Archaeological Overview Assessment for the Extension...

Katzie Development Corporation Ltd. 10946 Katzie Road, Pitt Meadows BC V3Y 2G6

604.460.8837 1

Archaeological Overview Assessment for

the Extension of Runway 08R and 26L

and Related Airside Works Project Pitt

Meadows Regional Airport Project, Pitt

Meadows, BC

Submitted To: MMM Group Ltd.

1045 Howe Street, Suite 400 Vancouver, BC

V6Z 2A9

Crystal Sawyer Katzie Development Corporation Archaeology

10946 Katzie Road Pitt Meadows, BC

V3Y2G6

© Katzie Development Corporation 2015


604.460.8837 2

Credits

Project Manager Ian Cameron, M.Sc., RPCA Field Director Ian Cameron Report Authors Crystal Sawyer, BA Irene Varsakis, M.Sc. General Editor(s) Tanja Hoffmann, PhD abd., RPCA Copy Editing and Formatting Denise Heron Field Supervisors Crystal Sawyer Field Assistants Joey Antone, Field Technician, Kwantlen First Nation Pam McCotter, Field Technician, Katzie First Nation


604.460.8837 3

Table of Contents 1.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................................................................................... 5

2.0 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 BIOPHYSICAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 6

4.0 CULTURAL AND ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND ............................................... 11

4.1 Pre-contact Transportation: Slough Routes........................................................ 12 5.0 HISTORIC LAND USE .................................................................................................... 13

6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE TYPES ................................................................................ 14

6.1 Lithic Sites .............................................................................................................. 14 6.2 Shell Midden Sites .................................................................................................. 14 6.3 Habitation Sites ....................................................................................................... 14 6.4 Ancestral Remains/Burial Sites .............................................................................. 14 6.5 Wetsites ................................................................................................................... 15

7.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 15

7.1 Background Research Methods .............................................................................. 15 7.2 Preliminary Field Reconnaissance Methods ........................................................... 15

8.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 16

8.1 Background Research Results................................................................................. 16 8.2 Preliminary Field Reconnaissance Results ............................................................. 23 8.3 Evaluation of Archaeological Potential .................................................................. 25

9.0 Management Recommendations ........................................................................................ 27

10.0 CLOSURE ......................................................................................................................... 28

11.0 REFERENCES CITED ...................................................................................................... 29

List of Figures Figure 1: Pitt Meadows Airport AOA Project Area ........................................................... 8

Figure 2a: Pitt Meadows Airport AOA 08R West Runway Extension .............................. 9 Figure 2b: Pitt Meadows Airport AOA 26L East Runway Extension .............................. 10 Figure 3: Pitt Meadows Airport AOA Project Area Identified Areas of Archaeological Potential shown with Ham and Quirolo’s (1993) AIA area in vicinity of Project components. ...................................................................................................................... 26


604.460.8837 4

List of Photos Photo 1: Aerial photograph from 1946. ............................................................................ 21 Photo 2: Aerial Photograph from 1963 of Project area. .................................................... 21 Photo 3: Aerial photograph from 1989. ............................................................................ 22 Photo 4: Aerial photograph from 1999. ............................................................................ 22 Photo 5: Proposed extension of Runway 08R, view west. ............................................... 23 Photo 6: Proposed Runway 26L extension, view southeast. ............................................ 24

List of Tables Table 1: Description of Archaeological Sites within the Project Area. ............................ 19

Table 2: Description of Archaeological Sites within 2 km of the Project Study Area. .... 20


604.460.8837 5

1.0 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed extension of runway 08R, 26L and related airside works, Pitt Meadows Regional Airport Project (‘the Project’) is located in the City of Pitt Meadows, British Columbia, near the north bank of the Fraser River and includes lands that form part of the Pitt Meadows Regional Airport (Figure 1). The Pitt Meadows Airport Society has engaged Katzie Development Corporation Archaeology (KDC Archaeology) to provide an archaeological overview assessment (AOA) of their proposed extension of runways 08R and 26L. Ancillary developments include the installation of lights and navigational aids. These additions will result in an extension of the existing 462 m 08R-26L Runway, allowing larger aircraft to use the Pitt Meadows Regional Airport. Construction of the runway extensions will require ground disturbance. Runway 08R will be extended approximately 83 m to the west, maintaining the current runway width of 30.5 m. Runway 26L will extend approximately 12 m to the east, also maintaining the current runway’s width of 30.5 m. The proposed construction of the runway extension will include machine stripping of the organic layer, between 20 cm and 100 cm below surface, based on specifications for the pavement structure. Fill material will be imported and levelled prior to the application of asphalt. Approximately 2895 m2 of asphalt will be paved for both runway extensions. Several edge and threshold lights and navigational aids will be installed for this project. These ancillary features will be installed adjacent to the north and south edges of Runway 08R, as well as along the west edge (Figure 2a). As well, ancillary lights and aids will be installed along the north and south edges of Runway 26L and extending to the east (Figure 2b). They will be placed within a tube foundation measuring 300 mm in diameter and excavated to approximately 2.1 m below surface. The tubular foundation is usually installed using drilling methods. Wiring to support the lights and aids will be routed through existing ducts as much as possible, although the west end of 08R and east end of 26L will require new cabling to connect to the existing ducts. Grubbing may be required to facilitate the installation of these components to support the runway extensions.

2.0 STUDY AREA The project area is generally situated in the Fraser Lowland, which in turn is bounded by the Coast Mountains to the north, the Georgia Strait to the west, and the Cascade and Chuckanut mountains to the west. The Pitt Meadows Airport Project Area is located immediately north of the Fraser River, in southern Pitt Meadows, British Columbia. Barnston Island lies opposite of the Pitt Meadows Airport in the Fraser River. The headwaters of Cook and Tulley Sloughs are located within the airport boundary, northward draining tributaries of Katzie Slough that drain into the Pitt River. Terrain


604.460.8837 6

within the project area includes remnant slough channels (now infilled) slough channels. The current Project is focused upon assessing ground relating to extensions of the southern runways 08R and 26L, which are located approximately 300 m north of the Fraser River. The terrain in the vicinity of the Project area is flat and primarily used for airport operations, and with portions of the airport’s grounds used for blueberry cultivation.

3.0 BIOPHYSICAL BACKGROUND The study area is located in the Fraser River Valley in the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) biogeoclimatic zone, within the Dry Maritime (dm) subzone of the (Krajina1965; Pojar, Klinka et al. 1991). The CWHdm occurs at low to mid elevations (sea-level to 1000 m above sea level) and is characterized by a cool, mesothermal climate with warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters with little snowfall. Historic development has drastically altered the biotic and abiotic environments of the Fraser River Valley. However, in pre-contact times plant species typical of this zone and subzones would have included a forest canopy dominated by western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and grand fir (Abies

grandis) and an understory of red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), salal (Gaultheria

shallon), vine maple (Acer circinatum), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus ), and various moss and fern species (Pojar et al. 1991). The CWH subzones typically support black bear (Ursus americanus), grey wolf (Canis lupus), cougar (Puma concolor), black-tailed (mule) deer (Odocoileus hemionus), river otter (Lontra canadensis), elk (Cervus canadensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), various rodents (Nagorsen 1990), and many species of birds, including raptors such as osprey (Pandion haliaetus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), as well as tundra swan (Cygnus

columbianus), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) and others (Kavanagh and Leung 2005). A wide variety of fish, particularly salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.), are supported in the nearby Fraser River and its many tributaries. It is generally known that there are trout (Salvelinus sp.) in the nearby Alouette and Pitt Rivers and that prior to widespread development in the area there were salmon (Salmonidae) spawning runs, eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) and sturgeon (Acipenser sp.) in the surrounding waterways. The Project area is located in the Fraser River delta or floodplain, which is less than 15m above sea level (asl) and is a young Holocene landform less than 10000 years old (Geological Survey of Canada 1998). Silt, clay and loam were seasonally deposited by flood waters over the Fraser lowlands, known as Fraser River Sediments (Armstrong and Hickok 1976). These sediments carried by the river gradually settled and built up at the mouth of the Fraser River where it enters the Pacific Ocean. The delta has rich soil, now used for agriculture, but is also characterized by poor drainage due to the level terrain and high water table.


604.460.8837 7

Prior to European settlement and alteration of the study area, the vegetation along the river and for some distance inland would have consisted of coniferous forest. Inland areas were covered by grassland-shrub areas and bogs. Several sloughs once flowed through the study area (see Ham and Quirolo 1993:7).

DATE CREATED:

REVISION:

MAP AUTHOR:

LEGEND

REVIEWED:

DhRq-20

DhRq-23

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan,METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS User Community

0 1 1.5 20.25Kilometers

1:30,000

Fraser River

N

S

EW

Scale

DhRq-35

DhRq-77

DhRq-78

DhRq-79

DhRq-5

DhRq-17Barnston

Island

Cook SloughTulley Slough

Katzie Slough

Pitt Meadows Airport Project AreaFIGURE 1

June 29, 2015

October 5, 2015

C. Sawyer

D. Heron

Archaeological SitesProposed Project Area

STUDYAREA

0 100 200 300Kilometres

SCALE:

N

S

EW

DATE CREATED:

REVISION:

MAP AUTHOR:

LEGEND

Pitt Meadows Airport Runway Extension08R West End (approximately 83 m)

October 26, 2015

October 30, 2015

D. Heron

FIGURE: 2a

REVIEWED: R. Varsakis

08R Runway ExtensionTech CableNew Electrical Layout

Fraser River0 140 280 42070Meters

Scale 1:5000

08R West End08R West End

26L East End

N

S

EW

DATE CREATED:

REVISION:

MAP AUTHOR:

LEGEND

Pitt Meadows Airport Runway Extension26L East End (approximately 12 m)

October 26, 2015

October 30, 2015

D. Heron

FIGURE: 2b

REVIEWED: R. Varsakis

26L Runway ExtensionTech CableLighting and Navigational Aids

0 40 80 12020Meters

Scale 1:1500

08R West End08R West End

26L East End


604.460.8837 11

4.0 CULTURAL AND ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND The study area is located within the asserted traditional territory of the Katzie First Nation, Kwantlen First Nation, Kwikwetlem First Nation, Seabird Island Band, Semiahmoo First Nation, Shxw’ow’hamel First Nation, Skawahlook First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Stó:lō Nation, Stó:lō Tribal Council, Stz’uminus First Nation, Tsleil-Waututh Nation, and the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group (Chemainus First Nation, Cowichan Tribes, Halalt First Nation, Lake Cowichan First Nation, Lyackson First Nation, and Penelakut Tribe). Heritage Investigation Permits were received from the Stó:lō Research and Resource Management Centre on behalf of the Stó:lō Nation (Permit No. 2015-065) and the Kwantlen Nation (Permit No. 2016-014). General patterns of Northwest Coast ways of life as noted by early ethnographers are summarized here but can be reviewed in greater detail by consulting the following sources: Barnet 1955; Boas 1887, 1894; Hill-Tout 1900; and Suttles 1987. Oral histories, ethnographies and archaeological evidence suggest that traditional Coast Salish culture was characterized by a semi-sedentary lifestyle dependent upon what is often referred to as “subsistence” fishing, hunting and the gathering of plant foods. The term subsistence, however, implies the gathering of only a minimum amount of foods necessary to one’s own survival. Evidence in the Coast Salish region reveals that a surplus of available resources were managed in the past in a sustainable fashion and allowed for the development of intricate trade networks (Turner et al. 2000). These networks, along with a number of other factors, facilitated the development of regional social complexity, which is considered rare in non-agricultural societies (Lepofsky et al. 2005). Ethnographic studies indicate that Northwest Coast society was slightly stratified, with three classes of people: a large upper class, a small lower class and a very small class of slaves (Jenness 1955). The primary socio-economic unit was the house group. A single large house would shelter one or more extended families. Villages usually consisted of one or more houses and leadership was provided by the heads of households and kin groups in the village. Each village was linked through ties of marriage kinship with other villages to form a broad social network. Kinship was reckoned bilaterally and residence was usually patrilocal (Suttles 1990). Each house group owned its house, ritual property and resource rights. These rights were acquired through inheritance and normally held by the most important members of the household. Ritual and house property is not necessarily tangible property and may include the rights to perform or represent masked dances, rattle ceremonies, power words, and certain songs, stories and designs as well as titles, legends, medicinal knowledge and other ceremonial prerogative rights (Thom and Bain 2004:i-ii). Although most non-agricultural societies are known for their minimal material culture, “the Northwest Coast is well known for having the most elaborate systems of material and intangible property of all hunter-gatherer communities in North America” (Thom and Bain 2004:i).


604.460.8837 12

In the past, Northwest Coast peoples, including the Coast Salish, lived in and managed what is considered to be one of the most resource-abundant ecosystems in North America (Thom and Bain 2004; Lepofsky et al. 2005). The availability and seasonality of animal and plant resources in Coast Salish territory played a major role in pre-contact population dynamics and settlement patterns. First Nations people living along the coastal waters of the south coast, at the mouth and along the Fraser River used a wide variety of resources including, but not limited to a wide range of shellfish, saltwater fish and sea mammal species; anadromous salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.), trout (Onchorycthus sp.) and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) spawning runs in the Fraser River and tributary streams; larger land mammals including deer and elk (Cervidae), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) and bears (Ursidae); smaller game and fur bearing mammals, including beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethiucus), mink (Neovison vison) and otters (Mustelidae) (Nagorsen 1990); and plant resources including western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) for timber and bark and roots, various berries including choke cherry (Prunus virginiana), huckleberry (Vaccinium sp.), bog cranberry (Oxycoccos oxycoccos), and numerous other plants used for food, technological and medicinal purposes (Lepofsky et al. 2005; Turner 1995). Many of these resources were acquired from spring until fall and were processed on-site for winter use or trade. In the late spring, families would leave the winter villages and travel upstream to set up base camps along the river. From these base camps, men and women made excursions to hunt, fish, and gather plants, moving their base camps as different resources became seasonally available.

4.1 Pre-contact Transportation: Slough Routes

The ancient slough system that once connected Pitt Lake to the Fraser River villages of the Katzie played a vital role in Katzie lifeways (Suttles 1955). The sloughs provided “short cuts” into the resource rich inland areas and may have facilitated trade with more northern groups (Hoffman et al. 2001; Suttles 1955). The sloughs would have provided easy access to major village sites (e.g., DhRp-52, the Laseur Site, the Caruthers Site and the Park Farm site), as well as innumerable berry picking, wapato, hunting, and other faunal and floral resource areas. In addition to their importance as transportation routes, the sloughs are important archaeologically as they traverse wetlands that maintain high water tables, which in turn support marsh, peat, and bog formation. These types of environs are places considered to be of high archaeological potential since they are often associated with the anaerobic conditions required for the preservation of wetsites.


604.460.8837 13

5.0 HISTORIC LAND USE The first permanent European settlers to occupy the lands near the study area were fur traders affiliated with the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Fort Langley (Hayes 2005). Fort Langley is located several kilometres upstream of the study area. Following settlement by the fur traders, preemption schemes through the British government encouraged the acquisition of lands by early settlers, and the Hudson’s Bay Company men were among the first to take advantage of them (Hayes 2005). By the 1870s, much of the land in the study area had been divided into farms, and a small town centre began to form around what is now the centre of modern day Pitt Meadows. The lands adjacent to the Harris Road and beside the study area were preempted in the 1870s and 1880s. Lands to the east of Harris Road were originally acquired by farmers J. and L. Bonson (preempted in 1888), and lands to the east by William Clarkson, a hotel keeper and land speculator from New Westminster, who preempted them in 1873 (Collins 1975). The first schoolhouse was established in 1909 at the corner of Harris and Hammond Road (Crocket et al. 2007). Pitt Meadows remained as an unincorporated settlement until 1881, when it became part of Maple Ridge. By 1914, Pitt Meadows had become a municipality in its own right. At this time, Pitt Meadows was a small farming community consisting of less than 500 residents, and Harris Road was one of its few main roads. Prior to 1897, the project area was covered by dense forest, but by 1930, the general area had become more urbanized (Boyle et al. 1997). The Cook family came to Pitt Meadows on July 5th, 1882, taking up residence along the west side of Harris Road, with their property extending along Ford Road to Baynes Road. Accounts from Mrs. Cook state that mosquitos were so thick “that the sun was blacked out” (Crocket et al. 2007:83). Prior to the dyke construction, tug boats sailed up Cook’s Slough to retrieve logging booms. (Crocket et al., 2007). Records state that Ford Road, just north of the Project area, was constructed in 1924 over a peat bog (Crocket et al. 2007). Historical accounts show that there was a large peat farm with three large barns located on McTavish Road, just north of the project area (Waite 2008). Historical air photos confirm that in 1945 the project area was still utilized for agricultural purposes, which continued until the construction of the Pitt Meadows Airport, which opened in 1963 (Pitt Meadows Airport 2015) When the Pitt Meadows Airport opened in 1963, the site measured 704 acres (285 hectares), with one gravel strip and one grass landing strip (each measuring 2500 ft (790 m) x 50 ft (15 m). A new asphalt runway (08R to 26L) was opened in 1970, and today the airport maintains three asphalt runways. The permanent control tower opened in 1969, and a seaplane ramp was added in 1975, providing floatplane access to the airport. Substantial renovations were conducted at the Pitt Meadows Airport in the 1990s.


604.460.8837 14

6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE TYPES

There are several archaeological site types known in the vicinity of the Project area. Brief descriptions of these site types are included below.

6.1 Lithic Sites Lithics are stone tools and the associated debris from stone tool production. Lithics sites are classified as either lithic scatters or isolated finds. Lithic scatters are sites that can include chipped stone tools, and most commonly, the debris created when making stone tools, known as flakes. Isolated finds can include either chipped stone or ground stone tools, such as projectile points or adzes.

6.2 Shell Midden Sites Shell middens are archaeological deposits characterized by black, greasy, sediments with crushed or whole shell, created by the cultural disposal of shellfish remains after consumption (cams, mussels, oysters, etc.). Often found along shorelines, waterways, or occasionally inland, they can vary from small pockets of less than 1 m across to several hundred metres in length. Large shell middens often represent seasonal encampments or village sites. Due to the unique preservation conditions of shell middens, organic artifacts may be found in these deposits. Common identifiable traits include the presence of large quantities of broken shell, mixed in with sediments, and fire altered rocks (FAR), giving the midden a black, greasy texture.

6.3 Habitation Sites Archaeological sites classified as habitation sites are often situated along river banks, sloughs, or on beaches and usually describe a village with several houses or a single dwelling. Habitations sites are locations of repeated, often seasonal, occupation by generations of family groups, as well as temporary camps for resource procurement, such as hunting, fishing, or gathering. These sites typically contain the remains of housing structures (rectangular or circular depressions), and are often associated with shell midden deposits.

6.4 Ancestral Remains/Burial Sites Archaeological sites containing ancestral remains are extremely sensitive and deserve the utmost respect. These sites can often be identified by earthen mounds or burial cairns. Occasionally, human burials or isolated remains are found in shell midden deposits, or in rock shelters.


604.460.8837 15

6.5 Wetsites Wetsites are waterlogged archaeological deposits where perishable artifacts, such as basketry or cordage, have been preserved in saturated oxygen-free conditions. These locations are often situated along beaches, river banks, marsh or wetland areas, or in areas with consistently high water tables. Relative to most other areas of British Columbia, there are unusually high densities of wetsites in the Pitt Meadows area due to the unique geography of the area.

7.0 METHODS

7.1 Background Research Methods The AOA of the Pitt Meadows Airport included a search for relevant background information from the following sources:

The ‘Remote Access to Archaeological Data’ (RAAD) application; The Provincial Archaeological Report Library (PARL) online; Ethnographic sources relating to Coast Salish ways of life; Historic era maps, photographs, and aerial photographs; Geophysical maps and other relevant published biophysical data sources; A review of previous archaeological technical reports completed for earlier design

phases of the Project.

7.2 Preliminary Field Reconnaissance Methods The proposed development will expand the west end of Runway 08R and at the east end of Runway 26L. On 29 July 2015, archaeologist Crystal Sawyer of KDC Archaeology conducted a preliminary field reconnaissance (PFR) of the proposed Project area, accompanied by First Nations representatives Pam McCotter (Katzie First Nation) and Joey Antone (Kwantlen First Nation), and James Neale (Operations Manager, Pitt Meadows Airport Society). The project area was assessed on foot via the existing Runways 08R and 26L. The field survey involved the visual inspection of the ground surface and any existing ground surface exposures. The PFR was documented in written field notes and photography and evaluated for archaeological potential through a combined assessment of terrain, vegetation, and previous disturbances.


604.460.8837 16

8.0 RESULTS

8.1 Background Research Results Previous Archaeology

The following section includes a chronology of major archaeological investigations and sites recorded within a 10 km radius of the study area. Charles Hill-Tout (1895; 1900; 1902) is among the earliest anthropologists to investigate and report on an archaeological site (Hammond Site DhRp-17) near the current study area. Based on excavations at the site, Hill-Tout (1902) suggests that the Hammond site was likely abandoned due to an epidemic. Further investigations at the Hammond Site were carried out by Harlan I. Smith (Smith 1903). Although his work at Hammond lacks the methodological rigour of later excavations, his contribution to the archaeology of the Coast Salish culture area was extensive. Smith described the Port Hammond shell midden as approximately 100 feet wide, a half mile long and 8 feet deep. He suggests that knolls on the natural ridge beyond the midden were habitation sites and states that there was also a burial mound, near the CPR line. The shell in the mounds was mixed with charcoal, FAR, black soil, burnt clay, and the bones of animals, laid down in a variety of layers (Smith 1903). Most of the artifacts, including stone mortars and pestles, slate knives, antler wedges, stone and bone points, harpoons and other tools, as well as carved stone and bone artifacts, were most often found in the layers around 4 feet below the surface (Smith 1903). Following these early investigations through until the 1970s (with a few notable exceptions beyond the current study area), little archaeological excavation was carried out in the mid-Fraser River Valley area. Mid-century archaeologists shifted their focus from site-specific investigation to large regional surveys where sites were recorded and described to better inform regional site density and distribution patterning. Some of these larger focused studies included: Marian Smith’s (1947) housepit investigations along the Middle Fraser River with a particular focus on the MacCallum site at Agassiz; Kenyon’s (1953) archaeological survey of the Lower Fraser River from Chilliwack to the Gulf of Georgia; Duff’s (1956; 1975) discussion of Fraser River Valley and Gulf of Georgia stone sculpture; Kidd’s (1964) archaeological survey of the Lower Fraser Valley from the river mouth to 5 miles above Yale; Lundy’s (1972) Pitt Lake pictograph survey; Crowe-Swords’ (1974) Carruthers Site (DhRp-11) excavations; Cranny and Bunyan’s (1975) Lower Mainland archaeological survey of the north side of the Fraser River and its tributary waters entering the Fraser from the north; and, Yip & Gose’s (1979) survey of the Fraser Valley. These studies revealed a wide variety of archaeological site types across the Fraser River Valley which were interpreted to represent large permanent habitation sites, seasonal resource processing camps, middens, earth mounds and burials, large FAR roasting


604.460.8837 17

features, lithic manufacturing locations, woodworking locations and wetland resource gathering and processing sites. This broad overview of the different site types will allow archaeologists to better interpret the relationship between these sites and people in the past and how they utilized the ancient landscape. In more recent years other archaeological studies have been conducted near the subject study area. These include Minni (2005) and Nord et al.’s (2010) impact assessments of segments of the Golden Ears Bridge Right-of-Way (R-o-W), and Ham and Quirolo’s (1993) study of the Pitt Meadows airport. The results of these studies are summarized below. Between September 2002 and 2004, Minni conducted an Archaeological Inventory (AI) and Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) of sections of the then Fraser River Crossing (FRC) R-o-W (Minni 2005). Minni employed a systematic shovel testing method and she and her crew excavated thousands of shovel tests within the proposed road alignment. Several sites were located, and those within 2 km of the current Project area are described in Section 9.1.2 in Table 2. KDC Archaeology conducted an AIA of those segments not included in Minni’s scope of work (Nord et al. 2010). Following a similar methodology, KDC Archaeology also located several sites. Those located within 2 km of the project area are also described in Section 8.1 in Table 2. Arcas (1992) archaeologists surveyed lands adjacent to the airport property and during the course of their investigation revisited previously recorded archaeological site DhRq-8 (HCA Permit 1992-25). Archaeological site DhRq-8 was first recorded in 1953 and revisited in 1978. A local landowner, Mrs. F Williams, had made surface collections of projectile points, hand mauls, and adze places (Arcas 1992). The original site boundary includes the western edge of the Pitt Meadows airport to 176th Street. Arcas conducted an AIA of lands near the western end of the recorded site area. Inspection methods included a visual inspection of ground and existing sub-surface exposures (including those along the river bank). No sub-surface testing took place given the presence of several metres of wood waste and dredge spoil (Arcas 1992). No archaeological remains were located during the survey and the attempt to relocate DhRq-8 was unsuccessful. Arcas conclude that the site had been disturbed but could not verify this due to the presence of large amounts of fill. However, the site boundaries as originally recorded by Kenyon in a 1953 survey, extend well beyond their subject study area. Arcas (1992:5) notes that “there may be intact cultural materials and or/deposits underlying the dredge/spoil…” and for this reason, DhRq-8 cannot be considered destroyed. Ham and Quirolo (1993) conducted an AIA of undeveloped lands within and adjacent to the Pitt Meadows Airport airfield. Investigations of the airport lands confirmed the location of previously recorded site DhRq-20, and resulted in the recording of another site, DhRq-23. Archaeological site DhRq-23 consists of an isolated find (nephrite adze blade). The airport lands were systematically surveyed using 50 m traverses, with shovel


604.460.8837 18

tests placed at 50 m intervals along the traverses. Areas targeted as possessing high potential included those of slight elevation near slough edges. Over 322 shovel tests were excavated along 95 traverses. These were supplemented with 7 evaluative tests (Ham and Quirolo 1993). No archaeological materials or matrices were located during that testing program. Ham and Quirolo (1993) conclude that whilst the presence of archaeological sites indicate the area was used, the most likely site types to occur on the property are isolated finds since the proximity of the property to a major village sites (the Pitt River site DhRq-22, and the Hammond Site) and the fact that the Tulley Slough and surrounding forested area probably lacked the concentrated resources favoured by the regions inhabitants, means that the project area is likely to contain concentrated archaeological deposits. Ham and Quirolo (1993) recommend development monitoring as the most effective way to locate archaeological resources in this area. Also relevant to an AOA of the project area are the results of a deep-testing project carried out by KDC Archaeology and Simon Fraser University in 2007 (Locher and Clague 2007). Testing of deeply buried deposits was carried out using geotechnical coring equipment, which was used to extrude solid core samples. The test locations were situated on lands west of Katzie Slough, an ethnographically and culturally well-documented trade and travel route used by Katzie and other Coast Salish peoples (Suttles 1955). Analyses of the cores revealed the presence of a layer of tephra and an underlying layer of peat approximately 800 cm to 900 cm below existing ground surface. Radiocarbon dating of two samples of the tephra revealed its almost certain association with the eruption of Mt. Mazama (now Crater Lake) in Oregon, which errupted some 6850 14C year ago (Locher and Clague 2007). No archaeological deposits were located during the analyses of the peat and surrounding sediments, however, the report authors conclude:

Evidence from previous geomorphological and palynological studies indicates that the late Pleistocene landscape of southern coastal British Columbia was suitable for habitation by early maritime/estuarine adapted human populations. Although this evidence alone does not demonstrate that humans inhabited the landscape, it favours that possibility. The possibility that early archaeological sites were buried by fluvial aggradation triggered by sea-level rise during the early and middle Holocene, combined with a low-visibility lithic culture, makes identification of early postglacial occupations difficult. To find archaeological sites dating to the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, increased attention needs to be given to relict, late Pleistocene landforms and to the possibility of deeper and older cultural deposits.


604.460.8837 19

Recorded Archaeological Sites

A review of the Archaeology Branch’s Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) application and the Provincial Archaeological Report Library (PARL) indicates that there are three archaeological sites recorded within the boundaries of the Project area, one of which (DhRq-8) is in direct conflict with developments associated with the expansion of Runway 08R, and the other of which (DhRq-23 is within 250 m of Runway 08R (Table 1). There are several archaeological sites recorded within 2 km of the study area. The location and site type are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1: Description of Archaeological Sites within the Project Area.

Borden

Number

Distance from

Project

Components

[runways]

Direction

from

Project

Component

Site Description Reference

DhRq-8 140 m [08R] west

Surface lithic site with several dozen points, adze blades and hand mauls, thought to be associated with the Village of Pipkwacan.

Archaeology Branch 2015d

DhRq-20 600 m [26L] southwest

A surface lithic site with a recorded subsurface cultural feature-possibly a historic post mould, located on the river bank.

Archaeology Branch 2015a

DhRq-23 238 m [08R] southeast An isolated lithic find (nephrite adze blade).

Archaeology Branch 2015b


604.460.8837 20

Table 2: Description of Archaeological Sites within 2 km of the Project Study Area.

Borden

Number

Distance from

Project

Components

[runway]

Direction

from

Project

Component

Site Description Reference

DhRq-4 1.4 km southwest

Subsurface lithic site containing FAR (Fire Altered Rock) and a pre-contact axe.

Archaeology Branch 2015c

DhRp-12 1.9 km [08R] West-northwest

Subsurface lithic and wetsite containing spruce root rope, nephrite adzes, ground slate maul fragments, small notched points, and abraders, among other artifacts.

Archaeology Branch 2015e

DhRq-13 1.2 km [08R] West-northwest

Subsurface FAR and associated charcoal.

Archaeology Branch 2015f

Historic Development and Land Alterations

Several aerial photographs from 1946, 1963, 1982, 1989, and 1989 were reviewed from KDC’s collection to assess historical land development and alterations over the last 70 years. The 1946 air photo includes the southern portion of the Project area and shows established agricultural fields in the Project area and surroundings (Photo 1). The north bank of the Fraser River is forested and there are several north-south running roads in the area. The airport has two runways, one grass and one gravel). The 1963 air photos show the early airport (Photo 2). Comparison of the 1963 and 1982 aerial photographs show little change in the Project area during this time. Between 1989 (Photo 3) and 1999 (Photo 4), the airport was renovated substantially to its current design, including the construction of Runways 08R and 26L.


604.460.8837 21

Photo 1: Aerial photograph from 1946.

Photo 2: Aerial Photograph from 1963 of Project area.


604.460.8837 22




604.460.8837 23

8.2 Preliminary Field Reconnaissance Results A preliminary field reconnaissance (PFR) of the proposed airport improvements for the extension of Runway 08R-26L and Related Airside Works Project was conducted on July 29, 2015. The development areas were assessed by pedestrian traverse surrounding Runways 08R and 26L. The PFR included visits to an approximate 95 m x 30 m extension to Runway 08R and approximately 12 m x 30 m extension to Runway 26L.

Photo 5: Proposed extension of Runway 08R, view west.


604.460.8837 24

Photo 6: Proposed Runway 26L extension, view southeast.

The areas surrounding the proposed runway extensions are used primarily for airport-related activities, and outlying areas have been utilized for agricultural purposes (i.e., blueberry fields). On the proposed Runway 08R extension, groundcover in the eastern half of the project area consists of grass and several weed species. The western half of the proposed extension is planted with rows of mature blueberry bushes. The groundcover in the proposed Runway 26L Extension area consists solely of grass. Because of safety regulations associated with airport functions no trees are located in the immediate vicinity of the runways. Overstory vegetation along the existing dyke for the Fraser River includes Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and alder (Alnus). Exposures were observed during the PFR at the proposed runway expansion location of 08R due to agricultural practices associated with blueberry fields. No archaeological materials were positively identified during the PFR, however possible lithic debitage and expedient tools were observed in the vicinity of 08R


604.460.8837 25

8.3 Evaluation of Archaeological Potential An AOA is designed to assess the potential for archaeological sites to be both present and preserved in a given area. Assessments of archaeological potential are made in consideration of pre-contact use of the area, patterns of known archaeological site distribution and density, and an assessment of historic and recent development impacts as they relate to archaeological site preservation. A RAAD search using the Archaeology Branch’s online application identified the entire Project area as falling within an area of high archaeological potential, based upon the Chilliwack Forest District potential model of the region (Archaeology Branch 2015g; Golder 1999a, 1999b). The RAAD search also revealed that, once correctly plotted, boundaries of archaeological site DhRq-8 (a large lithic scatter) encompass the tech cable and electrical layout areas associated with the expansion of Runway 08R. Two other archaeological sites are recorded within the study area boundaries (DhRq20 and DhRq-23). Ham and Quirolo (1993) produced a map of archaeological potential for their Pitt Meadows Airport AIA, based on their background research, including: Katzie ethnographic use in the vicinity; known nearby archaeological sites; and the presence of ridge and upland topographic features. Ham and Quirolo (1993) noted that the highest potential was for Charles and Gulf of Georgia era sites. Following their AIA subsurface testing program, they identified archaeological DhRq-23, an isolated lithic find. Though they noted the possibility of wetsites occurring in the general vicinity, this site type was not captured in their map of potential assessment. That is, proximity to relict slough channels, used as old travel corridors, or adjacent low lying areas, both factors used to locate areas of potential for wetsite presence and preservation, were not considered in the identification of high potential areas for testing. The area immediately north and south of Runway 08R was tested but no archaeological materials were encountered. Shovel tests were conducted to between 50 cm and 100 cm below surface and usually abandoned by the clay layer. The area by Runway 26L was not tested or identified as having high archaeological potential by Ham and Quirolo (1993). Based on KDC Archaeology’s background research and our PFR, we consider the area surrounding Runway 08R as having high archaeological potential, given its proximity to archaeological site DhRq-8, and DhRq-23, relict slough channels, and the Fraser River (Figure 3). Possible chipped stone debitage was observed during the PFR. As well, this area falls within Ham and Quirolo’s (1993) initial zone of high archaeological potential. The area around Runway 26L is also considered to have high archaeological potential due to its proximity to relict slough channels and archaeological site DhRq-20 (Figure 3). This area has been leveled or capped with fill, but the depth of the imported material is unknown. This area is outside of Ham and Quirolo’s (1993) identified areas of high archaeological potential.

Survey Coverage AIA (Ham & Quirdo 1993)KDC High Archaeological Potential08R Runway Extension Tech Cable

DhRq-23

DhRq-8

N

S

EW

DATE CREATED:

REVISION:

MAP AUTHOR:

LEGEND

Pitt Meadows Airport Runway Extension08R West End Areas of Archaeological Potential

November 2, 2015

November 3, 2015

D. Heron

FIGURE: 3

REVIEWED: R. VarsakisNew Electrical LayoutArchaeological Site

Fraser River

Scale 1:5000

200 0 200100 Meters


604.460.8837 27

9.0 Management Recommendations

Archaeological potential within the Pitt Meadow Airport’s Extension of Runways 08R and26L and Related Airside Works Project area is considered high. This means that there is a high probability that wetsite deposits, among other archaeological site types, including lithic scatters may be both present and preserved in areas slated for development. Archaeological sites that predate 1846, whether intact or disturbed, receive equal protection under the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA). Contravention of the HCA is punishable by law and punishment may include a substantial fine, imprisonment, or both. The Archaeology Branch (AB) requires any development-related ground-disturbance occurring within a known site boundary to be conducted under a Heritage Conservation

Act permit. In some cases where sufficient investigation of the site has taken place and further inspection will not yield additional information about the site, the AB will consent to works occurring under a Section 12 Site Alteration Permit. However, in cases where little is known about the site and areas surrounding the site boundary are rated as having high potential, the AB will require an archaeological impact assessment (AIA). Archaeological impact assessments must be carried out under a HCA Section 14 Site Inspection Permit. Given our assessment of potential and the fact that the proposed works for the expansion of Runway 08R conflict with a known site, we recommend that both runway expansion areas (and associated ancillary developments) be subject to an AIA. In particular we would recommend the following methods be included in the AIA:

Given the potential for (surface and subsurface) lithic scatters, we recommend a systematic shovel testing program be instituted in the runway expansion areas. Shovel tests should be placed at regular intervals along predetermined transects and excavated a minimum of 1m deep, or to clearly sterile sediments.

Within areas where light standard installation will require deep drilling, we recommend the excavation of shovel tests to be supplemented with auger or soil probes to determine whether there are deeply buried peat deposits present. If peat deposits are encountered we recommend that, where feasible, drilling for the installation of light standards be monitored by an archaeologist.

A Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) Section 12 Inspection Permit will be required for these investigations. The permitting process can take a minimum of 8 to 10 weeks. In addition, several of the First Nations have Heritage permitting processes in place and KDC Archaeology recommends that all works be conducted under relevant FNs permits.


604.460.8837 28

Following the completion of the AIA study, a HCA Section 12 Site Alteration Permit may be required for alterations to site DhRq-8 and any other sites found to be in conflict with the proposed development. Heritage Alternation Permits are co-held by a representative of the client and a qualified archaeologist.

Please note that this AOA and PFR applies to the project developments as described in this report. Any revisions to the proposed development plans, including any new runway end safety areas (RESAs), will require additional assessment by a professional archaeologist to evaluate archaeological potential and possible impacts to archaeological resources. Finally, these recommendations pertain only to impacts to archaeological sites and do not include impacts to traditional use areas or other areas of cultural significance.

10.0 CLOSURE We trust the enclosed report is sufficient for your current needs. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you have any questions or concerns regarding the contents of this report. With Respect,

Crystal Sawyer, BA. Archaeologist, KDC Archaeology

Rena Varsakis, MSc Archaeologist, KDC Archaeology

Reviewed By:

Tanja Hoffman, PhD (ABD), RPCA Senior Archaeologist, KDC Archaeology


604.460.8837 29

11.0 REFERENCES CITED Arcas. 1992. Archaeological Impact Assessment of Anbrook Industries Property, Pitt Meadows, British Columbia. HCA Permit No. 1992-0025. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC.

Archaeology Branch. 2015a. DhRq-20 Site Inventory Form. Accessed using RAAD on 6 June 2015. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. Archaeology Branch. 2015b. DhRq-23 Site Inventory Form. Accessed using RAAD on 6 June 2015. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. Archaeology Branch. 2015c. DhRq-4 Site Inventory Form. Accessed using RAAD on 6

June 2015. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC.

Archaeology Branch. 2015d. DhRq-8 Site Inventory Form. Accessed using RAAD on 6 June 2015. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. Archaeology Branch. 2015e. DhRq-12 Site Inventory Form. Accessed using RAAD on 6 June 2015. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. Archaeology Branch. 2015f. DhRq-13Site Inventory Form. Accessed using RAAD on 6 June, 2015. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. Archaeology Branch. 2015g. Archaeological Potential Layer accessed using RAAD on

30 October 2015. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC.

Armstrong, J.E. and S.R. Hicock. 1976. Surficial Geology: Vancouver, British Columbia.

Geological Survey of Canada, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, ON.

Barnett, H.G. 1955. The Coast Salish of British Columbia. University of Oregon, Eugene. Boas, F. 1887. The Coast Tribes of British Columbia. Science 9(216):288-289.


604.460.8837 30

Boas, F. 1894. The Indian Tribes of the lower Fraser River, Ninth Report on the

Northwestern Tribes of Canada. British Association for the Advancement of

Science 65:453-463. Boyle, C.A., L. Lavkulich, H. Schreier and E. Kiss.1997. Changes in Land Cover and Subsequent Effects on Lower Fraser Basin Ecosystem from 1827 to 1900. Environmental Management 21(2):185-196. Collins, J.E.1975. The Reclamation of Pitt Meadows. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of History, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Cranny, M.W. and D.E. Bunyan. 1975. Report on the Archaeological Survey of the North Side of the Fraser River, 1975. HCA Permit 1975-0006. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. Crockett, J., P. Morris and L. Norman (eds). 2007. Pitt Meadows: Celebrating the

History of Our Great City. City of Pitt Meadows, Pitt Meadows, BC. Crowe-Swords, D.B. 1974. The Carruthers Site, a late Prehistoric Site in the Lower Fraser Valley. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Duff, W. 1956. Prehistoric Sculptures of the Fraser River and Gulf of Georgia. In Anthropology in British Columbia No. 5. British Columbia Provincial Museum Department of Education, Victoria. Duff, W. 1975. Images Stone B.C. Hancock House Publishers, Ltd., Saanichton, BC. Geological Survey of Canada. 1998. GeoMap Vancouver: Geological Map of the

Vancouver Metropolitan Area. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON. Golder. 1999a. Archaeological Review and Management Plan for the Southern Chilliwack Forest District. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. Golder. 1999b. Archaeological Overview Assessment of Nlaka’pamux Nation

Traditional Lands in the Northern Chilliwack Forest District. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC.

Ham, L. and M. Quirolo. 1993. An Archaeological Resource Assessment of the Pitt Meadows Airport, Pitt Meadows, British Columbia. HCA Permit No. 1993-0016.


604.460.8837 31

Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC.

Hayes, D. 2005. Historical Atlas of Vancouver and the Lower Fraser Valley. Douglas

and McIntyre, Vancouver, BC. Hill-Tout, C. 1895. Later Pre-Historic Man in British Columbia. In Transactions of the

Royal Society of Canada Second Series, 1895-96, Vol. 1 Section 2:103-122. Hill-Tout, C. 1900. Notes on the Skqo’mic of British Columbia: A Branch of the Great

Salish Stock of North America. In Report of the Seventieth Meeting of the British

Association for the Advancement of Science, Spottiswoode and Co., London, UK, pp. 472-495.

Hill-Tout, C. 1902. Ethnological Studies of the Mainland Halkomēlem, A Division of

the Coast Salish of British Columbia. In 72nd Report of the British Association

for the Advancement of Science for 1902, pp. 355-449. London, UK. Hoffman, T., M. Leon and R. Bailey. 2001. Blaney Bog and Surrounding Areas: Traditional Use Assessment and Archaeological Inventory. Report on file, Katzie First Nation, Pitt Meadows, BC. Jenness, D. 1955. The Faith of a Coast Salish Indian. In Wayne Suttles’ Katzie

Ethnographic Notes, Anthropology in British Columbia Memoirs 2 and 3, Wilson Duff (ed), B.C. Provincial Museum, Victoria, BC.

Kavanagh, J. and R. Leung. 2005. British Columbia Birds: An Introduction to Familiar

Species. Waterford Press, Phoenix. AZ. Kenyon, W.A. 1953. An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Fraser from Chilliwack to

the Gulf of Georgia. Unpublished B.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Kidd, R.S. 1964. Lower Fraser Archaeological Site Survey. Report on the 1963 Field Season. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. Krajina, V.J. 1965. Biogeoclimatic Zones and Classifications of British Columbia. In Ecology of Western North America, edited by V.J. Krajina, pp 1-17. Department of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Lepofsky, D., D. Hallett, K. Washbrook, A. McHalsie, K. Lertzman, and R. Mathewes. 2005. Documenting Precontact Plant Management on the Northwest Coast: An Example of Prescribed Burning in the Central and Upper Fraser Valley, British Columbia. In Keeping it Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the


604.460.8837 32

Northwest Coast, edited by D.E. Deur and N.J. Turner, pp. 218-239. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Locher, P. and J. Clague. 2007. Investigation of Sediment Cores from Katzie Slough in

Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge, British Columbia. Manuscript on file with Katzie Development Corporation, Pitt Meadows, BC.

Lundy, D.M. 1972. The Pitt Lake Pictographs, Salvage ’71. Manuscript on file, Simon

Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Minni, S. 2005. New Fraser River Crossing Project: Golden Ears. Archaeological

Inventory and Impact Assessment. HCA Permit No. 2002-0365. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC.

Nagorsen, D.W. 1990. The Mammals of British Columbia: A Taxonomic Catalogue.

Memoir No 4, Royal British Columbia Museum. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.

Nord, C., T. Hoffman, J. Hammond, S. Kaltenrieder, R. Shortland, S. Huddlestan and E. Wilkerson. 2010. Archaeological Impact Assessment of the Golden Ears Bridge: Final Report. HCA Permit No. 2006-0200. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Pitt Meadows Airport. 2015. About Us. Electronic Document, http://www.pittmeadowsairport.com/about-us. Accessed September 29, 2015. Pojar, J., K. Klinka, and D.A. Demarchi. 1991. Coastal Western Hemlock Zone. In

Ecosystems of British Columbia, edited by D. Meidinger and J. Pojar, pp. 39-67. BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria.

Smith, H.I. 1903. Shell Heaps of the Lower Fraser River, British Columbia. Memoirs

American Museum of Natural History Vol. 4. Publications of the North Pacific Expedition. Washington, USA.

Smith, M.W. 1947. House Types of the Middle Fraser River. American Antiquity, 12(4): 255-267. Suttles, W. 1955. Katzie Ethnographic Notes. Anthropology in British Columbia.

Memoir No. 2. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, BC.

Suttles, W. 1987. Coast Salish Essays. Talonbooks and University of Washington Press, Vancouver and Seattle.

http://www.pittmeadowsairport.com/about-us


604.460.8837 33

Suttles, W. 1990. Central Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians:

Northwest Coast Vol. 7, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 453-480. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Thom, B. and D. Bain. 2004. Aboriginal Intangible Property in Canada: An Ethnographic

Review. Submitted to Lynn Fortin, Project Manager, Industry Canada, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Ontario Industry Canada, Ottawa.

Turner, N. J. 1995. Food Plants of Coastal First Peoples. Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC. Turner, N. J., M.B. Ignace and R. Ignace. 2000. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Wisdom of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications 10(5):1275-1287. Waite, Donald E. 2008. Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows: A History in Photographs. Waite Bird Photos, Maple Ridge, BC. Yip, S.K. and P. Gose. 1979. The Evaluation of Archaeological Resources of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (Fraser Valley Planning Study): Proposals for Management, Part II. HCAPermit 1978-0006. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC.

Archaeological Overview Assessment for the Extension...

Documents

Transcript of Archaeological Overview Assessment for the Extension...