TFL 44 Archaeological Potential Model Port Alberni, B.C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT TFL 44 Archaeological Potential Model Port Alberni, B.C. Grant of License I __Ian R. Wilson_ confirm that I am the copyright owner (or a copyright owner) of this permit report, and for good and valuable consideration I irrevocably grant a non-exclusive license to the Province of British Columbia, for a term equal to the life of the copyright commencing on the date of execution below, to make copies of the reports, including all appendices and photos, and to provide such copies to anyone, at the discretion of the Province, either at no charge or at the cost incurred by the Province in making and distributing the copies. All parties, except the party for whom the report was prepared, acknowledge that any use or interpretation of this report is at the sole risk and liability of the subsequent user(s). Executed this ___12th__ day of ____June_____, 2009, by ________________________________________ Signature of Copyright Owner __________I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd.________ Affiliation Archaeological Overview Assessment TFL 44 Archaeological Potential Model Port Alberni, B.C. Prepared for Western Forest Products 1200-1140 West Pender Street Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G6 Prepared by Armando Anaya-Hernandez June 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] Credits Project Manager/Editor Shane Bond Editors Dave Hutchcroft Ian R. Wilson Field Director Kira Kristensen First Nation Field Assistant Ditidaht First Nation Fred Johnson Model Development/Author Armando Anaya-Hernandez Graphics Tracy Cardinal Report Production Derece Powell i Table of Contents CREDITS .........................................................................................................................................................i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... ii 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1 2. STUDY AREA......................................................................................................................................4 2.1 COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK (CWH) ........................................................................................4 2.1.1 Location...................................................................................................................................4 2.1.2 Environment ............................................................................................................................4 2.1.3 Temperate rainforests..............................................................................................................4 2.1.4 Old forests ...............................................................................................................................5 2.1.5 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................5 2.1.6 Vegetation................................................................................................................................5 2.1.7 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................5 2.2 MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK (MH).........................................................................................................6 2.2.1 Location...................................................................................................................................6 2.2.2 Climate ....................................................................................................................................6 2.2.3 Forest ecosystems....................................................................................................................7 2.2.4 Sub-alpine wetlands and meadows..........................................................................................7 2.2.5 Sub-alpine parklands and heaths.............................................................................................7 2.2.6 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................8 2.2.7 Yellow cedar ............................................................................................................................8 3. ARCHAEOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................9 3.1 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY ............................................................................................................9 3.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE TYPES .....................................................................................................9 4. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................12 4.1 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................12 4.2 VARIABLES ENTERED IN THE GIS ANALYSIS ..............................................................................16 4.2.1 Cultural Features ..................................................................................................................18 4.2.2 Water Resources....................................................................................................................19 ii 4.2.3 Terrain Features....................................................................................................................20 4.2.4 Forest cover and ecotones.....................................................................................................23 4.2.5 Final models ..........................................................................................................................25 5. RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................................31 REFERENCES CITED...............................................................................................................................34 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location map.............................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: Geometric relation between slope and friction........................................................................18 Figure 3: Water resource buffers derived from cost distance .................................................................20 Figure 4: Terrain potential ......................................................................................................................21 Figure 5: Micro-landform identification.................................................................................................23 Figure 6a: Raw potential score for CMT model .....................................................................................25 Figure 6b: Raw potential score for archaeological model.......................................................................26 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Variable contribution for CMT potential..................................................................................14 Table 2: Variable contribution for archaeological potential ...................................................................15 Table 3: Variable sourcing......................................................................................................................17 Table 4: Archaeological site classification .............................................................................................19 Table 5: Water resources ........................................................................................................................19 Table 6: Terrain features.........................................................................................................................22 Table 7: Forest resources ........................................................................................................................24 Table 8: Summary of modeling results...................................................................................................27 Table 9: Rationale for Discrepancies in CMT Predictability..................................................................28 Table 10: Rationale for Discrepancies in Archaeological Predicability .................................................29 Table 11: Judgemental versus Site Record Assessment of Model Performance.....................................30 APPENDICES: A. SITE TYPE SUMMARY (EXCLUDING SHIPWRECKS) iii AOA Port Alberni TFL 44 Archaeological Potential Model 1. INTRODUCTION At the request of Western Forest Products Ltd., I.R. Wilson Ltd. developed an archaeological potential predictive model (APM) within TFL 44. TFL 44 encompasses 165,677 ha of land (Figure 1). The archaeological predictive model developed for the TFL includes areas outside of the TFL 44 area. This larger area was included in the archaeological predictive model because the base information (such as geomorphology, biogeoclimatic zones etc.) covers all of the map sheets within and around the TFL. For consistency, previously recorded archeological site information was also acquired for the entire map sheets