Municipal Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda
3:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS February 16, 2010
Please let Kathy VanderMeer know by 4:30pm Monday if you’re unable to attend the meeting. Kathy’s direct line – 320-3029 or [email protected]
Development Services office line - 320-3920.
MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE OF MEETING: February 16, 2010 TIME OF MEETING: 3:00 p.m. PLACE OF MEETING: Council Chambers
Alderman – Shaun Ward Alderman – Jeff Carlson Alderman – Ken Tratch Alderman – Tom Wickersham (Alternate) Member at Large – Gail Sarka Member at Large – Wayne McGinn Member at Large – Ron Peta Member at Large – Mark Murphy Member at Large – Bob Higgins
SECTION A
Minutes of the Municipal Planning Commission Meeting held on January 19, 2010 SECTION B Item 1 Gepke Stevenson 100 – 1 Avenue North, 5 – 5 Avenue North, 600 Scenic Drive North, 1 – 1 Avenue South, 709 – 1 Avenue South, 95 Botteril Bottom Road South, 99 Botteril Bottom Road South, 200 Indian Battle Road South. A request to augment the carrying capacity of existing 450mm and 600mm diameter sewer lines by installing an additional 1050mm diameter line in an adjacent location. The lines extend from the siphon chamber south of the Whoop up Drive Bridge (on the east side of the river) north to the Waste Water treatment plant. (DEV01714). Valley and Direct Control Districts.
SECTION A
Minutes of the Municipal Planning Commission meeting held on January 19, 2009
MINUTES of a Regular Meeting of the MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION held on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. with the following in attendance: MEMBERS: J. Carlson Alderman (Chairman) K. Tratch Alderman B. Higgins Member at Large R. Peta Member at Large G. Sarka Member at Large OTHERS: M. Gaehring Secretary to the Commission B. Peat Senior Subdivision Planner D. Sarsfield Recording Secretary ABSENT: W. McGinn
M. Murphy S. Ward
Member at Large Member at Large Alderman
K. TRATCH:
THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) held on January 5, 2010 be approved.
-------------------------CARRIED
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS:
“BLACKWOLF OUTLINE PLAN”: Application No. 2009-0033 Re: Proposed Outline Plan “Blackwolf” in North Lethbridge Avonlea Land Corporation Ltd. has applied for an outline plan approval of approximately 47 hectares (116 acres) of undeveloped land lying west of 28 Street North and north of the Uplands neighbourhood. The purpose of an outline plan is to expand on the policies established in the Area Structure Plan (ASP) to provide a more detailed planning and engineering framework to guide the phased subdivision and development of a new neighbourhood. Senior Subdivision Planner’s Presentation: Barry Peat, Senior Subdivision Planner, outlined the following information:
• Hardieville/Legacy Ridge/Uplands Area Structure Plan provides the policy framework and planning context for future planning at the outline plan level
• ASP envisions single detached, multi-family housing sites, school site, linear open space system, and a “swing site” area
• Outline Plan consistent with the policies and objectives outlined in the Hardieville/Legacy Ridge/Uplands Area Structure Plan
• Consistent with the policies of the Municipal Development Plan • Higher density multi-family node located in the northwest corner of the plan area • Can accommodate 860 dwelling units with a estimated population of 2,100 persons
• Utilizes a modified grid road network separating the community into three distinct residential enclaves linked by an intersection X-pattern of open space
• Storm water management features such as ponds, drainage channels and rain gardens will be incorporated into the open space areas
• School site, located in the southwest corner of the plan area, is intended for a public elementary school
• Swing site in the northeast quadrant of the plan area is anticipated to accommodate primarily residential development in the medium density range
• Swing site may also be used for institutional uses • Has been reviewed by the Development Review Committee
In closing, Mr. Peat stated that Development Services is recommending approval of the proposed Blackwolf Outline Plan. Applicant’s Presentation: Mr. Brian Johnson, Associated Engineering Ltd. and Steve Meszaros, Avonlea Land Corporation Ltd. advised as follows:
• Avonlea Land Corporation Ltd. was established in 2001 and has since developed over 400 single family lots plus multi-family and adult communities
• Firm has seen an increased need for multi-family housing • Medium density sites could be occupied by duplexes and sixplexes while the high
density site may be used for three storey apartment or condominium units • Plan is based on the traditional neighbourhood with a modified fused grid road • Balances the need of pedestrian and motorists in response to a quest for economic
efficiencies and environmental stewardship • Promotes active transportation • Proposed to follow existing ground contours • Cross section of integrated housing forms is throughout • ASP initially recommended a density of 10.5 units per hectare • Blackwolf Outline Plan proposes a density of 18.3 units per hectare and the ASP
has been amended to allow the higher density • Swing site potential land uses include low density housing, medium density housing,
and institutional uses • Development of Phase 1A is to commence in the spring of 2010 and is projected to
complete the final stage by the year 2020 • Open House held October 21, 2009 • Public Hearing held November 23, 2009 • Information on the ASP amendment as well as the Outline Plan was mailed out
There was no response to the Chairman’s three calls for anyone else wishing to speak. Questions: Mr. Peat, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Meszaros, and Ahmed Ali, City Transportation Engineer, responded to questions regarding:
• Rationale for this development • Use of innovations in residential design • Use of roundabout by vehicles and pedestrians • Buffering of the neighbourhood with existing adjacent neighbourhoods • Determination of density calculations • Future of communications tower • Risk of locating residential neighbourhoods adjacent to communications tower • Information on swing sites • Zoning process for swing site
The following motion was presented:
B. HIGGINS: THAT this application be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. THAT the Outline Plan Brief for Application No. 2009-0033, the Blackwolf Outline Plan be approved on the condition that future land use bylaw amendment applications and subdivision applications conform with this approval with respect to land use and street pattern to the satisfaction of the Approving Authority
------------------------CARRIED
______________________________________________________________________
G. SARKA: THAT the Municipal Planning Commission of January 19, 2010 be adjourned.
-------------------------CARRIED
CHAIRMAN SECRETARY
SECTION B
ITEM 1
Item 1 – Gepke Stevenson 100 – 1 Avenue North, 5 – 5 Avenue North, 600 Scenic Drive North, 1 – 1 Avenue South, 709 – 1 Avenue South, 95 Botteril Bottom Road South, 99 Botteril Bottom Road South, 200 Indian Battle Road South. A request to augment the carrying capacity of existing 450mm and 600mm diameter sewer lines by installing an additional 1050mm diameter line in an adjacent location. The lines extend from the siphon chamber south of the Whoop up Drive Bridge (on the east side of the river) north to the Waste Water treatment plant. (DEV01714). Valley and Direct Control Districts.
Waste Water TreatmentPlant
Crow
snest Trail
Whoop Up Drive
High Level B
ridge
5South Siphon Upgrade
January 26, 2010 EBA File: L22101177.200 City of Lethbridge 910 – 4 Avenue South Lethbridge AB T1J 0P6 Attention: Mr. Neil Evans Dear Sir: Subject: Engineering Services Proposed South Siphon Utility Project Lethbridge, Alberta
1.0 INTRODUCTION
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. (EBA) has been retained by the City of Lethbridge to provide engineering services for the South Siphon project to be constructed along the slope toe of the east wall of the Oldman River Valley. Specifically, EBA will be providing the initial geotechnical and environmental engineering services required for the approval process through the Municipal Planning Commission.
The project is understood to consist of the installation of an underground utility (South Siphon), bounded approximately from the south of Whoop-Up Drive to the Helen Schuler Interpretive Center, along the eastern extremity of the Oldman River Valley floor. Specific figures showing the proposed alignment were provided in a previous EBA report submitted to the City of Lethbridge for the Bridge Drive Utility Corridor project, EBA report reference L22101177.300, dated October 2008.
This letter report should be considered as a supplement document to the previous reports issued to the City of Lethbridge for the Bridge Drive Utility Corridor project. Authorization to proceed with the provision of engineering services was provided by Mr. Neil Evans, City of Lethbridge.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
The scope of work required for the geotechnical evaluation was specific to reviewing the requirements for a safe development setback line from the bottom of slope, as defined in City of Lethbridge Bylaw #5277, River Valley Area Redevelopment Plan (RVARP).
EBA Eng inee r ing Consu l t an ts L td .
p . 403 .329 .9009 • f . 403 .328 .8817 442 - 10 S t ree t N • Le thb r idge , A lbe r t a T1H 2C7 • CANADA
L22101177.200 January 25, 2010
ISSUED FOR USE 2
For this evaluation, EBA reviewed a report conducted for the Bridge Drive Utility Corridor project, EBA file reference L22101177.200, entitled Geotechnical Evaluation Bridge Drive Utility Corridor. In addition, EBA reviewed literature regarding the subsurface stratigraphic profile along the proposed alignment area contained in our in-house library, as well as conducted a detailed site reconnaissance along the alignment route. Specific photographs taken during the site reconnaissance are attached herewith.
It is understood that the underground utility will be installed using open trench methodology, except for the two areas which cross existing roadways and/or embankments. At these locations, it is understood that the utility pipe will be installed using trenchless technology (boring).
The utility alignment is along the eastern toe of slope of the Oldman River Valley. As depicted in the site photographs, the alignment appears to be very close to the toe of slope in some areas. The minimum development setback distance for the utility (assumed as edge of utility pipe) should be 4 m from the Bottom of Slope (as defined in Bylaw # 5277). At this distance, depending on the final excavation trench height, the excavation trench configuration may encroach on the Bottom of Slope.
It is therefore recommended that the alignment be surveyed in detail and a detailed site reconnaissance be conducted by EBA and the City of Lethbridge to address areas where special excavation techniques may be required to safely install the utility pipe and/or ensure stability of the lower slope profile, prior to construction taking place.
It is noted that the proposed Bridge Drive Utility Corridor to be constructed north of the South Siphon project (i.e., from where the two utilities tie-in point) was provided with a similar recommendation regarding Bottom of Slope setback distance.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
EBA conducted an Environmental Screening and Route Evaluation for the Bridge Drive Utility Corridor. This Environmental Screening was conducted on both the east side and west side of the Oldman River.
The South Siphon was included within the Bridge Drive Utility Corridor Environmental Screening and Route Evaluation that was submitted to the City of Lethbridge in September 2008 (EBA No. L22101177.300), as noted in Paragraph 2 on page 2 of the report.
The South Siphon extends from Whoop-Up Drive to the southern side of the High Level Bridge and connects with the eastern alignment of Route Option 3, noted in Figure 2 of the previous mentioned report. The assessment polygons are visible in Figure 3.
In reviewing the recommendations from the environmental screening report the Alberta Environment Water Act approval was recommended. However for the South Siphon construction, instead of an approval, they will require notification (14 days prior to
L22101177.200 October 2008 ISSUED FOR USE 20
For the analysis, soil strength parameters assumed by EBA were based on the results of moisture content and Atterberg Limit tests conducted by EBA on soil samples recovered from the alignments and from other sites (during previous evaluations) within the boundary of the City of Lethbridge within similar deposits. The historical data also includes triaxial test data obtained by EBA and others for other sites in the Lethbridge area. Groundwater conditions (pore pressure parameters), reasonably expected from the data collected in the fieldwork, laboratory program, and from information reviewed from past site studies were then selected by EBA to satisfy the observed conditions.
The slope profiles for the general analyses were taken from topographic elevation data provided to EBA by the City. Figure 1 depicts the elevation contours. For the slope noted for Option 2/3 above, the stratigraphic cross section (A-A’) is shown on Figure 2.
Slope stability analyses, using the above parameters, indicate that generally, the existing slopes along the alignments are “meta-stable”. Factors of Safety for shallow slope face failures are slightly higher than 1.0 in general. With respect to moderate depth instabilities (within the Lenzie Silts layer), the factor of safety varies between 1.0 and 1.5. For deep seated failures on the bedrock surface, the minimum factor of safety affecting the slope crest is typically a minimum of approximately 1.5.
With respect to Cross Section A-A taken within the slopes for Options 2/3, the factor of safety is approximately 1.0 for shallow and moderate seated slope failures in the area of the lower slopes. There appears to be ongoing slope creep and it is evident that the slope movements are founded within the upper bedrock profile.
7.3 CITY BYLAW SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Currently, the residential subdivision located at prairie level in this area (Heritage Heights) has been developed with a development setback restriction of approximately 30 m from the Top of Bank (scaled off of air photograph). City Bylaw #5277 outlines a number of conditions that must be taken into account in developing these setback distances. For the purposes of this report, two of the conditions are highlighted.
• The first consideration is with respect to the geologic deposit referenced as Lenzie Silts. Based on the bylaw, slopes above the Lenzie Silts deposit will tend to retrogress back to an ultimate slope profile of approximately 4H:1V. Therefore, minimum development setback lines should incorporate a line drawn at a slope of 4H:1V from the point where this deposit exits the face of the slope back into the property. The report concludes that the point where this 4H:1V line intercepts the ground surface at upper prairie level should be taken as the development setback line with respect to the Lenzie Silts deposit. Where site specific information is not available on the contact elevation of the deposit, the contact elevation shall be taken as 1.5 m below the contact elevation indicated in the AMEC report, which is referenced in the bylaw. The 4H:1V line for this slope section (A-A) has been shown on Figure 2 (in section) and on Figure 1 (where the line intercepts the prairie level). It is noted that the determination of the 4H:1V line assumes the top of Lenzie Silts deposit elevation of
Report - L22101177-200IFU.doc
L22101177.200 October 2008 ISSUED FOR USE 21
882 m, determined from this evaluation. In addition, a reasonable assumption of the thickness of colluvium covering the slope face was required, as shown on Figure 2. As shown, the 4:1 line development restriction line is well within the current development setback distance used for the subdivision development at the top of the slope.
• Another restriction to be considered in the bylaw is potential slope instability due to failure along the contact zone of the bedrock or within the bedrock layer. The bylaw (Section 3.4.2) states, “The ultimate failure angles for the mature bedrock slides covered a large range, but had a lower-bound angle of about 5H:1V, projected back of the bedrock contact. This is considered to a conservative limit to use as initial screening criteria for development. However, given the depth of the bedrock contact, these criteria could lead to excessively large setback distances that should be evaluated with specific geotechnical studies”. EBA conducted a site specific detailed computer model analysis for this potential slope failure type (i.e. along the bedrock contact zone). The analysis indicates that at the current setback distance (approximately 30 m) from the Top of Bank, the Factor of Safety against an instability along the bedrock contact zone at this line is greater than 1.5. The 5H:1V geometry model is therefore not relevant for this particular slope section.
Based on the stability analysis conducted by EBA, the current development setback line in the area of the Option 2/3 alignment appears appropriate, in compliance with City Bylaw #5277.
With regards to the subject development, the minimum bottom of slope setback outlined in the bylaw (4 m from defined Bottom of Slope) is appropriate. A detailed site reconnaissance and review of the final surveyed alignment will be required prior to construction to ensure any over steepened areas or minor slough areas are dealt with separately.
For the proposed development, Top of Bank setbacks are not truly relevant. Due care will be needed to ensure any proposed trench configuration is appropriate for the site specific topography or that any bore pits are designed appropriately where adjacent to any slopes. Remediation of the developed areas will be required to ensure surface drainage of the developed areas is not altered from that prior to development.
7.4 RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS Precautionary measures which should be included in the design of the proposed utility corridor developments (with respect to slope stability issues) are outlined as follows:
• Any fill excavated during development should not be disposed of within the development restriction zone unless directed otherwise after a review by the project geotechnical engineer. The development restriction zone is the area of land between the development setback line and the top of bank and includes any slope face areas.
Report - L22101177-200IFU.doc
L22101177.200 October 2008 ISSUED FOR USE 22
• Positive grading should be provided to ensure surface drainage from the development is
directed as either sheet flow over the crest of the slopes or away from the slopes into a storm water management facility.
• All utilities should be carefully installed and inspected to ensure they are in good working order.
• Normal, prudent design and construction procedures should be followed during development.
• The development recommendations of this geotechnical report should be closely adhered to.
The slopes should be treated as a restricted development zone. This involves:
• No excavation or disturbances of the slopes without prior review by the Geotechnical Engineer of record for the project.
• No clearing of vegetation.
• No fill to be placed on the crest of the slopes or on the slopes.
• Maintain vegetation cover along the crests and on the slopes.
• Notwithstanding the construction practices listed above, some sloughing and slope movements may occur.
8.0 GEOTECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 PREFERRED ROUTE SELECTION Based on the results of this geotechnical evaluation, there are a number of geotechnical issues which may be considered in the final route selection. Commentary is provided in the following sub-sections, as well as the recommended route, from a geotechnical perspective.
For Option 1, the route will follow the existing Bridge Drive roadway. At no point along this route is it deemed necessary to disturb any of the slope toe areas and this route should avoid all of the geohazards identified. It will be necessary to remove the road pavement section to allow the utility installations, requiring replacement of the pavement structure following development.
For both Options 2 and 3, the main point of geotechnical concern is the proposed route down the west valley slope (Section A-A’). Open cut methodology for installation of the utilities may be difficult due to the existing topography of the slope and the required utility inverts required. The invert elevation/location of the utilities would also require to be placed below any existing failure surfaces.
For Options 2 and 3, a directional drill method for the utility installation may be considered, however this method may prove to be uneconomical as compared to open cut methodology or selection of one of the alternate routes. The approximate start point and depth of bore
Report - L22101177-200IFU.doc
L22101177.400 October 2008 ISSUED FOR USE 25
Bridge Drive Utility Corridor EIA.doc
5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS
5.1 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS This section examines the cumulative effects of the proposed project in conjunction with past, present and potential future projects on wildlife and wildlife habitat, noise, and socio-economic issues.
Four steps are followed in this report in assessing cumulative environmental effects:
• Step 1 – Identify environmental effects resulting from project related activities.
• Step 2 – Identify other projects or activities that could interact with project related environmental effects.
• Step 3 – Exclude environmental effects of other projects or activities not likely to act in combination with the environmental effects of the project.
• Step 4 – Identify the likely cumulative environmental effects that could result from the interaction of project related environmental effects with other past and future projects and activities.
Based on the process outlined above, an assessment of cumulative effects associated with the Bridge Drive Utility Corridor Project concludes that the project is not expected to adversely affect other land uses occurring in the area. The proposed project has the potential of contributing minimal cumulative effects on the identified valued ecosystem components, but if the recommended mitigation measures are followed, any effects would be short term.
Noise
Existing long-term noise-producing activities that occur in the area are associated with traffic. Any potential noise impacts associated with construction activities will be short-term and activities will adhere to the municipal sound by-laws from 7 am to 10 pm. The cumulative impact of the noise source should be negligible.
5.2 RESIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS There are no expected residual environmental effects that would not be addressed through mitigative measures.
6.0 SUMMARY
6.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the assessment of the proposed preferred utilities alignment, EBA has determined that the proposed project has the potential to negatively impact the natural environment within the study area. The main VECs of concern are the wildlife that utilize the area,
L22101177.400 October 2008 ISSUED FOR USE 26
Bridge Drive Utility Corridor EIA.doc
adjacent wetlands, and the Oldman River fish habitat. In order to ensure that the proposed project has minimal impact on these VECs, the following is recommended:
• a site specific frac-out plan be created to ensure that in the event of a frac-out, specific mitigation measures are available and utilized to minimize any potential impacts to water quality and fish populations and habitat;
• construction timing between November 1 and March 31 is adhered to in order to minimize potential impacts to Prairie Rattlesnake populations adjacent to the proposed alignment;
• no debris from construction, eroded soil, or rock matter enters the Oldman River or affects the surrounding vegetation; and
• EBA also recommends the completion of both Sediment and Erosion Control and an emergency response ECO Plan, to protect the surrounding environment during construction activities.
6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS REQUIRED The following regulatory acts, both provincial and federal, are applicable to activities associated with the proposed project within the project area:
• Federal:
− Federal Fisheries Act – prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish such as oceans, rivers, lakes, creeks, and streams or into storm drains that lead to such waters.
− Navigable Waters Protection Act – forbids the building or replacement of work on, over, under, through or across any navigable waters (water where one could float a canoe or kayak) unless those works have been approved by the Department of Transport, Navigable Waters Protection Division, prior to the commencement of construction.
− Migratory Birds Convention Act – prohibits the killing or capturing of migratory birds, as well as damage, destruction, removal or disturbance of active nests. It also allows the Canadian government to pass and enforce regulations to protect various species of migratory birds and their habitats.
− Species At Risk Act – is designed to meet one of Canada’s key commitments under the International Convention on Biological Diversity. The goal of the Act is to prevent endangered or threatened wildlife from becoming extinct or lost from the wild, and to help the recovery of these species. It is also intended to manage species of concern and to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened.
HISTORICAL RESOURCES IMPACT ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT
CITY OF LETHBRIDGE BRIDGE DRIVE UTILITY CORRIDOR LETHBRIDGE, ALBERTA
completed for:
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. Lethbridge, Alberta
Permit 2009-179
Jason Gillespie
August, 2009
This document contains sensitive information about Historic Resources that are protected under provisions of the Alberta Historical Resources Act. This information is to be used to assist in planning the proposed project only. It is not to be disseminated, and no copies of this document are to be made without the written permission of Historic Resources Management Branch, Alberta Culture and Community Spirit.
ii
Archaeologists Jason Gillespie Neil Mirau
Dave Hastie Lyle Shanks
Report Author Jason Gillespie Editing Neil Mirau ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. for retaining Arrow Archaeology Limited. We would also like to thank the City of Lethbridge for the information and assistance provided in the completion of this report and Jim McMurchy of the Alberta Archaeological Society, Lethbridge Centre for his help in tracking down information on the “Medicine Rock”.
Cover Photo: View facing north, from Whoop-up Drive showing region where corridor passes near known sites.
2315 – 20 Street Coaldale, Alberta, T1M 1G5 Telephone 403 345 2812 Fax 403 345 2817 Cell 403 330 8376 www.arrowarchaeology.com
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the results of a Historical Resources Impact Assessment
(HRIA) undertaken by Arrow Archaeology Limited for EBA Engineering
Consultants Ltd., Lethbridge, Alberta. Alberta Culture and Community Spirit
issued a Schedule “A” (Project File: 4970-08-018) on October 9, 2008 requiring
completion of a HRIA for the proposed utility corridor. The legal description and
size of the proposed corridor is as follows: City of Lethbridge Bridge Drive Utility Corridor, Townships 8 and 9, Range 22, West of the 4th Meridian Total area: ca. 5.35 km x 10 m right of way (5.35 ha.) The utility corridor is located on both sides of the Oldman River within the City of
Lethbridge. The project consists essentially of two components, The Bridge Drive
corridor starts in West Lethbridge and runs due northeast down a coulee that is
occupied by Bridge Drive, crossing the Oldman River near the Highway 3 bridge.
On the east side of the river the utility corridor passes under Highway 3 and
parallels an existing road to the treatment facility in north Lethbridge. The second
component is called the South Siphon and runs north mostly along and within an
existing infrastructure right of way from Whoop Up Drive in the river valley to the
Highway 3 bridge where it joins the Bridge Drive utility corridor. Local near
surface geology is a combination of Holocene-aged sediments (mostly alluvial) in
the valley bottom and glacial-till and/or Cretaceous bedrock on the valley slopes
and upland. Cretaceous bedrock lies unconformably below the glacial deposits,
but most of the project will be located in existing disturbed areas and there is little
potential for the project to encounter fossiliferous bedrock.
Seven previously recorded archaeological sites were relocated as a result of this
HRIA (DkPf 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44 and 50). Three previously recorded sites
thought to be in the general area where not relocated (DkPf-33, 38 and 39), but
none are thought to be in the proposed project area. One previously unrecorded
site was discovered and recorded (DkPf-114). A search for palaeontological
iv
materials was conducted and no fossils or fossiliferous bedrock outcrops or
exposures were located within the proposed right of way development.
Recommendation We recommend that Historical Resources Act clearance be granted for this project, assuming all recorded sites can be avoided. The proposed utility corridor passes through DkPf 36 (the former river bottom Lethbridge townsite) and DkPf 40 (a former coal mine). The project is located within and existing utility/infrastructure corridor through most of the defined DkPf 36 area, so disturbance to cultural resources will be minimal. Nonetheless, we recommend monitoring for the DkPf-36 area during construction. DkPf-40 has been largely destroyed by previous development, primarily during the construction of Whoop Up Drive, and that portion of the site that will be impacted by the utility corridor has no significant historical value. Parts of the #8, #9, #10, Hamilton and City Mines may exist upslope from the proposed project, but these areas will not be impacted. The project may impact a former slag pile and a concrete slab of uncertain origin and which may be associated with the former mine, but neither of these remains are considered historically significant. We therefore recommend no further work in this area. The right of way also passes through an undisturbed alluvial terrace within the Helen Schuler Nature preserve. This is within protected natural area and was not subject to deep testing for environmental reasons. Deep testing was considered, but ruled out given the overall low likelihood of discovering historical resources and the damage such testing could caused to the environment. The area was subject to shovel testing and a metal detector survey. We do, however, recommend monitoring for this section of the right of way during construction (see map in report body).
v
A standing stone known locally as the “medicine rock” is located within the proposed right of way just east of the Fort Whoop Up interpretative facility in the river bottom. This rock was placed in its current location in 1980s by the City of Lethbridge and a circle of stone cobbles was constructed around it. Based on some accounts from long time Lethbridge Euro-Canadian residents, it was considered historically significant to local First Nations. The rock is not in primary context and the historical information regarding its significance is anecdotal. Blackfoot Nation Elders that we contacted had no specific memories or historical accounts of this rock. We recommend against designating this site as an archaeological site or historical resource, however it has become a part of the Fort Whoop Up interpretative site and we recommend that if the rock is moved to facilitate construction, that it be replaced as close to its current location as possible and the stone circle surrounding it be reconstructed. Finally, and although not directly related to this HRIA project, we recommend Alberta Culture and Community Spirit Historic Resource Management consider revising the currently designated sites within the river bottom on the east side of the river between Whoop Up Drive and the Helen Schuler Interpretative Centre to be integrated and considered part of the old Lethbridge river bottom town site (DkPf 36). This area is within the City’s Indian Battle Park. The current situation where small historical sites such as the remnants of single buildings is cumbersome, historically problematic and causes difficulty from an interpretive and CRM standpoint.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ii Executive Summary iii Table of Contents vi List of Figures vii Introduction 1 Environmental and Contextual Data 5 Land Use 5 Project Description 5 General Description of Project Area 5 Flora and Fauna 11 Previous Archaeological Studies 12 DkPf 50 High Level Bridge 13 DkPf 36 old Lethbridge town site 14 Delmark Store (DkPf 39) 16 DkPf 37 Stafford grave/cemetery 18 DkPf 38 stone circle (replica?) 19 DkPf 40 Drift Mines, Hamilton and City Mines 20 DkPf 41 Drift Mines 22 DkPf 42 Coal mine 23 DkPf 44 River shoring/ferry/dock location 24 DkPf 33 stone cairn 26 Research Strategy and Methodology 27
Results 28 DkPf 114 structure remains 28 Medicine rock (non archaeological) 35 Conclusions and Recommendations 38 References Cited 43 Appendix A Site Inventory Data 44
vii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Map of development in relation to Natural Regions of Alberta 2
Figure 2 Topographic map showing the right of way 3
Figure 3 Satellite image showing the right of way 4
Figure 4 Photo showing right of way passing through DkPf-36 6
Figure 5 Photo inside right of way at southern extension 6
Figure 6 Photo inside right of way in Fort Whoop Up Park 7
Figure 7 Photo inside right of way at Helen Schuler 7
Figure 8 Photo inside right of way at nature preserve 8
Figure 9 Photo inside right of way at parking lot 8
Figure 10 Photo inside right of way at north end 9
Figure 11 Photo inside right of way at start of east west section 9
Figure 12 Photo inside right of way in Bridge Drive 10
Figure 13 Photo inside right of way near river 10
Figure 14 Map showing view sheds 11
Figure 15 Map of all sites near the right of way 13
Figure 16 Photo in DkPf-36 16
Figure 17 Map showing Kennedy and Reeves historic data 17
Figure 18 Map showing the possible locations of DkPf-39 18
Figure 19 Photo of DkPf-37 20
Figure 20 Photo of DkPf-40 21
Figure 21 Photo of DkPf-40 22
Figure 22 Photo of DkPf-41 23
Figure 23 Photo of DkPf-42 24
Figure 24 Photo of DkPf-44 25
Figure 25 Photo of DkPf-44 25
Figure 26 Photo of DkPf-44 26
Figure 27 Map of shovel tests 28
Figure 28 Photo of DkPf-114 29
Figure 29 Photo of DkPf-114 30
viii
Figure 30 Photo of DkPf-114 30
Figure 31 Map of DkPf-114 31
Figure 32 Photo of historic asphalt 32
Figure 33 Photo of historic debris 33
Figure 34 Photo of buried concrete 33
Figure 35 Shovel test near historic debris 34
Figure 36 Photo of historic ring 37
Figure 37 Photo of centre stone in historic ring 37
Figure 38 Map showing areas for monitoring 39
1
INTRODUCTION
Personnel from Arrow Archaeology Limited conducted a Historical Resources Impact
Assessment (HRIA) under Archaeological Research Permit 2009-179 in August and
September, 2009. The HRIA examined a proposed utility corridor located within the City
of Lethbridge (Figure 1, 2 and 3). The legal descriptions, and Historical Resource
Values (HRV), of the lands within the proposed development are as follows: City of Lethbridge Bridge Drive Utility Corridor, Townships 8 and 9, Range 22, West of the 4th Meridian Total area: 5.35 km x 10 m right of way (5.35 ha.) LS 1, 3, 6, 11, 12, 14 of Section 1, TWP 9, R 22 W4 LS 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 of Section 2, TWP 9, R 22 W4 LS 11, 14 of Section 36, TWP 8, R 22 W4 HRV values: 3a, 3h, 4a, 5a, 5p
The HRIA was completed for:
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. 442 10 street North Lethbridge, Alberta
T1H 2C7 Contact: Mandi Parker The HRIA was intended to locate and assess historical resources within the
development area and provide recommendations for avoidance, mitigation and
preservation of any such resources. This final report provides the results of the HRIA,
including project description, background data, applied methodologies, and
recommendations regarding historical resource impacts.
2
Figure 1. General location of project. Inset image derived from Google Earth.
3
Figure 2. Topographic map showing the general location of the Bridge Drive Utility Corridor.
4
Figure 3. Google satellite image showing general location of Bridge Drive Utility Corridor.
5
ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONTEXTUAL DATA Land Use The proposed utility corridor is located entirely within the City of Lethbridge. The north-
south portion runs through Indian Battle Park and the Helen Shuler Nature Preserve.
Much of this area has been disturbed by previous development (mining, residential,
agricultural, and recreational) and relatively recent roads, underground and above
ground infrastructure corridors, parking and modern use facilities related to Indian Battle
Park use. That portion that runs north to south from Whoop Up Drive to the Highway 3
bridge (see Figure 3 above) is located mostly within an existing utility corridor/right of
way and within a former road (now a pedestrian pathway) That portion of the project
running from West Lethbridge to north Lethbridge is mostly within existing road ways
and in areas of modern urban development.
Project Description The right of way will be used for a sewer line which will be buried approx 1.8m deep. It
will parallel existing road allowances for much of the route (Figures 5-14) and will
parallel an existing sewer/water line though Indian Battle Park (Figure 4). Surface and
near surface disturbance will involve excavation of a trench for construction. No new
accesses or other disturbances outside the right of way are anticipated.
General Description of the Project Area
The proposed development is in the Dry Mixedgrass Natural Region, a large ecotone
occupying the southeastern section of the province (Figure 1). The regional landscape
is largely the result of two geological processes: 1) post-glacial incision of the Oldman
River valley, and 2) Holocene-aged floods (Beaty 1975). Valley edges have been
modified by colluvial processes and the coulees were created by long-term wind action.
6
Figure 4. Image showing how the right of way will parallel an existing water/sewer line. The red lines show the right of way. The arrows show existing utility holes. This image is within DkPf 36.
Figure 5. Image looking north showing southern extension of the right of way. Trail and weedy species at right of photo are in the existing right of way.
7
Figure 6. Image showing portion of the right of way in Indian Battle Park.
Figure 7. Image showing the Helen Shuler Nature Centre. The project corridor runs under the parking lot in this view and runs north on the east (right) side of the Helen Schuler Centre building in this photo.
8
Figure 8. The right of way runs along this walk way (right) in the nature preserve.
Figure 9. Right of way passes through this parking lot before it joins the east-west section.
9
Figure 10. The northern section of the right of way runs along this existing sewage treatment plant access road.
Figure 11. The east-west section of the right of way starts in the field adjacent to the valley.
10
Figure 12. The right of way runs along Bridge Drive in the current road allowance.
Figure 13. The right of way runs through an existing park on the west side of the river valley.
11
Figure 14. Map showing view sheds for photos along right of way. Numbers correspond to figures in text. As noted above, much of the project area is in disturbed terrain, however, the project
runs along an existing road in a natural coulee on the west side of the Oldman River
Valley and within the river valley it is located on flood plain and alluvial terraces. Near
surface sediments are primarily reworked glacial and early post glacial materials.
Well-drained Black Chernozems are the dominant soils along the valley upland and
coulees. Shallow alluvial soils are common in the valley bottom. (Natural Regions
Committee 2006). However, most the soils within the right of way are developed on
recently disturbed sediments.
Flora and Fauna There is a limited amount of native prairie vegetation within the right of way. A portion of
the project runs through the Indian Battle Park natural area (essentially between the
High Level Bridge and the Highway 3 bridge) and this area is riverine gallery forest.
Populus sp. are scattered throughout the valley bottom. Portions of the right of way are
12
also covered in dense bush (e.g. chokecherry (Prunus sp.), juniper (Juniperus sp.) and
willow (Salix sp.).
A variety of large mammals are present in the general area including whitetail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and coyote (Canis latrans).
Bison (Bison bison) and other large mammalian fauna would have been present in the
past. Birds, reptiles and other terrestrial animals are common in the area.
Previous Archaeological Studies Prior to conducting fieldwork, site data from the Borden Block in which this area is
situated were examined. The proposed area of development is in Block DkPf. There are
114 recorded sites in the block. Most are prehistoric campsites or historic sites relating
to mining operations in the valley. The sites in the immediate area of the proposed utility
corridor (Figure 15) were located mostly during a 1982 HRIA conducted prior to some
development at Fort Whoop Up Park (Kennedy and Reeves 1983). Another HRIA later
preceded an expansion of Whoop-Up Drive (Hanna 1999).
13
Figure 15. All known sites near the right of way. All sites are DkPf. The right of way is marked in red.
DkPf-50 (High Level Bridge)
Site Type: Historical Bridge Legal Site Description: 16-35-8-22-W4M, 13, 14, 15-36-8-22-W4M UTM (NAD 83): 12U 365834 5506709 Site Size: approx. 1500 meters long Significance: Highly Significant (HRV 3) Recommendations: No further work is required at this site as it will not be impacted by the proposed development. The High Level Bridge (DkPf-50) is a nationally important historic site. The bridge was
completed on June 22, 1909 (Johnston 1977: 28) and was constructed as part of a
realignment of the Nelson to Lethbridge rail line that passed through the Crowsnest
Pass. At the time of its construction it was the longest and tallest rail bridge in the world
14
(Kennedy and Reeves 1983: 2.66). This year is the bridge's centennial and during the
field portion of this HRIA city crews were seen hanging lights on the bridge to celebrate
the its history. A detailed technical and historic description of the bridge can be found in
Kennedy and Reeves (1983).
The proposed utility corridor will pass under the bridge, but will not impact the site.
Therefore, no additional work is recommended.
DkPf-36 (Coalbanks, old Lethbridge town site, Company Bottom)
Site Type: Historic town site Legal Site Description: 14-36-8-22-W4M and 3-1-9-22-W4M UTM (NAD 83): 12U 365842 5506599 (approximate site centre) Site Size: 200 meters by 50 meters (site is larger, however this is the currently accepted site parameters. Significance: Significant (HRV 4) Recommendations: The utility corridor will pass through this site so monitoring is recommended, based on the site’s significance and the potential for buried material. Previous researchers have, however, suggested that most of the site has been destroyed (Kennedy and Reeves 1983, Hanna 1999). The original site forms indicate that while surface debris was seen (brick, nails, metal) it likely related to later 20th century buildings and not earlier 19th century structures (like the 1883 Bankhouse) (Saylor 82-92). Coalbanks (Figure 16 and 17) was first formally recorded during the 1982 HRIA, when
Saylor reported three house foundations and scattered historic debris at this location.
Kennedy and Reeves (1983) provides a detailed history of settlement and industrial
activities in the area. They divide the history into two periods, The Coalbanks (1883-
1893) and The Bottoms (1892-1965).
The Coalbanks was the period of early mining in the valley. Important sites relating to
this period are the #1 and #2 drift mines (part of DkPf-41), 1883 Bankhouse, and Galt
House (Figure 17), along with various other smaller mine buildings. None of these relate
to DkPf-36.
15
The Bottoms period followed major floods in the valley. Many of the recorded structures
date to this period when the valley was used by transitory workers, many of whom
rented land from the City. The structures recorded as part of DkPf-36 were built in this
period (labeled as 1930's shacks on Figure 17).
There is some confusion over the size of DkPf-36. Current Alberta Culture and
Community Spirit records, based on the original Saylor site forms, indicate it covers the
area just north and south of the High Level Bridge (Figure 15). However, Hanna (1999)
includes structures near Whoop-Up Drive as part of DkPf-36. Hanna appears to be
including all structures within Indian Battle Park as part of the site. While this
interpretation may be warranted based on inset map in Kennedy and Reeves (1983),
other structures within the park have been given separate Borden designations. It is our
opinion that ACCS should consider expanding the boundaries of DkPf-36 (see below),
to include the entire historical townsite area within the river bottom. It is our opinion that
this would be a more efficient and effective designation and would avoid difficulties
arising from multiple Borden numbers recording small areas of what is a single
contiguous former town site.
During the HRIA few historical remains were found on the surface due to modern
disturbances, development, intensive recreational use of the area and because of
repeated 20th century floods in the area. Most of this area was underwater and
subsequently blanketed with more than 50 cm of alluvium from the most recent major
flood in 1995. This alluvium has likely covered any remaining surface cultural material
Saylor observed by in 1982.
While it is unlikely that in situ remains of historic structures exist with DkPf-36, any such
remains will be deeply buried. We recommend monitoring for this portion of the utility
corridor.
16
Figure 16. Photo looking south across Coalbanks site (DkPf-36). The High Level Bridge runs through the site.
Delmark Store or DkPf-39
The 1940's Delmark Store (Figure 17) is recorded in Kennedy and Reeves (1983).
Several historic photos of the store are included in their report. There is some confusion
over the designation of this site. Kennedy and Reeves (1983:4.6) indicate that DkPf-39
is "Delmark, Lakusta Houses". However, the original site form by Saylor places DkPf-39
about 100 meters to the west (Figure 18). This location is the one currently used by
ACCS.
Attempts to locate historical remains near the currently mapped location of DkPf-39
were unsuccessful. Any remains in this area may be deeply buried or may have been
destroyed by parking lot and road upgrading since it was recorded. Nonetheless,
17
Kennedy and Reeves inset map (1983) indicates that there were historical structures
near the currently mapped location of DkPf-39.
Figure 17: Google image with historical information from Kennedy and Reeves (1983). Red text indicates drift mine locations. Yellow text indicated historic lots. Transparent red line is the proposed utility corridor. Note: only structures near the proposed corridor were included on the map. See inset map in Kennedy and Reeves (1983) for a detailed listing of all structures within Indian Battle Park.
Using the Kennedy and Reeves inset map, The Delmark Store was located under what
is now a large parking lot. While the proposed utility corridor will pass nearby the area it
is not known to contain in situ historical resources. However, we recommend monitoring
for this portion of the utility corridor.
18
Figure 18: The two locations for DkPf-39. The currently mapped ACCS location is based on the original site form. The location of Delmark Store is indicated, which Kennedy and Reeves refer to as DkPf-39.
DkPf-37 (Stafford cemetery)
Site Type: Historic cemetery Legal Site Description: 14-36-8-22-W4M UTM (NAD 83): 12U 365763 5506390 Site Size: 5 meters by 5 meters (although it may be larger) Significance: Significant (HRV 4) Recommendations: The site is more than 150 meters west of the proposed corridor and will not be impacted. No further work is recommended. This site is a single sandstone burial maker of Henry Stafford who died in 1883. Saylor
notes that there are several bodies buried at this location (Figure 19), however this has
not been confirmed. Additional graves were once thought to be located in this location.
(Johnston et al. 1989, 19a). Along the with the Galt family, the Stafford's were important
19
pioneers in Alberta early coal mining history (Kennedy and Reeves 1983). The burial
marker is fenced off and interpreted.
DkPf-38
Site Type: stone circle Legal Site Description: unknown (see previous site forms) UTM (NAD 83): unknown (see previous sites forms) Site Size: unknown Significance: Significant (HRV 4) Recommendations: This site is a stone circle. The exact location is not known as only general UTM coordinates are provided, however, based on the original site form (Saylor 82-92) it is located more than 150 meters west of the proposed utility corridor. No further work is recommended. The original site form indicates that this is a deeply buried stone circle. Our efforts to
relocate the site were unsuccessful. The site is likely buried by more than one meter of
alluvial based on the original description and the depth of 1995 flood deposits. Saylor
speculates that this stone circle is not precontact based on its location and form. He
states that it is in the flood plain. Given that is appears to be located on a lower terrace,
repeated floods and alluvial deposition in the 20th century suggest that it was
constructed not many years before it was observed by Saylor. Given this it is our
opinion that this is not an archaeological site.
20
Figure 19. Sandstone burial marker of DkPf-37.
DkPf- 40 (Drift Mines 8, 9 and 10, Hamilton and City Mines)
Site Type: Historic mines Legal Site Description: 10-36-8-22-W4M UTM (NAD 83): 12U 366164 5506022 Site Size: 50 meters by 10 meters (although larger portions may exists up in the coulee) Significance: Significant (HRV 4) Recommendations: The proposed utility corridor passes through this site and may impact a slag/drift pile and a concrete slab. Other intact portions of the mine may remain upslope from the project area, however previous research indicates much of the site has been be destroyed by past developments (Hanna 1993). No additional work is recommended for this site. This site is made up of several historic mines including Drift Mines 8, 9 and 10, Hamilton
and City Mines (Kennedy and Reeves 1983; Hanna 1993). Drift Mines 8, 9 and 10 date
between 1887 and 1890 (Kennedy and Reeves 1983: 2.51). The City Mine operated
from 1908 to 1941 (Kennedy and Reeves 1983: 2.72). The Hamilton mines operated
between 1917 and1925 (Kennedy and Reeves 1983: 2.73). While ACCS currently has
21
the site mapped as a point, with no polygon, it is actually 200 meters by 100 meters
using the data from Kennedy and Reeves (1983).
The only mine remains that may be impacted by the proposed utility corridor are two
piles of coal slag and a small concrete slab, covering an area of 50 meters by 10 meters
(Figure 20 and 21). The concrete slab is 2 meters by 1.5 meters. These remains are
located within the right of way, between the valley edge and Fort Whoop Up. The utility
corridor will not impact any mine entrances and the coal slag piles may be secondary
deposits caused by slumping along the coulee wall (Hanna 1999). The small concrete
slab appears to be isolated and not part of a larger structure.
While the proposed utility corridor passes through this site it will not impact any
significant remains. Only two coal slag piles and a small concrete slab may be impacted
and it is our opinion that they do not have significant heritage resource value. No further
work is recommended for this site. The primary remains associated with this particular
mine were destroyed during construction of Whoop Up Drive.
Figure 20. Coal slag piles which are part of DkPf-40.
22
Figure 21. Concrete slab which is part of DkPf-40.
DkPf-41 (Drift Mines 1, 2 and 3)
Site Type: Historic mines Legal Site Description: 3-1-9-22-W4M UTM (NAD 83): 12U 0365880 5506778 Site Size: 100 meters by 50 meters Significance: Significant (HRV 4) Recommendations: The site is located on the east side of the road and will not be impacted by the proposed utility corridor. No further work is recommended. This is the location of the Galt Mine (Figure 22). Kennedy and Reeves (1983) label this
as Drift Mine 1,2 and 3 (Figure 17). It operated between 1883 and 1893 and is one of
the oldest mines in the valley. It is well interpreted with several information plaques and
a large interpretive structure. The site consists of four mine entrances and several slag
piles. It is east of the proposed right of way and will not be impacted.
23
Figure 22. Photo showing the DkPf-41 area and the associated interpretive kiosk.
DkPf-42
Site Type: Historic Mine Legal Site Description: 6-1-9-22-W4M UTM (NAD 83): 12U 0365871 5507370 Site Size: 15 meters by 15 meters Significance: Significant (HRV 4) Recommendations: The site is located on in the coulees on the west side of the walking trail and will not be impacted by the proposed utility corridor. No further work is recommended. This site consists of coal slag left on the coulee surface (Figure 23). Saylor notes that
this is the general vicinity of the Jack Rawlingson Mine, but the precise location of that
mine is uncertain. The mine is not mentioned in Kennedy and Reeves except that they
recommend the Borden designation be deleted because the mine is not historic (1983:
4.7). Their report is mistaken in this respect. The recorded site area is located 40
meters east of the proposed right of way and will not be impacted.
24
Figure 23. Photo looking east at the location of DkPf-42. Coal slag is scattered on the coulee surface. This photo taken from just east of the proposed right of way through the river bottom
DkPf-44 Site Type: Historic River shoring/dock location Legal Site Description: 12-1-9-22-W4M UTM (NAD 83): 12U 0365457 5507661 Site Size: 25 meters by 5 meters Significance: Significant (HRV 4) Recommendations: The site is located more than 80 meters to the south of the proposed utility corridor and will not be impacted. No further work is recommended. This site is located on the west side of the river. It is a 25m long section of wooden
shoring running along an old meander of the Oldman River (Figure 24, 25 and 26). The
shoring is constructed from 4x4 wooden posts and held together with iron bolts and nuts
(Figure 25). The remains suggest that it may have been a may have been a ferry
crossing or boat launch. The previously mapped location for this site is along a now cut
off channel/backwater. The channel would have been active when the site was
constructed. The remaining intact portion of the site is located east of the formerly
recorded location (Figure 24 and 25). This intact portion is the one used to mapped the
25
site. A search through historical material failed to provide any firm indication of the
origin of this site or what is was used for, however again, the most likely interpretation is
the remains are from a ferry crossing or docking point.
Figure 24. A part of the wooden shoring of DkPf-44. The area is completely overgrown now.
Figure 25. A close-up of the shoring at DkPf-44.
26
Figure 26. Pile of wood similar to the shoring of DkPf-44. This wood is in a cutoff channel just southwest of the primary remaining site area. There is a recent berm built between the cutoff channel and the site which may have destroyed this section of the shoring. This material may also be due to the 1995 flood which destroyed many structures in the river bottom. The material in the photo may have been deposited here from a substantial distance upstream and given that this area is now isolated from the river, the material remained here after flood waters subsided. It is likely that repeated floods and reworking of the local river channel have destroyed
most of the original site.
DkPf-33
DkPf-33 was recorded as a stone cairn located on a terrace at the mouth of the coulee
system by Saylor (82-92). It is described as deeply buried and containing 10 medium
sized stones. The description of a cairn as “deeply buried” in incongruous given the
nature of these features and it is our opinion that Saylor may have mistaken a natural
agglomeration of rocks as a cairn. Our attempts to relocate the site were unsuccessful
using the currently mapped ACCS location. Nonetheless, the site appears to have been
recorded as lying east side of the walking trail/former road through the area and will not
be impacted by the proposed utility corridor.
27
RESEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODOLOGY
The general research strategy employed was outlined in the permit application
previously submitted to the Archaeological Survey of Alberta. Prior to conducting
fieldwork, an archival search was conducted to determine the presence of recorded
historical resources in the area and topographic maps were examined to determine the
presence of landforms that are considered to have high potential to contain
archaeological or other historical resources. Site discovery procedures consisted of
coverage of the proposed project area and surrounding area via pedestrian survey.
Arrow Archaeology personnel conducted an HRIA in August and September, 2009. The
portions of the right of way in the valley bottom were covered by 100% surface survey.
This entire corridor area was subject to repeated surface inspections by the field crew.
That portion of the right of way running down the slope of Bridge Drive was only spot
checked and the right of way in this area is within and existing developed roadway.
Vegetation cover was moderate in most areas, however vegetation cover within the
gallery forest north of Helen Schuler Centre was often dense.
The right of way within the nature preserve, north of the Helen Schuler Centre was
examined with a metal detector because this area was not subjected to deep testing
(see below). Only modern debris was found during this examination.
Shovel testing was limited to areas where surface indications suggested the presence
of cultural resources and where observed conditions suggested that there was potentailf
for the presence of buried cultural materials. Extensive shovel testing was not used
because more than 50cm of alluvial dating to 1995 covers most of the valley bottom and
other 20th Century floods have resulted in the accumulation of alluvium over 1 m thick
within most of that portion of the project located on the low alluvial terraces of the
Oldman River. Deep testing was not used because most of the right of way parallels
existing pipelines or road allowances. Additionally, during discussions with the City of
Lethbridge and the engineering group it was decided that the Helen Shuler Nature
Preserve was environmentally sensitive to equipment moving and deep testing during
28
the warm season. Development plans stipulate that trenching be done in the winter to
minimize disturbance to sensitive environmental areas. It was decided that monitoring
was the best alternative to warm season deep testing within the nature preserve.
Nineteen subsurface tests were excavated (Figure 27). Sediment was screened through
6 mm mesh, including troweling and hand sorting to search for lithics, bone or any other
indication of the presence of historical resources.
Figure 27. Map showing the area where shovel tests were excavated (green squares. Not to scale). The right of way is shown as a red line. DkPf-44 and the associated debris in the oxbow lake are shown also. RESULTS Newly recorded site
DkPf-114
Site Type: Historic structural remains Legal Site Description: 3-1-9-22-W4M
29
UTM (NAD 83): 12U 365808 5506989 Site Size: 10 meters by 10 meters Significance: Significant (HRV 4) Recommendations: The site is more than 30 meters west of the proposed utility corridor and will not be impacted. No further work is recommended. One site was recorded as part of this HRIA. It consists of historic structural remains and
is located 50 meters north of the Helen Shuler Nature Centre, and 30 meters west of the
proposed right of way (Figure 31). The site consists of a concrete slab, a metal
well/sewer pipe and a metal rod exposed on the surface (Figures 28-31).
Figure 28. Photo of an exposed metal rod at DkPf-114.
30
Figure 29. Photo of the metal sewer or well.
Figure 30. Photo of a concrete slab.
31
Figure 31: Outline map of DkPf-114.
The structural debris are scattered on a small raised landform. The concrete slab and
debris are all clearly in secondary context, however, the metal well pipe and rod appear
to be in situ. The site has been disturbed at some point.
The site is likely a mining shack/residence or structure related to mining operations. It
may be an extension of DkPf-36, however, given it is located on the north side of the
nature centre it has been given its own site designation. We conducted a historic land
title search and the land has never been titled to any party other than the City of
Lethbridge. No information was located that could confirm its original function or
ownership.
The location of the structure does not coincide with any of the structures recorded by
Kennedy and Reeves (1983), however it is near the 1885 Boarding House (Figure 17)
and may be related to that structure.
32
The site is separated from the proposed utility corridor being about 30 meters to the
east and on a different landform. It will not be impacted, therefore no further work is
recommended.
Surface scatter of modern debris
During survey of the Bridge Drive section of the right of way on the west side of the
Oldman River, a scatter of historic debris was found a short distance south of the Bridge
Drive-Highway 3 interchange. Several shovel tests were excavated to determine the
nature of this debris (Figure 27). The remains consisted of modern asphalt, metal wire,
and concrete (Figures 32-34). All but one shovel test proved negative. A single small
piece of concrete was found buried just below the surface (Figure 34). However, given
the depth of alluvium dating to 1995, it is unlikely that this debris was buried even 15
years ago. The mixture of debris, including modern asphalt, and the location directly
adjacent to Highway 3, suggests that this debris may be very recent (less than 20 years
old) and left behind during improvements to the highway. This debris is not considered
to be historically significant.
Figure 32. Image of recent asphalt found within the right of way.
33
Figure 33. Metal debris found in the area, not considered historically significant
Figure 34. An excavated concrete slab found just below the surface.
34
Figure 35. One of the shovel tests excavated in the area of this debris.
35
Medicine Rock/stone circle
Site Type: Boulder with a constructed stone circle (non archaeological) Legal Site Description: 10-36-8-22-W4M UTM (NAD 83): 12U 366081 5506155 Site Size: 3 meters by 3 meters Significance: no HRV value Recommendations: The city is aware of this site and development plans are to minimize disturbance to this stone and to reconstruct the site if any disturbance is required. The central rock is located 2 meters off the right-of-way. A modern reconstructed stone circle around a standing boulder is located near the right
of way about 20m north of Fort Whoop Up (Figure 15 and 36). The boulder or “medicine
rock” was placed there by the City of Lethbridge during the final stages of the
development of Indian Battle Park (Carpenter 1991).
Carpenter (1991) recreated the history of the large central stone, arguing that is the
same one once called Mikiotouqse, or The Red Stone, by members of Kainai First
Nation. The legend of the stone says that a young Blackfoot warrior saw the stone alive,
in the form of a medicine pipe man, and the medicine pipeline man became transfored
to the stone (Carpenter 1991: 7).
There are accounts from both First Nations history and anecdotal area history that there
was a sacred “medicine stone” in the valley bottom somewhere near the current High
Level Bridge. Several accounts exist of local coal miners and others knowing about the
stone and its significance. Anecdotal history suggests that sometime in either the 1930's
or 1950's it was removed and became part of a weir located upstream in the Oldman
river (Carpenter 1991: 9). Carpenter (1991:10) believes he located the “medicine stone”
in the extant weir. It was subsequently removed from the weir and placed in its current
location.
While it is possible that the current rock is the same medicine stone from the 19th
century, it is almost certainly not in its original location. Carpenter (1991) notes that it is
placed in roughly the same area were it once stood based on accounts that he
36
gathered, however there is conflicting information about the original location and it is
not certain that it is the same rock that was originally noted as significant. It's precise
original location will never been known and in fact it is not certain that the boulder is the
same as historically reported rock.
Carpenter (1991) notes that he observed offerings at the rock. We also observed
offerings during our HRIA (Figure 37), however, they appear more likely to be from
tourists at the Fort Whoop Up interpretative facility that rather than First Nations people.
We observed polished stones, like those found in lapidary stores. No tobacco or cloth
was seen, suggesting that the offerings were not by First Nations people. We
questioned several knowledgeable Blood Tribe Elders about the stone and none knew
of any accounts or First Nations traditions about the site or the rock.
This site currently has neither Borden designation nor HRV value. Based on the
information gleaned from Carpenter (1991), it is our opinion that the site should not be
assigned a Borden number, as the site’s authenticity is questionable, and its location is
not historically or traditionally significant. Its use as offering site by area visitors is
considered a modern phenomenon and probably is more commonly visited by tourists
at the Fort Whoop Up replica site rather than by First Nations.
The stone is about 2 meters west of the Utility corridor. Part of the ring surrounding the
central rock may be impacted by the right of way, however the development plans call
for the ring to be replaced. The central stone will not be impacted.
37
Figure 36. Reconstructed stone circle just off the right of way.
Figure 37. Central stone of reconstructed stone circle with polished rock offerings.
38
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Much of the proposed right of way parallels existing sewer/water lines or roads. While it
runs near several previously recorded sites, it will impact only two. It will run through
DkPf-40, and will likely disturb some of this site. However, it is our opinion that this
portion of the site holds little historical value and this site was essentially destroyed
during construction of Whoop-Up Drive through the area.
The right of way also passes through DkPf-36, a site that does have significant cultural
value. However, it parallels an existing sewer/water line for much of the way through
this site area (Figure 4). We do recommend that this area be monitored during
development to minimize the potential for significant historical resource disturbance.
Finally, the right of way passes through a level portion of the Helen Shuler Nature
Preserve. This area may contain historical resources and we recommend monitoring of
this section as well (Figure 38). Backhoe testing was not conducted prior to
development to minimized disturbance to the nature preserve.
39
Figure 38. Areas recommended for monitoring are indicated as yellow dotted lines. The right of way is indicated as a red line.
Designation of Indian Battle Park
We recommend that ACCS consider designating most of the sites within Indian Battle
Park as part of DkPf-36 (Coalbanks). Based on the historical map created by Kennedy
and Reeves (1983: inset map), the entire park was uniformly covered in either farms,
homesteads, or mining operations. Furthermore, all the sites (with the possible, though
unlikely exception of DkPf-38) are historic, dating to either the 19th or 20th centuries.
They are all functionally related, relating to coal mining and related development in the
area. Kennedy and Reeves (1983) made a similar recommendation, suggesting that
several of the Borden numbers be collapsed into DkPf-36.
The current system of designating portions of the area with separate Borden numbers
leads to confusion and makes management of the area difficult. Hanna (1999) had
difficulty interpreting the location of some of the historical structures in the area and we
40
had similar problems. For example, there is confusion on the location of DkPf-39 and
the true size of DkPf-36.
This recommendation would require merging DkPf- 37, 39, 40, 41 and 114 into DkPf-
36, and significantly increasing the size of the 36 polygon. DkPf-42 is located too far
north, and likely dates to a later historic period (see above), so it should retain its
current designation. DkPf-38 is a stone circle, most likely of recent origin and so does
not fit with the overall historic nature of the area. It could either retain its current
designation (however this would place a site within the polygon of another site), or it
could be included within DkPf-36 and the site considered historic.
We feel this would ease the interpretive burden on CRM practitioners when trying to
decide if one of Kennedy and Reeves (1983) historic structures is part of a designated
site. Additionally, many of the historic structures recorded by Kennedy and Reeves do
not currently have Borden designations. Increasing the size of DkPf-36 to cover much of
the landform would protect these areas (especially Galt House which currently is not
part of a designated site) and help trigger HRIA research.
Recommendation We recommend that Historical Resources Act clearance be granted for this project, assuming all recorded sites can be avoided. The proposed utility corridor passes through DkPf 36 (the former river bottom Lethbridge townsite) and DkPf 40 (a former coal mine). The project is located within and existing utility/infrastructure corridor through most of the defined DkPf 36 area, so disturbance to cultural resources will be minimal. Nonetheless, we recommend monitoring for the DkPf-36 area during construction. DkPf-40 has been largely destroyed by previous development, primarily during the construction of Whoop Up Drive, and that portion of the site that will be impacted by the utility corridor has no significant historical value. Parts of the #8, #9, #10, Hamilton and City Mines may exist upslope from the proposed project, but these areas will not be impacted. The project may impact a former slag pile
41
and a concrete slab of uncertain origin and which may be associated with the former mine, but neither of these remains are considered historically significant. We therefore recommend no further work in this area. The right of way also passes through an undisturbed alluvial terrace within the Helen Schuler Nature preserve. This is within protected natural area and was not subject to deep testing for environmental reasons. Deep testing was considered, but ruled out given the overall low likelihood of discovering historical resources and the damage such testing could caused to the environment. The area was subject to shovel testing and a metal detector survey. We do, however, recommend monitoring for this section of the right of way during construction (see map in report body). A standing stone known locally as the “medicine rock” is located within the proposed right of way just east of the Fort Whoop Up interpretative facility in the river bottom. This rock was placed in its current location in 1980s by the City of Lethbridge and a circle of stone cobbles was constructed around it. Based on some accounts from long time Lethbridge Euro-Canadian residents, it was considered historically significant to local First Nations. The rock is not in primary context and the historical information regarding its significance is anecdotal. Blackfoot Nation Elders that we contacted had no specific memories or historical accounts of this rock. We recommend against designating this site as an archaeological site or historical resource, however it has become a part of the Fort Whoop Up interpretative site and we recommend that if the rock is moved to facilitate construction, that it be replaced as close to its current location as possible and the stone circle surrounding it be reconstructed. Finally, and although not directly related to this HRIA project, we recommend Alberta Culture and Community Spirit Historic Resource Management consider revising the currently designated sites within the river bottom on the east side of the river between Whoop Up Drive and the Helen Schuler Interpretative Centre to be integrated and considered part of the old Lethbridge river bottom town site
42
(DkPf 36). This area is within the City’s Indian Battle Park. The current situation where small historical sites such as the remnants of single buildings is cumbersome, historically problematic and causes difficulty from an interpretive and CRM standpoint.
43
REFERENCES CITED Beaty, Chester B. 1975 The Landscapes of Southern Alberta: A Regional Geomorphology. The
University of Lethbridge. Carpenter, James H. 1991 The Medicine Rock Indian Battle Park, Lethbridge, Alberta. Alberta Archaeology Review. 22: 6-10. Hanna, Don 1999 Historical Resources Impact Assessment- Whoop-Up Drive, City of Lethbridge, Permit #99-098. Report on file at ACCS. Johnston, Alexander 1977 The CP Rail high level bridge at Lethbridge. Whoop Up Country Chapter, Historical Society of Alberta Occasional Paper. No. 7, Lethbridge. Johnston, Alexander, K. G. Gladwyn, L. G. Ellis 1989 Lethbridge: It’s Coal Industry, Occasional Paper No. 20, The Lethbridge Historical Society, Lethbridge. Kennedy, Margaret and Brian Reeves 1983 Draft Report Historical Synthesis and Assessment Lethbridge Urban Parks Project Indian Battle Park and Nature Preserve. Report on file at ACCS. Natural Regions Committee 2006 2006 Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852
44
APPENDIX A SITE INVENTORY DATA
