Archaeological Overview Assessment Report - Terra Archaeology

Archaeological Overview Assessment Report

Christie Point Redevelopment Project
December 1, 2016
Project Number: 16-0969

Client & Project

Assessment Summary

Project Area Description

Realstar Property Management on behalf of Christie Point Apartments Limited proposes to redevelop an existing rental housing property (Section 2 Land District 21 Except Plan 11627 11919 41826 Pt Sec 2 Lying N of Plan 40RW & E of E&N Rly & W of Plan 10960; PID 000-869-597) which covers Christie Point, a peninsula in Portage Inlet, located within the Town of View Royal on southern Vancouver Island (Figure 1).

Christie Point Apartments currently comprises 161 low-rise apartment and townhouse rental units. Redevelopment plans include: replacing existing units with 473 new units in the form of townhouses and multi-storey apartment buildings, underground and above ground parking, road and sidewalk upgrades, and landscaping/tree planting. All of these proposed plans have the potential to alter documented or undocumented archaeological remains that may exist within the development footprint. However, the majority of the proposed development footprint overlaps existing structures and developed land surfaces on Christie Point (Figure 2).

Power is currently supplied to residential units via overhead lines; there are no plans to install new underground utilities. Shoreline access is currently by several ad hoc pathways and boat ramps; development plans include controlling shoreline access at a single point at the northeast part of the property.

This archaeological overview assessment (AOA), including a preliminary field reconnaissance (PFR), was commissioned by Realstar based on the Town of View Royal’s rezoning requirements. The results of this archaeological study are to be combined with a number of other preliminary studies of the property in a rezoning application package. Community meetings and a public open house event were held in mid-September 2016, a rezoning application was submitted in early October 2016, and additional consultation with the Town of View Royal was held in early November 2016.

Methodology

This AOA consists of a desk-based review of the study area surrounding six transmission circuits. A search for previously recorded archaeological sites was conducted using the Archaeology Branch’s Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) application. The Provincial Archaeological Report Library (PARL) was also searched for information on archaeological assessments that may have been completed near the study area. Terrain and aerial imagery throughout the study area were examined using Google Earth.

Historical air photos of the study area from 1926 and later were borrowed from the University of British Columbia’s Geographic Information Centre, and examined. In addition, a brief online search was conducted for relevant historical photographs and maps in the BC Archives’ digital media collection.

The PFR followed standard archaeological practices: all accessible portions of the property were surveyed on foot by a two-person crew, documented sites were revisited, exposed archaeological remains and features were noted, and a photo record of the survey was maintained. Lands considered to have archaeological potential based on field observations outside of documented archaeological site boundaries were also delineated.

Archaeological potential was assessed based on: proximity to the shoreline; documented archaeological sites; the presence of level to gently sloping, well-drained terrain with moderate-to-good soil development; and evidence of past land uses that might affect the integrity of buried archaeological remains or above ground archaeological features.

Local First Nations (e.g., Songhees and Esquimalt) may maintain records of cultural heritage information, including geographically referenced data, which can be useful for determining the potential for archaeological remains at specific locations throughout their territories. For this study, we did not make requests to First Nations for this kind of information.

Results and Discussion

Environmental Setting

The subject property is characterized by a natural setting typical of partially developed lands in the Coastal Douglas-fir moist maritime (CDFmm) biogeoclimatic subzone. This zone covers a small part of southeastern Vancouver Island, which experiences long dry summers, which in turn influences the ecology of the region. Several tree and plant species which define the zone are found nowhere else in Canada; some of these include important traditional food resources (Nuszdorfer et al. 1991). Mature specimens of native tree species common to this zone, such as Douglas-fir, arbutus and Garry oak are found throughout the subject property .

Portage Inlet is a shallow, saltwater basin fed by several freshwater streams (Figure 1), some of which support coho salmon runs. The inlet is also home to Olympia oyster, and extensive beds of eel grass which support spawning herring (CRD 2016, Owens et al. 1997). Abundant terrestrial and marine resources in the vicinity of Portage Inlet and The Gorge waterway would have been associated with a wide variety of traditional activities and a substantial pre-contact population (Owens et al. 1997).

Christie Point itself consists of a mixture of rocky knolls connected by two or three low-lying isthmuses. In general, soil development is poor on the rocky knolls and bedrock exposures are visible even in aerial imagery (see below). Foreshore settings range between uneven bedrock and boulders below steep bluffs and large tidal mudflats. Sections of foreshore have been subject to shoreline protection measures, including installation of rip-rap barriers .

Historical Setting

The earliest historical records for lands surrounding the subject property date from the establishment of the nearby Craigflower Farm, Manor and Schoolhouse, which were built on the former village site of Kosapsum in the 1850s (Duffus 1993). At the time of contact, the area was occupied by the Lekwammen, whose descendants are members of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. Both First Nations have reserves nearby.

A search for Christie Point using BC Geographical Names online search indicates that the name was not formerly adopted until 1979. Christie Point, a designation which has been used locally and appeared on street maps since the 1940s may have been named after John Christie, an owner of the Craigflower Farm in the 1930s and 1940s.

A search of the BC Archives’ digital records resulted in numerous results for Craigflower Farm, Manor and Schoolhouse , but no early- to mid-twentieth century records for the subject property, specifically. It appears that this conspicuous, rocky geographical feature was of little value to Euro-Canadians, whose focus was on land development for agricultural purposes. Despite this, Portage Inlet and the surrounding area has been a popular recreation area since non-indigenous people first settled the area in the late 1800s (CRD 2016). On the other hand, the subject property was obviously of some significance to First Nations, as the presence of a number of shell middens on Christie Point indicates (see next section).

Archaeological Setting

The general vicinity of Portage Inlet is rich in archaeological sites: approximately 30 previously recorded sites are situated within 1 km of the project area, and as many as 217 sites are known to be located within 5 km. Given the large number of archaeological sites in the area, details are provided for those within approximately 500 m of the project area (Table 1).

Middens are the most common site type present in the vicinity, although other site types including lithic scatters and burials have been recorded. The two largest sites in the vicinity of Christie Point, DcRu-92 and DcRu-4 (Kosapsum), represent significant village sites. Both sites have been subject to a number of archaeological investigations, including systematic data recovery programs within the last 20 years. The majority of the remaining sites located around Portage Inlet are documented primarily from surface surveys associated with archaeological inventory programs in the 1970s.

Also nearby are a number of designated heritage sites and historic structures, including Craigflower Manor (DcRu-159), the Craigflower Schoolhouse (DcRu-160), and numerous residences dating to the turn of the twentieth century.

All four of the archaeological sites which are known to be located on the subject property were first identified in 1975 during a broad survey of the southwestern Gulf of Georgia region carried out by the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board (ASAB; HCA Permit 1975-0006). Since these surveys occurred after existing buildings were constructed, no detailed archaeological information is available for the lands underlying structures and paved surfaces. Archaeologists surveying Christie Point in 1975 also noted that some of the midden material observed in gardens was likely imported from another location; midden deposits observed on the shoreline were interpreted as being in situ.

In 1978, Provincial Museum staff revisited some of these sites as part of an inventory-style study of the Victoria area (HCA Permit 1978-0016). Some subsurface sampling and evaluation took place at DcRu-104, the largest known site on Christie Point, in 1978. This work included preparation and profiling of exposed banks, and column sample collection for examination of the soil matrix and faunal (shell) remains. No artifacts were recovered (Powell 1978).

Limited site mapping is available from either the 1975 or 1978 studies, and all the site boundaries on Christie Point appear to have been established solely through surface observations.

Site DcRu-106 is the only site on Christie Point where lithics have been reported. Lithic artifacts were reportedly collected by local residents in 1972 prior to the formal recording of the site.

The subject property is covered by the Capital Regional District (CRD) archaeological potential model, which was developed “to provide municipal planners within the CRD with a tool to guide future development in a manner which considers archaeological potential” (Parker 2008:iv). The model consists of polygons of high archaeological potential, which generally correspond to the presence of level terrain adjacent to fish-bearing streams and coastlines. High potential polygons cover a significant portion of the subject property, which likely reflects the presence of level areas greater than 10 m in width. However, the model does not necessarily account for “false positive” high potential polygons reflecting the presence of all artificially level areas (level areas adjacent to Craigowan Road may have been filtered out; Parker 2008:8) or level bedrock exposures and other areas with poor soil development.

Imagery Review

Historical air photos show that the subject property was relatively unaltered prior to some possible trail-cutting in the 1950s, and construction of the Christie Point Apartments in 1963 [Images: Historical air photos from 1963]. Since construction of the current buildings, some minor land alterations are visible in air photos from the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s, including landscaping, shoreline protection, and gardening. However, the extent of significant land alterations appears to have changed very little in the last 50 years.

High resolution aerial imagery provided by the proponent and publicly available online (e.g., CRD Maps, Google Earth) shows that buildings and roads cover over 2 ha, or slightly less than one third of the entire property . Forested areas, rocky outcrops and open areas (lawns) cover the remainder of the property. It is likely that trees visible in the aerial imagery obscure additional buildings, paved surfaces and landscaped areas, so the extent of past land alterations is likely underrepresented based on a review of aerial imagery alone.

Preliminary Field Reconnaissance

During the field survey, shell midden exposures were noted at previously documented sites DdRu-103, DdRu-104 , and DdRu-105. No midden, or archaeological remains were observed at DdRu-106, and no archaeological remains were observed on the ground surface outside of the currently mapped site boundaries.

• DcRu-103: Midden exposures were visible eroding from the northwestern part of the site. However, there appears to be no conflict with current development plans.
• DcRu-104: Thick layers of intact shell midden were observed in the northern part of the site. No archaeological deposits were observed in the central and southern portions of the site. Portions of the site conflict with proposed redevelopment plans.
• DcRu-105: Shell midden was observed eroding from surface exposures in the northwest part of the site. There appears to be not conflict with current development plans.
• DcRu-106: No archaeological remains were observed in surface exposures, but the site area is relatively undisturbed (i.e., there were few surface exposures to inspect; ). Portions of the site conflict with proposed redevelopment plan.

In general, the field observations were consistent with the results of aerial imagery review: the subject property is characterized by unaltered rocky outcrops and landscaped areas where soil development is assumed to be better, and intact natural deposits are more likely to remain. Land alterations from construction of roads, parking lots, and buildings is assumed to be significant, although intact natural deposits may still exist under some built surfaces.

Tides at the time of the field survey were mid-height, and no archaeological features were observed during the crew’s brief assessment of the exposed foreshore or intertidal zone. Shoreline protection measures will have likely disturbed archaeological deposits associated with DdRu-104 and possible other undocumented archaeological sites which may exist above the high water line.

The crew delineated eleven areas of archaeological potential (AAPs) which are shown in Figure 3. Not all of these AAPs conflict with current development plans, but they indicate areas where subsurface testing for the purpose of site delineation and evaluation may be conducted prior to any project-related building demolition.

Archaeological Potential Assessment

Archaeological potential is considered to be high anywhere on the property where native soils exist due to the dense distribution of archaeological sites surrounding Portage Inlet. Archaeological potential is also high in the intertidal zones consisting of sand or mud.

For the purpose of the field survey, AAPs were identified in areas where subsurface testing is possible. Built up areas adjacent to AAPs should also be considered to have moderate to high archaeological potential until post-demolition inspection determines the extent of remaining native soils under paved surfaces or buildings. All other lands are considered to have low archaeological potential due to significant land alterations or poor soil development (bedrock exposures).

• AAP 1 – Lands with a gentle south aspect, between a parking lot and an existing building. It appears that the lawn covering this area is located on the natural ground surface.
• AAP 2 – Possibly testable area between bedrock outcroppings, existing buildings, and west aspect slope, in the vicinity of a community garden south of DcRu-103 .
• AAP 3 – Small area at top of rocky knoll, overlooking Portage Inlet.
• AAP 4 – Small landscaped area, northwest of DdRu-104.
• AAP 5 – Narrow strip between Craigowan Road and the beach, southwest of DdRu-104 .
• AAP 6 – Gently sloping lawn, south of DcRu-105.
• AAP 7 – Gently sloping lawn.
• AAP 8 – Small section of lawn between existing buildings, immediately west of beach.
• AAP 9 – Gentle southeast aspect area.
• AAP 10 – Lands southwest of DcRu-106 and northwest of two existing buildings .
• AAP 11 – Rocky knoll with some soil development, approximately 10 m east of shoreline. Only a few locations within this larger area warrant closer inspection due to previous disturbance or the presence of bedrock outcroppings.

Potential Development-Related Impacts to Archaeological Sites

Any alteration to the ground surface, including capping without excavation, has the potential to alter archaeological remains which are protected under Section 13 of the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA).

Many of the identified areas of archaeological potential are located beyond the proposed building footprints, which are generally confined to the existing building footprints. However, specific plans for road and pedestrian/bicycle paths, new tree plantings, other landscaping and shoreline stabilization were not considered as part of this study. It is likely that some of these future developments will conflict with areas of high archaeological potential.

Recommendations

Complete avoidance of documented archaeological sites and AAPs is the preferred archaeological site impact management option. Wherever possible, we recommend that development be designed to avoid lands covered by documented sites and AAPs.

An Alteration Permit, issued pursuant to HCA, Section 12 is required prior to any development-related alterations within the boundaries of documented archaeological sites, including DdRu-103, DdRu-104, DdRu-105, or DdRu-106.

If avoidance of an AAP is not possible, two options are recommended: