map, distances stated as originating from cabin but specific cabin is undeterminable

no m yes

HbRf 50 Till Investigation

yLeft as is, unclear as to rationale for site dimensions shown on site form, location approximates coordinates given on form

no l yes


y y yMoved north based on sketch map but could not confirm by distance along road given on site form

yes l yes


yMoved SW and rotated polygon to align with site form written description and sketch map

yes m yes


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level



y y yLeft as is, could not reference, many discrepencies between written directions and sketch map

no l yes



no l yes



no l yes


y y yMoved site to opposite side of landform in accordance with site sketch map

yes h yes

HbRf 59


y y y

Moved to intermediate terrace from lower terrace in accordance with site form description, sketch map looks like site at the edge of the terrace, Alexander reports site destroyed 1981

yes l yes

HbRf 60


y y yMoved to top of terrace along dirt road in accordance with sketch map and written instructions

yes l yes

HbRf 61


y y yMoved to intersection of road cuts in accordance with site form sketch map

yes l yes

HbRf 62


y y yMoved slightly NW to edge of Moberly River in accordance with site form and sketch map

yes h yes

HbRf 63Dam Location

yMoved to centre of clearing as shown on site form sketch map, increased site dimensions to ~5 x 5m

yes h yes

HbRf 64Dam Location

yRe-sized and moved to the west in accordance with distance and bearing measurements from edge of field as indicated on site form

yes h yes

HbRf 65Dam Location/Slide Area

y yLeft as is, site location matches description on site form, dimensions not correct in RAAD and possibly on site form

no h yes

HbRf 66Dam Location

yRe-drew site boundary as per site form sketch map associated and to conform with landforms shown on LIDAR

yes h yes


y yLeft as is, isolated find has been collected, site could not be relocated by Alexander in 1981 - stated as likely destroyed

no m yes

HbRf 68Dam Location

yBison remains spread over large area were collected, unprotected site, did not adjust site boundary but location is accurate according to site form

no h yes

HbRf 69Dam Location

yMoved into gravel pit in accordance with site form, site stated as likely destroyed

yes l yes


y

Left as is, mapped according to site UTM coordinates which seem accurate and are along referenced road; however Borden numbers may be mixed up between HbRf 80 and HbRf 79

no m yes

HbRf 8


y y yMoved slightly to lower terrace as shown on LIDAR to conform with site sketch map

yes m yesburned sandstone slabs


y

Left as is, mapped according to site UTM coordinates, which seem accurate and are along referenced road; however Borden numbers may be mixed up between HbRf 80 and HbRf 79

no m yes


yLeft as is, appears to be in correct location by written description and site coordinates

no h yes


y yMoved slightly north to top of ridge as per site form directions, could not locate siesmic line on ortho photo or LIDAR

yes l yes


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level



y y yMoved slightly west to top of bluff as per site access description on form

yes m yes

HbRg 10Modeling purposes only

yMoved west to edge of bluff overlooking gully in accordance with site form sketch map

yes m yes

HbRg 11


y y y

Moved site north to top of terrace and extended site boundary to ravine edge of Tea Creek in accordance with site form sketch map. However site dimensions are now not consistent with site form written description.

yes m-h yes


yLeft as is, appears to be in correct location based on site form sketch map

no m yes

HbRg 13Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y yLeft as is, site description and map are sketchy but likley that site is below major slope on slope break above the field

no m yes


y yMoved to edge of terrace, site form and sketch map poor and could not accurately locate

yes l yes

HbRg 15 Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y y

Re-drew so site was large polygon, not point as initially shown on RAAD, as it is a large site; site form indicate 100 x 2000 yards along intermediate terrace of the Peace River on same landform as HbRg 4 and 28, not confident of dimensions

yes m yespossible village site

HbRg 16Full Supply Level/Slide Area

y yLeft site as is, plotted based on Lat/Long coordinates recorded on site form, sketch map provides no additional information

no l yes


y y Moved slightly west to match location on site sketch map yes m yes


y yMoved south to road cut, extended boundary to be 60 x 10m along road as per site form description, exact location of site along road is not known

yes m yes


y yMoved south to top of break and edge of Wilder Creek ravine based on sketch map and written description

yes m-h yes


y yLeft as is, cannot accurately determine location but is currently located on the correct landform as per site description

no l-m yes


y y Left as is based on site form sketch map no m-h yes

HbRg 22 Full Supply Level

yMoved to top of terrace and immediately south of apparent coulee to be consistent with site form description

yes m yes

HbRg 23Full Supply Level/Slide Area

y yLeft as is based primarily on bearing to Wilder Creek, no distance given

no l yes


y yMoved to edge of terrace in accordance with site sketch map; site dimensions listed as 5 x 16 m but left as point as we could not determine site orientation

yes m-h yes


y yMoved to edge of landform as indicated on site form and sketch map

yes m-h yes


yLeft as is, appears to be in correct location based on site form sketch map

no m-h yes


y y Left as is, based on site sketch map no h yes


y yLeft as is, site consists of two areas (3 buildings) 100m apart. As currently shown site boundary only includes most easterly area.

no m-h yes

HbRg 29Slide Area

y Moved onto seismic line as per site form and sketch map yes m-h yes


y yLeft as is, could not verify based on bearings and distances given on site form, seems to be on correct landform, no sketch map available

no l yes

HbRg 31 Modeling purposes only

y Left as is based on site sketch map no m yesoutside boundary (47 m)


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level



y yMoved to west onto terrace edge according to site sketch map, site is erroding out of bluff

yes l-m yes


y yMoved to north and west to edge of bluff in accordance with site form

yes l-m yes


y yMoved to east along edge of bluff in accordance with site form, distance and bearing on site form incorrect?

yes l-m yes

HbRg 36Till Investigation

yLeft as is, site location matches description on site form and sketch map

no h yes

HbRg 37Till Investigation

yNo LIDAR or ortho photo but just inside boundary; could not confirm location

no l yes

HbRg 38Slide Area

yLeft as is, site form indicates location as on trail at top of bank

no h yes


y yMoved to first terrace on point of bluff close to ravine as per sparse information on site form

yes l-m yes


y yMoved site boundary slightly north to straddle road and sit on terrace edge, dimensions are vague

yes h yes


y yMoved boundary slightly upslope to include portion of the top of the terrace; however, unsure of dimensions but fairly confident site is in correct location

yes m-h yes


y yMoved to top of mound in plowed field as per site form and site sketch map

yes m yes


yMoved to west along road in accordance with site form description

yes l yes


yMoved west to opposite side of road and slightly south in accordance with site form sketch map

yes l yes

HbRh 1


y y yMoved slightly north to straddle rim of "Bentley's Island" as noted on site map and site description, site dimensions appear not to be accurately recorded

yes m-h yesstraddles boundary

HbRh 10Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y yMoved north and east to road and on terrace edge, re-drew to match site dimesions

yes l yes

HbRh 100Modeling purposes only

y Left as is based on coordinates given on site form no m yespossible island in flood area


y Left as is based on coordinates given on site form no m yespossible island in flood area

HbRh 102Slide Area

yLeft as is written access description too vague to accurately plot but is on correct landform

no l-m yes


y yMoved east and north to approximate location as shown on site sketch, described as on old field road which does not appear on LIDAR

yes l yes


y y

Site dimension improbable, huge site in plowed field; site form access description too vague to plot site accurately but is near Watson's Sunny Hills Ranch, needs to be verified in field

no l yes

HbRh13Modeling purposes only

y

Moved west and south based on site form sketch map and written description, site dimensions given as 200 x 200 m but there is no way to confirm size, RAAD depicts it as a point

yes l-m yes


y y Moved slightly north and west just off terrace edge yes m-h yes

HbRh 17


y y yMoved entirely onto field, but given site dimensions of 600 x 450 m appear to be significantly overestimated; however general location appears correct

yes m-h yesstraddles boundary

HbRh 18


y y yMoved to west and north slightly to be on slope as per site form, altered site dimensions to match site form

yes m yes

HbRh 19


y y yMoved site to east to incorporate gully and north to off Hwy 29, increased length to enclose western artifact find; however poor site form and map

yes m yes


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level


HbRh 2


y y yMoved to top of terrace, site drawn as significantly larger than dimensions given

yes m-h yes

HbRh 20

Inundation/Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation/Slide Area

y y y yMoved north to top of terrace out of trees and into plowed field - may be part of HbRh 21

yes m yes

HbRh 21

Inundation/Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation/Slide Area

y y y y

Moved site north to lie north of bluff, concentration of artifacts noted to be mainly on tops of knolls. Site dimension seem to be grossly exaggerated and may be composed of many smaller sites -needs testing to confirm

yes l yes


y yLeft as is, general feeling is that NE end of site is likely close to proper location but SW corner extends too far. Site dimensions not consistent with site description

no l-m yes


yLeft as is, written access description confusing, no sketch map

no l yes


y y Moved site to edge of terraces based on sketch map yes m-h yes


y yMoved slightly west so site is close to stream complex and falls within gravel pit area as per site form

yes m yes

HbRh 27


y y yMoved east to hummock noted on site form and south of field road

yes m yes

HbRh 28Full Supply Level

yMoved northeast to road to be consistent with stated distance of 75 east of forest

yes m yes

HbRh 29


y y yMoved south and west to point 10 m from road and closer to Peace River accordance with site form

yes l-m yes


y y Moved to creek bed from edge as per site form description yes l yes

HbRh 31 Modeling purposes only

yLeft as is, location seems to be correct based on site form,;site dimensions inaccurate - isolated find, redrew as 2.5m radius circle

no m yes

HbRh 32


y y yLeft as is, location is approximate (2 items found), but nothing to justify moving, current location appears good

no l-m yes


y y

Re-drew site boundary to reflect 1979 map which was prepared following 1977 excavation, excluding hwy and gravel pit; site dimension given as 552 m but probably meant 55.2m?

no m-h yes

HbRh 34


y y yMoved site north and west to lie on top of terrace and in prairie, shortened site to place site entirely on prairie as per site form

yes m yes

HbRh 35Inundation

yMoved east and north to lie along terrace edge, reshaped polygon to be 20 x 30m as per site form

yes l-m yes

HbRh 36


y y yMoved site to west along road to end of 'cattle trail', 4 find spots - 39 flakes, 3 cores, 1 microblade. Tested 1976, refers to "attached report" but not evident

yes m-h yes

HbRh 37


y y y Moved slightly NE to end of landform south of Hwy 29 yes m yes

HbRh 38


y y yMoved slightly to the SW and increased in size to place within unforested area as per site form sketch map

yes m-h yes


y yMoved to west on top of terrace edge and reduced n-s dimension as per site form

yes m-h yes


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level



y yLeft as is, appears to be in correct location by written description and sketch map, may not be impacted

no m-h yes


y yRe-drew to south and west to match site sketch and moved to impact zone; however, given site dimensions are inconsistent with map

no m-h yes

HbRh 44


y y yMoved slightly NW onto edge of terrace, site dimesions left as given but may be longer, may not be impacted

yes m yes

HbRh 45Inundation

yMoved to upper terrace and further N along Peace River in accordance with site form sketch map; however specific location on terrace is ambiguous

yes l-m yes

HbRh 46


y y yMoved site east and down to bottom of slope in accordance with site form description

yes l-m yes


y yMoved site slightly west of original location using site form transmission pole reference (found on ortho) and distance and bearing info as per site form

yes m-h yes

HbRh 48 Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y y

Moved site slightly south and east of original location using site form transmission pole reference (found on ortho) and distance and bearing info as per site form; site form indicates location on top of 4m high hill but could not confirm hill location on LIDAR

yes m yes


y yMoved to edge of terraces in accordance with site map, written description inconsistent with map

yes l yes


y y

Moved south and west in accordance with site sketch and written description using site form transmission pole reference (found on ortho) and distance and bearing info as per site form

yes m-h yes


y yMoved site south to terrace edge; located transmission line pole referenced on site form but bearings from pole appear to be 180 degrees off.

yes l yes

HbRh 52


y y yMoved west to foot of terrace to be more consistent with site form however location along terrace is too vague and written access instructions too complex to follow confidently.

yes l yes

HbRh 53


y y yMoved site SSW to top of small rise of land between road junction

yes m yes


y yMoved north to comply with written description of site location, bearings and distance from fence line

yes m yes


y y

Moved to opposite side of road in accordance with site sketch map, placed in depression along terrace edge but written access description is too vague to confirm exact location

yes l-m yes

HbRh 56


y y yMoved 750m SW to approximate location as per site sketch as coordinates given are inaccurate. May be much larger site 1 unit = 500+ flakes and tool

yes l-m yes


y Moved to approximate location based on site sketch yes l yesoutside boundary (85 m)

HbRh 58


y y yMoved to approximate location based on site sketch and bearing and distance information

yes m yes


y y

Moved site boundary significantly. Noted inconsitency in that sketch maps references two possible sets of buildings as HbRh 59, but written description notes that only one, the furthest north set of buildings, is HbRh 59. The other is HbRh 60

yes m yes

HbRh 6


y y yMoved slightly northwest and rotated polygon so site would follow terrace edge and extend into wooded area as per site form description

yes m-h yes


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level


HbRh 60


y y yMoved HbRh 60 to original RAAD location of HbRh 59 as 59 is located further north as per site sketch map

yes h yes


y y Moved north slightly in accordance with site sketch map yes m yes


y

Moved north to approximate location as shown on sketch map, however road construction in area (shown on ortho photo) since 1978 when site recorded makes determination of exact location problematic

yes l-m yesoutside boundary (60 m)


y y

Moved north to top of terrace, reshaped to conform with site dimension, however road construction in area (shown on ortho photo) since 1978 when site recorded makes determination of exact location problematic

yes m yes


y y

Moved north and east to approximate location as per site sketch, however road construction in area (shown on ortho photo) since 1978 when site recorded makes determination of exact location problematic

yes l-m yes

HbRh 65


y y y

Moved north based on ortho photo showing possible sand dune and caterpillar cut as referenced in site form, map inconclusive, coordinates inaccurate, used site access description to relocate

yes l yes

HbRh 66


y y yMoved north and east between two ponds in boggy area as per site description, identification of specific ponds is unclear

yes l-m yes


y yMoved from lower to intermediate terrace as per written description, placed in approximate location as per poor sketch map

yes l yes


y yMoved north and east to old field road as per site sketch map

yes l yes


y yMoved site to east and north to lie in field as shown, altered shape dimensions as derived from sketch map (no site dimensions given on site form)

yes m yes


yLeft as is, location approximate, site dimensions as given on site form

no m yespossible island in flood zone


yMoved north as per site sketch map and revised HbRh 69 boundary

yes l yesoutside boundary (72 m)


yMoved north and east as per site sketch maps and revised HbRh 69 boundary

yes l yesoutside boundary (32 m)


yMoved to next easterly field in accordance with sketch map and Lat/Long coordinates, re-drew site to 2.5m radius circle to reflect site category as isolated find

yes l-m yes


yMoved to east in accordance with sketch map and Lat/Long coordinates

yes l-m yes


yMoved to east in accordance with sketch map and Lat/Long coordinates

yes l-m yes


yMoved to east in accordance with sketch map and re-drew to more closely resemble written site dimensions and sketch map

yes l-m yes


y yMoved west to point on SW end of terrace as per site sketch

yes m yes


y yMoved to SW point on small point of land midway along landform based on sketch map

yes m yes


y yLeft as is; shown on RAAD in slump scar at edge of plateau which is not really determinable based on sketch map and site access info.

no l yes

HbRh 79Highway Realignment

y Left as is, appears to be in correct location from sketch map no h yes


y yMoved southwest to match site form sketch map. Note east end of site may have been impacted by gravel pit since original 1974 site form

yes m-h yes

HbRh 80 Highway Realignment

yLeft as is, cannot obtain approximate location from site description or site sketch, coordinates do not place site close to RAAD polygon

no l yes


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level


HbRh 81-85Highway Realignment

y

Left as is; coordinates on site form don't match RAAD locations, sketch maps too large-scale to accurately pick feature landform; site locations need to be confirmed in field before highway realignment occurs

no l yes


y y

Moved east of highway realignment closer to transmission line pole located on ortho and mentioned on site form. Reduced site dimension to small radius circle as per site form update 1998 (1 positive shovel test)

yes m-h yes

to east of highway realignment not in TEM

HbRi 1 Modeling purposes only

yMoved to SW and rotated polygon to follow edge of field and site sketch map

yes l-m yesoutside boundary (33 m)

HbRi 10Inundation/Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y y y

Reduced site area on RAAD so as not to extend into forest and removed eastern portion in accordance with site form sketch map, location of site now matches written and site form sketch although dimensions inconsistent with written description of 250 x 200 m

yes h yes

HbRi 11


y y y Moved slightly SW in accordance with site form map yes m yes

HbRi 12


y y yMoved slightly NNW to edge of field, re-drew according to site sketch

yes m-h yes

HbRi 13Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y yMoved north and slightly west to straddle hwy and viewpoint access road as per site form map

yes h yes


y yMoved slightly north based on site sketch map, written access description poor

yes m yes


y y Moved slightly east to match site form sketch map yes m yes

HbRi 2Modeling purposes only

y Moved SW based on site map, written description vague yes l-m yes

moved to outside boundary (87 m)


yMoved north and west to hillock with tractor cut shown on LIDAR as per written site form instructions and sketch map

yes l-m yes

HbRi 24


y y yMoved slightly east to old and new roads junction to follow site sketch map

yes m yes

HbRi 25


y y yMoved north and west to place site on top of terrace at approximate distance from road junction in accordance with site form and sketch map

yes m yes


y

Moved to west in accordance with detailed written distance and bearing measurements and placed on hummocky landform, reduced size of polygon to 5m diameter circle although further testing may prove site to be larger

yes m yesoutside boundary (340 m)


y y

Moved to west in accordance with detail written distance and bearing measurements, reduced size of polygon to 5m diameter circle although further testing may prove site to be larger

yes m yes


y y

Moved to NW in accordance with detailed written distance and bearing measurements, reduced size of polygon to 5m diameter circle although further testing may prove site to be larger

yes m yes


y y

Moved to east based on written description and bearing/distances from transmission pole as indicated on site form. No site map but detailed site access info provided on form

yes m yes


y Moved SW based on site map and written description yes m yes

moved to outside boundary (33 m)


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level



y y

Moved to SW in accordance with detailed written distance and bearing measurements, reduced size of polygon to 5m diameter circle although further testing may prove site to be larger

yes m yes


yMoved to SW in accordance with written site access description and bearing/distance from pole 37/4 (found on ortho photo)

yes m yes


y y

Moved and re-drew to match site form sketch map. Directions to site on sketch map given as km but likely are miles; seems to encompass HbRi 9's relocated position so they may be the same site

yes m-h yes

HbRi 34


y y yMoved north into field and re-drew according to site sketch map and written description. Likely joins with HbRi 33 and HbRi 9

yes m-h yes


y yHbRi 35 to 39 combined with HbRi 40 by Archaeology Branch. See note for HbRi 40.

yes m-h yes



yes m-h yes



yes m-h yes



yes m-h yes



yes m-h yes


yLeft as is, poor site description and sketch map make it impossible to obtain exact location, given as near unspecified gravel pit

no l yesoutside boundary (65 m)


y y

Plotted outside edge of new polygon HbRi-40 based on original site forms for Hbi 35 to 40 . Moved original site and expanded to north to capture all six relocated sites and place entirely in field

yes m-h yes

HbRi 41


y y yReconfigured to land form and truncated east end of polygon to match written description and sketch map

yes h yes

HbRi 42


y y yMoved site to top of intermediate terrace in field according to distance and bearing info on site sketch map

yes m-h yes

HbRi 43



yes m-h yes

HbRi 44



yes m-h yes

HbRi 46


y y yMoved site to road cut following distance and bearing info given on site form

yes m yes

HbRi 47


y y yMoved 40 m south on road following distance and bearing info given on site form

yes m yes


y y Left as is, appears to match written site form update by BPH no m-h yes


y yLeft as is, 2008 revisit resulted in collection of artifacts from NW corner of site along Breakin Hill road, eastern extent of site not confirmed on either visit

no h yes


y yLeft as is, no site sketch map, depressions are stated as down hillside, poor access description

no l yes


Appendix B: Table 2


ZoneHighway


WorkTill




Site Location

Confidence Level



y yLeft as is, poor site sketch and written description making accuratesite re-location impossible

no l yes

HbRi 9


y y yMoved north into field from bottom of terrace based on site form description, directions and distances which seem consistent with site map

yes m yes

HbRj 1Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y y

Moved point to edge of ravine ~225m from original location although information to vague to plot actual site; site form indicates site is on both sides of ravine based on antecdotal info from landowner

yes l yes

HbRj 10Full Supply Level

yMoved slightly north and east to location beside gravel bar as per written description on site form

yes m yes


y yLeft as is, site in approximate location as per site sketch map

no m yes

HbRj 2Modeling purposes only

yMoved to approximate location based on site sketch map although information to vague to plot accurately,

yes l yesjust outside boundary


y yMoved based on vague description and location of swamp on ortho, although access info poorly described on site form

yes l yesstraddles boundary


y yLeft as is based on vague description and sketch map; assumed location of pole 31-3 as seen on ortho but access info is poorly described on site form

no l yes


y yMoved to just outside boundary based on original site form and sketch map and assumed location of pole 31-3 as seen on ortho photo

yes l yes

just outside boundary (17 m)' not covered by TEM


y yMoved to approximate location north of transmission line poles as given on original site form and sketch map

yes m yes


y y

Moved to location as described on original site form sketch map, assuming location of pole 31-3; written description puts site north of transmission line but access info and map place site on the transmission line

yes l yes


y yMoved to location as described on original site form sketch map, assuming location of pole 31-3 as seen on ortho photo

yes l yes


y yMoved site slightly west to match sketch map, which was drawn from airphoto

yes l-m yes


y yLeft as is as unclear from sketch map as to specific building referenced, although would be easy to locate in field

no m yes


y yMoved to intermediate terrace on edge of ravine in accordance with site sketch map

yes m yes

HbRj 3 Modeling purposes only

yMoved outside boundary as evident on form and ortho photo, although information very vague, and written description and sketch map almost impossible to follow.

yes l yesmoved to ~235 m outside boundary


y yLeft as is, site in clearing as indicated in written and sketch map info on site form

no m-h yes

HbRj 5Modeling purposes only

yMoved based on location of hillock as described on site form and sketch map

yes l-m yes

HbRj 6 Impact Line Work/Highway Relocation

y y

Moved polygon to both sides of Whistler Creek as indicated on form, additional polygon added on east side to reflect this, site may continue into ravine and forested area to south and could be affected by flooding up the ravine

yes l-m yes


y yMoved slightly north, site impossible to locate via access info, good site map confirms site location

yes m-h yes


y yMoved onto terrace, but unable to determine which ridge from written description or site map

yes l yes


y yLeft as is, site is located on breaks above river but cannot accurately determine specific location from poor written description and site map

no l yes


Appendix C

Appendix D

Further to IR Wilson’s recommendation to the Archaeology Branch that the locational

and/or areal polygons for 219 sites be changed on its RAAD application, Doris Lundy of

the Branch’s Archaeological Site Inventory Section responded that, with the following

seven exceptions, the recommendation was accepted. The seven exceptions are:

HaRk 6: due to ambiguities in the site form’s access description, Ms Lundy has

left the site in its original plotted location on the west side of Dry Creek, not the

east side of the creek as recommended by IR Wilson. IRW’s confidence level in

the recommended move was “moderate” but ground-truthing and GPS

confirmation may elevate this.

HbRj 3: the site, an extremely small lithic scatter found in a field on the Ardill

Ranch, has been left in its original location by the Archaeology Branch instead of

moved to the next field to the east as recommended (with “low” confidence) by

IR Wilson. The Branch feels that the relocation rationale (shape of the field on the

site form sketch map as compared to the same orthophoto) is insufficient to

support the recommended change. Needs ground-truthing.

HbRj 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25: all five sites are located on the same landform on the

east side of the Halfway River north of Hwy 29. The site forms provide detailed

written access information in the form of bearings and distances, which were

primarily used by IRW (using orthophotos and LiDAR) to re-plot the sites.

However, as all of the sites were revisited in 2003 and/or 2005, at which time

GPS readings were taken, the Archaeology Branch has elected to stay with the

original GPS’d locations rather than the revised IRW locations (all of which were

plotted with “low” confidence). As the locations for these sites appear to have

been changed as much as three times already, further ground-truthing is

recommended.

peace river site c hydro project archaeological site reconciliation

Documents