Ministry of Forests Vancouver Forest Region 2 100 Labieux Road Nanaimo, B.C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Golder Associates ltd. 500 4260 Sell Creek Drive Burnaby, British Columbia. Canada V5C 6C6 Telephone (604) 298.6623 FOX (604]298-5253 REPORT ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF THE CENTRAL COAST LRMP AREA Submitted to: Ministry of Forests Vancouver Forest Region 2 100 Labieux Road Nanaimo, B.C. V9T 6E9 Submitted by: Golder Associates Ltd. 500 - 4260 Still Creek Drive Burnaby, B.C. v5c 6C6 HERITAGE RESOURCE CENTRE MIkISTRY OF SMALI.. BUSINESS, ?0L~R1Siv~ ANCj l;Ui.TURE 101 8C0 :&!NSON STREET BOX 9821, STN PROV GOVT ‘.‘1cr0RIA SC \‘8W 9w3 DISTRIBUTION: 4 Copies - Vancouver Forest Region, Ministry of Forests, Nanaimo, B.C. 1 copy: Phil Hobler, Simon Fraser University, Bumaby, B.C. 1 copy- Archaeology Branch, Victoria, B.C. 2 Copies - Golder Associates Ltd., Bumaby, B.C. June 1999 962-1936 June 1,1999 -i- 962-1936 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report describes the results of an archaeological overview assessment (AOA) of the Central Coast Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) area. The study was undertaken on behalf of the Ministry of Forests (Vancouver Forest Region). The objectives of the study were to summarize and evaluate existing information about cultural heritage resources in the study area and to develop a series of predictive models to help assess the need for archaeological investigation (impact assessments or reconnaissance) prior to land development. The project involved four main phases: (1) background research, including a review of previous archaeological, historical, and ethnographic reports and publications; (2) development of models to predict where archaeological sites are most likely to be found; (3) implementation of the models to assess the archaeological site potential of the Central Coast; and (4) recommendations for appropriate cultural resource management strategies for the LRMP area. The project is GIS-based, providing a mapped representation of areas of potential archaeological concern that can be viewed or plotted at various scales. Information derived from the study will help the Ministry of Forests and other govermnent agencies, including First Nations, to integrate archaeological resource management with other land use planning decisions so that heritage sites may be preserved or managed according to the British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act, the Forest Practices Code Act, and other relevant legislation and protocol agreements. Predictive models were developed according to archaeological site type. Models were created for coastal and inland habitation sites, culturally modified trees (CMTs), subalpine camps, trails, pictographs, and petroglyphs. Modelling involved dividing the entire study area into 25 metre grids and predicting the archaeological site potential of each grid cell, based on a series of rules. Model results were tested by evaluating the degree to which they correctly predicted the locations of recorded archaeological sites. No field testing has been undertaken to date. Based on the analysis of recorded site capture. the most successful first-generation models were the inland habitation and petroglyph models, for which 88% and 73% of recorded sites (buffered by 100 metres) were fell within areas predicted to have high or moderate archaeological site potential. First-generation model results for coastal habitations, cuIturally modified trees, trails and 4 June 1,1999 _ ii _ 962-1936 pictographs did not perform well. It was determined that the available data were inadequate for successfully modelling pictographs or trails. The pictograph model was abandoned, and the trails model results should be considered very preliminary. No management decisions should be made solely on fhe basis of these two models. No subalpine sites have been recorded in the study area to date, so the subalpine camp model could not be evaluated. The coastal habitation and CMT models were revised, incorporating additional and improved baseline data, and the models were re-run. The second-generation model results showed marked improvement, with 96% of recorded coastal habitation sites and 99.5% of recorded CMT sites falling within areas predicted to have high or moderate site potential. Sixty-four percent of recorded CMT sites were correctly predicted by the CMT model, while the remaining 35.5% were encompassed by the coastal habitation model results. The models classified all lands according to a tripartite scheme, in which Class I lands are predicted to have the greatest archaeological potential and Class III lands the lowest. Site potential can also be viewed as relative predicted site density, in which the highest density and greatest variation of sites equates with highest site potential. Given the severe terrain of much of the Central Coast, it was expected that moderate to high site potential ratings would cover a relatively small portion of the study area land mass. The models predict that 3.1% of the study area (147,440 hectares) falls within fhe Class I category (highest site potential), while 16.7% (808,068 hectares) fall within Class II lands. This suggests that the vast majority of archaeological sites in the Central Coast LW area will occur in less than 20% of the land mass. A significant portion of fhis area is designated Class II for CMTs only or for subalpine campsites. Additional field data may reduce the area encompassed by these models. The model results can be used as a risk index to guide future cultural resource management efforts. It is recommended that archaeological impact assessments be undertaken in all Class I lands (highest risk areas) prior to any land-altering developments, except where only CMT potential is predicted. In those areas, a preliminary field reconnaissance (PFR) is recommended. For Class II lands, including those predicted to have only CMT potential, a PFR is recommended. A PFR may be adequate to assess Class II areas, or field observations may indicate that a more detailed June 1, 1999 - 111 - 962-1936 impact assessment is warranted. No archaeological fieldwork is recommended for Class III lands, although it is cautioned that occasional sites may be present in those areas. Consistent with Section 51 of the Forest Pvuctices Code, if an archaeological site is encountered during development, it is recommended that all land-altering activity in the immediate vicinity of the site until the Archaeology Branch and local First Nations are contacted to develop a site management plan. The report also presents a number of more general recommendations relating to the AOA and future refinements to the models. P-IA.... .__--,-a-_ June 1,1999 - iv - 962-1936 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank the First Nations of the Central Coast for sharing their knowledge about the study area and for providing comments regarding the content of the report. We are also grateful to Sharon Hadway of the Ministry of Forests and Doug Glaum of the Archaeology Branch for their help in co- ordinating the project. The following people are acknowledged for their attendance and participation in Steering Committee meetings: Maxine Bruce, Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission Jennifer Carpenter, Heiltsuk Cultural Education Centre Mervin Child, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council Norman Dale, Oweekeno Kitasoo Nuxalk Tribal Council Doug Glaum, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture Sharon Hadway, Vancouver Forest Region John Sunde, Vancouver Forest Region Scott Harris, Kwakiutl District Council Philip Hobler, Simon Fraser University Mary-Pat Mathers, Campbell River Forest District Tad McIlwraith, Traditions Consulting (on behalf of the Oweekeno First Nation) Mark McIntyre, Port McNeil1 Forest District Ross Neasloss, Kitasoo First Nation Karen Reese, Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission Korene Riley and Wilma Robinson, Mid-Coast Forest District Dago Walkus, Oweekeno First Nation We would also like to thank Barb Rimmer and Pradeep Singh of the Archaeology Branch and Romi Casper of the Culture Library for providing archaeological reports, site forms and GIS data. We are indebted to Professor Phil Hobler of Simon Fraser University for sharing his knowledge about the archaeology of the Central Coast. c June 1,1999 -v- 962-1936 CREDITS Project Director Jeff Bailey, M.A. Report Authors Jeff Bailey Erika Laanela, B.A. Tanja Hoffmann, B.A. Gail Wada, B.A., Dipl. Tech. Shauna McRanor, B.A. Monica Karpiak, B.A. Steve Horvath, B.A. GIS Analysis and Modelling Jeff Bailey Kevin McCreight, B.Sc. Jill Hebb, B.Sc., Dip GIS Kevin Seel, M.Sc. Andrew Mason, M.A. Justin McPherson, B.E.S. Andrew Harries, B.Sc. Jason Shaw, B.Sc. Carrie Anderson, B.A. Fiona Gregory, B.Sc., Cert. GIS Michael Kartusch, B.A., Dip. GIS Matt Millard, B.A. Colin Bakermans, B.Sc Doug Comery, M.Sc. Research Erika Laanela Jeff Bailey Gail Wada Robert Diaz, M.A.’ Research Advisor Philip M. Hobler, M.A? Archaeological Data Review Shauna McRanor Erika Laanela I Technical Review Rebecca Balcom, M.A. Principal, Golder Associates Ltd. ’ Traditions Consulting 2 Simon Fraser University June I,1999 -vi- 962-1936 TABLE OF CONTENTS Management Summary i Acknowledgements iv Credits V Table of Contents vi List of Tables X List of Figures xi List of Photographs xii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Process ........................ .2 1.2 The Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) Process.. .................. .2 1.2.1 Phase One: Data Collection and Review.. .................................