Section 16 ARCHAEOLOGY and HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

Home , Coquitlam City Hall, Lafarge Lake, Port Moody

Section 16 ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE ASSESSMENT Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

16 Archaeological and Heritage Assessment

Executive Summary An assessment of cultural heritage resources that may be affected by the construction and operation of the Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project (‘the Project’) was conducted.

For the purposes of this study, cultural heritage resources represent one of the following: (1) paleontological sites; (2) archaeological sites; (3) traditional places or land use, and (4) historic sites or properties.

In British Columbia, heritage resource assessments undertaken for a British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) Project review are conducted in compliance with the British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines , prepared by the Archaeology Branch (Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts), the government agency responsible for managing and protecting heritage resources in accordance with the Heritage Conservation Act . Based on the provincial Guidelines, this study report is equivalent to an Archaeological Impact Assessment. The study was conducted under Section 14 (Heritage Inspection) Permit # 2009-0242, issued on July 24, 2009 by the Provincial Archaeology Branch.

Methods

The heritage resource impact assessment for the Project involved the following research tasks:

• review of archaeological, ethnographic, and historical literature pertaining to the Project locale; • review of biophysical and topographic information pertaining to the study area in order to assess past land use in the study area; • review of information about recorded archaeological sites within the study area; • communications with First Nations’ communities and other institutions with relevant knowledge about cultural heritage resources within, or near, the Project locale; • archaeological field survey of the Project corridor to identify and record heritage resources; and • preparation of a report based on the results of the impact assessment.

The fieldwork involved a pedestrian survey of the entire Project corridor, with subsurface testing in situations where potential buried cultural deposits were suspected to be present. Testing was done with shovels and/or trowels, at intervals of 2-5 m in restricted locations or 10-20 m in larger test areas. A total of 58 subsurface shovel tests were excavated during the field survey.

16-1

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Paleontological Results

An assessment of potential paleontological concerns within the Project locale was undertaken to:

(1) determine the geological setting and regional paleontological potential of the Project corridor; (2) determine if any fossil occurrences have been reported from the project locality; and (3) evaluate the potential for encountering paleontological resources during construction for the Project.

The Burnaby-Port Moody-Coquitlam area has been thoroughly mapped geologically, and several reports address issues of stratigraphy and, where relevant, paleontology. Such reports and their accompanying maps were examined in terms of the Project objectives.

It appears that only sediments of Pleistocene and Holocene age will be affected by the Project. For this reason, there is virtually no possibility of finding Quaternary-aged fossil organisms associated with surficial sediments within the Project footprint. In addition, there is little likelihood that paleontological resources will be affected by the Project.

Archaeological Results

No prehistoric archaeological sites were identified during the field survey for the Project. For this reason, no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated. However, follow-up archaeological field survey work is recommended for three separate locations along the corridor that were inaccessible to the field-crew during the 2009 fieldwork.

Historic Heritage Results

Three historic heritage sites are present within lands that will be affected by the Project:

• The present-day thoroughfare of North Road, extending from the Project intersection with North Road east of Lougheed Town Centre Station to Clarke Road (514+480 to 515+720). North Road is the oldest road in the Lower Mainland and holds a heritage designation. It was originally constructed in 1859 (see Section 16.4.3 below) to connect New Westminster with the head of Burrard Inlet, and the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) west coast terminus in Port Moody. It has undergone several alterations and improvements ever since. North Road is identified as a heritage site on several City of Burnaby traffic-signal control boxes along the Reference Alignment, but is not listed in the City’s Heritage Register.

• The Royal Bank Building at 2346 Clarke Street in Port Moody (BC Site Inventory # DhRr- 186; Port Moody Heritage Property # 12). The City of Port Moody classifies this commercial building as a historic place and it is shown on their Moody Centre Heritage Properties map. The Royal Bank’s heritage value is based on its association with the early 20th century development of Port Moody and the bank’s distinctive

16-2

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

built form. The building dates from A.D. 1914, when Clarke Street was the commercial centre of Port Moody.

• The Appleyard Residence located at 2714 Clarke Street, Port Moody (B.C. Site Inventory # DhRr-126; Port Moody Heritage Property # 15). The structure is protected by a Heritage Restrictive Covenant, and is a Foursquare-style Edwardian residential building dating to A.D. 1910. The Appleyard Residence was originally located on the opposite side of the street, at 2717 Clarke, but was moved to its current location in 2006 and currently houses Heritage House Pizza.

The historic heritage sites identified during the heritage resource impact assessment conflict with preliminary designs for the Project. The Project will directly impact the footprint of North Road, which is classified as the oldest road in the region. However, after 140 years of improvements and other modifications to the road, its heritage value is low. The proposed use of North Road as the Project corridor just represents a further iteration of its ongoing use as a major, highly impacted inner urban transportation corridor.

The Reference Alignment is in conflict with the Royal Bank Building in Port Moody. At this location, the Reference Alignment is at grade in this part of Port Moody. Construction of the Alignment as planned will directly impact the building.

Lastly, construction of the Project as presently designed will conflict with the Appleyard Residence in Port Moody. Given that the Alignment is at grade in this location, construction will directly impact the structure.

Site-specific recommendations are provided for the historic heritage sites, as follows:

(1) The preferred option for the buildings in Port Moody is site avoidance through project redesign. Thus, it is recommended that development of the Project avoid the Royal Bank (DhRr-186) and Appleyard Residence (DhRr-126). Current development plans indicate that neither heritage building can be avoided by the Project as presently designed, and therefore it is recommended that: (2) Given that both heritage buildings have high historic importance to the City of Port Moody, preservation in the form of conservation and/or relocation. (3) No further action is recommended for North Road.

16.1 Introduction The Project study area is shown in Figure 16.1 . Various segments of the Project will be located within the cities of Burnaby, Coquitlam, and Port Moody, as follows: (1) the City of Burnaby and the City of Coquitlam (Lougheed Town Centre Station to the South Tunnel Portal, west of Clarke Road near Westley Avenue), (2) the City of Coquitlam (South Tunnel Portal to the North Tunnel Portal at Barnet Highway); (3) the City of Port Moody (North Tunnel Portal to Ioco Road); and (4) the City of Coquitlam (Ioco Road to

16-3

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

the Evergreen Rapid Transit Line terminus at Pinetree Way and Town Centre Boulevard). The Project Alignment proceeds from Lougheed Town Centre Station northward along North Road ( Photo 16.1 ), then Clarke Road. North of the intersection of Clarke Road and Como Lake Avenue ( Photo 16.2 ), the line will enter a tunnel and follow underground to Barnet Highway, where it emerges and parallels the CPR right-of-way. It then proceeds through Port Moody along the south side of the CPR tracks ( Photos 16.3, 16.4 and 16.5 ), crossing to the north side of the tracks immediately east of Moray Street to the proposed Ioco station at Ioco Road. The line then continues eastward along the north side of the CPR tracks ( Photos 16.6 and 16.7 ) to the proposed Coquitlam Central station. From there, the Evergreen Rapid Transit Line proceeds northward along the west side of Pinetree Way until the Alignment crosses to the east side of Pinetree Way north of Northern Avenue. The Alignment then continues north along Pinetree Way to its terminus at Douglas College Station north of the intersection of Pinetree Way and Guildford Way ( Photo 16.8 ).

16.1.1 Scope of the Assessment This assessment is intended to identify cultural heritage and archaeological resource concerns that may arise from the construction and operation of the Project, including the guideway, stations and ancillary facilities from Lougheed Town Centre Station through Burnaby, Port Moody and Coquitlam to the proposed terminus near Douglas College Station.

This study is concerned with potential impacts to cultural heritage and archaeological resources that may arise from construction and operation of the Project.

It is not the intent of this report to document the interests of First Nations’ communities in the project vicinity, or evaluate the relative strengths of their claims. The study was conducted without prejudice to First Nations’ treaty negotiations, Aboriginal rights, or Aboriginal title.

16-4

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Photo 16.1 View north from the intersection of Gatineau Place and North Road in Burnaby, BC (514+520).

Photo 16.2 View south from the intersection of Como Lake Road and Clarke Road in Coquitlam, BC (516+320).

16-5

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Photo 16.3 View east from the intersection of Queens Street and Clarke Street in Port Moody, BC (519+400).

Photo 16.4 View west along Clarke Street in Port Moody, BC (519+840).

16-6

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Photo 16.5 View west from pedestrian overpass of CPR in Port Moody, BC (520+930).

Photo 16.6 View west from 522+090 with CPR cut on right in Coquitlam, BC.

16-7

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Photo 16.7 View east along Scott Creek and the Project corridor in Coquitlam, BC (523+200).

Photo 16.8 View north from the intersection of Pinetree Way and Guildford Way in Coquitlam, BC (525+050).

16-8

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

16.1.2 Cultural Heritage Resource Definitions The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) Reference Guide on Physical and Cultural Heritage defines heritage resources as “a human work or a place that gives evidence of human activity or has spiritual or cultural meaning and that has historic value” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) 1996). For the purposes of this assessment, cultural heritage resources represent one of the following: (i); archaeological sites (ii) paleontological sites; (iii) traditional places or land use, and (iv) historic sites or properties. i. Archaeological sites are defined as locations which contain “physical evidence of past human activities for which scientific methods of inquiry (i.e., survey, excavation, data analysis) provide the main sources of information” (BC Environmental Assessment Office 2003). Archaeological sites can be associated with pre-contact and/or post-contact periods. That is, the time before and after arrival of Europeans in B.C. The CEAA guidelines do not establish definitive dates when physical remains attributable to an archaeological site are differentiated from a historic heritage site, as these criteria vary from province to province. ii. Paleontological sites are locations where ancient organisms have been preserved in the geological record as fossils (Haggart et al . 1997). In the Lower Mainland region, these can occur as fossils in bedrock or as semi-fossilized remains of extinct mammals and other organisms in unconsolidated Quaternary glaciomarine and glaciofluvial sediments. iii. Traditional places and traditional land use reflect past and contemporary use of the landscape by aboriginal communities (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 1996). A traditional land use site is defined as “any geographically-defined [location] that has been traditionally used by one or more groups of people for some type of activity” (BC Environmental Assessment Office 2003). These sites may, but often do not, incorporate physical (i.e., archaeological) evidence of human activity, and are usually documented via oral, archival, and historical sources. Their significance usually persists in living communities. For the purposes of this assessment, First Nations’ traditional names for landscape features are considered to be traditional places as these names and/or features can signify past or ongoing patterns of resource procurement and/or land use patterns. iv. Historic and heritage sites and properties are attributable to post-contact Euro- Canadian or Asian-Canadian settlement and land use (in B.C.), and include structures, engineering works, and architectural features as listed in the CEAA guidelines (CEA Agency 1996).

16-9

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

16.1.3 Regulatory Requirements for Cultural Heritage Resource Studies Regulatory requirements for cultural heritage resource studies are imposed by a number of legislated Acts and Agreements (see below). All types of archaeological studies undertaken for a project review are conducted in compliance with the Guidelines for Archaeological Impact Assessments (Archaeology Branch 1998). These guidelines were prepared by the Archaeology Branch (Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts), the provincial government agency responsible for managing and protecting heritage resources in B.C.

The following Acts and Agreements are applicable to cultural heritage resource studies required for the Project:

• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; • (B.C.) Environmental Assessment Act; • Canada-B.C. Agreement for Environmental Assessment Cooperation (the harmonization agreement); and • (B.C.) Heritage Conservation Act.

The CEAA is administered by the CEA Agency, and applies to Crown Lands and waters under federal administration, such as harbours and airports, as well as projects regulated by federal government agencies like Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). The CEAA requires that proponents assess development project effects upon cultural heritage resources.

The CEAA policies and procedures are described in a publication entitled Reference Guide on Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 1996), which recommends that heritage resources should be “assessed in relation to the mandates, objectives and intents of existing legislation and policies on heritage found at various government levels (federal, provincial, municipal, territorial)”.

At present, there is no federal legislation to protect cultural heritage resources, although a number of policies and agreements are in place. In the absence of a federal act, assessments of cultural heritage resources under the CEAA generally meet the requirements of existing provincial legislation. This is accomplished through the Canada - B.C. Agreement for Environmental Assessment Cooperation (the harmonization agreement), which describes the process for conducting cultural heritage studies for projects subject to the CEAA requirements. Under the harmonization agreement, such studies would be conducted according to the process established under existing provincial legislation. The project report produced under the CEAA guidelines can also serve as the report to the provincial regulatory authority.

The BCEAA requires studies of a proposed project’s effects upon cultural heritage resources, which includes impacts to archaeological sites. For all reviewable projects, the BCEAO requires an assessment of cultural heritage resources to be conducted in

16-10

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

accordance with the Archaeology Branch Guidelines (Environmental Assessment Office 2003). This report discusses the requirements specified for assessing potential Project effects on palaeontological, archaeological, historical and heritage resources, but only discusses traditional land use practices in a general way.

Heritage sites in B.C. are protected by the Heritage Conservation Act (RSBC 1996, c.187). Section 13 of the Act specifies that an individual (or corporation) must not “damage, excavate, dig in or alter, or remove any heritage object” from a heritage site, except in accordance with a permit issued by the Minister. The Heritage Conservation Act confers automatic protection upon heritage sites that pre-date 1846, or undated sites that could pre-date 1846, regardless of whether they are recorded in the Provincial Heritage Register, or whether they are located on Crown Lands or fee-simple private property. Post-1846 historic heritage sites can be protected by Ministerial Order or Designation by an Order-in-Council, or by municipal and regional district governments under the Local Governments Act . Section 36 of the Heritage Conservation Act provides for penalties against violations of Section 13; upon conviction of an individual, a fine of up to $50,000 can be imposed, or a term of imprisonment up to two years, or both. For corporations, a fine of up to $1,000,000 could be imposed, and individuals acting on behalf of corporations may also be subject to the same penalties assessed against private citizens.

In accordance with the CEAA guidelines, this assessment is concerned with all types of heritage sites, and does not distinguish between sites protected or not protected by the Heritage Conservation Act .

In B.C., protected archaeological sites may not be altered or disturbed in any manner without a permit issued under Sections 12 or 14 of the Heritage Conservation Act .

16.1.4 Research Objectives

The subject of this report is equivalent to the requirements of an Archaeological Impact Assessment as defined in the British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines (Archaeology Branch 1998). According to these Guidelines, the objectives of this assessment are to:

• identify and evaluate heritage resources within the project area; • identify and assess all impacts on heritage resources which might result from the project; • recommend viable alternatives for managing unavoidable adverse impacts including a preliminary program for: o implementing and scheduling impact management actions and, where necessary, and o conducting surveillance and/or monitoring.

16-11

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

The study was conducted under Heritage Inspection Permit (# 2009-0242) issued by the Provincial Archaeology Branch. The Heritage Inspection Permit was issued under Section 14 of the Heritage Conservation Act and listed the following First Nations to be contacted under the terms of the Permit:

• Kwikwetlem First Nation; • Musqueam Indian Band; • Squamish Nation; • Stó:l ō Nation and Stó:l ō Tribal Council represented on cultural heritage matters by the Stó:l ō Research & Resource Management Centre (SRRMC); and • Tsleil-Waututh Nation.

Because a field survey was conducted for the study, the Squamish Nation issued Archaeological Investigation Permit #09-017, the SRRMC issued Stó:l ō Heritage Investigation Permit # 2009-53, and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation issued TWN 2009-021 for this aspect of the research. A Musqueam Archaeological Permit was applied for but had not been obtained by the time this report was completed. In addition, permission was received from the City of Coquitlam for archaeological investigations within City-owned District Lot 3038, between Pinetree Way, Westwood Street and Guildford Way, immediately east of Coquitlam City Hall.

16.1.5 Heritage and Traditional Land Use Management Process The CEAA guidelines identify a progressive sequence of events required to achieve approval for development projects. Figure 16.2 graphically portrays the steps necessary to manage heritage resources and address traditional land use in accordance with these guidelines.

16.2 Study Area

16.2.1 First Nations with Interests in the Study Area

Four First Nations were identified in the section 13 procedural order issued by the BCEAO. These First Nations were: Kwikwetlem First Nation, Musqueam Indian Band, Qayqayt First Nation, and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. The Musqueam Indian Band did not participate in the study, while the Qayqayt First Nation indicated that it did not wish to participate.

The Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project area was occupied in aboriginal times by the ancestors of the Musqueam (xwmχθkwχỳχm in their own language), Squamish (skx wúmish7úlh ), Tsleil-waututh ( sχ’l ēlw χt) people, and the Kwikwetlem (Kwikwetl’em ) people, four groups of Salishan language speakers in the Central Coast Salish group (Barnett 1955; Brown and Oakes 2006; Hill-Tout 1978). Squamish is a distinct language spoken in Burrard Inlet, Howe Sound, and the Squamish River valley. The Musqueam speak Halkomelem, which is also spoken on the east coast of Vancouver Island,

16-12

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

throughout the Fraser Delta, and up the Fraser River as far as Spuzzum; the Musqueam are part of the “Downriver” division of this language. Many Tsleil-Wauthuth now speak the Squamish language, but are descendents of a Halkomelem group that originally lived around Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm (Tsleil-Waututh First Nation 2001). The Project area is also within the asserted traditional territory of the Stó:l ō Nation and Stó:l ō Tribal Council, which represents 24 communities of Halkomelem-speaking people in the Lower Fraser River Watershed and are represented by the Stó:l ō Research and Resource Management Centre on cultural heritage matters.

Information about Coast Salish traditional culture is recorded in ethnographic accounts prepared in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Boas 1887, 1891, 1894). Important recent studies are also available (Barnett 1955; Duff 1964; Kuipers1969; Suttles 1987, 1990; Tsleil-Waututh 2001).

It is important to note that not all aspects of traditional First Nations’ cultures are recorded in the anthropological and ethnohistoric literature. Additional knowledge of traditional culture and lifeways still exists in many contemporary First Nations’ communities. Furthermore, Aboriginal societies underwent significant changes as a result of their contact with Europeans, and some cultural aspects reported in the literature may not accurately reflect that culture prior to contact.

Traditional Coast Salish culture was characterized by a semi-sedentary lifestyle dependent upon fishing, gathering, and hunting for subsistence. The society was slightly stratified and three classes of people were usually present; a large upper class, a smaller lower class, and a very small class of slaves. The primary socio-economic unit of Coast Salish society was the house group, each consisting of one or more extended families occupying a single house.

Residence was usually with the man’s family (“patrilocal”) while descent was reckoned bilaterally. Each house group owned its house, rights to resource procurement sites, and ritual property including ancestral names, legends, songs and dances. Rights to these properties were acquired through inheritance and were normally held by the most important members of the household.

Coast Salish villages were usually comprised of one or more houses. Leadership was provided by a “council” of siyam , made up of the most respected family heads in the village. The prestige of the siyam was based on inherited social position and demonstrated abilities of leadership, as well as good manners, ancestry, spiritual power, and wealth. Each village was linked through ties of marriage and kinship with other villages to form a widespread inter-village network without distinct boundaries. Marriages arranged between socially equal families in different villages helped to establish a co-operative system for resource procurement, including shared access to specific resource locations and shared labour.

16-13

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Traditional population and settlement were contingent upon the availability and distribution of seasonal resources. The most important of these resources would have included (1) salmon and eulachon runs in the rivers and tributary streams flowing into Burrard Inlet, Indian Arm, Howe Sound, and the Fraser River; (2) resident fish in the rivers, lakes, and sloughs, (3) waterfowl, including ducks, geese, and swans in sloughs and wetlands; (4) wide-ranging game animals such as deer, elk, mountain goats and bears; (5) small game and fur-bearing mammals, including beaver, muskrat, otters, and mink, from aquatic settings along sloughs and in wetlands, and; (6) plant resources, including (i) red and yellow cedar trees for timber and bark, and other coniferous trees for firewood and medicinal purposes, (ii) chokecherries, huckleberries, and blueberries, among others, (iii) aquatic plants such as cranberries and wapato, which were used for food, and cat-tails, used for mat-weaving, and (iv) medicinal and root crops in forested and alpine montane environments. Turner (1975, 1979) provides detailed descriptions of the traditional uses of plants by First Nations’ peoples in this region.

16.2.2 Summary of Regional Cultural History

The Burrard Inlet – Indian Arm – Fraser River delta area lies within the southern Strait of Georgia region of the Northwest Coast Culture Area, which encompasses the west coast of North America, from southeastern Alaska to southern Oregon. The pre-Contact cultural sequence for this region is based on many years of archaeological site investigations along the Fraser River between Yale and Vancouver, in Whatcom County and the San Juan Islands of Washington, on the east coast of Vancouver Island between Comox and Victoria, and in the southern Gulf Islands. Summaries of Northwest Coast prehistory include works for the general public such as Fladmark (1982, 1986) for British Columbia and Kirk and Daugherty (2007) for archaeology in Washington State. Academic syntheses include Ames and Maschner (1999), Borden (1970), Carlson (1983, 2003), Matson and Coupland (1995), Mitchell (1971, 1990) and Smith (1907) who cover the prehistory of the Northwest Coast culture area, including the Lower Mainland and Howe Sound areas with McLaren and Steffen (2008) and Matson, Coupland, and Mackie (2003) providing more specialized information.

Archaeological research has recovered evidence for over 9000 years of human occupation on the Northwest Coast. The archaeological evidence for the Lower Mainland of British Columbia has been organized into a sequence of periods, known as “phases” (Borden 1970). Each phase is marked by distinctive artifact styles and technologies, as well as inferred economic, social, and other traits. The archaeological periods of this area, from oldest to youngest, are named Old Cordilleran, St. Mungo, Locarno Beach, Marpole, and Stselax ( Table 16.1). The sequence is conventionally terminated at A.D. 1800, after which most authorities agree that European influences came to dominate First Nations’ material culture.

Table 16.1 Archaeological Chronology of Burrard Inlet – Fraser Delta Area

16-14

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Phase Dates 1 Selected Cultural Characteristics Old Cordilleran 9000 to 4500 years • initial adaptation to marine coastal environments BP • terrestrial resources are more important than later • times • shellfish and sea mammals locally important; salmon and eulachon were caught but not yet dominant • no evidence for ranked social organization • no evidence of permanent villages St. Mungo 5500/4500 to 3300 • fully adapted to marine coastal environments years BP • very localized evidence for ranked social organization, including achieved and possibly ascribed status • localized evidence for mass-harvesting of salmon and • herring; inferred • presence of resource storage • permanent houses known (e.g., central Fraser Valley) • burials in middens widespread Locarno Beach 3300 to 2400 years • large permanent villages and plank houses absent or BP at least rare • ascribed status apparently absent; achieved status • widespread; • head deformation possibly used to denote social standing • resource mass-harvesting and food storage widespread Marpole 2400 to 1000 years • large, permanent villages widespread BP • plank houses present • ascribed status present (but localized); achieved status • widespread • long-range trading networks present • salmon is most important food resource at this time Stselax 1000 years BP to • traditional ethnographic villages established ca. 200 years BP • artifacts identical or similar to those used by ethnographic Coast Salish peoples • subsistence activities identical to those recorded by ethnographers • switch from midden to surface burials Historic About 200 years • gradual abandonment of traditional house styles and (Ethnographic) BP to present artifact types Period • adoption of European house styles and tools • subsistence activities become oriented to European cash economies 1 Following archaeological convention, dates are expressed as radiocarbon years BP (Before Present), where present equals AD 1950.

16-15

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

16.2.3 Previous Archaeological Studies The Burrard Inlet – Fraser Delta area has been surveyed by several archaeologists between the late 19th century and the present day. The earliest archaeological investigations in the Lower Mainland were initiated by Charles Hill-Tout (1900); later, Harlan Smith (1907) investigated sites in the area. Since that time, numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted in the Lower Mainland region, with the objective of locating and assessing archaeological sites (e.g., Alexander and Greir 2000; Alexander Heritage Consulting 2005; Arcas Consulting Archeologists Ltd. 1995; Dahlstrom 1996; Ham et al . 1978; Howe 1981, 1982; May and Lucs 1976; Rozen 1979; Spafford et al . 1999). These studies resulted in the identification of more than 50 archaeological sites in the Burrard Inlet – Fraser Delta area.

In addition to archaeological inventories and assessments, several archaeological excavations have taken place in the study area including Noons Creek and Belcarra (Charlton 1972, 1980; Trost 2005), and the Barnet Highway Project (Ham 1991), amongst other studies. No specific archaeological assessments have taken place for the Project, though an archaeological and heritage resources overview was completed for the Evergreen Line Light Rail Transit Project in 2007, a previous concept of the Project (Wilson 2007).

16.2.4 Archaeological Resources A search of the Provincial Heritage Register identified five (5) recorded prehistoric archaeological sites ( Table 16.2) within 720 m of the Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project, with the closest 205 m north of the Port Moody Alignment section. One of these sites is located along the bank of the Brunette River and the rest are situated at the east end of Burrard Inlet. The site types represented consist of shell middens (n=4) or lithic scatters (n=1). Less common site types, identified outside the limits of the Project footprint but situated along the shores of Burrard Inlet, Indian Arm, and the Fraser River include pictographs, petroforms, cultural depressions, prehistoric trails, shipwrecks, a fish weir, a canoe skid, a stone fish trap, an earthwork mound, a culturally modified tree (CMT) and historic habitations, structures, burials and cemeteries.

One of the five prehistoric sites identified in proximity to the Project, DhRr-29 consists of lithic artifacts on the shore of Brunette River; the site is reported to have been destroyed by road construction. The Noons Creek Site (DhRq-1) is located inland from the present shoreline, and consists of shell midden deposits at the intersection of Ioco Road and Maude Road across from the Port Moody Sports Centre (Yip and Gose 1979). In a similar setting, DhRq-6 is a small shell midden located east of Pigeon Cove and 100 m west of the CPR tracks. The B.C. Archaeological Site Inventory form (Yip and Gose 1979) suggests that the site may have been destroyed due to sewer line construction. The

16-16

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Pigeon Cove site (DhRr-9), the Pigeon Cove site, is a shallow shell midden situated on the south shore of Burrard Inlet, between Rocky Point and Pigeon Cover in Port Moody (McMillian 1971a, 1971b, 1982; Yip and Gose 1979). DhRr-22 is located on the south side of Noons Creek southwest of the CPR bridge crossing. Investigations by Cranny and Bunyan (1975) and Yip and Gose (1979) suggest that this midden deposit may be associated with a larger habitation site in the area, such as Noons Creek (DhRq-1).

Table 16.2 provides summary information on regarding the five archaeological sites in closest proximity to the Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project area prior to the present research.

Table 16.2 Archaeological Sites in Proximity to the Evergreen Line Reference Alignment

B.C. Archaeological Site Archaeological Site Location Status Description Inventory Number DhRr-29 Prehistoric Brunette River; approximately protected under archaeological site 600 m south of Lougheed Town the Heritage – lithic artifacts Centre Station Conservation Act DhRr-9 prehistoric Pigeon Cove site; along the protected under archaeological site south shore of Burrard Inlet the Heritage - shell midden between Rocky Point and Conservation Act Pigeon Cove; 205 m north of the Alignment DhRr-22 prehistoric Along the east shore of Burrard protected under archaeological site Inlet; on south side of Noons the Heritage - shell midden Creek 650 m north of the Conservation Act Alignment DhRq-1 prehistoric Noons Cove/Noons Creek site; protected under archaeological site along the east shore of Burrard the Heritage - shell midden Inlet; inland midden site situated Conservation Act 720 m north of the Alignment DhRq-6 prehistoric East of Pigeon Cove and protected under archaeological site approximately 100 m west of the Heritage - shell midden CPR tracks to Ioco Road Conservation Act situated 400 m of Alignment

16.2.5 Historic Background: 1791 – Present

The first Europeans to enter the waters of Burrard Inlet were the early Spanish voyages in 1791 by the schooner Santa Saturnina under command of Jose Maria Narvaez (Cutter

16-17

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

1991). A year later, in June 1792 Captain George Vancouver, commander of the ships HMS Discovery and HMS Chatham , visited Burrard Inlet. In addition to naming and mapping various features of the area, Vancouver’s crew also met and traded with the Squamish Nation. Vancouver’s exploration was followed by additional Spanish voyages of Dionisio Alcala Galiano and Cayetano Valdes aboard the schooners Mexicanna and Sutil (Fisher and Johnston 1993). In July 1808 Simon Fraser reached the village of Musqueam at the mouth of the Fraser River (Lamb 1960). Over the next 50 years, few Europeans visited the waters of Burrard Inlet and Howe Sound, and then only to trade (Armitage 2001, McMillian 1982).

Burnaby was surveyed by the Royal Engineers in 1859 and with the construction of the BC Electric Interurban line connecting Vancouver to New Westminster, Burnaby was incorporated in 1892. Historically, Burnaby was a rural area with active logging, evolving over the years into a mainly working-class suburb with an economic base of manufacturing, refineries, railways, and wholesale and retail services (Green 1947, 1952; Sone 1987). Port Moody was founded at the same time as Burnaby when the Royal Engineers cut a trail from New Westminster to the head of Burrard Inlet as an “emergency exit” in case of attack from the south via the Fraser River (Norton 1987). This trail constructed under the direction of Richard Moody, commander of the Royal Engineers, eventually became North Road, the boundary between Burnaby and Coquitlam. In 1879, the CPR announced that the western terminus of its transcontinental railway would be Port Moody, where the first passengers arrived in 1886. Port Moody soon lost out to Vancouver as the terminus, but continued to develop, albeit slowly through the establishment of numerous sawmills and the IOCO (Imperial Oil Company) refinery on the north shore of Port Moody (Norton 1987). The city grew from its origins along the CPR on the south shore of Burrard Inlet, around its head and along the north shore. The City of Coquitlam grew around the large sawmill at Fraser Mills on the Fraser River (Coquitlam 1990). Employees of the mill were recruited from all over the world but the largest contingent was comprised of French-Canadians who settled at Maillardville, north of Fraser Mills (Monk and Stewart 1958). As with Burnaby and Port Moody, Coquitlam has developed over the years from a sawmill town to an urban centre.

16.2.6 Identified Heritage Sites

No heritage sites, consisting of either municipal designated heritage sites or heritage register properties, are located in proximity to the Project footprint within the cities of Burnaby or Coquitlam. However, fifteen (15) heritage sites have been identified in close proximity to the Project corridor and are summarized in Table 16.3. North Road, identified as “The Oldest Road in the Lower Mainland” on numerous traffic signal boxes along the route is a City of Burnaby Heritage Site. Today, the northern section of North Road is closed to traffic and is a historic trail.

Table 16.3 Heritage Sites in Proximity to the Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Baseline Alignment

16-18

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

B.C. Site Site Inventory Location Status 1 Description Number DhRr-14 Historic 2214 Clarke Street, Port Moody; heritage register property building Williams residence (Port Moody – No. 1) DhRr-123 Historic 2224/226 Clarke Street, Port municipal designated building Moody; C.P. Lumber Co. ~1908 heritage site (Port Moody – No 2) DhRr-124 Historic 2224/226 Clarke Street, Port municipal designated building Moody; McLean residence ~ A.D. heritage site (Port Moody – 1908 No. 2) Historic 2310 Clark Street, Port Moody; heritage register property building Joseph Côté residence (Port Moody – No. 3) Historic 2320 Clarke Street, Port Moody; - municipal designated building commercial building heritage site (Port Moody – No. 5) Historic 2322 Clarke Street – residence heritage register property building (Port Moody – No. 6) Historic 2326 Clarke Street, Port Moody; heritage register property building residence (Port Moody – No. 7) Historic 2335 Clarke Street, Port Moody; heritage register property building Etter’s Beauty Salon (Port Moody – No. 9) DhRr-187 Historic 2336 Clarke Street, Port Moody; heritage register property building John’s Barber Shop ~ A.D. 1947 (Port Moody – No. 10) Historic 2341-45 Clarke Street/49 Queens heritage register property building Street, Port Moody; commercial (Port Moody – No. 11) building DhRr-186 Historic 2346 Clarke Street, Port Moody; heritage register property building Royal Bank ~ A.D. 1914 (Port Moody – No. 12) Historic 2407-09 Clarke Street, Port Moody; heritage register property building Roe & Abernethy Grocery Store (Port Moody – No. 13) DhRr-125 Historic 2419 Clarke Street, Port Moody; P. heritage register property building Burns & Co. Butcher Shop ~ A.D. (Port Moody – No. 14) 1908 DhRr-126 Historic 2714 Clarke Street, Port Moody; heritage register property building Appleyard residence ~ A.D. 1910 (Port Moody – No. 15) Historic 2414 St. Johns, Port Moody; Hotel heritage register property building Burrard (Port Moody – No. 22) 1City of Port Moody Heritage Register

16-19

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Photo 16.9 City of Burnaby North Road heritage sign on traffic control box.

16-20

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

16.3 Impact Assessment Methodology The archaeological and heritage impact assessment for the Project involved:

• A review of archaeological, ethnographic, and historical literature pertaining to Project locality; • A review of biophysical and topographic information pertaining to the study area in order to assess past land use for the study area; • A review of information about recorded archaeological sites within the study area; • Communications with First Nations’ individuals and organizations with knowledge of archaeological, and historic resources within, or near, the Project area; • An archaeological field survey and impact assessment of the Project corridor; and • Preparation of a report on the results of the impact assessment (this document).

16.3.1 Literature Review – Background Research

This aspect of the research consisted of an in-office review of published and unpublished ethnographic, historical and archaeological literature for the Project corridor and surrounding area. Documents from the AMEC Earth & Environmental (Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Resources) library and the Archaeology Branch in Victoria were examined. The literature review was undertaken to provide general information on prehistoric archaeology and traditional First Nations’ land use and settlement in the study area. Information from ethnographic reports was also used to assess the potential for prehistoric and historic sites in the study area. An examination of contemporary, historic, and prehistoric environmental conditions (biophysical and topographic information) was used to assess the variety and abundance of natural resources used in traditional Aboriginal economies. Historic non-Aboriginal land use in the study area was determined from local history publications. Topographic and biophysical information was obtained from 1:50,000-scale maps for the study area and 1:20,000 composite maps and orthophotos. Biophysical information was obtained from numerous sources, including previous studies in the area and Demarchi (1995, 1996), Demarchi et al . (1990), Luttmerding (1980), Meidinger and Pojar (1991), and the Ministry of Forests and Range (2008), and Pojar, et al . (1991).

Information about recorded archaeological sites within the study area was obtained in a search of the Provincial Heritage Registry using the Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) online application, maintained by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts. Topographic and modern land use information was obtained from maps and orthophotos provided by the Project management team, municipalities and the consultant.

16-21

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

16.3.2 Communication with First Nations First Nations were contacted and informed of the proposed archaeological and heritage impact assessment for the Project corridor. General communication with the various First Nation contacts is provided in Table 16.4.

Table 16.4 Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project First Nation Communities and Contacts

First Nation Community Project Contact(s)

Kwikwetlem First Nation Chief Ron Giesbrecht, Glen Joe, George Chaffee, Nancy Joe; Lesley A. Giroday (Ratcliff & Company); Doug Brown and Nicole Oakes (Brown & Oakes Archaeology)

Musqueam Indian Leona Sparrow, Dianne Buchan Band

Squamish Nation Chief Gibby Jacobs, Anthony Moody

Stó:l ō Nation David Schaepe, Jessica Morrison

Tsleil-Waututh First Amy Hodgins, Glenn George Nation

16.3.3 Archaeological Field Survey and Impact Assessment The Project will be constructed throughout a highly impacted, densely populated urban environment with varying levels of archaeological potential and landscape integrity. For example, construction of the proposed north tunnel portal near South Schoolhouse Creek may impact moderate to high potential lands in that location, whereas the proposed section of guideway from Lougheed Town Centre Station along North Road to Clarke Drive though a built-up urban neighbourhood of Burnaby and Coquitlam requires no other assessment than visual confirmation of the landscape integrity.

Two archaeologists completed the fieldwork, accompanied by representatives of the Kwikwetlem First Nation (Nancy Joe, Doug Brown and Nicole Oakes) and the Tsleil- Waututh First Nation (Amy Hodgins and Glenn George). The Squamish Nation indicated that they had no interest in participating in the Project and declined to participate in the archaeological field assessment although they have requested a copy of the archaeological impact assessment report. Due to scheduling conflicts, no one from the Musqueam Indian Band was available to participate in the assessment work.

The fieldwork involved a pedestrian survey of the entire Project corridor. The fieldwork took place on October 7, 8, 9, 15 and November 12, 2009. The corridor was examined by survey traverses, with the crew assessing 100% of the lands within the vicinity of the

16-22

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

proposed development corridor, though actual survey coverage was dependent on terrain, the presence of mature trees, and urban landscape features such as roads, residential and commercial facilities, and utility rights-of-way. In locations where safety was an issue, such as sections where dense traffic was present, like North Road, observations were made from a safe vantage point in proximity to the corridor centreline. Survey coverage was plotted on development plans.

Specific locations along the route assessed as having moderate or high archaeological potential (e.g., South Schoolhouse Creek, or in proximity to Scott, Hoy Creek and other creeks; the forested lot on the southeast corner of Pinetree Way and Guildford Way) were subjected to subsurface testing.

Subsurface testing for buried cultural materials and/or archaeological deposits involved shallow testing. Shallow testing was accomplished with shovels or trowels, and was used in situations where potential buried cultural deposits are within reach of hand tools or where deep testing is not possible due to safety or other constraints. Within smaller test areas (<100m 2), testing took place at intervals of 2-5 m, whereas the intervals in larger test areas ranged from 10-20 m, depending on: the configuration of the tested landforms; amount and location of surface exposure/ disturbance; extent and location of poorly drained soils; proximity to potential hazards that could affect crew safety; and other considerations. Subsurface tests were excavated through all sediments likely to contain cultural materials to either: (1) a depth below the maximum depth of development impact; or (2) definitive non-archaeological sediments (e.g., glacial till, coarse-textured marine sediments; disturbed sediments).

Shovel tests typically measured between 30 and 40 cm 2 and were screened through 6 mm mesh. Had artifacts or other cultural materials (e.g., faunal remains, fire-altered rocks) been encountered in the tests or observed on the surface, they would have been recorded as to location, type and material and collected. All subsurface tests were backfilled upon completion.

Photographs were taken with a digital camera of the Reference Alignment, subsurface test locations, and activities of the field crew. Geo-spatial coordinates for the survey were acquired with a Garmin GPSMAP ®60Cx and plotted on development plans.

16.4 Results

16.4.1 Palaeontological Sites

An assessment of paleontological concerns within the Project vicinity was undertaken to: (1) determine the geological setting and regional paleontological potential of the proposed development corridor; (2) determine if any paleontological fossil occurrences were reported from the project vicinity; and (3) evaluate the potential for encountering paleontological resources during construction for the Project. The Burnaby-Port Moody- Coquitlam area has been mapped by geologists (e.g., Armstrong and Hicock 1976;

16-23

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Armstrong 1980; Luttmerding 1980 ; Roddick 1979a, 1979b), and an abundance of reports address issues of stratigraphy and, where relevant, paleontology. Such reports and their accompanying maps (e.g., Armstrong and Hicock 1976) were examined in terms of the Project objectives.

General themes pertaining to the nature and value of paleontological resources in B.C. are covered in regional Land and Resource Management Planning reports produced by the British Columbia Paleontological Alliance (e.g., Haggart et al . 1997). The discussion below concerning geological and paleontological matters is specifically focused on the project locality. It is important, however, to reiterate the distinction between paleontological and archaeological resources. Paleontological sites are comprised of fossils or other evidence (such as trace fossils) for the past existence of ancient organisms, including plants, animals, and single-celled organisms. Archaeological sites are comprised of evidence for the past existence of human activities, including habitations, burial places, and artifacts. There is overlap between these two sciences; for example, a site where a mammoth was killed by ancient hunters is simultaneously an archaeological site (denoting the human activity of hunting) and a paleontological site (with fossil mammoth remains).

Most fossil organisms constitute a resource that is continually being recharged as erosion or development exposes new and different areas of fossiliferous rocks. In this manner, paleontological resources are not generally considered to be unique. This places them in direct contrast with archaeological resources, which are considered unique for a specific time and place (Haggart et al. 1997).

There are no bedrock outcrops or suitable geological formations in which fossils could occur along the Project Alignment. Table 16.5 summarizes the surficial geology for the Project (Roddick 1979a, 1979b) in support of this conclusion.

Table 16.5 Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Surficial Geology

Km Route Section Description Stations

Lougheed Town 514+200 to Postglacial and Pleistocene deposits: marine shore and fluvial Centre Station to 514+580 sand up to 8 m thick Gatineau Place

Gatineau Place to 514+580 to Pre-Vashion Deposits: glacial, nonglacial, and glaciomarine North Road/David 515+440 sediments: Quadra fluvial channel fill and floodplain deposits, Drive crossbedded sand containing minor silt and gravle lenses and interbeds; PVc, Quadra marine interbedded fine sand to clay silt believed to be off-shore equivalents of Pre-Vashion deposits

16-24

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Km Route Section Description Stations

North Road/David 515+440 to Vashon Drift and Capilano Sediments: Glacial drift including: Drive to Cecile 518+060 lodgment and minor flow till, lenses and interbeds of Drive substratified glaciofluvial sand to gravel, and lenses and interbeds of glacio-lacustrine laminated stony silt; up to 25 m thick but in most places less than 8 m thick (correlates with Vashon Drift)

Cecile Drive to 518+060 to Pre-Vashion Deposits: Coquitlam till, glaciomarine (?), and Charles Street 518+650 glacicolacustrine deposits

Charles Street to 518+650 to Capilano Sediments: (Chronologically equivalent to Sumas Drift east of east end of 519+230 and Fort Langley Formation); Raised marine, deltaic, and fluvial Vitner Street a deposits: raised marine beach, spit, bar and lag veneer, poorly sorted sand to gravel (except in bar deposits) normally less than 1 m thick but up to 8 m thick, mantling order sediments and containing fossil marine shell casts up to 175 m above sea level

East of east end of 519+230 to Area of reported landslides; Postglacial and Pleistocene Vitner Street to 521+480 deposits: marine shore and fluvial sand up to 8 m thick west of Suterbrook Brook

West of Suterbrook 521+480 to Vashon Drift and Capilano Sediments Brook to Balmoral 522+980 Drive

Balmoral Drive to 522+980 to Capilano Sediments: Raised marine, deltaic, and fluvial Scott Creek-Hoy 523+380 deposits: raised deltaic and channel fill medium sand to cobble Creek confluence gravel up to 15 m thick deposited by proglacial streams and commonly underlain by silty to silty clay loam

Scott Creek-Hoy 523+380 to Lowland and mountain stream deltaic, channel fill, and Creek confluence 523+600 overbank sediments: mountain stream channel fill sand and to Mariner Way gravel up to 8 m thick; mountain stream marine deltaic medium to coarse gravel and minor sand up to 15 m or more thick)

Mariner Way to 523+600 to Capilano Sediments Town Centre 525+340 Boulevard

Given the nature of the Pleistocene and Holocene deposits within the Project footprint, there is virtually no possibility of finding Quaternary-aged fossil organisms in the surficial sediments within the Project footprint. For this reason, there is little likelihood that palaeontological resources will be affected by the Project.

16-25

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

16.4.2 Archaeological Sites No archaeological sites were identified during the archaeology and heritage impact assessment for the Project. Details on archaeological potential ratings based on the field assessment, a summary of in-field route observations of the lands assessed during the field survey, and the results of the field assessment for the Project are summarized in Table 16.6.

Archaeological potential ratings (low, moderate, and high) were revised from the pre- field assessment based upon the results of the final field survey. In-field archaeological potential was assessed primarily on a consideration of one or more of the following biophysical and cultural attributes, including (but not limited to): the degree of historic disturbance (or landscape integrity), the distance from water features, the presence of elevated landforms (suitable for hunting or look-out locations), forest cover (type and age), wildlife and fish resources, plant resources, slope, travel corridors, drainage, aspect, and the presence of previously recorded sites or trails in similar settings in the area.

16-26

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Table 16.6 Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Archaeology and Heritage Impact Assessment Summary Results

Archaeological Archaeological Impact Station Start – Finish 1 Potential Field In-field Route Description Assessment (AIA) Coverage, AIA Results Assessment Actions, and Potential Results

514+150 Low Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100%. No archaeological or heritage to altered. No subsurface testing –urban resources identified; 514+560 Disturbance from urban development. North Road is a Burnaby development: road heritage site ( Figure 16.3 ). Lougheed Town Potential for buried construction; buried Centre Station to archaeological sites is low due infrastructure; Gatineau Place to previous impacts by urban commercial buildings. infrastructure (buried utilities, road construction, buildings). Additional limiting factors include slope and distance from watercourses. 514+560 Low Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100%. No archaeological or heritage to altered. No subsurface testing –urban resources identified; 515+700 Disturbance from urban development ( Photo 16.10 ). North Road is a Burnaby development: road heritage site ( Figure 16.3 ). Gatineau Place to Potential for buried construction; buried Clarke Road archaeological sites is low due infrastructure; to previous impacts from urban commercial buildings. infrastructure (buried utilities, road construction, buildings). Additional limiting factors include slope and distance from watercourses. 515+700 Low Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100%. No archaeological or heritage to altered. No subsurface testing –urban resources identified. 516+300 Disturbance from urban development. development: road Clarke Road to Como Potential for buried construction; buried Lake Avenue archaeological sites is low due

16-27

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Archaeological Archaeological Impact Station Start – Finish 1 Potential Field In-field Route Description Assessment (AIA) Coverage, AIA Results Assessment Actions, and Potential Results infrastructure; to previous impacts from urban commercial buildings. infrastructure (buried utilities, road construction, buildings). Additional limiting factors include slope and distance from watercourses. 516+300 Low Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100%. No archaeological or heritage to altered. STL 1: 4 subsurface tests placed resources identified; 641 Clarke Road may have remnant intact 516+800 Disturbance from urban within 637 Clarke Road along development: road property line; otherwise no sediments in association with Como Lake Avenue to construction; buried subsurface testing –urban mature spruce and cedar trees Bored Tunnel entrance infrastructure; development (see Photos 16.10 which should be tested once (Kemsley Avenue) commercial buildings. and 16.11). property has been acquired. Potential for buried archaeological sites is low due to previous impacts from urban infrastructure (buried utilities, road construction, buildings). Additional limiting factors include slope and distance from watercourses. 516+800 Low Landscape completely Bored Tunnel section – no No archaeological or heritage to altered. surface survey as it was not resources identified. applicable to tunnel section. 518+820 Disturbance from urban development: road No subsurface testing –urban Bored Tunnel entrance construction; buried development. (Kemsley Avenue) to infrastructure; Bored Tunnel exit The potential for buried commercial buildings. (Barnet Highway) archaeological sites is low due to previous impacts from urban infrastructure: buried water, gas,

16-28

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

518+820 Moderate to Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100%. No archaeological or heritage to High altered. STL 2:10 subsurface tests placed resources identified; former Andres Winery site in proximity 519+200 Disturbance from urban on slope between Barnet development: road Highway concrete block to South Schoolhouse Creek Bored Tunnel exit construction; buried retaining wall and South and the unnamed creek on the (Barnet Highway) to infrastructure; Schoolhouse Creek; otherwise Reichhold property were not east end Reichhold commercial buildings. no subsurface testing – industrial tested due to capping of property development (see Figures 16.4 concrete and asphalt; should and 16.5 ). be tested or monitored during construction once property has Potential for buried been acquired and concrete archaeological sites on the west and asphalt removed. side of South Schoolhouse Creek is low due to previous impacts from urban infrastructure including residential buildings and subsequent Barnett Highway construction. The remainder of this portion of the alignment has been impacted by industrial activities associated with the Reichhold chemical plant, the former Andres Wine property, CPR corridors; and associated buried water, gas, sewer, and other utilities, road construction, buildings; supportive environmental factors includes

16-29

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

519+200 Low Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100%. No archaeological sites to altered. No subsurface testing –industrial- identified; one heritage resource identified – the Royal 519+500 Disturbance from commercial-residential industrial development development ( Photo 16.16, and Bank building at 2346 Clarke east end Reichhold including CPR Figures 16.9 and 16.10 ). Street (possible future Queens Ltd. property to Clarke Street Station – Photo 16.16, construction and Potential for buried Street Figures 16.9 and 16.10 ). operations; road archaeological sites is low due construction; buried to large portion of imported fill infrastructure; industrial (519+146 to 519+230); previous buildings and ancillary impacts from industrial facilities; commercial infrastructure: buried utilities, and residential buildings. road construction, buildings; additional limiting factor includes distance from watercourses. 519+500 Low Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100%. No archaeological sites to altered. STL 3: 11 subsurface tests placed identified; one heritage resource identified – the 520+030 Disturbance from between Clark Road and the industrial and urban CPR (519+800 to 519+876); Appleyard Residence at 2717 Clarke Street to Moody development: CPR otherwise no subsurface testing Clarke Street (formerly 2714 Street construction and –industrial - urban development Clarke Street - Photos 16.12 and operations Clarke Road (Photos 16.12 and 16.13). 16.13). and Moody Street Potential for buried construction; buried archaeological sites is low due infrastructure; to previous impacts from commercial and modern industrial, commercial residential buildings. and urban infrastructure: buried utilities, road construction,

16-30

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

520+030 Low Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100%. No archaeological or heritage to altered. No subsurface testing –industrial- resources identified. 521+160 Disturbance from commercial-residential industrial and urban development. Moody Street to Moray development: CPR Street Potential for buried construction and archaeological sites is low due operations Clarke Road, to previous impacts from Williams Street, Electronic modern urban infrastructure: Avenue, Buller Street, buried utilities, road construction, and Moray Street buildings; additional construction; buried environmental factor includes infrastructure; lack of proximity to old commercial and watercourses. residential buildings. 521+160 Low Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100% No archaeological or heritage to altered. (excluding CPR corridor – visual resources identified. assessed). 521+700 Disturbance from industrial, commercial STL 4: 13 subsurface tests placed Moray Street to IOCO and residential north of CPR tracks at Road (crosses CP Rail development: CPR Suterbrook Creek locality from south side to north construction and (521+505 to 521+616); otherwise side of tracks at operations; road no subsurface testing –urban 521+340) construction; buried development ( Figure 16.6 and infrastructure; Photo 16.14 ). commercial and Potential for buried residential buildings. archaeological sites is low due

16-31

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

521+700 Moderate Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100% No archaeological or heritage to altered. No subsurface testing –industrial- resources identified. 523+600 Disturbance from commercial-residential Unnamed creek, and the Scott industrial and development. Creek – Hoy Creek locality IOCO Road to Mariner commercial (523+210 to 533+440) was not Way Potential for buried development: CPR archaeological sites is moderate subsurface tested due to construction and due to presence of Scott and capping by concrete and operations; road Hoy Creeks; development of asphalt; should tested and/or construction; buried margins of Scott and Hoy Creek monitored once property has infrastructure; precluded subsurface testing been acquired and concrete commercial and (asphalt and concrete); previous and asphalt removed. residential buildings. impacts from industrial, Archaeological monitoring commercial and residential recommended infrastructure: buried utilities, road construction, buildings; supportive environmental factor includes proximity to unnamed creek (522+832) and Scott and Hoy Creeks. 523+600 Low Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100%. No archaeological or heritage to altered. No subsurface testing –urban resources identified. 523+900 Disturbance from urban development. development; CPR Mariner Way to Potential for buried construction and archaeological sites is low due

16-32

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Archaeological Archaeological Impact Station Start – Finish 1 Potential Field In-field Route Description Assessment (AIA) Coverage, AIA Results Assessment Actions, and Potential Results Lougheed Highway operations road to previous impacts from urban construction; Translink infrastructure: buried utilities, facilities (bus loop, Park road construction, buildings; & Ride); buried additional limiting environmental infrastructure; factor includes distance from commercial buildings. watercourses. 523+900 Low Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100%. No archaeological or heritage to altered. No subsurface testing –urban resources identified. 524+600 Disturbance from urban development. development; Lougheed Lougheed Highway to Potential for buried Highway, Barnet Northern Avenue archaeological sites is low due Highway, Pinetree Way, to previous impacts from urban Coquitlam Centre Mall infrastructure: buried utilities, and other malls along road construction, buildings; route; buried additional limiting factor infrastructure; includes distance to commercial buildings. watercourses. 524+600 Low Landscape completely Pedestrian survey – 100%. No archaeological or heritage to altered. STL 5: 20 subsurface tests placed resources identified. 525+340 Disturbance from urban within District Lot 3038, development; Pinetree immediately east of Pinetree Northern Avenue to Way, various malls along Way south of Guildford Way Town Centre route; several (524+874 to 525+048); otherwise Boulevard(terminus) residences; buried no subsurface testing –urban infrastructure; development ( Figures 16.7 and commercial buildings. 16.8 and Photo 16.15 ). The potential for buried archaeological sites is low due distance from watercourses.

1Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Baseline Alignment Draft April 2010

16-33

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

16.4.2.1 Subsurface Testing Locations During the field survey, five locations were identified for subsurface testing along the Project Alignment. Subsurface Test Location 1 (STL 1) is situated at 637 Clarke Road in Coquitlam ( Figure 16.3 ). This property, which is owned by TransLink, was assessed as having low archaeological potential, but was selected for testing as it was the first location north of Lougheed Town Centre Station where subsurface sediments could be excavated. Four subsurface tests were placed between a house foundation and the property boundary (see Photo 16.10 and Appendix 16A). A house that formerly stood on this property had been removed prior to the field survey. No prehistoric cultural material was identified though recent historic debris was observed. Below the disturbance, sediments associated with Vashon Drift and Capilano Sediments were observed.

Photo 16.10 Subsurface Test Location 1: crew testing at 637 Clarke Road, Coquitlam, BC.

STL 2 is located on the west side of South Schoolhouse Creek in Port Moody (518+823 to 518+875). This location is situated on a moderate slope between the Barnet Highway retaining wall and South Schoolhouse Creek ( Photo 16.11 ). The location was assessed as having moderate archaeological potential given its proximity to a salmon bearing water course, but not high due to the slope west of the creek. Ten subsurface tests were judgmentally placed between the highway and creek, in proximity to mature trees which were believed to have greater potential for being associated with intact landforms (see Photo 16.4 and Appendix 16B ). No prehistoric cultural material was identified; recent historic debris was observed on the surface and within most subsurface

16-34

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

tests. STL 2 was previously impacted by residential construction prior to the upgrading of the Barnet Highway in the 1990s. In addition, construction of the Barnet Highway also impacted this setting. Additional impacts have resulted from construction of the Trans Canada Trail and enhancements to South Schoolhouse Creek itself.

Photo 16.11 Subsurface Test Location 2 in Port Moody, BC: A. Hodgins (Tsleil-Waututh First Nation) excavating ST #8.

Lands adjacent to the east bank of South Schoolhouse Creek were not tested because they are within the fenced perimeter of the former Andres Winery property and are covered by concrete and asphalt. This location is more favourable for archaeological sites due to the presence of relatively level terrain east of South Schoolhouse Creek.

STL 3 is located between Clarke Street and the CPR ROW in Port Moody (519+680 to 519+876). This location consists of a narrow vegetated strip of land immediately north of Clarke Street ( Figure 16.5 ). The location was assessed as having low to moderate archaeological potential, given its proximity to several water courses which drain northward to the CPR ROW. Eleven subsurface tests were judgmentally placed between the road and CPR ROW in proximity to mature trees which had some potential to be associated with intact landforms (see Photo 16.12 and Appendix 16C ). No prehistoric cultural material was identified, although recent historic debris was observed on the surface and in most of the subsurface tests. STL 3 has been previously impacted by industrial development associated with the CPR and Clarke Street. In addition, the drainages have been modified to protect their banks from erosion and several drainages

16-35

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

appear to be recent historic features associated with providing drainage to the lands south of Clarke Road (storm run-off, etc.).

Photo 16.12 Subsurface Test Location 3 in Port Moody, BC: D. Brown excavating ST 2; H. Myles in foreground.

STL 4 is located immediately north of the CPR corridor in proximity to Suterbrook Creek in Port Moody (521+505 to 521+616). This location consists of a forested parcel of land bisected by Suterbrook Creek between the CPR tracks and the Suterbrook development ( Photo 16.13). The locality was assessed as having moderate to high archaeological potential given its proximity to Suterbrook Creek. Thirteen subsurface tests were placed east and west of Suterbrook Creek in proximity to mature trees which were suspected to be associated with intact landforms (see Figure 16.6 and Appendix 16D ). No prehistoric cultural material was identified; recent historic debris was observed on the surface and in several subsurface tests, including buried railway ties and wooden debris (STL 4 – ST 10). STL 4 has been previously impacted by industrial development associated with CPR, early commercial development east of Suterbrook Creek in proximity to Ioco Road, a sanitary forcemain, and most recently by residential development associated with Suterbrook Creek.

16-36

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Photo 16.13 Subsurface Test Location 4 in Port Moody, BC: H. Myles excavating ST 1

STL 5 is located within District Lot 3038, immediately east of Pinetree Way and south of Guildford Way in Coquitlam (524+874 to 525+048). This location consists of a forested lot owned by the City of Coquitlam opposite Coquitlam City Hall ( Photo 16.14, Figures 16.7 and 16.8 ). The location was assessed as having low archaeological potential, given its distance from any watercourse, but is situated between Hoy Creek to the west, Coquitlam River to the east, and south of Lafarge Lake (a man-made lake situated within an old quarry site). However, the Kwikwetlem First Nation requested archaeological investigations within this lot based upon their knowledge that archaeological sites had been identified in similar settings east of the property. Twenty subsurface tests were systematically placed within the lot at 10 m intervals, depending upon limiting factors such as standing trees, windfall, or disturbed land ( Appendix 16E ). No prehistoric cultural material was identified, though recent historic debris was observed on the surface (not in the subsurface deposits). It does not appear that STL 5 has been previously impacted by historic activities and no evidence of earlier logging was observed, though the trees appear to be less than 150 years old based upon tree diameter. Subsurface deposits consist of medium sand to cobble gravels belonging to the Capilano Sediments.

16-37

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Photo 16.14 Subsurface Test Location 5 in Coquitlam, BC: H. Myles and G. George (Tsleil-Waututh First Nation) excavating ST 20 and ST 19).

16.4.3 Historic Heritage Sites

Three historic heritage sites were identified during the assessment of the Project. The first is the present-day thoroughfare of North Road, which extends from the Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project intersection with North Road east of Lougheed Town Centre Station to Clarke Road (514+480 to 515+720). North Road is the oldest road in the lower mainland, originally constructed in 1859 with continuing alterations and improvements to the present day. The northern portion of North Road (immediately south of Burrard Inlet and outside the Project footprint) was closed in the 1960s. North Road is identified as a heritage site on several City of Burnaby Anti-Graffiti Wrap Program on traffic signal control boxes along the road (see Photos 16.1 and 16.9 ; City of Burnaby 2009). The potential for evidence of an early First Nations’ trail (Macdonald 2002) is low, as is evidence of the original Engineer’s Road (Macdonald 2002).

The second heritage site identified is the Royal Bank building at 2346 Clarke Street in Port Moody (BC Archaeological Site Inventory Number DhRr-186; Port Moody heritage register property No. 12; see Photos 16.15, 16.16 and Figure 16.9 ). The City of Port Moody classifies this commercial building as a historic place (Port Moody 2005: 15) and a heritage register property on their Moody Centre Heritage Properties map. The Royal Bank’s heritage value is based on its association with the early twentieth century development of Port Moody and the consistent and the bank’s distinctive built form. The

16-38

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

building dates from A.D. 1914 when Clarke Street was the commercial centre of Port Moody.

The Appleyard Residence is the third heritage site identified along the Project Alignment. The Appleyard Residence (B.C. Archaeological Site Inventory Number DhRr-126; Port Moody heritage register property No. 15; see Figure 16.10 and Photo 16.7 ) located at 2714 Clarke, Port Moody. The structure is protected by a Heritage Restrictive Covenant and is a Foursquare style Edwardian residential building dating to A.D. 1910. The Appleyard Residence was originally located on the opposite side of Clarke Street at 2717 Clarke, but was moved to its current location in 2006 and currently houses Heritage House Pizza.

Photo 16.15 Royal Bank building in Port Moody, BC (519+390).

16-39

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Photo 16.16 Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project corridor at rear of Royal Bank (on left) in Port Moody, BC.

Photo 16.17 Appleyard Residence at 2714 Clarke Street in Port Moody, BC.

16-40

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

16.5 Impact Assessment

16.5.1 Archaeological Sites

As no archaeological sites were identified during the archaeological and heritage impact assessment of the Project and no impacts to archaeological sites are anticipated as long as the proposed route does not deviate from the Reference Alignment.

16.5.2 Historic Heritage Sites

Three historic heritage sites identified during the assessment may conflict with the Project. The Project will directly impact North Road, but due to 140 years of improvements and modifications to the road its heritage value is low. The proposed use of North Road as the corridor represents another modification within an already highly urbanized and heavily impacted setting.

The Project is in conflict with the Royal Bank heritage building in Port Moody. As the proposed route is at grade for the Port Moody section, construction will directly impact the structure.

Construction of the Project will conflict with the Appleyard Residence in Port Moody. As the proposed route is at grade for the Port Moody section, construction will directly impact the structure.

16.6 Recommendations

16.6.1 Archaeological Sites

Further archaeological investigations are recommended for locations which were inaccessible during the field assessment due to existing obstructions. These locations are:

(1) 641 Clarke Road: remnant sediments in association with mature spruce and cedar trees should be subsurface tested once property has been acquired;

(2) the former Andres Winery site: in proximity to South Schoolhouse Creek and the unnamed creek on the Reichhold property were not tested due to capping of concrete and asphalt; should be tested and/or monitored during construction once property has been acquired and concrete and asphalt removed;

(3) an unnamed creek at 522+780 and the Scott Creek – Hoy Creek locality (523+210 to 533+440): not tested due to sediments being capped by concrete and asphalt; should be testes and/or monitored once property has been acquired and concrete and asphalt removed.

16-41

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

16.6.2 Historic Heritage Sites

The impact assessment of the Project concluded that the proposed development could cause adverse impacts to three historic heritage sites, North Road in Burnaby, the Royal Bank Heritage building in Port Moody, and the Appleyard Residence in Port Moody. Specific recommendations are provided for these historic heritage sites:

(1) The preferred option is site avoidance through project redesign. It is recommended that any future development of the Project avoid the Royal Bank (DhRr-186) and Appleyard Residence (DhRr-126). However, current development plans for the Project indicate that neither heritage building can be avoided as presently designed and therefore it is recommended that :

(2) Given that both heritage buildings, are of high historic importance to the City of Port Moody, preservation in the form of conservation and/or relocation is highly recommended.

(3) No further action is recommended for North Road.

No further assessment for historic heritage sites is recommended, provided that the proposed route does not deviate from the current Reference Alignment.

Users of this report should be aware that even the most thorough investigation may fail to reveal all heritage remains that may exist within the Project Area. All users of this report should be aware that:

(1) Archaeological remains in British Columbia are protected from disturbance, intentional or inadvertent, by the Heritage Conservation Act ;

(2) In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during construction or excavation activities, all ground disturbances in the immediate vicinity must be suspended at once and the Archaeology Branch (Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts) must be contacted. It is the individual’s responsibility to inform the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and the Archaeology Branch of the location and type of archaeological remains and the nature of the disturbance as soon as possible. A full archaeological assessment may be necessary before activities can proceed, or alternatively a heritage investigation or inspection permit under Section 14, or site alteration permit under Section 12 of the Heritage Conservation Act must be obtained, depending on the instructions from the Archaeology Branch and the nature of the remains.

(3) The Heritage Conservation Act can impose heavy fines and imprisonment for failing to comply with these requirements.

16-42

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

16.7 Conclusions

16.7.1 Archaeological Sites

No residual effects are anticipated as no archaeological sites were identified along the Reference Alignment.

16.7.2 Historic Heritage Sites

Three heritage sites located along Reference Alignment will be directly affected by the Project: North Road in Burnaby, Royal Bank heritage building and Appleyard Residence in Port Moody. Given extent of past, current and future planned development along North Road, Project-related effects on this heritage site are considered negligible. Both heritage buildings will likely be relocated prior to construction and preserved by City of Port Moody. No residual effects are anticipated.

16.8 References Alexander, D. and C. Grier. 2000. Archaeological Investigations at Cates Park District of North Vancouver . Prepared for the Corporation of the District of North Vancouver. Report on file with Tsleil-Waututh First Nation and the District of North Vancouver.

Alexander Heritage Consulting. 2005. Cultural Heritage Reports: Tsleil-Waututh First Nation Traditional Territory Indexed PDF files. Prepared for the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation and report on file with Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, North Vancouver.

Ames, K. M. and H. D.G. Maschner. 1999 . Peoples of the Northwest Coast. Their Archaeology and Prehistory . New York, Thames and Hudson Ltd.

Arcas Consulting Archeologists Ltd. 1995. Archaeological Investigations in Traditional Squamish Territory 1989-1992. Permits 1990-32 and 1990-89. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.

Archaeology Branch 1998. British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines . Third Revised Edition. Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Archaeology Branch. Victoria, B.C.

Armitage, D. 2001. Burrard Inlet. A History . Harbour Publishing, Madeira Park.

Armstrong, J.E. 1980. Vancouver Geology . Geological Association of Canada, Vancouver.

Armstrong, J.E. and S.R. Hicock. 1976. Surficial Geology. New Westminster, West of Sixth Meridan, British Columbia , Geological Survey of Canada Map 1484A, Ottawa, Ontario.

16-43

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Barnett, H.G. 1955. The Coast Salish of British Columbia . University of Oregon, Eugene (reprinted 1975 by Greenwood Press Publishers, Westport, Connecticut).

Boas, F. 1887. The Coast Tribes of British Columbia. Science 9(216):288-289. Boas, F. 1889. Notes on the Snanaimuq. American Anthropologist 2:231-328. Boas, F. 1891. Second General Report on the Indians of British Columbia. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science , 60:562-692.

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.

Borden, C.E. 1952. A uniform site designation scheme for Canada. Anthropology in British Columbia 3:44-48. Victoria, B.C.

Brown, D. and N. Oakes (Doug Brown and Nicole Oakes, Research and Consulting Archaeology). 2006. Kwikwetlem First Nation Heritage Interests as Related to Gateway Program Developments. Report submitted to the Gateway Program, B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Golder Associates Ltd., Burnaby, B.C.

Burnaby, City of. 2009. Heritage Burnaby. [Online] Available at: http://heritageburnaby.ca/ (Accessed on September 16, 2009). Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 1996. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: Reference Guide on Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ottawa.

Carlson, R. 1983. Prehistoric Art of the Northern Northwest Coast. In Indian Traditions of the Northwest Coast , R.L. Carlson (ed.), pp. 99-120. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Carlson, R. 2003. Archaeology of Coastal British Columbia : Essays in Honour of Professor Philip M. Hobler. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.

Charlton, A.S. 1972. Noons Creek and Belcarra: A Preliminary Report on Excavations Near Port Moody. In Salvage ’71: Reports on Salvage Archaeology Undertaken in British Columbia in 1971 . Edited by Roy L. Carlson, pp. 131-155. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University Publication No. 1, Burnaby, B.C.

Charlton, A.S. 1980. The Belcarra Park Site . Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Publication No. 9, Burnaby, B.C.

Coquitlam, City of. 1990. Coquitlam 100 Years: Reflections of the Past: One Hundred Years of History as Told by the Pioneers Themselves Who Recall Taming the Tree- filled Wilderness, the Warmth of a Growing Community and the Many Cultures Which Formed What Is Now Coquitlam . City of Coquitlam.

16-44

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Cranny, M. and D.E. Bunyan. 1975. Report on the Archaeological Survey of the North Side of the Fraser River, 1975. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.

Cutter, D.C. 1991. Malaspina & Galiano. Spanish Voyages to the Northwest Coast 1791 & 1792 . Douglas & McIntrye, Vancouver/Toronto.

Dahlstrom, B. 1996. Archaeological Overview Assessment, Indian Arm Provincial Park . Report prepared for B.C. Parks. On file with I.R. Wilson Consultants and B.C. Parks.

Demarchi, D.A. 1995. Map ofEcoregions of British Columbia. [4 th Edition] . Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria.

Demarchi, D.A. 1996. Introduction to the Ecoregions of British Columbia . Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria. [Online] Available at:

http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/325282/techpub_rn324.pdf (Accessed on January 4, 2010)

Demarchi, D.A., R.D. March, A.P. Harcombe and E.C. Lea. 1990. The Environment. In The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 1, Introduction: Nonpasserines, Loons Through Waterfowl, R.W. Campbell, N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall (eds.), pp. 55-144. Royal British Columbia Museum and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria. B.C.

Duff, W. 1964. The Indian History of British Columbia. Volume I: The Impact of the White Man . Anthropology in British Columbia Memoir No. 5, Victoria, B.C. Environmental Assessment Office. 2003. Guide to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Process. [Online] Available at: www.eao.gov.bc.ca/publicat/guide- home.htm .

Fisher, R. and Hugh J. (editors). 1993. From Maps to Metaphors: The Pacific World of George Vancouver . University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.

Fladmark, K.R. 1982. An Introduction to the Prehistory of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 6:95-156.

Fladmark, K.R. 1986. British Columbia Prehistory . Archaeological Survey of Canada. National Museum of Man. Ottawa.

Green, G. 1947. History of Burnaby and Vicinity . Shoemaker, McLean & Veitch, North Vancouver.

Green, G. 1952. Outline of Burnaby History, Jubilee Number 1952 . Wrigley Printing Co., Vancouver,

16-45

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Haggart, J.W., K.P. Klein, and K.D. Lund (compilers). 1997. Paleontological Resources of the Kamloops Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Area, British Columbia . Prepared by the British Columbia Paleontological Alliance Committee on Fossil Collecting and Regulation. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 3437.

Ham, L.C. 1991. An Archaeological Resource Inventory of the Barnet Highway Project, Port Moody, British Columbia. (British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act Permit 1991-29). Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.

Ham, L.C., M. M. Broderick, S. Yip, and R. Gindle. 1978. The Evaluation of Archaeological Sites In The Greater Vancouver Regional District: Proposals For Management . Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.

Hill-Tout, C. 1900. Notes on the Sk’qo’mic of British Columbia, a Branch of the Great Salish Stock of North America. Appendix II in the 70 th Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science for 1902 , pp. 472-549, London.

Hill-Tout, C. 1978. The Salish People: The Contribution of Charles Hill-Tout, Volume III: The Mainland Halkomelem, edited by Ralph Maud. Talonbooks, Vancouver.

Howe, D. G. 1981. Report of the Vancouver Island, Lower Mainland, Cariboo Regional Archaeological Impact Assessment Project 1980 (Permit 1980: 6). Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.

Howe, D. G. 1982. Report of the Vancouver Island, Lower Mainland, Cariboo Regional Archaeological Impact Assessment Project 1981 . Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.

Kirk, R. and R.D. Daugherty. 2007. Archaeology In Washington . University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Kuipers, A.H. 1969. The Squamish Language . Mouton, The Hague

Lamb, W.K. (editor). 1960. The Letters and Journals of Simon Fraser, 1806-1808. Macmillian of Canada, Toronto, Ontario.

Luttmerding, H.A. 1980. Soils of the Langley-Vancouver Map Area Volume 2 Soil Maps and Legend, Southern Sunshine Coast and Southern Coast Mountains (Scale 1:50,000), RAB Bulletin 18, Report No. 15 British Columbia Soil Survey, Ministry of Environment, Assessment and Planning Division, Province of British Columbia, Kelowna.

Macdonald, B. 2002. Charting Change . City of Burnaby Community Heritage Commission, Burnaby. [Online] Available at:

16-46

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

http://www.city.burnaby.bc.ca/residents/about/hstryh/hstryh_chrtch.html (Accessed on September 16, 2009).

Matson, R.G. and G. Coupland. 1995. The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, New York.

Matson, R.G., G. Coupland and Q. Mackie (Editors). 2003 . Emerging from the Mist. Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History. UBC Press, Vancouver.

May, J. and S. Lucs. 1976 . South Coast Regional Survey: Vancouver Island and the Lower Fraser Valley . Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.

McLaren, D. and M. Steffen. 2008 . A Sequence of Formed Bifaces from the Fraser Valley Region of British Columbia. In Projectile Point Sequences In Northwestern North America. Roy L. Carlson and Martin P.R. Magne (eds.), pp. 161-187. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University Press, Burnaby.

McMillian, A. D. 1971a. Excavation at Pigeon Cove, DhRr 9, Summer 1971. The Midden 3(5):6-7.

McMillian, A. D. 1971b. Excavation at Pigeon Cove, DhRr 9 . Prepared for the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board of British Columbia. On file with the Archaeology Branch. Victoria.

McMillian, A. D. 1982. Original Inhabitants of the Port Moody – Coquitlam Area. Port Moody Historical Society, Port Moody, B.C.

Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar. 1991 .Ecosystems of British Columbia . Ministry of Forests, Victoria.

Ministry of Forests and Range. 2008. Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Subzone/Variant Map for the Chilliwack Forest District, Coast Forest Region, Scale 1:250,000. [Online] Available at:

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/becweb/resources/maps/fieldmaps.html

Mitchell, D.H. 1971. Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia Area, A Natural Region and its Culture Types. Syesis 4 (Supplement 1). Victoria .

Mitchell, D.H. 1990. Prehistory of the Coast of Southern British Columbia and Northern Washington. In Handbook of North of American Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast. W. Suttles (ed.), pp. 340-358. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Monk, H.A.J and J. Stewart. 1958. A History of Coquitlam and Fraser Mills: 1858-1958 . District of Coquitlam-Fraser Mills Centennial Commission, New Westminster.

Norton, D.M. 1987. Early History of Port Moody . Hancock House, Surrey, B.C.

16-47

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Pojar, J., K. Klinka, and D.A. Demarchi. 1991. Coastal Western Hemlock Zone. In Ecosystems of British Columbia . D. Meidinger and J. Pojar (eds.), pp. 95-112. Research Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C.

Port Moody, City of. 2005. City of Moody Heritage Register. [Online] Available at:

http://www.cityofportmoody.com/Discover+Port+Moody/Heritage+and+History/Regi ster/default.htm (Accessed on 13 January 2010).

Roddick, J.A. 1979a. Vancouver North, Coquitlam, and Pitt Lake Map-Areas, British Columbia with special emphasis on the evolution of the plutonic rocks. Geological Survey of Canada Memoir 335. Department of Mines And Technical Surveys, Ottawa, Ontario.

Roddick, J.A. 1979b. Quaternary deposits Alluvial, Marine and Glacial Deposits (Map 1153A Geology Coquitlam British Columbia Scale 1:63,630).

Rozen, D. 1979. Part 3 of the Evaluation of Archaeological Sties in the Greater Vancouver Regional District: Proposals for Management . Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.

Smith, H.I. 1907. Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound. Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition 2(6); Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History 4(6):303-441, New York.

Sone, M. 1987. Pioneer Tales of Burnaby: Early Burnaby As Recalled By the Settles Themselves Who Arrived From Every Corner of the World Between 1888 and 1930, Some Witnessing Incorporation of the District in 1892, All Seeking A Better Life for Themselves and Especially for Their Children, All Helping transform the Wilderness into the Modern Municipality of Today . Edited by Michael Sone. Corporation of the District of Burnaby, Burnaby.

Spafford, J.,P. Merchant, M. Rousseau, R. Reimer, and M. Will. 1999. An archaeological impact assessment for Lots B, C, and D of District Lot 225, Plan 18341 NWD, Near Carraholly on Burrard Inlet, B.C. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.

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

Suttles, W.T. 1990. Central Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians , Volume 7, Northwest Coast . W. Suttles (ed.), pp.453-475. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Trost, T. 2005. Forgotten Waters: A Zooarchaeological Analysis of the Cove Cliff Site (DhRr- 18) Indian Arm, British Columbia. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.

16-48

Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 16: Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment

Tsleil-Waututh First Nation. 2001. Tsleil-Waututh First Nation Eco-Cultural Resource Guide For Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm. Report on file with Tsleil-Waututh First Nation. Turner, N. 1975. Food Plants of British Columbian Indians: Part 1 – Coastal Peoples. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Handbook No.34. Victoria.

Turner, N. 1979. Plants in British Columbian Indian Technology. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Handbook No.38. Victoria.

Wilson, I.R. Consultants Ltd. 2007. Archaeological and Heritage Resources in Evergreen Line Light Rail Transit Project, Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Chapter 6.8 . Report prepared by Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority for British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office.

Yip, S. and P. Gose. 1979. The Evaluation of Archaeological Resources of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (Fraser Valley Planning Study): Proposals for Management, Part II . Report prepared for the British Columbia Heritage Conservation Branch. On file with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.

16-49