November 2010 - BC Hydro

Duncan Dam Water Use Plan 

Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan 

Implementation Year: 1 

Reference: DDMMON-12 

Duncan Dam Reservoir Archaeological Overview Assessment 

Study Period: March 2010 – October 2010 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. 

201-14 th Avenue N., Cranbrook, BC V1C 3W3 

T: (250) 420-2724 F: (250) 489-2438 

November 28, 2010

Credits 

Duncan Dam Reservoir Archaeological Overview Assessment Final Report 

Project Manager Melissa Knight 

Project Archaeologist / Quaternary Geologist Wayne Choquette 

Senior Report Author Wayne Choquette 

Report Author Melissa Knight 

Report Editor Valerie Huff 

Report Mapping / GIS Analysis 

Field Team: 

Jose Galdamez 

Sr. Archaeologist, Field Director Wayne Choquette 

Archaeologist, Field Director Melissa Knight 

Archaeologist, Geo-Spatial Data Lead John Nicholas, ?akisq’nuk First Nation 

Archaeologist, Cultural Resource Specialist Robert Williams, ?aq’am First Nation 

Archaeological Technician, 

Onsite Environmental / Ecosystem Management 

Archaeological Technician, 

Onsite Occupational Health & Safety 

Mike Shottanana, ?ak’anqmi First Nation 

James Wageman, ?aq’am First Nation 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. i November 28, 2010

Acknowledgements / Disclaimer 


Eagle Vision Geomatics and Archaeology Ltd. would like to thank BC Hydro, Water Licence 

Requirements Program, and specifically Jeff Berdusco for the opportunity to conduct this 

archaeological study. 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. would also like to thank Selkirk College, School of 

Renewable Resources for loan of the pre-dam aerial photography. 

Please note that this assessment does not address potential impacts to traditional use sites 

within or near the study area. This report is provided without prejudice toward Aboriginal Rights 

and Title of affected First Nations and is not a substitute for First Nations consultation 

requirements. 

Choquette, Wayne, Melissa Knight and Jose Galdamez. 2010. Duncan Dam Reservoir Archaeological 

Overview Assessment, DDMMON-12 Duncan Water Use Plan: Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan. Final 

Report. Unpublished report by Eagle Vision Geomatics and Archaeology Ltd., Cranbrook, B.C., for BC 

Hydro. 98 pp. 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. ii November 28, 2010

Executive Summary 


A six-year, two-phase Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (CRMP) was initiated in 2009 as part 

of the Duncan Dam Water Use Plan (WUP). Eagle Vision Geomatics and Archaeology Ltd. was 

contracted to implement Phase 1 – DDMMON 12. The Duncan Dam Archaeological Overview 

Assessment (AOA) was undertaken to facilitate the Duncan Dam Water Use Planning Process 

(WUP) and to make recommendations to guide a second phase of the Cultural Monitoring 

Program. 

The ability of the WUP to recommend measures to protect and maintain cultural sites in the 

Duncan Reservoir has been seriously hampered by the lack of a complete archaeological 

inventory, incomplete analysis and synthesis of documented sites and the absence of 

knowledge regarding the condition of cultural sites. DDMMON 12 intended to address a 

knowledge gap regarding the number, location, elevation, condition, use, susceptibility to 

erosion and relative importance of cultural sites within the drawdown zone of the reservoir. 

The present survey sample of the Duncan Reservoir consisted of a series of transects of 

individual landscapes subjectively selected as the possible repositories of parts of the 

archaeological record of past human activity. Interpretation of the results of the survey must 

consider the serious constraints upon discovery and condition of archaeological remains 

imposed by the reservoir environment, including differential destruction of landforms and 

sedimentary strata in some cases, and burial beneath obscuring accumulations of post-reservoir 

sediments in other instances. Despite these limitations, the brief field survey associated with this 

project has produced significant positive results in the form of 8 discrete loci of archaeological 

remains. 

The highly positive results of the current survey affirm the predictive value of the pre-contact 

land settlement models for locating archaeological sites, while further contributing to the 

knowledge of the pre-contact human history of the area. EcQf-3, EcQf-4, EcQf-5, EcQf-6 and 

EcQf-7 as well as the previously recorded EbQf-7 are all worthy of focused monitoring that is 

likely to yield valuable additional information regarding their archaeological and stratigraphic 

contents, as well as information pertaining to the effects of reservoir operations in their 

distinctive settings. It is emphasized that a full archaeological inventory of the Duncan Reservoir 

has yet to be accomplished and should be completed as soon as possible. This can be 

incorporated into the reservoir-wide monitoring that is needed to provide the context for focused 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. iii November 28, 2010


monitoring to ensure that as much as possible of the archaeological record of this unique and 

significant landscape is rescued from destruction by reservoir-related processes and actions. 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. iv November 28, 2010

Table of Contents 


Credits ......................................................................................................................................... i 

Acknowledgements / Disclaimer ................................................................................................. ii 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... iii 

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ v 

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... vii 

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ vii 

List of Plates ............................................................................................................................ viii 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Goals .................................................................................................................... 2 

1.3 Operational Objectives .......................................................................................... 2 

1.3.1 Approach .......................................................................................... 3 

2.0 DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 5 

2.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................ 5 

2.2 Palaeoenvironment ............................................................................................... 7 

2.3 Archaeological Record .........................................................................................11 

2.3.1 Previous Investigations ....................................................................11 

2.3.2 Pre-Contact Culture History .............................................................16 

2.3.3 Euro-Canadian History .....................................................................21 

3.0 LANDSCAPE HYPOTHESES AND MODEL DEVELOPMENT .......................................22 

3.1 Pre-Contact Human Settlement Pattern Models, Duncan Reservoir .....................22 

3.1.1 Model 1: Late Neoglacial (ca. 2500 – 200 BP) ................................22 

3.1.2 Model 2: Early Neoglacial (ca. 5000 – 2500 BP) .............................23 

3.1.3 Model 3: Early Holocene fluvial regime, ancestral Kootenay Lake (ca. 

10,000 – 8000 BP) ...........................................................................23 

3.1.4 Model 4: Immediate Postglacial (ca. 12,000 – 10,000 BP) ..............24 

4.0 TESTING LANDSCAPE HYPOTHESES ........................................................................26 

4.1 Sampling Rationale ..............................................................................................26 

4.2 Sampling Design ..................................................................................................28 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. v November 28, 2010


4.2 Sampling Strata .............................................................................................29 

4.3 Survey Methods ...................................................................................................37 

5.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................39 

5.1 Transect 2 ............................................................................................................41 

5.1.1 Landforms ........................................................................................41 

5.1.2 Cultural Materials .............................................................................42 

5.1.3 Archaeological Potential Summary ..................................................42 

5.2 Transect 3 ............................................................................................................48 

5.2.1 Landforms ........................................................................................48 

5.2.2 Cultural Material ...............................................................................48 


5.3 Transect 5 ............................................................................................................55 

5.3.1 Landforms ........................................................................................55 



5.4 Transect 10 ..........................................................................................................62 

5.4.1 Landforms ........................................................................................62 



5.5 Transect 11 ..........................................................................................................70 

5.5.1 Landforms ........................................................................................70 


5.5.3 Archeological Potential Summary ....................................................70 

5.6 Transect 13 ..........................................................................................................74 

5.6.1 Landforms ........................................................................................74 



5.7 Results Summary .................................................................................................76 

6.0 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................81 

6.1 Representation of Hypothetical Pre-Contact Human Settlement Models ..............82 

6.1.1 Models 1 and 2 ................................................................................82 

6.1.2 Models 3 and 4 ................................................................................83 

6.2 Archaeological Site Evaluation .............................................................................84 

6.2.1 Site Significance Assessment Criteria ..............................................84 

6.2.2 Assessment of Single Artifact Occurrences .....................................85 

6.2.3 Assessment of Multiple Artifact Exposures ......................................87 

7.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................89 

8.0 REFERENCES CITED ...................................................................................................93 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. vi November 28, 2010

List of Figures 


Figure 2-1. DDMMON12 Study Area, Duncan Lake Reservoir, British Columbia ....................................... 6 

Figure 4-1. Overview of Proposed Survey Transects ................................................................................ 32 

Figure 4-2. Pre-Dam and TRIM Mapping for Proposed Transect Location 1 ............................................ 33 

Figure 4-3. Pre-Dam and TRIM Mapping for Proposed Transect Locations 2 & 3 .................................... 34 

Figure 4-4. Pre-Dam and TRIM Mapping for Proposed Transect Locations 4 – 7 .................................... 35 

Figure 4-5. Pre-Dam and TRIM Mapping for Proposed Transect Locations 7 – 10 .................................. 36 

Figure 4-6. Pre-Dam and TRIM Mapping for Proposed Transect Locations 11 - 13 ................................. 37 

Figure 5-1. Map of Survey Transect 2 ....................................................................................................... 43 

Figure 5-2. Location Map for Archaeological Site EcQf-7 .......................................................................... 44 


Figure 5-4. Location Map for Archaeological Sites EcQf-5 & EcQf-6 ........................................................ 51 


Figure 5-6. Location Map for Archaeological Sites EcQf-3 & EcQf-4 ........................................................ 58 

Figure 5-7. Map of Survey Transect 10 ..................................................................................................... 64 

Figure 5-8. Location Map for Archaeological Site EdQf-1 ......................................................................... 65 

Figure 5-9. Location Map for Archaeological Site EdQf-2 ......................................................................... 66 

Figure 5-10. Map of Survey Transect 11 ................................................................................................... 71 

Figure 5-11. Location Map for Archaeological Site EdQg-1 & DR3 ........................................................... 72 

Figure 5-12. Map of Survey Transect 13 ................................................................................................... 75 

Figure 5-13. Updated Archaeological Record within DDMMON12 Study Area ......................................... 78 

List of Tables 

Table 2-1. Existing Archaeological Record within DDMMON 12 Study Area ............................................ 13 

Table 3-1. Comparative Pre-Contact Human Land and Resource Use, Duncan Reservoir ..................... 25 

Table 4-1. Comparative Geomorphological Criteria Relevant to Human Settlement, Duncan Reservoir . 29 

Table 4-2. Proposed Transect Locations with Model Ascription ................................................................ 30 

Table 4-3. Proposed Transect Survey Coverage....................................................................................... 31 

Table 5-1. Summary of Transects Surveyed including Archaeological Sites Recorded ........................... 77 

Table 5-2. Summary of Archaeological Sites Recorded ............................................................................ 79 

Table 6-1. Significance Matrix for Archaeological Sites with Single Artifact Occurrences ........................ 86 

Table 6-2. Significance Matrix for Archaeological Sites with Multiple Artifact Exposures ......................... 88 

Table 7-1. Site Specific Monitoring Recommendations (as entered on BC Site Inventory Forms) ........... 91 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. vii November 28, 2010

List of Plates 


Plate TR2-1: View S from the N end of TR2 showing the lake, terrace and ridge in the background. 

(JW070510_002) ............................................................................................................................ 45 

Plate TR2-2: View N of the N end of TR2 showing reservoir erosion, remnant soil patches and evidence 

of burning. (JW070510_003) ......................................................................................................... 45 

Plate TR2-3: View S from TR2 over terraces and beach ridges to EcQf-7. (JW070510_005) ................ 45 

Plate TR2-4: View N, NW of EcQf-7 where lowest terrace merges with pre-dam Duncan Lake beach. 

(MK100510_134) ........................................................................................................................... 45 

Plate TR2-5: View S across the S end of TR2 showing sand beach deposit. (MK100510_132) ............ 46 

Plate TR2-6: View N of TR2 from EcQf-7. (MK100510_133) .................................................................... 46 

Plate TR2-7: Pale pink quartzite utilized flake on deflated beach at EcQf-7, S end of TR2. 

(MK100510_124) ........................................................................................................................... 46 

Plate TR2-8: Large grey quartzite flake on deflated beach at EcQf-7, S end of TR2. (MK100510_127) . 46 

Plate TR2-9: Worked grey quartzite cobble decortication flake on deflated beach at EcQf-7, S end of 

TR2. (MK100510_130)................................................................................................................... 47 

Plate TR2-10: Grey quartzite core on deflated beach at EcQf-7, S end of TR2. (MK100510_125) ......... 47 

Plate TR2-11: Striking platform of red quartzite cobble core on the deflated beach at EcQf-7. 

(MK100510_126) ........................................................................................................................... 47 

Plate TR2-12: Pink phyllite tool on deflated beach at EcQf-7, S end of TR2. (MK100510_131) .............. 47 

Plate TR3-1: View SE over N end of rocky promontory from NW edge of TR3. (MK100510_100) .......... 52 

Plate TR3-2: View NW to SE corner of T3. (MK100510_121) ................................................................. 52 

Plate TR3-3: View W over Griz Creek fan capped with reservoir sediment at the S end of TR3. 

(MK100510_070) ........................................................................................................................... 52 

Plate TR3-4: Black tourmalinite marginally retouched flake / perforator at EcQf-6. (MK100510_104) ..... 52 

Plate TR3-5: Pink quartzite biface core fragment at EcQf-5. (MK100510_079) ....................................... 53 

Plate TR3-6: Pale pink quartzite cobble chopper at EcQf-5. (MK100510_086) ........................................ 53 

Plate TR3-7: Pink and grey quartzite slab tool at EcQf-5 (MK100510_120). ............................................ 53 

Plate TR3-8: Grey quartzite cobble chopper at EcQf-5 (MK100510_074). ............................................... 53 

Plate TR3-9: Pink quartzite cobble core / chopper at EcQf-6. (MK100510_112) ..................................... 54 

Plate TR3-10: Pink quartzite cobble spall graver at EcQf-6. (MK100510_115) ........................................ 54 

Plate TR5-1: Overview NW of Duncan Valley from TR5 showing the lower erosional terrace. 

(MK080510_017) ........................................................................................................................... 59 

Plate TR5-2: Large quartzite tested cobble at EcQf-3. (MK080510_015) ................................................ 59 

Plate TR5-3: Intact podsol capped by reservoir sediment. (MK080510_014) .......................................... 59 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. viii November 28, 2010


Plate TR5-4: Utilized pink quartzite spall at EcQf-4. (MK080510_037) .................................................... 59 

Plate TR5-5: Tan / grey quartzite biface thinning flake with faceted ground striking platform at EcQf-4. 

(MK080510_036) ........................................................................................................................... 60 

Plate TR5-6: Tan / grey quartzite core fragment at EcQf-4. (MK080510_033) ......................................... 60 

Plate TR5-7: Tested multi-coloured CCS cobble at EcQf-4. (MK080510_019) ........................................ 60 

Plate TR5-8: Pink quartzite utilized flake at EcQf-4. (MK080510_022) .................................................... 60 

Plate TR5-9: Marginally retouched Kootenay argillite flake on remnant of pre-reservoir soil at EcQf-4. 

(MK080510_028) ........................................................................................................................... 61 

Plate TR5-10: Multi-coloured Kootenay argillite flake and remnants of pre-reservoir soil at EcQf-4. 

(MK080510_025) ........................................................................................................................... 61 

Plate TR5-11: Quartzite shatter fragment on remnant of pre-reservoir soil at EcQf-4. (MK080510_022) 61 

Plate TR5-12: Tan / grey core fragment on remnant of pre-reservoir at EcQf-4. ( MK080510_033) ........ 61 

Plate TR6-1: Steep and eroded terrain in drawdown zone at the edge of the Duncan Reservoir. 

(MK100510_068) ........................................................................................................................... 40 

Plate TR10-1: View S across Clancy Creek from the N side of channel. (MK090510_046) .................... 67 

Plate TR10-2: View S over N edge of relict channel of Dunn Creek and reservoir deposition. 

(MK090510_041) ........................................................................................................................... 67 

Plate TR10-3: View W from TR10 from N edge of Pat Creek fan. (MK090510_065) ............................... 67 

Plate TR10-4: Overview to N along TR10 depicting location of EdQf-2 and the thick deposit of reservoir 

silt obscuring the lowest elevations. (MK090510_066) .................................................................. 67 

Plate TR10-5: View SE over slump / slope caused by mass wasting of silt from mineral springs. 

(MK080510_059) ........................................................................................................................... 68 

Plate TR10-6: View N to EdQf-1 site location. (MK090510_055) ............................................................. 68 

Plate TR10-7: Cortical surface of tested white quartzite cobble fragment at EdQf-1. (MK090510_049) . 68 

Plate TR10-8: Cortical surface of utilized quartzite spall at EdQf-1. (MK090510_051) ............................ 68 

Plate TR10-9: Utilized pink quartzite flake at EdQf-2. (MK090510_061) .................................................. 69 

Plate TR10-10: View S of N end of terrace at EdQf-2. (MK090510_062) ................................................. 69 

Plate TR10-11: View N of south end of EdQf-2 terrace and reservoir deposition. (MK090510_063) ....... 69 

Plate TR11- 1: Quartz spall at EdQg-1. (MK080510_011) ........................................................................ 73 

Plate TR11-2: Edge of reservoir fine sediment and location of isolated find EdQg-1 at the SE edge of the 

Cockle Creek gravel fan. (MK080510_009) ................................................................................... 73 

Plate TR11- 3: View SE of the NW end toe of Cockle Creek fan / Duncan River depicting low elevation 

mantling by reservoir fine sediment. (MK080510_008) ................................................................. 73 

Plate TR13-1: View W of sloping reservoir beach and debris at the E end of adjusted TR13. 

(MK080510_007) ........................................................................................................................... 74 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. ix November 28, 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 


The Duncan Dam Water Use Planning (WUP) "recognized the importance of cultural sites and 

locations of historic and ongoing cultural activity to First Nations with an interest in the area" (BC 

Hydro 2009: 17, 20). A key concern of First Nations was with impact of reservoir operations on 

"cultural sites represented by archaeological remains" (ibid). During the WUP process (2005), 

the WUP committee established four primary objectives that it aims to address in recognition of 

the importance of cultural sites and locations of historic and ongoing cultural activity to First 

Nations: 

i. Protect cultural sites and resources from erosion in Duncan Reservoir; 

ii. Protect cultural sites and resources from exploitation in the Duncan Reservoir; 

iii. Provide opportunities for archaeological investigation in the Duncan Reservoir; 

iv. Maintain the cultural, aesthetic and ecological context of important cultural 

resources and spiritual sites. 

Incomplete archaeological inventory and survey coverage of the Duncan Reservoir, the 

absence of synthesized analysis of documented sites and inadequate knowledge of the 

condition of those sites led the WUP committee to conclude that they were unable to fully 

evaluate the effects of reservoir operations on cultural sites (BC Hydro 2009: 17, 20; BC Hydro 

2009: 197: 11). A Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (Order 5.4 within the Duncan Dam Water 

Use Plan) was devised to address these gaps in the WUP as a two-tiered program to be 

implemented over a five year period (BC Hydro 2009: 16). It was to include (1) archaeological 

survey of the reservoir basin; (2) an erosion study that would combine the collection of 

traditional use and cultural preference information; (3) site investigations through excavation; 

and (4) an erosion monitoring study (BC Hydro 2009: 17, 20). The Comptroller of Water Rights 

(CWR) subsequently clarified that only nonintrusive heritage work could be included in an Order 

issued under the Water Act, thereby excluding any study that would require a permit under the 

Provincial Heritage Conservation Act. The Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan was then 

amended to exclude any investigations that involved excavation and/or disturbance of the 

surface layers (ibid). 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. 1 November 28, 2010


The Duncan Dam Reservoir Archaeological Overview Assessment (DDMMON-12) was thus 

implemented as Phase 1 of a 5 year monitoring program to collect "information on cultural 

resource potential or sensitivity within portions of the drawdown zone of the Duncan Reservoir" 

(BC Hydro 2009: 25) and to aid in the identification of "cultural site locations suitable for long- 

term erosion monitoring under DDMMON-13" (ibid). Information from DDMMON-12 may also 

be used in future WUP processes and assist in developing operating and non-operating 

proposals to address impacts at cultural sites for the next Duncan Dam WUP review period. 

1.2 Goals 

“The primary goal of the DDMMON-12 Duncan Reservoir Archaeological Overview Assessment 

is to provide information that can be used in the future WUP processes and assist in developing 

operational or non-operating proposals to address impacts to archaeological sites for the next 

WUP review period” (BC Hydro 2009: 11). DDMMON-12 is part of the Cultural Resources 

Monitoring Plan within the Duncan Reservoir and is intended to: 

i. Address a knowledge gap regarding the number, location, elevation, condition, 

use, susceptibility to erosion and relative importance of cultural sites (BC Hydro 

2009: 20); 

ii. Collect information on cultural resource potential or sensitivity within areas of the 

drawdown zone which will identify cultural site locations suitable for long-term 

erosion monitoring (BC Hydro 2009: 20); 

iii. Identify the need for further archaeological study or monitoring (BC Hydro 2009: 

11); 

iv. Facilitate future WUP committee discussions by providing it with information to 

meet their previously identified objectives (BC Hydro 2009: 20); and 

v. Provide cultural site information informing WUP Committee's proposed 

“performance measure” to evaluate reservoir operations and operating 

alternatives (ibid). 

1.3 Operational Objectives 

The operational objectives approved for this study are as follows: 

i. Satisfy archaeological assessment requirements while laying some of the 

groundwork for a future planning process that will facilitate strategic actions with 


1.3.1 Approach 


regard to the effects of Duncan Reservoir operation; a potential value to be 

added within the frameworks of both the WUP and the BC Hydro Reservoir 

Archaeology Program; and 

ii. Facilitate collection of information on cultural resource potential or sensitivity 

within portions of the drawdown zone of the Duncan Reservoir" (BC Hydro 2009: 

25) to aid in the identification of "cultural site locations suitable for long-term 

erosion monitoring under DDMMON-13" (ibid). 

To fulfill these objectives, the following multi-stage approach was taken: 

DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH 

An overview of the study area enabled review and consolidation of existing heritage, 

palaeoenvironmental and ethnographic data with the geomorphological context (including micro- 

topographic features) of the reservoir draw down environment to develop the requisite 

“landscape-based model of archaeological potential founded on hypotheses regarding the 

relationship of landform types to archaeological potential” (BC Hydro 2009: 25). Relevant 

geological and palaeoenvironmental literature (Ryder 1981; Clague 1989; Richmond et al. 1965; 

Choquette 1996, 1987a; Fulton 1967, 1968; Mierendorf 1984; Hallett & Walker 2000; Baker 

1983; Choquette & Holstine 1982; Johnson 1969), the existing archaeological record 

(Choquette 1984, 1987a, 1987b, 1993, 1996, 2005, 2006, 2007; Arcas 2006), ethnographic 

sources (Keefer 2002; Teit 1909; Turney-High 1941; Schaeffer 1940), and previous first-hand 

archaeological research experience within the region and study area informed and allowed the 

derivation of four distinct pre-contact land settlement models applicable to the Duncan 

Reservoir palaeoenvironment. A summary of the documentary research is presented in Section 

2. 

LANDSCAPE HYPOTHESES AND MODEL DEVELOPMENT 

A hypthetico-deductive research methodology was employed that included the development of 

appropriate models / hypotheses testable by subsequent more intensive targeted investigation. 

Model development for the evaluation of the archaeological potential of the Duncan Reservoir 

involved consideration of both the biogeography of the reservoir in the context of its setting 

within the upper Columbia River drainage region as well as the present state of the regional 



archaeological record. The convergence of the environmental and archaeological data streams 

produced lines of evidence to support a series of predictive hypotheses of pre-contact human 

land and resource use in Duncan Reservoir. Four distinctive pre-contact human settlement 

pattern models applicable to the study area and spanning the Holocene were extracted from the 

archaeological record. It should be noted that there is such a paucity of archaeological data 

from the West Kootenay area for the interval between about 8000 and 5000 years BP that it is 

not possible to construct a suitably detailed model for this important span of time. The models 

are summarized in Section 3. 

TESTING LANDSCAPE HYPOTHESES 

The pre-contact human land settlement models outlined in Section 3 served as the explicit basis 

for identifying where archaeological remains might have accumulated in the reservoir landscape 

and where they might be visible surficially in their stratigraphic and geomorphological context. 

Section 4 elaborates on testing of the models through explication of the sampling rationale, 

creation of a survey sampling design, identification of sampling strata and summary of the 

survey methods employed. 

FIELD SURVEY METHODS 

It was possible to define a set of informed expectations regarding micro-topographic features 

present within the reservoir drawdown zone. The orientation of the sampling survey was 

primarily towards obtaining information about the presence of archaeological remains in the 

Duncan Reservoir and about the character and condition of the strata and landforms that 

contain the archaeological materials. Section 5 provides descriptive data pertaining to the 

archaeological remains that were identified, their contexts in the reservoir and the remnants of 

the landscape with which they are associated. 

SYNTHESIS / MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

The information derived from the previous stages was to be synthesized and interpreted in 

terms of the objectives identified in Section 6. Any new sites and cultural material found were to 

be reported according to provincial standards to form part of the permanent archaeological 

record. The findings (positive and negative) were to be assessed for scientific significance and 

evaluated against the models they were designed to test. Recommendations for further surveys 

and reservoir monitoring / management were to be made based on the synthesis. 


2.0 DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH 

2.1 Study Area 


The Duncan River valley is within the Purcell trench, north of Kootenay Lake in the West 

Kootenay area of British Columbia. 

The Duncan Dam is located approximately 42 km north of Kalso and 10 km north of Kootenay 

Lake and was the first of three Columbia River Treaty dams to be built within the Canadian 

extent of the Columbia River Basin (Virtual Museum of Canada (VMC) 2007). 

Construction of the dam began in 1965; it was completed and operational in late summer of 

1967. The Duncan Dam is an earthfill dam whose “main purpose is to control the flow of water 

from the Duncan River into Kootenay Lake in conjunction with the Libby Dam to assure 

operational water levels for the Kootenay Canal and the Corra Linn projects located 

downstream” (VMC 2007; BC Hydro 2009: 10). 

The Duncan Lake Reservoir is situated north of the dam. The original Duncan Lake was 25 km 

in length (VMC 2007), but is now encompassed within the 45 km long reservoir covering an 

area of 7,150 ha at full pool (BC Hydro 2009: 21). Water storage elevation within the reservoir 

fluctuates up to ~ 30 m annually (VMC 2007). 

For the purpose of DDMMON 12, the Study Area encompasses the entire Duncan Generating 

Area (Figure 2-1), specifically the drawdown zone of the Duncan Lake Reservoir. 



Figure 2-1. DDMMON12 Study Area, Duncan Lake Reservoir, British Columbia 


2.2 Palaeoenvironment 


Duncan Reservoir occupies part of the floor of the Purcell Trench, a north-south trough that 

separates the Purcell and Selkirk Mountains. This mountainous area was extensively glaciated 

during the Pleistocene Epoch of the last few million years. Glaciers covered various parts of the 

region several times, blocking the existing drainage systems and redistributing fragments of 

bedrock and its constituent minerals, both directly into the till and indirectly via outwash. 

Terminal Pleistocene deglaciation is suggested to have commenced about 15,000 years ago 

(Ryder 1981). Higher elevations apparently became ice-free first (Clague 1989) while melting 

ice blocks lingered at some places in the valley bottoms. Sediments eroded from the ice-free 

valley walls were deposited at lower elevations in large proglacial lakes dammed by moraines 

and melting ice blocks. As these lakes drained, a series of deltas, alluvial fans, terraces and 

other relict watercourse features were left behind at various elevations, graded to the changing 

hydrological baselines. 

While much of the landscape is very steep, expanses of nearly level terrain lie in the upper 

portions of, and adjacent to, Duncan Reservoir. These include the large delta upon which 

present-day Howser is situated and smaller deltas at the mouths of the major tributary streams. 

Some of these are graded to an elevation of ca. 598 m / 1960 ft above mean sea level (a.m.s.l.). 

This correlates with the level of an extensive proglacial lake that can be traced south-westward 

to where the Columbia River was dammed at the Grand Coulee by the Okanagan Ice Lobe 

(Richmond et al. 1965). Radiocarbon dates on a much smaller lake in the Selkirk Trench to the 

west indicate that the prominent 598 m terrace system surrounding Kootenay and Duncan lakes 

was an emergent land surface prior to 10,000 years ago (Choquette 1996). Below this elevation 

are additional terrace remnants, some of them apparently graded to higher post-glacial stands 

of Kootenay Lake prior to the outlet being carved by the ancestral Kootenay River down to 

bedrock. One such lake level at 546 m / 1790 ft (ca. 14 m above Kootenay Lake) was 

recognized by Fulton (1967: 59) during geological reconnaissance of the future Duncan 

Reservoir. 

It is apparent that Duncan and Kootenay lakes were a single body of water as the outlet of the 

West Arm of Kootenay Lake was being downcut. The time of separation of the two lakes is not 

known. A number of variables could have produced several different lake levels: erosion of the 



outlet; aggradations of the fans of the Lardeau River (the lower portion of the fan is at the 

elevation identified by Fulton), Hamill Creek and Glacier Creek (which dammed Duncan Lake 

prior to creation of the Duncan Reservoir); and a significant change in hydrological regime 

undergone by the region's rivers, including the Kootenay River, around 2500 years ago. After 

that time, extensive previously-inundated floodplains and deltas emerged as terraces above 

smaller floodplains developed within the previous channels. The level of Kootenay Lake 

underwent further reduction during the post-contact period when W.A. Baillie-Grohman 

attempted to lower the bedrock ledge at the outlet and later when the lower Kootenay River 

became controlled by hydroelectric facilities. 

Other than a date of 10,270 + 190 years before present on peat from the base of a bog 40 km 

south of Meadow Creek, indicating that vegetation had become established by that time (Fulton 

1968: 1079), there is no information from the Duncan Reservoir vicinity itself regarding 

postglacial vegetal history. It is thus necessary to extrapolate palaeoenvironments from 

surrounding regions. The Columbia River drainage was apparently deglaciated relatively early 

when compared to equivalent latitudes in North America (Choquette 1996). Pollen studies have 

identified a pioneer community of grass, sage, cattails and scattered conifers as the first 

widespread vegetation in much of the upper Columbia River drainage 12,000 or more years 

ago. This cold desert "steppe tundra" habitat was forced to higher elevations after about 10,500 

years ago, giving way to coniferous forests as a warming climate permitted their invasion of the 

valley bottoms and mountainsides. Charred plant remains on an early floodplain of the Kootenai 

River in Montana (Mierendorf 1984) indicate that fire was already part of the regional ecology by 

11,730 + 410 years ago. Wildfire apparently increased in frequency until the trend to aridity and 

high solar insolation (the Altithermal / Hypsithermal) peaked around 8000 years ago, when 

Douglas-fir savannah was probably widespread. Vegetal communities in the upper Columbia 

basin appear to have been relatively simple in composition between 10,000 and 7000 years ago 

and were characterized by pronounced altitudinal and latitudinal zonation (Choquette 1987a). 

By 6000 years ago, a major climatic change was underway as the Maritime westerlies began to 

exert a dominating climatic influence. The predominant trend in vegetal configuration became 

longitudinal, and west-facing windward slopes became cloaked with dense forests. Although 

the frequency of wildfires may have declined, their intensity may have increased (Hallett and 

Walker 2000). These factors contributed to the evolution of an increasingly varied and diverse 

vegetal mosaic during a series of increasingly colder cycles within the last 5000 - 6000 years. A 



global cooling trend, the Neoglacial, had begun to affect the region, resulting in the regrowth of 

cirque glaciers at higher elevations. The interval between ca. 6000 and 2500 years ago in the 

Kootenay drainage was characterized by high fluvial discharge. Therefore the region may have 

supported generally more extensive aquatic ecosystems, including larger resident fish and 

waterfowl populations as well as more productive riparian communities. The maritime elements 

of the regional flora such as cedar and hemlock made their first appearances 4000-5000 years 

ago and became common after 3000 BP. Conditions between about 4000 and 2500 years ago 

were cooler than during subsequent millennia (Baker 1983) and were characterized by generally 

low forest fire frequency. There is evidence for a second Neoglacial advance between ca. 3500 

and 2500 years ago. This was followed by a relatively brief warm and dry interval during which 

forest fire frequency increased, parkland-grassland habitats expanded and fluvial discharge 

notably decreased as noted above. The final glacial episode, the "Little Ice Age", reached its 

maximum expression between ca. AD 1630 and AD 1870 when it became the most severe 

glacial episode in the upper Columbia drainage since the Pleistocene retreat more than 12,000 

years prior. 

At the present time, the paucity of palaeofaunal data from the study area limits our knowledge of 

the evolution of its wildlife populations. The potentially earliest post-glacial palaeontological 

remains are unconfirmed finds of two proboscidean teeth reputedly found on the west side of 

Kootenay Lake near Kaslo, B.C. Most likely, the region's early postglacial animal populations 

were similar to the mammoths, musk oxen, sheep, caribou and bison found in regions adjacent 

on the east and south. The continental conditions of drought and high wildfire frequency 

between ca. 9000 and 7000 years ago probably supported greater ungulate populations in the 

Purcell and Selkirk Mountains than were known historically. However, this is hypothetical at 

present because of poor bone preservation and the lack of systematic archaeological 

investigation. When the influence of maritime westerly winds increased across the region after 

6000 years ago, ungulate populations west of the Purcell Mountain crest would have declined 

as increased forest cover reduced their critical ranges. It is clear, however, that such 

populations would not have been static over the subsequent period. Fluctuations in deer, elk 

and caribou populations in response to climatic variation have been documented in the 

archaeological and ethnohistoric records further south (see Choquette and Holstine 1982) that 

were probably reflected in the study area vicinity as well. For example, the abundance of deer 

and elk seem to covary inversely during warm and cold intervals, respectively. Caribou would 

have been favoured under cooler conditions. An expansion of the range of whitetail deer north 



of 50° north latitude is apparent from reports of Schaeffer's Ktunaxa informants (Schaeffer 

1940). 

The environmental effects of the Little Ice Age were severe enough that they resulted in the 

disappearance of bison, antelope and prairie chicken from the East Kootenay and north-western 

Montana areas (Johnson 1969). Given the evident extent of recent glaciation in the mountains 

surrounding the Duncan Reservoir, the animal residents would undoubtedly have been similarly 

affected by this severe climatic episode. 

The lakes and rivers in the study area supported large populations of fish species including 

rainbow, cutthroat, bull trout, lingcod and sturgeon. While anadromous (ocean-going) salmon 

could not ascend beyond the falls on the Kootenay River below Kootenay Lake in historic times, 

the presence of landlocked kokanee salmon in Kootenay Lake indicates that pacific salmon 

were present in the study area vicinity at some time in the past. The 10,000 BP dates on the 

488 m lake in the Selkirk Trench provide an upper limiting age for the present 532 m a.m.s.l. of 

Kootenay Lake that is controlled by these falls. As the mouth of the Columbia River and many of 

its major tributaries are well to the south of all of the Pleistocene ice fronts, salmon runs were 

undoubtedly established in the Columbia drainage long before most of British Columbia's other 

rivers could support them. Therefore, salmon could have been ascending into the Purcell 

Trench during early postglacial times before their access to Kootenay Lake was cut off by the 

exhumation of the falls on the lower Kootenay River. 


2.3 Archaeological Record 

2.3.1 Previous Investigations 


In 1966, prior to construction of Duncan Dam, a brief archaeological reconnaissance of the 

proposed reservoir pondage was carried out by David Keenlyside and Knut Fladmark. Four 

pre-contact archaeological sites were identified on the east side of the lake (EbQf-2; EbQf-3; 

EcQf-1; EcQf-2), all associated with present-day beaches. Artifacts collected from the sites 

consisted predominantly of unworked flakes plus a sparse assemblage of worked cobble cores 

and large flakes; a side-notched atlatl point of golden cryptocrystalline silica was surface 

collected from EcQf-2. Before this reconnaissance, one site (EbQf-1) had been recorded on the 

basis of information provided by a local resident who had found ground stone artifacts including 

pestles above the west shore of the lake near Howser. 

In 2002, parts of the Duncan Reservoir were resurveyed, resulting in the documentation of two 

multiple artifact exposures (DR1 & DR2) and three isolated artifact finds (Choquette 2005); one 

of these was designated DR3 but the other two have been re-designated WC4 and WC5 (Arcas 

2006). DR1 was subsequently registered as EbQf-7. Four years of monitoring subsequently 

took place at EbQf-7 from 2003 to 2006, the last three under the auspices of BC Hydro. 

The surrounding Provincial Forest Lands were mapped for archaeological potential during 

recent Landscape Unit-based AOAs (Choquette 2006). Other archaeological field investigations 

in the study area vicinity have consisted predominantly of localized archaeological impact 

assessments of proposed forest industry developments (e.g. Magee 1998, Campbell 2000, 

Lackowicz 1999, Lackowicz 2001, Handly et al. 1998, Handly & Lackowicz 2001, Handly 2002, 

2003, Wood 2003, 2004, 2006, Tamasi 2008) during which two pre-contact (EbQf-5, EbQf-6) 

and one historic (EbQf-4) archaeological sites were recorded. However, all of the 

aforementioned sites are situated > 1.6 km west of the Duncan reservoir and are associated 

with terrace features above the Lardeau River. 

In summary, previous archaeological investigations within the study area have resulted in the 

identification of ten discrete loci of reported pre-contact archaeological remains. Six represent 

multiple artifact loci subsequently recorded on the provincial register, one is an unrecorded 

multiple artifact locus while the remaining three are reported isolated finds (Figure 2-2, Table 2- 

1). 



Figure 2-2. Existing Archaeological Record within DDMMON12 Study Area 


Table 2-1. Existing Archaeological Record within DDMMON 12 Study Area 

Borden 

Number 

EbQf-1 

EbQf-2 

EbQf-3 

Setting 

"Beach" (as recorded in 

1965) ~ 24 m above 

original Duncan Lake 

~ 1.6 km S of Howser 

Lakeshore (as at 1966) 

Heavy ash deposit 

E side of Duncan Lake 

NNE of Howser 

. 

Beach (as at 1966) 

E side of Duncan Lake, W 

side of Lower Arm 

At south tip of a peninsula 

which has been turned into 

an island by Duncan Dam 

Elevatio 

n 

564 

564 

576 

Recording History / Updates 

Site recorded in 1965 based on 

private collection, revisited in 1966. 

Site form in RAAD not updated. 

Site Form updated in 1980 from 

1966 report 


1966 report 

Eagle Vision Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. 13 November 28, 2010 


Site Type / Cultural Material 

PRECONTACT, Cultural Material, 

Surface, Lithics 

• Collected 2 “pestles”, 1 “stone 

axe” (1965) 

• “Collected “large pieces of 

flaked quartzite” in 1966 

(Choquette 2005) 



• Collected 1 “chipped basalt 

projectile point” 

• the report notes “very little 

detritus”. 

• an artifact from this site at 

RBCM was subsequently 

identified as a “Kootenay 

argillite biface pre-form” 




• Collected “surface collection, 

knife & detritus” 

• 3 water smoothed Kootenay 

argillite secondary flakes from 

this site at RBCM (Choquette 

2005) 

• flaked quartzite cobble and a 

water smoothed Kootenay 

argillite flake observed at this 

site in 2002 (Choquette 2005) 

Comments 

Attempted re-visit in 2002 but 

could not relocate. Vicinity was 

found to be extensively reworked 

by reservoir wave action 

(Choquette 2005). 

Noted in 1966 to also have a 

possible historic component 

Site re-visited in 2002. Sediments 

so heavily eroded and reburied by 

reservoir wave action that nothing 

remains of the original post-glacial 

sediment cap. Site Form in RAAD 

not updated 

Site re-visited in 2002. Noted that 

the site appears to have been 

completely reworked and 

destroyed by the reservoir 

(Choquette 2005).

Borden 

Number 

EbQf-7 

(DR1) 

EcQf-1 

EcQf-2 

DR2 

Setting 

S end of Duncan Reservoir 

Glacier Cr. Fan (SE edge 

as at 2002) 



NNE of Howser 

W side of small bay at SE 

end of peninsula 



NNE of Howser 

W of the Lower Arm, E 

side of Lot 8457 

. 

Delta Fan Terrace above 

mouth of Howser Creek 

(as at 2002) 

Nearly level 

Elevatio 

n 

552-567 

564 

579 

~ 598 


Site Form updated in RAAD 2005 

Monitored 2004-2006 


1966 report 

Same informant listed as for EbQf- 

1 

Discrepancy in artifact collections 

lends some confusion between 

EbQf-1 & EcQf-1 


1966 report 

Site is not recorded in RAAD but 

reported during 2002 WUP survey 








Subsurface, Lithics 

• Observed “variety of cores, 

flakes and tools periodically 

exposed in drawdown zone” 



• Collected “detritus, projectile 

point, scrapers, knives” 

RBCM collection includes only 4 

worked pieces of quartzite 




• Collected “one side and 

basally notched projectile 

point” 

• In addition to the above-noted 

projectile point of tan 

cryptocrystalline silica, a 

range of artifacts including 

Kootenay argillite and 

quartzite flakes and a large 

phyllite biface are at the 

RBCM (Choquette 2005). 




Subsurface, Lithics 

• Observed “quartzite block 

Comments 

Site re-visited in 2002. Little sand 

remains on now-rocky split. 

Attempted to re-visit in 2002 but 

was unsuccessful due to restricted 

access 

Remnants of well-developed soil 

on N margin of fan overlooking 

Howser Cr.

Borden 

Number 

DR3 

WC4 

WC5 

Setting 

Cockle Cr. Fan (as at 

2002) 

Uppermost part of the 

reservoir drawdown zone 

Associated with reservoir 

beach stranded near full 

pool 

SE tip of highest terrace 

within drawdown zone, N 

of EbQf-7 

Steep slope on lower 

valley wall S of EbQf-7 

Elevatio 

n 



reported during 2002 WUP survey 



reported and mapped during 2002 

WUP survey (Choquette 2005). 

WC designation by Arcas 2006). 


reported and mapped during 2002 

WUP survey (Choquette 2005). 

WC designation by Arcas 2006). 




cores, flaked cobbles, tangrey 

quartzite biface fragment 

and large flakage” recently 

eroded from subsurface 

context 


Surface, Isolated Lithic 

Observed “one roughly square 

piece of Kootenay argillite with 

flake scars and edge crushing”. 

This artifact may be pre-contact in 

age or a contact era gunflint 

(Choquette 2005). 



• Observed isolated quartzite 

cobble / chopper 



• Observed isolated quartzite 

cobble / chopper 

Comments 

Area characterized by exposural 

and deflational reservoir 

microenvironments 

Area extensively deflated 

Area extensively reworked by 

reservoir wave action

2.3.2 Pre-Contact Culture History 


Because of the dearth of archaeological data from the northern Purcell Trench, especially from 

controlled excavation, it is necessary to extrapolate cultural history from adjacent areas. 

Archaeology in north western North America has tended to focus on inductive data retrieval and 

classification, the end product of which is a linear construct of temporal units subjectively based 

on “diagnostic” artifacts. Following this approach, the upper Columbia region has been lumped 

into the “Plateau” Culture Area and its archaeological record interpreted within the constructs 

developed for the more intensively investigated lower Columbia and Fraser-Thompson regions. 

There is little systematic information available regarding early postglacial human inhabitation of 

the Fraser-Thompson drainage, while two "traditions" have been defined for the later Holocene 

(Rousseau 2004): Nesikep (ca. 7000 years to 4500 years before present [BP]) and Plateau 

Pithouse (ca. 4500 years to 200 years BP). The latter comprises the Lochnore Phase (ca. 5000 

to 3500 BP) and the Shuswap (ca. 3500 years to 2400 years BP), Plateau (ca. 2400 years to 

1200 years BP) and Kamloops (ca. 1200 years to 200 years BP) "horizons”. Four "Archaic 

periods" have been proposed for the Columbia Plateau to the south of the study area: Palaeo 

(pre-11,000 years to 8000 years BP), Early (8000 years to 5000 years BP), Middle (5000 years 

to 2000 years BP) and Late (2000 years BP - AD 1720). Each is comprised of a number of local 

phases and horizons (Andrefsky, 2004). 

The archaeological record of the Arrow Lakes / lower Kootenay River / Slocan locality was 

initially subdivided into three phases: Deer Park, Vallican and Slocan (Turnbull 1977; Eldridge 

1984, based on Mohs 1981). These were later subsumed into a second linear sequence based 

largely on data from the Pend d'Oreille River valley in north eastern Washington (Goodale et al. 

2004). Four "adaptive patterns" were defined: Forager (6200 years to 4200 years BP), Collector 

I (3799 years to 2000 years BP), Collector II (1999 years to 600 years BP), and Collector III 

(599 years to 100 years BP). The three Collector patterns are essentially a reclassification of the 

three original phases (ibid). 

An alternative approach based on decades of research within the upper Columbia region itself 

has placed much greater emphasis on stratigraphically controlled assemblages from a wide 

range of settings that is inclusive of all types of archaeological remains, as well as their 

palaeoenvironmental contexts. This type of research at Kettle Falls has resulted in the 

identification of a series of archaeological cultural-temporal periods (e.g. Chance et al. 1977; 



Chance and Chance 1985). In the Canadian portion of the region, a similar objective approach 

led to the definition of a number of stratigraphically and/or geomorphologically controlled 

archaeological complexes of traits that vary over both time and space (Choquette 1984, 1987a 

& b, 1993, 1996, and 2007). These traits include settlement pattern, lithic preference, feature 

types, subsistence base, artifact function and palaeoenvironmental context as extrapolated from 

the landform, palaeohydrological and soil/sediment associations of cultural deposits. This 

approach facilitates the construction of hypothetical culture-historical models that are testable 

and re-finable by ongoing scientific archaeological investigation, and which can form a scientific 

basis for significance and impact assessments. 

Within this framework, the archaeological record of the upper Columbia River drainage area 

includes evidence of an archaeological trait constellation, the Goatfell Complex, found in 

association with terraces, beaches, dunes and glaciofluvial bars in the drained basins of the 

earliest proglacial lakes. Fine-grained microcrystalline stone such as tourmalinite, quartzite and 

siliceous metasiltite predominates in the stratigraphically-defined artifact assemblages. The 

sources of these materials are in quarried outcrops in the southern Purcell and central Selkirk 

mountains. The stone tool technology was primarily based on the production by percussion of 

large expanding flake blanks from large bifacial cores, edges of which were prepared by 

grinding. Large discoidal unifaces, large side scrapers, large stemmed weakly-shouldered and 

lanceolate spear points, plus a variety of large marginally retouched flakes, are typical tools. 

Cultural ties are apparent with the early cultures of the Great Basin and the east slope of the 

Rocky Mountains at this early time level. The Goatfell Complex settlement pattern and economy 

are inferred to have consisted of winter inhabitation of lakeside camps and summertime hunting, 

gathering and quarrying in the surrounding mountains. At the present time, the pre-Mazama 

stratigraphic context and the early postglacial palaeohydrological setting indicate that the 

Goatfell Complex dates between about 11,000 and 8000 years ago but there are as yet no 

directly dated occupations. The largest spearpoints occur associated with upland landscapes 

above the elevations of the later proglacial lakes. There are also components associated with 

landforms related to the earliest stages of the riverine regimes, for example, beside abandoned 

river channels and on fluvial bars and high erosional terraces. The latter components 

demonstrate a continued focus on the biface core and large expanding flake technology utilizing 

the same types of microcrystalline stone as described previously. However, cobble gravels were 

apparently more extensively utilized as tool stock than previously and the projectile points are 

slightly smaller stemmed and lanceolate forms. The reduction in projectile point size may reflect 



the adoption of the atlatl (or spear thrower) and different hunting methods. If these components 

represent later use (as their landform setting suggests), this change in hunting technology may 

reflect human adaptation to the changing early Holocene ecology, but at present there is too 

little data available to formally evaluate such an hypothesis. 

The relatively abundant evidence of early postglacial human inhabitation of the Purcell Trench 

vicinity is a noteworthy feature of the archaeology of British Columbia. In contrast, there is very 

little controlled data from the West Kootenay area for the time period between about 8000 and 

5000 years ago. This is reflected in a virtual hiatus at the Kettle Falls fishery during the 

Slawntehus Period (Chance and Chance 1985). The present evidence from the study area 

consists of surface finds of large side-notched and side/corner-notched points similar to those 

dating to this time in adjacent regions. While the sparseness of data may reflect less intensive 

human use of the area (the data from Kettle Falls indicate a collapse of the early Holocene 

fishery), it could also be the result of the very limited systematic archaeological investigation in 

the region, especially in upland settings. The focus of survey and excavation on pithouses on 

low elevation terraces may be responsible for the dearth of documented evidence, as 

occupation may have been in open camps on high terraces whose deposits were not 

extensively sampled. It is apparent that the Rocky Mountains to the east supported significant 

human populations during this time. 

Climatic conditions apparently became moister within the last 6000 years, especially after 5000 

BP as global cooling increased the influence of the Maritime Westerlies when the mean position 

of the storm track shifted southwards. In archaeological sites around Creston BC, in northern 

Idaho, and as far up the Kootenay River as the Libby, Montana vicinity, the distinctive siliceous 

metasiltite known as Kootenay Argillite is abundantly represented. The source of this stone is 

just south of the present study area, indicating that the north arm of Kootenay Lake was an 

especially important part of the aboriginal seasonal round between about 5000 and 2500 years 

ago when Kootenay Argillite attained its highest proportions in upriver artifact assemblages. In 

other parts of the region, this time period is characterized by a greater orientation to the 

resources of aquatic and riparian habitats by the resident human populations. It has also been 

hypothesized that salmon-carrying capacity reached its maximum during this time period 

(Choquette 1985). The Inissimi Complex was defined for the 5000 - 2500 BP time period to 

encompass a distinctive set of artifact assemblages on the Kootenay River and its major 

tributaries, from the big bend in north western Montana downstream at least as far as the north 



arm of Kootenay Lake. Sites containing Inissimi Complex assemblages occur on terraces and 

fans directly associated with specific hydrological features graded to later Holocene baselines, 

notably confluences, outlets, large eddies, beaches and rapids. Characteristic features of the 

Inissimi Complex are predominance of Kootenay Argillite and a distinctive form of projectile 

point with an expanding stem, a ground convex base, and acute to right-angled shoulders that is 

not found in surrounding regions. Other projectile points similar to those of contemporary 

components in adjacent areas (such as medium-sized contracting stemmed and leaf-shaped 

forms common to the west and south) occur in lower frequencies. Bilaterally-notched pebble 

sinkers are also significant artifacts frequently found in Inissimi Complex deposits. 

The abundance and distribution of Kootenay Argillite in Inissimi Complex sites along Kootenay 

Lake and the Kootenay River as far upstream as Libby, Montana is interpreted as reflecting the 

use of canoes. The inferred seasonal round consisted of wintering near the important deer 

winter ranges at the south end of the Purcell Mountains and a summer focus on the salmon 

fishery at the falls along the lower Kootenay River, which is hypothesized to have been at its 

maximum during the 5000-2500 BP time period. Prior to the return to the wintering area, a 

northward swing was made to obtain stone from quarries above the west side of the North Arm 

of Kootenay Lake and to hunt on the east side of the lake. Based on the abundance of Inissimi 

points in artifact collections from along the shores of Kootenay Lake and along the lower 

Kootenay River, it is apparent that Inissimi Complex sites are numerous. Considering the strong 

Maritime influence on the climate, the rain shadow effect may have enhanced the carrying 

capacity of the ungulate range on the east side of Kootenay Lake’s north arm during this period. 

With regard to the last 2500 years in the West Kootenay area, there is again little systematic 

archaeological data. In the Purcell Trench south of Kootenay Lake, some late Holocene 

archaeological sites are situated on the Kootenay River floodplain itself, in contrast to earlier 

sites which are instead restricted to the fringes of the great Kootenay River delta. This suggests 

a change in settlement pattern that is probably related to the end of the cool moist climatic 

conditions that prevailed between ca. 5000 and 2500 years ago. A different seasonal flow 

regime after about 2500 years ago apparently affected the level and extent of Kootenay Lake 

along with the nature of flooding on the Kootenay River delta, with a concomitant shift in human 

adaptation and seasonal land use patterns. The Lower Ktunaxa lifeway known ethnographically 

represents the end product of these late Neoglacial evolutionary changes; they continued to 

travel up Kootenay Lake by canoe well into the post-contact period in order to fish for kokanee 



on the lower Duncan River (Greenlaw 2002: pers. comm.). The vicinity of the confluences of 

Meadow Creek and the Lardeau and Duncan rivers was an important and long-used fishing 

area for kokanee and bull trout (Alexander 1998). 

The Lower Ktunaxa today comprises two bands who reside near Creston BC and Bonners 

Ferry, Idaho. Another group of Ktunaxa, the Qatmuk’nek, also frequented the Duncan Lake 

vicinity during their seasonal round which included both the winter ungulate range at the 

Columbia River’s headwaters in the Rocky Mountain Trench and a summer salmon fishery on 

the Arrow Lakes. This transhumance included passage through the study area vicinity via the 

Jumbo and Earl Grey passes, and travel up and down the Lardeau Valley corridor. The time 

depth of this settlement pattern is not yet known, but diagnostic artifacts of Kootenay Argillite 

dating typologically as old as ca. 5500 years have been found at the east end of this corridor in 

the Rocky Mountain Trench. Descendents of this group today reside near Windermere, BC. The 

major ethnographic works on the Ktunaxa are Schaeffer (1940) and Turney-High (1941); Smith 

(1984) and Brunton (1998) have compiled recent syntheses. 

Two other aboriginal groups were also at least seasonally present in the study area vicinity. The 

travel route through Earl Grey Pass was known locally as the Kinbasket Trail (Alexander 1998). 

The Kinbasket Band were speakers of the Secwepemc language, a division of the Salishan 

linguistic stock of the upper Thompson drainage. The Kinbaskets were named for Kenpesket, a 

North Thompson chief (Teit 1909: 460, 467) who moved from the Adams Lake vicinity to near 

pre-dam Kinbasket Lake around 1840. They gradually moved southward where they eventually 

encountered the Ktunaxa whose numbers had been significantly reduced by disease. The two 

groups subsequently intermarried and some of their descendents are members of the present- 

day Shuswap Band of Invermere. It is likely that similar groups could have 'hived off' the main 

Fraser-Thompson population centres in the pre-contact past as well and made their way into the 

uppermost parts of the Columbia drainage as a result of the cyclic fluctuations in salmon- 

carrying capacity. Teit's accounts (1909, 1930) of the Secwepemc and Ignace’s work (1998) 

comprise the bulk of written data for that group; the Kinbasket Band is currently assembling 

Traditional Use information. 

A similarly episodic long-term local land use pattern likely characterized the other seasonally 

resident aboriginal group, the Sinixt, a northward extension of Okanagan-speakers distributed 

along the main stem and tributaries of the middle Columbia River. Some Sinixt today reside in 



the Slocan Valley while others are more closely affiliated with member bands of the Syilx 

(Okanagan Nation) which also includes the Colville Confederated Tribes in the United States. 

The major ethnographic works on the Sinixt are by Bouchard and Kennedy (1985, 2000). 

Historical records summarized by Bouchard and Kennedy indicate that the Sinixt were focused 

on Kettle Falls during the contact period and even overwintered there. The major villages were 

along the Columbia River not far north of Kettle Falls at the southern edge of their subsistence 

territory. Prior to the middle of the 19th century, however, the Sinixt were centred further north in 

the Columbia Valley north of Castlegar and in the Slocan Valley. The ethnohistoric records also 

indicate that their subsistence quest took them along a circuit by canoe up the north arm of 

Kootenay Lake with a westward return to the Arrow Lakes via the Lardeau Valley. 

2.3.3 Euro-Canadian History 

The post-contact history of the Duncan (formerly Howser) Lake vicinity began with prospecting 

and mining in the 1890's (Chapman 1981). Several promising claims were staked and some 

were developed into mines that operated sporadically into the middle of the 20 th century. 

However, none produced sufficient ore to offset the difficulties of transport from this remote 

region, and an anticipated boom never took place. A second population influx occurred around 

the turn of the 20 th century as settlers, many of them English, were lured to the area with the 

promise of developing orchards. While some stayed on and some agriculture was successful, 

transportation again proved to be an economic obstacle. When the First World War began, 

many men left the area and few returned. 

During the early decades of development, both the Canadian Pacific and the Great Northern 

railways began construction of rail lines to the Duncan Valley, the former from Lardeau and the 

latter from Argenta. Rails were never laid on a railroad grade built into the lower valley and 

neither railroad was ever completed because the local economy and population declined. There 

was a minor and short-lived renewal of interest in mining during the early 20 th century, during 

which time the quarry at Marblehead saw several decades of production. Logging, at first in 

support of mining and railroad construction, subsequently became the economic mainstay and 

remains so today, although tourism is increasingly important. Duncan Reservoir itself was 

created as part of the Columbia River Treaty Development when Duncan Dam was completed 

in 1968. 



3.0 LANDSCAPE HYPOTHESES AND MODEL DEVELOPMENT 

The current investigation is framed within the broader systemic paradigm discussed in Section 

2.3.2 above, and allows for archaeological investigations to be carried out in an iterative fashion. 

It utilizes a hypthetico-deductive research methodology that includes the development of 

appropriate models / hypotheses testable by subsequent more intensive targeted investigation. 

Model development for the evaluation of the archaeological potential of the Duncan Reservoir 

involves consideration of both the biogeography of the reservoir in the context of its setting 

within the upper Columbia River drainage region as well as the present state of the regional 

archaeological record. 

3.1 Pre-Contact Human Settlement Pattern Models, Duncan Reservoir 

The convergence of the environmental and archaeological data streams discussed above 

produce lines of evidence to support a series of predictive hypotheses of pre-contact human 

land and resource use in Duncan Reservoir. 

Four distinctive proprietary pre-contact human settlement pattern models applicable to this part 

of the Purcell Trench and spanning the Holocene were extracted from the archaeological record 

(summarized in Section 2.3.2). 

3.1.1 Model 1: Late Neoglacial (ca. 2500 – 200 BP) 

This land and resource use model encompasses the palaeoenvironmental conditions upon 

which the ethnographically known Ktunaxa and Salish cultures were based. The settlement 

pattern was focused on use of historically existing lakes and rivers for transport and part of the 

subsistence base. Patterned accumulations of cultural material would be expected in the valley 

bottom associated with geologically recent landforms such as beaches, floodplain terraces in 

inner valleys and alluvial fans graded to the historic local hydrological baselines of Kootenay 

and Duncan lakes. Archaeological remains are postulated to have resulted from temporary 

encampment and activities associated with a relatively wide-ranging and diversified seasonal 

subsistence round. In this locality, this would have included seasonal presence of relatively 

small canoe-based groups engaged in fishing and water fowling in Duncan Lake and Duncan 

River and the adjacent riparian ecosystems, and deer hunting and plant gathering in the 

adjacent uplands. Evidence of transient activity and encampment in the southern part of the 



reservoir by members of the Qatmuk'nek, an Upper Ktunaxa band who wintered in the Rocky 

Mountain Trench and passed through seasonally to and from summer salmon fishing on the 

Arrow Lakes, also is expected, as is similar evidence of both Ktunaxa and Salish peoples 

travelling up and down the Duncan Valley. All such evidence would be in recent 

geomorphological and stratigraphic settings. 

3.1.2 Model 2: Early Neoglacial (ca. 5000 – 2500 BP) 

The Late Neoglacial model may be postulated to have essentially been derived from an Early 

Neoglacial base that included more intensive subsistence resource exploitation and a 

settlement pattern more focused on the valley bottom / riverine environment than earlier or later 

times. Higher fluvial discharge resulted in valley-wide alluvial floodplains (now terraces flanking 

the later channels and inner terraces), and higher seasonal lake levels that extended the spring 

extents of both Kootenay and Duncan Lakes. Patterned accumulations of cultural material are 

postulated to be in buried alluvial deposits on these terraces and tributary fans, and possibly 

associated with higher beaches. The focus on the more productive aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems of this period may have allowed for more intensive seasonal occupation and 

targeted subsistence activities, especially fishing and water fowling. The latter was probably 

augmented by procurement of terrestrial faunal and plant resources in parts of the valley 

influenced by rain shadows. 

3.1.3 Model 3: Early Holocene fluvial regime, ancestral Kootenay Lake (ca. 10,000 – 

8000 BP) 

Model 3 is the least specific because it is not well known. It includes sites on relict beaches, 

truncated fans, fluvial bars, and possibly an early floodplain / Duncan River delta in the north 

end of the reservoir. This period coincides with a rapidly declining hydrological base level during 

the Altithermal. At this time, fire climax Douglas-fir forest and higher ungulate-carrying capacity 

were widespread in the region, extending into more northerly portions of the Columbia 

Mountains. Target landforms have potential for evidence of seasonal base camps, transient 

camps and activity loci associated with movement both north-south in the Duncan Valley as well 

as east-west into the surrounding uplands. Archaeological evidence of lithic extraction and 

artifact production is predictable where incision and reworking by watercourses following 

drainage of proglacial lakes exposed cobbles of suitable stone. 


3.1.4 Model 4: Immediate Postglacial (ca. 12,000 – 10,000 BP) 


This model represents the initial occupation of the people who subsequently focused their 

seasonal rounds more intensively on the expanding ungulate populations as the ecology of the 

adjacent mountains matured. Part of the attraction to this area may also have been anadromous 

salmon runs prior to their blockage by the falls created by downcutting of the lower Kootenay 

River. It encompasses archaeological remains associated with the first habitable postglacial 

landscape in the locality: the level terrain in the drained basins of the early proglacial lakes. 

Archaeological remains would be characterized by locations on elevated terraces and delta-fans 

graded to higher lake levels, resulting from occupation by a highly nomadic human population 

with a predominantly but not exclusively terrestrial orientation to steppe-tundra and pioneer / 

early seral ecosystems. The model partially overlaps with the previous one in that it also 

includes exploitation of local cobble-based micro-crystalline lithic resources. 

Hypothetical characteristics of pre-contact human land and resource use in the Duncan 

Reservoir subsumed by the four distinct pre-contact human settlement models are summarized 

in Table 3-1 below. 



Table 3-1. Comparative Pre-Contact Human Land and Resource Use, Duncan Reservoir 

Years Before 

Present (BP) 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 

2,500 - 200 5,000 – 2,500 10,000 – 8,000 12,000 – 10,000 

Period Late Neoglacial Early Neoglacial Early Holocene 

Seasonal 

Round 

Subsistence 

Resource 

Exploitation 

Settlement 

Pattern 

Relatively wideranging 

and diversified 

seasonal subsistence 

round 

Fishing and water 

fowling in Duncan 

Lake, Duncan River 

and adjacent riparian 

ecosystems 

Deer hunting and plant 

gathering in adjacent 

uplands 

Focused on use of 

historically existing 

lakes and rivers for 

transport and part of 

subsistence base 

Temporary 

encampments 

Possible travel route 

used seasonally 

enroute to salmon 

fishing on the Arrow 

Lakes 

Small canoe based 

groups 

More productive 

ecosystems may 

have allowed for 

more intensive 

seasonal occupation 

More intensive use of 

valley bottom / 

riverine resources 

than earlier or later 

times 

Targeted subsistence 

activities including 

fishing and waterfowl 

Procurement of 

terrestrial fauna and 

plant resources in 

parts of the valley 

influenced by 

rainshadows 

More focused on the 

valley bottom / 

riverine environment 

than earlier or later 

periods 

Movement north-south 

in the Duncan Valley 

and east-west into 

uplands 

Higher ungulate 

carrying capacity 

extending into more 

northern regions of the 

Columbia Mountains 

Seasonal base camps 

Transient and satellite 

camps 

Immediate 

Post-Glacial 

Highly mobile, wideranging 

small 

populations; no 

seasonal round as 

such. 

Presence related to 

now-extinct mammals, 

expanding ungulate 

populations in adjacent 

mountains 

Anadromous salmon 

runs? 

Occupation by a highly 

nomadic population 

with a predominant 

terrestrial orientation in 

steppe-tundra and 

pioneer / early seral 

ecosystems 


4.0 TESTING LANDSCAPE HYPOTHESES 


The Pre-Contact Human Land Settlement Models outlined in Section 3 serve as the explicit 

bases for identifying where archaeological remains might have accumulated in the reservoir 

landscape, where they might be visible surficially in exposed stratigraphic and geomorphological 

contexts and from which non-mathematical archaeological interpretations can be made. 

4.1 Sampling Rationale 

Several types of inductive data retrieval have been commonly carried out in BC archaeology. By 

far the most common focuses on certain classes of artifacts whose cultural significance is 

assumed because of elaboration and variability in morphology. This approach is inherently 

subjective and potentially circular, and has not succeeded in providing much useful information 

regarding past human behaviour except in cases characterized by rich material culture. 

A second, less common type of inductive approach, which characterized many large 

archaeological projects in the early 1970s, is based on statistical analysis and utilizes random 

sampling. This approach can provide objective and statistically representative information but its 

effectiveness is likewise dependent upon large samples. Its utility also has the limitations of all 

quantitative data in revealing non-quantitative spatial and temporal relationships, particularly 

those relative to systemic manifestations. Experience has shown that, in the upper Columbia 

River drainage area, this type of sampling is better suited for the later deductive stages in the 

investigative paradigm where it can be applied to appropriate hypotheses where the data is 

likely to meet its requirements, especially in terms of numerical populations. 

A third inductive approach is even less common, though it is based on some of the fundamental 

methodological underpinnings of archaeology as a science. This approach utilizes 

independently defined components of the natural landscape such as sedimentary strata and 

landforms as the framework within which to organize data. If identified properly, these 

landscape components are objective and have the further great advantage of yielding both 

temporal and palaeoenvironmental context that other approaches do not. 

With regard to the present project, the information presented in Section 2 makes it clear that 

knowledge of the late Pleistocene and Holocene landscape / biotic evolution of the Duncan 

Reservoir area and related human adaptations are in a rudimentary state. In the context of an 



AOA, the archaeological potential of this area requires that it be placed in the context of its 

setting within the upper Columbia River drainage bioregion and the present state of the regional 

archaeological record. As discussed Section 2.3.2, some of that record is in the form of testable 

models of pre-contact human land and resource use synthesized from Holocene 

palaeoenvironmental data and archaeological information obtained from controlled stratigraphic 

and geomorphological contexts. The present project represents an application of that 

methodology to the Duncan Reservoir in that some of the pre-contact human land and resource 

use models from the regional record are synthesized with available palaeoenvironmental data 

relevant to the Purcell Trench and the surrounding mountains to guide the spatial focus of the 

archaeological survey. 

The sampling approach adopted was constrained by available funding, timing and logistics 

relative to reservoir operations and the vagaries of constantly changing reservoir 

microtopography. The models are consequently rather simple but they have the benefit of being 

landscape oriented in that they predict occurrences of archaeological remains in association 

with discrete landform settings. This approach has been highly productive in terms of increasing 

the archaeological inventory as well as being very successful over the past decade in 

addressing issues related to the effects of reservoir operations in the upper Columbia WUPs. 

By relating archaeological deposits to physical components of the landscape, the latter can 

serve as management surrogates for archaeological materials when considering impacts and 

mitigative measures. 

The sampling strategy employed in the present study was thus oriented towards obtaining 

information about the presence of archaeological remains in the Duncan Reservoir and about 

the character and condition of the strata and landforms containing the archaeological materials. 

At the present state of knowledge of the Duncan Reservoir, it was possible to define a set of 

expectations with regard to the presence of archaeological evidence in association with certain 

topographic features within the reservoir drawdown zone. These inform the strategy employed 

to sample the arbitrary portion of the Purcell Trench represented by Duncan Reservoir by 

allowing for the definition of objective targets within a broader explanatory context that can itself 

be utilized as the framework for any future investigations. 


4.2 Sampling Design 


The objectives of the present survey sampling design were to identify components of the 

landscape likely to have associated pre-contact archaeological remains, to stratify the sample 

objectively to yield optimal coverage of target landforms, and to examine these via field survey 

to confirm and describe relationships between archaeological remains, components of the 

landscape and the reservoir processes that affect them. 

The pre-contact human land settlement models (Sections 3.1.1; 3.1.2; 3.1.3; 3.2.4) formed the 

basis for stratification of the overall reservoir sampling universe. The sampling universe was 

defined via the convergence of two data streams of landscape evolution and pre-contact human 

land and resource use models. This was accomplished by identifying geomorphological criteria 

relevant to the settlement patterns of the four models (Table 4-1). Consideration of the 

evolution of the landscape over time utilizes the predominant geological processes that gave 

rise to the topography and the particular suite of landforms and sediments in the Duncan 

Reservoir area. The models comprise proprietary syntheses of the evolution of regional biota 

with hypothesized patterns of pre-contact human activity and settlement developed from 

analyses of assemblages from the archaeological sites in the Duncan Reservoir and in the 

regional archaeological record. In combination these allow for the definition of where survey 

should be focused in the reservoir and what types of data should be collected. 

Within the context of the urgency of identifying the surviving remnants of the archaeological 

record within the drawdown zone, the sampling strategy employed was a combination of 

subjective and objective to target settings that were likely to yield positive results and maximum 

amounts of contextual data. 



Table 4-1. Comparative Geomorphological Criteria Relevant to Human Settlement, Duncan Reservoir 

Years Before 

Present (BP) 

Climatic 

Interval 

Landscape 

Evolution 

/ Availability 

Location of 

Patterned 

Accumulation 

of Cultural 

Material 

Postulated 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 

2,500 – 200 5,000 – 2,500 10,000 – 8,000 12,000 – 10,000 

Late Neoglacial Early Neoglacial Early Holocene 

Geologically recent 

beaches; floodplain 

terraces in inner 

valleys; alluvial fans 

graded to historic 

hydrological baselines 

of Kootenay and 

Duncan Lakes 

In valley bottom 

associated with 

geologically recent 

landforms / 

stratigraphic settings 

4.2 Sampling Strata 

Higher fluvial 

discharge resulted in 

valley-wide alluvial 

floodplains; higher 

seasonal lake levels 

extending spring 

extents of Kootenay 

and Duncan Lakes 

In buried alluvial 

deposits on terraces 

and tributary fans; 

possibly associated 

with higher beaches 

Rapidly declining local 

hydrological baselines 

Relict beaches; 

truncated fans; fluvial 

bars; possible early 

floodplain / Duncan 

River deltas in the 

north end of reservoir 

Lithic extraction and 

production where 

incision and reworking 

by watercourses 

following drainage of 

proglacial lakes 

exposed cobbles of 

suitable stone 

Immediate 

Post-Glacial 

First habitable 

postglacial 

landscapes; level 

terrain in the drained 

basins of early 

proglacial lakes 

Elevated terraces; 

delta fans graded to 

higher lake levels 

Exploitation of local 

cobble-based microcrystalline 

lithic 

resources 

In the context of carrying out the present project, stratification was an iterative process within 

the exigencies of budgetary constraints, availability of background information, the realities of 

the reservoir environment with regard to expected erosion and deposition, and the sparse 

existing archaeological inventory. 

The explicit objectives of such a survey are to obtain data pertaining to the presence and 

condition of the identified geomorphological entities and to the presence and character of 

archaeological remains associated with them. Representative settings were postulated to be 

present in the Duncan Reservoir on the bases of previous geological mapping (Fulton 1967 and 

maps). 



The availability at Selkirk College, Castlegar of black and white pre-dam air photos facilitated 

the development of focused survey strata. Based on their handwritten numbered sequence, the 

collection appear equivalent to other ca. 1949/50 datasets commissioned in advance of the 

Columbia River Treaty / North American Water Agreement, a major mapping initiative 

conducted under the Columbia River Basin MS Mapping Series. Stereoscopic analysis was 

conducted to delineate a number of specific geographic loci to serve as sampling strata 

amenable to intensive visual field inspection. The initial sampling strata were defined as 

thirteen linear transects, each chosen to traverse as much of the defined landform settings 

and/or sedimentary strata as possible. The thirteen proposed transect locations along with their 

associated model ascription are described below in Table 4-2: 

Table 4-2. Proposed Transect Locations with Model Ascription 

Transect 

(TR) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Description Model 

Glacier Creek fan in immediate vicinity of an outlet of Duncan Lake. 

Transect will sample riverbank / fan toe that controlled the lake level. A 

unique setting that has not yet been surveyed. 

Beach and lacustrine deposits in small valley behind previously recorded site 

EcQf-2. Transect will include an elevational sequence that could contain early 

terraces; a unique setting which has not been revisited. 

N across lower and relict fan complex of Griz Creek to North Creek. A unique 

complex of fans that may be graded to all past lake levels contained within 

the reservoir. 

N across lower Little Glacier Creek fan, fine sediment depositional 

environment near head of pre-dam Duncan Lake. Previously subject to 

cursory survey in 2002. 

NW across S edge of Howser Creek delta-fan. Transect of unique set of 

terraces eroded into delta-fan and possibly depositional terraces (fluvial point 

bar) at head of pre-dam Duncan Lake, potentially graded to higher lake 

levels. 

N across mapped relict beach deposits between Howser and Gravelslide 

Creek, May be related to past level of ancestral Kootenay Lake. Not 

previously surveyed. 

NW across Gravelslide Creek fan. Fine sediment depositional environment 

not previously surveyed. 

NW across Pat Creek fan. Fine sediment depositional environment not 


NW across mapped relict beach deposits between Pat and Clancy Creeks, 

probably related to past level of ancestral Kootenay Lake. 

NW across fine sediment depositional environment on recent and relict 

Clancy and Dunn Creek fans, potential location of elevated fluvial point 

bar/terraces graded to higher lake levels. Unique location possibly at the 

head of the Ancestral Kootenay Lake. 


1, 2 

1, 2 

(3? depending 

on landforms) 

1, 2, 3, 4 

1, 2 

2?, 3, 4 

2?, 3 

1, 2 

1, 2 

2?, 3 

1, 2, 3

11 

12 

13 


NW across Cockle Creek fan (fine sediment depositional environment) and 

possibly depositional terraces (fluvial point bar?). Previously subject to 

cursory survey in 2002. 

Alluvial floodplain terraces upriver from head of early Holocene lake. Not 


NW across Devils and Beartrap Creek composite fan at head of reservoir, 

fine sediment depositional environment and possibly depositional terraces 

(fluvial point bar?). 

The corresponding pre-dam air photographs were scanned and geo-rectified in Arc View 9.3 

using TRIM I water features. Due to the mountainous terrain and lack of pre-dam digital 

elevation model (DEM) data for the region, the air photos could not be ortho-rectified. As a 

result, accuracy is greater in the valley bottoms than in the surrounding mountainous terrain but 

this does not detract from their use as sampling foci in the reservoir drawdown zone. 

Proposed transects were digitized and potential survey area was estimated calculated as a 

range based on 50 m – 100 m width coverage (Chart 4-3): 

Table 4-3. Proposed Transect Survey Coverage 

TR Length m Area / 50 m ha. / 50 m Area / 100 m ha. / 100 m 

1 2,250 112,500 11.25 225,000 22.5 

2 1,250 62,500 6.25 125,000 12.5 

3 1,600 80,000 8.0 160,000 16.0 

4 1,000 50,000 5.0 100,000 10.0 

5 500 25,000 2.5 50,000 5.0 

6 1,000 50,000 5.0 100,000 10.0 

7 1,000 50,000 5.0 100,000 10.0 

8 1,000 50,000 5.0 100,000 10.0 

9 1,250 62,500 6.25 125,000 12.5 

10 3,000 150,000 15.0 300,000 30.0 

11 1,000 50,000 5.0 100,000 10.0 

12 2,000 100,000 10.0 200,000 20.0 

13 2,000 100,000 10.0 200,000 20.0 

Total 18,850 94,250 94.25 188,500 188.5 

Contours at 2.5 m (BC Hydro 1993 DEM) and TRIM II features were overlaid onto the datasets 

producing (1) an overview of proposed transects (Figure 4-1); and (2) a series of paired field 

pre-dam and contemporary maps to inform field reconnaissance (Figures 4-2; 4-3; 4-4; 4-5; 4- 

6). 


1, 2, 3? 

1,2,3 

1, 2, 3

Figure 4-1. Overview of Proposed Survey Transects 



Figure 4-2. Pre-Dam and TRIM Mapping for Proposed Transect Location 1 




Figure 4-3. Pre-Dam and TRIM Mapping for Proposed Transect Locations 2 & 3 



Figure 4-4. Pre-Dam and TRIM Mapping for Proposed Transect Locations 4 – 7 



Figure 4-5. Pre-Dam and TRIM Mapping for Proposed Transect Locations 7 – 10 



Figure 4-6. Pre-Dam and TRIM Mapping for Proposed Transect Locations 11 - 13 

4.3 Survey Methods 

The method of survey designated is consistent with the guidelines established for Overview and 

Preliminary Field Reconnaissance in Section 3.4.3 of the Archaeological Impact Assessment 

Guidelines (Apland & Kenny 1998) and compliant with the nonintrusive Order issued under the 

Water Act as discussed in Section 1.1. 

Within these parameters, the field survey sample was initially stratified to focus primarily on 

intensive inspection of the surfaces of the broadest range of level and gently sloping landforms. 

Accordingly, steeper slopes were to be less intensively examined, but not ignored as they are 

represented within the selected survey transects; the latter thus essentially encompassing the 

range of geographic settings within the reservoir. 



The pre-dam ortho images (with contour and TRIM overlay) were uploaded into a Trimble 

GeoXT GPS / with TerraSync datalogger to orient crews in pre-reservoir environments in real 

time. The proposed 50 m width linear transects (including outer extents and centre line) were 

uploaded into three separate Garmin Map60 GPS units to guide pedestrian traverses. 

Prior to field reconnaissance, logistical constraints required eliminating three (of the proposed 

thirteen) transects (4, 7 and 8) which were considered to be redundant in terms of 

representation. 


5.0 RESULTS 


Field reconnaissance was carried out from May 7 and 10, 2010 by a six member Eagle Vision 

Geomatics & Archaeology Ltd. survey crew: Wayne Choquette, Melissa Knight, Robert 

Williams, John Nicholas, Mike Shottanana and James Wageman. All crew members 

participated in survey of each transect location. 

Problematic access necessitated elimination of two additional transects (1 & 12) from the field 

reconnaissance (i.e. Transect 1 was flooded while Transect 12 is on the right bank of the 

Duncan River, several hours of hiking from the nearest forest road). Therefore, priority was 

given to the remaining eight transects encompassing the largest expanse of contiguous target 

terrain relative to the time required to access them (2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13). 

Survey transects were examined via pedestrian traverses allowing for close visual inspection of 

drawdown area surfaces, focusing especially on exposures of remnant fine sediment and areas 

where such might be present associated with gravel reservoir lags atop identified pre-reservoir 

landforms. Survey proceeded via 10 - 20 m wide zigzag pedestrian transects within the survey 

transects which had been selected to sample specified landform and sediment exposures. 

Traverses of transects were tracked within the Garmin units while the Trimble recorded 

landform specific data, archaeological site data and geo-reference of digital photographs. 

It was necessary to adjust the proposed transects in the field as several locations (i.e. 3, 5, 6, 11 

and 13) as defined on the pre-reservoir air photos were either outside the limits of the reservoir 

as it now exists, or the terrain to be captured by the models was more restricted than appeared 

on the air photos due to forest canopy closure at the time the photos were taken. 

Transect 9 and Transect 6 were not systematically surveyed as the target landforms (mapped 

relict beaches) were not observed within the reservoir draw down zone. The terrain associated 

with Transect 6 was found to be uniformly steep and heavily eroded (Plate TR6-1) and although 

a narrow terrace was observed a few metres above the reservoir full pool adjacent to the 

proposed transect location (most likely one of the mapped beaches), it is not presently affected 

by reservoir operations. 



Plate TR6-1: Steep and eroded terrain in drawdown zone at the edge of the Duncan Reservoir. (MK100510_068) 

During the field reconnaissance, transect orientation was also adjusted laterally or longitudinally 

so that survey overlapped more completely with the drawdown zone (i.e. Transects 5 and 11), 

or so that only the portions within the reservoir study area were surveyed (i.e. Transects 3 and 

13). 

Systematic survey was conducted of transect locations 2, 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13. A detailed 

description of results per transect including landforms surveyed, observed cultural materials, 

and preliminary archaeological potential summaries proceed the corresponding maps and photo 

documentation, all of which are provided in Sections 5.1 – 5.6. A summary of the field 

reconnaissance results follows in Section 5.7. 


5.1 Transect 2 


Transect 2 encompassed a small valley on the "peninsula" south of Jubilee Point. This is a 

unique feature in the reservoir in that it is situated on this peninsula, which is itself a unique 

landscape feature in addition to being a very short drainage (< 2 km long) that contains a small 

spring-fed lake (Figure 5-1, Plate TR2-1). In addition to sampling such a unique setting, this 

transect was also proposed to include the beach at the mouth of the valley where 

archaeological site EcQf-2 was reported, which had not been revisited since it was originally 

recorded. All land and resource use models are tested by this transect. 

On May 7, 2010, the six person crew traversed the transect from north to south surveying a total 

area of 20.6 ha. The transect as surveyed in the field started further north than originally 

proposed to encompass the entire valley within the reservoir drawdown zone (Figure 5-1. 1). At 

the conclusion of the May 7 th field day, archaeological site EcQf-7 (EcQf-T10-05) was identified 

and recorded upon a return trip May 10, 2010 (Figure 5-2). 

5.1.1 Landforms 

The valley extends northward beyond the reservoir; that part of it within was found to be a 

relatively flat-bottomed basin. At the north end of the transect is a gently sloping, lightly 

vegetated reservoir beach (Plate TR2-2) where remnants of burn piles and a few patches of Bf 

soil horizon were observed. The west side of the valley is steep and rocky, even precipitous 

west of the small lake. The east side, however, is more gently sloping and sandy, and appears 

to be quite heavily reworked by wind and especially reservoir waters as the valley faces into the 

prevailing winds. The bottom of the valley is mostly quite level, poorly drained and swampy, 

being watered by springs. North of the small lake, the valley bottom is characterized by 

numerous cedar stumps while much reservoir sediment has been deposited around the lake. 

Where the transect nears pre-dam Duncan Lake, the undulating gently sloping apron along the 

east side gives way to a complex series of level terraces and beach ridges. The largest is on the 

highest terrace and is vegetated (Plate TR2-3); its age is uncertain. The south end of the next 

lower terrace is capped by several fresh 1 - 2 m high reservoir beach ridges of coarse sand and 

gravel. The lowest terrace slopes southward and, by reservoir-related deflation and reworking, 

merges with the natural beach of pre-dam Duncan Lake formed by wave action against the 

resistant bedrock ridge on the northwest (Plates TR2-4,TR-5). 


5.1.2 Cultural Materials 


Pre-contact archaeological site EcQf-2 was not relocated during the survey. In the on-line site 

survey, it is recorded as being associated with beach sand in this vicinity (Plate TR2-6). Its 

location on RAAD is on a rocky cliff, so it appears that this site is not correctly plotted. 

Lithic scatter EcQf-7 was identified on the low terrace at the mouth of the small valley and in 

wave reworked fine sediments on the deflated slope at the reservoir's edge (Figure 5-1. 1; 

Figure 5-2). A total of nine artifacts including grey, pink and tan quartzite shatter, secondary 

flakage and double-ended 'macroblade' cores (Plates TR2-7 to TR2-11) plus a thin phyllite slab 

tool (Plate TR2-12) were recorded. 

5.1.3 Archaeological Potential Summary 

The steep and rocky west side of the valley and the swampy, parts of the valley bottom have 

little archaeological potential. Much reservoir sediment has been deposited around the lake and 

while no pre-contact cultural materials were observed, it is not possible to determine how much 

pre-reservoir Holocene fine sediment remains here. 

No pre-contact cultural materials were observed on the series of elevated level terraces and 

beach ridges at the south end of the transect but much of the surface is obscured by reservoir 

sediment deposition. There is potential for archaeological remains to be present beneath the 

reservoir sediments on these terraces, depending on the amount of pre-reservoir soil that 

remains. 


Figure 5-1. Map of Survey Transect 2 



Figure 5-2. Location Map for Archaeological Site EcQf-7 



Plate TR2-1: View S from the N end of TR2 showing the 

lake, terrace and ridge in the background. (JW070510_002) 

Plate TR2-3: View S from TR2 over terraces and beach 

ridges to EcQf-7. (JW070510_005) 


Plate TR2-2: View N of the N end of TR2 showing 

reservoir erosion, remnant soil patches and evidence of 

burning. (JW070510_003) 

Plate TR2-4: View N, NW of EcQf-7 where lowest terrace 

merges with pre-dam Duncan Lake beach. (MK100510_134) 


Plate TR2-5: View S across the S end of TR2 showing 

sand beach deposit. (MK100510_132) 

Plate TR2-7: Pale pink quartzite utilized flake on deflated 

beach at EcQf-7, S end of TR2. (MK100510_124) 


Plate TR2-6: View N of TR2 from EcQf-7. (MK100510_133) 

Plate TR2-8: Large grey quartzite flake on deflated beach 

at EcQf-7, S end of TR2. (MK100510_127) 


Plate TR2-9: Worked grey quartzite cobble decortication 

flake on deflated beach at EcQf-7, S end of TR2. 

(MK100510_130) 

Plate TR2-11: Striking platform of red quartzite cobble 

core on the deflated beach at EcQf-7. (MK100510_126) 


Plate TR2-10: Grey quartzite core on deflated beach at 

EcQf-7, S end of TR2. (MK100510_125) 

Plate TR2-12: Pink phyllite tool on deflated beach at 

EcQf-7, S end of TR2. (MK100510_131) 




Transect 3 was proposed as a north, north-westward transect across a complex of fans and 

terraces associated with Griz Creek; testing all four pre-contact land settlement models. On May 

10, 2010, the proposed transect was found to extend southward beyond the reservoir full pool 

(Figure 5-3). The field crew adjusted the location and size of the transect to reflect the terrain, 

surveying a total area of 6.723 ha. 


As with the south end of Transect 3, the microtopography proved to be more complex than was 

apparent on the forested pre-dam aerial photography. In addition to an alluvial fan at the mouth 

of Griz Creek and gravelly erosional and relict delta-fan terraces associated with the creek, a 

large rock-defended glaciolacustrine silt terrace is present on the north side of a small unnamed 

creek to the north. The latter terrace is draped across the east side of a prominent bedrock ridge 

(Plates TR3-1, TR3-2). 

5.2.2 Cultural Material 

No pre-contact cultural material was observed on the Griz Creek alluvial fan or on the lower 

erosional terrace above the right (north) bank of the creek. The former is immediately adjacent 

to the reservoir and capped with reservoir sediment (Plate TR3-3) while much of the fine 

sediment cap on the latter, which is in a sheltered location, may be largely intact. 

Widely scattered lithic artifacts were found in reservoir beach strands on the highest gravelly 

delta-fan terrace at EcQf-5 (EcQf-T10-03) and in deflated areas on the high silt terrace at EcQf- 

6 (EcQf-T10-04) (Figure 5-4). While several medium-sized (ca. 5 -10 cm maximum dimension) 

flakes and flake tools were observed (eg. Plate TR3-4), the large majority of artifacts at both 

sites were large quartzite slab and biface core tools (Plates TR3-5 to TR3-7). Notable among 

these are large core choppers (Plates TR3-8 and TR3-9) and a unifacial perforator / graver tip 

worked on a large quartzite spall (Plate TR3-10). Remnants of the pre-reservoir podsolic natural 

soil are still present on both terraces, beneath lagged beach gravels and coarse sands at EcQf- 

5 and beneath a cap of reservoir silt at EcQf-6. 




The archaeological potential of two of the three elevated terraces was confirmed by the survey. 

Both the lower erosional terrace above the right bank of Griz Creek and the alluvial fan have 

potential, but exposures were insufficient to reveal the presence of cultural materials. 





Figure 5-4. Location Map for Archaeological Sites EcQf-5 & EcQf-6 



Plate TR3-1: View SE over N end of rocky promontory 

from NW edge of TR3. (MK100510_100) 

Plate TR3-3: View W over Griz Creek fan capped with 

reservoir sediment at the S end of TR3. (MK100510_070) 


Plate TR3-2: View NW to SE corner of T3. 

(MK100510_121) 

Plate TR3-4: Black tourmalinite marginally retouched flake 

/ perforator at EcQf-6. (MK100510_104) 


Plate TR3-5: Pink quartzite biface core fragment at EcQf- 

5. (MK100510_079) 

Plate TR3-7: Pink and grey quartzite slab tool at EcQf-5 

(MK100510_120). 


Plate TR3-6: Pale pink quartzite cobble chopper at EcQf- 

5. (MK100510_086) 

Plate TR3-8: Grey quartzite cobble chopper at EcQf-5 

(MK100510_074). 


Plate TR3-9: Pink quartzite cobble core / chopper at 

EcQf-6. (MK100510_112) 


Plate TR3-10: Pink quartzite cobble spall graver at EcQf- 

6. (MK100510_115) 




As originally proposed, this northwest-trending transect encompassed the south edges of 

terraces in the Howser Creek delta-fan complex to test models 2, 3 and 4. 

On May 8, 2010, the crew shortened and altered the orientation of the transect to reflect the 

absence of any postulated terraces at the base of the south margin of the high terrace, 

surveying a total area of 2.362 ha (Figure 5-5). These were instead found to comprise either 

extremely steep slopes of eroded cobble gravel or, at the base, reservoir muck. The transect 

was therefore altered to capture the lower erosional terraces in the complex (Plate TR5-1). As 

no landforms relative to model 2 were found within the transect, only models 3 and 4 were 

tested. 


The survey examined two discrete level terraces that were formed as Howser Creek downcut 

through its glaciolacustrine delta. 


The lower of the two terraces had been subjected to foot reconnaissance during two prior 

surveys but no pre-contact archaeological remains were observed. In this survey, close 

inspection of the surface resulted in the observation of a flaked quartzite cobble EcQf-3 (EcQf- 

T10-01) (Figure 5-6; Plate TR5-2). The artifact was mostly encased in the 5 - 10 cm thick 

blanket of reservoir silt that capped most of the nearly level terrace surface. An intact podsol 

was observed beneath this cap in the south-western part of the terrace (Plate TR5-3). 

Significant deflation and wave sorting action is notable on the larger and next higher terrace to 

the northeast EcQf-4 (EcQf-T10-02) (Figure 5-7). Pre-contact lithic artifacts have been 

observed on this terrace for years (i.e. DR2); some previously noted artifacts were not visible at 

the time of this survey while numerous new artifacts were observed. A total of 20 artifacts were 

recorded. Characteristic of the assemblage are large cobble core tools, large flake tools and 

large biface reduction debitage, plus much cobble reduction shatter (Plates TR5-4 to TR5-8). 

The surface of this large high terrace has been extensively deflated and reworked, but remnants 

of intact soil are also still present here (Plates TR5-9 to TR5-12) 




The archaeological potential of both elevated terraces was confirmed by the survey. 





Figure 5-6. Location Map for Archaeological Sites EcQf-3 & EcQf-4 



Plate TR5-1: Overview NW of Duncan Valley from TR5 

showing the lower erosional terrace. (MK080510_017) 

Plate TR5-3: Intact podsol capped by reservoir sediment. 

(MK080510_014) 


Plate TR5-2: Large quartzite tested cobble at EcQf-3. 

(MK080510_015) 

Plate TR5-4: Utilized pink quartzite spall at EcQf-4. 

(MK080510_037) 


Plate TR5-5: Tan / grey quartzite biface thinning flake with 

faceted ground striking platform at EcQf-4. (MK080510_036) 

Plate TR5-7: Tested multi-coloured CCS cobble at EcQf- 

4. (MK080510_019) 


Plate TR5-6: Tan / grey quartzite core fragment at EcQf-4. 

(MK080510_033) 

Plate TR5-8: Pink quartzite utilized flake at EcQf-4. 

(MK080510_022) 


Plate TR5-9: Marginally retouched Kootenay argillite flake 

on remnant of pre-reservoir soil at EcQf-4. (MK080510_028) 

Plate TR5-11: Quartzite shatter fragment on remnant of 

pre-reservoir soil at EcQf-4. (MK080510_022) 


Plate TR5-10: Multi-coloured Kootenay argillite flake and 

remnants of pre-reservoir soil at EcQf-4. (MK080510_025) 

Plate TR5-12: Tan / grey core fragment on remnant of 

pre-reservoir at EcQf-4. ( MK080510_033) 




The proposed transect extended south-eastward across the distal portions of the Clancy and 

Dunn Creek fans in order to test models 1, 2 and 3. 

On May 9, 2010, the survey crew began to survey the transect, following a 150° bearing, 

continuing along the reservoir shoreline (Figures 5-7 & 5-8) covering a total area of 21.855 ha. 


Much of the transect comprised steep to moderate west-facing bouldery slopes heavily eroded 

by wave action and gravity. Another large proportion of the transected terrain comprised more 

gently sloping distal portions of the two large fans. It was noted that the southerly aspects of 

fans and elevated parts of their surfaces tended to be severely deflated while north-facing lee 

slopes and swales tended to be thickly mantled with fine sands (Plates TR10-1, TR10-2); at the 

lowest elevations, most level surfaces are obscured by thick deposits of reservoir silt (Plates 

TR10-3, TR10-4). One section of reservoir shoreline consists of an area of mineral springs that 

are causing mass-wasting of the glaciolacustrine silt (Plate TR10-5). Two heavily eroded 

remnants of small apron-terraces are also present near the base of otherwise steep slopes. 


Two loci of pre-contact artifact deposition were located and recorded on the apron-terrace 

remnants (Figure 5-7). Site EdQf-1 (EdQf-T10-01) (Figure 5-8; Plate TR10-6) consists of six 

flaked fine-grained quartzite cobble fragments in reworked reservoir beach gravel (Plates TR10- 

7, TR10-8). A remnant Bf horizon was observed here beneath the thick reservoir beach lag. A 

single fragment of flaked quartzite was found at EdQf-2 (EdQf-T10-02) (Figure 5-9; Plate TR10- 

9), where the terrace remnant displays the pattern of southerly aspect deflation and more 

northerly re-deposition (Plates TR10-6, TR10-10, TR10-11). 


Almost all of the area encompassed by this transect has been severely eroded by reservoir- 

induced processes, with the result that the portions of the two large fans where archaeological 



potential would be predicted to be highest have been so modified that no pre-contact 

archaeological remains were observed, either because the terrain has been eroded beyond 

recognition or is deeply buried beneath fine sediment. In the latter case, especially on the low 

elevation level areas, it is possible that intact remnants of the pre-reservoir soil are present but 

such were not observed during the transect survey. Small remnants of intact soil on the apron 

terraces suggest that there is still some potential for intact archaeological remains to be present 

on both. 





Figure 5-8. Location Map for Archaeological Site EdQf-1 



Figure 5-9. Location Map for Archaeological Site EdQf-2 



Plate TR10-1: View S across Clancy Creek from the N 

side of channel. (MK090510_046) 

Plate TR10-3: View W from TR10 from N edge of Pat 

Creek fan. (MK090510_065) 


Plate TR10-2: View S over N edge of relict channel of 

Dunn Creek and reservoir deposition. (MK090510_041) 

Plate TR10-4: Overview to N along TR10 depicting 

location of EdQf-2 and the thick deposit of reservoir silt 

obscuring the lowest elevations. (MK090510_066) 


Plate TR10-5: View SE over slump / slope caused by 

mass wasting of silt from mineral springs. (MK080510_059) 

Plate TR10-7: Cortical surface of tested white quartzite 

cobble fragment at EdQf-1. (MK090510_049) 


Plate TR10-6: View N to EdQf-1 site location. 

(MK090510_055) 

Plate TR10-8: Cortical surface of utilized quartzite spall at 

EdQf-1. (MK090510_051) 


Plate TR10-9: Utilized pink quartzite flake at EdQf-2. 

(MK090510_061) 

Plate TR10-11: View N of south end of EdQf-2 terrace 

and reservoir deposition. (MK090510_063) 


Plate TR10-10: View S of N end of terrace at EdQf-2. 

(MK090510_062) 




The proposed transect crossed the southern part of the Cockle Creek fan to tests models 1, 2 

and 3. On May 8, 2010, the surveyed area was enlarged in the field to include the terrain around 

isolated find DR3 (Choquette 2005). The total area of 22.532 ha was surveyed (Figure 5-10). 


The transect crossed the southern part of Cockle Creek fan and the alluvial floodplain of the 

Duncan River south of the fan. 


An artifact of Kootenay argillite had been found on the upper part of the fan during the 2002 

WUP survey (Choquette 2005) (Figure 5-10; Figure 5-11) but the area where this artifact had 

been observed was entirely obscured by driftwood and beach gravel. A single flaked quartz 

metasediment spall EdQg-1 (EdQg-T10-01) (Plate TR11-1) was found amongst beach gravels 

slightly lower on the south-facing part of the fan (Figure 5-10; Plate TR11-2). 

5.5.3 Archeological Potential Summary 

Only the floodplain and the lowest portion of the fan may still have some sediment that could 

contain pre-contact archaeological remains; these are mantled by reservoir fine sediment (Plate 

TR11-3). Otherwise, this locality was found to be extremely eroded and wave-reworked. 




EdQg-1 


Figure 5-11. Location Map for Archaeological Site EdQg-1 & DR3 




Plate TR11- 1: Quartz spall at EdQg-1. (MK080510_011) Plate TR11-2: Edge of reservoir fine sediment and 

location of isolated find EdQg-1 at the SE edge of the 

Cockle Creek gravel fan. (MK080510_009) 

Plate TR11- 3: View SE of the NW end toe of Cockle 

Creek fan / Duncan River depicting low elevation mantling 

by reservoir fine sediment. (MK080510_008) 




Transect 13, as proposed, crossed the Devils and Beartrap Creek fans to test models 1, 2 and 

3. In the field, on May 8, 2010, however, it was found to be almost completely outside the 

Duncan Reservoir. The south end was shifted to the southeast to encompass the distal part of 

the fan of Beartrap Creek; 2.57 ha were surveyed in the modified transect (Figure 5-12). 


The surface of the fan of Beartrap Creek was observed to be quite level, and is likely a relict 

delta of a higher lake level. The rest of the terrain of the surveyed transect consisted of sloping 

reservoir beach (Plate TR13-1) or level floodplain thickly capped by more than 50 cm of 

reservoir silt. 


No pre-contact cultural deposits or features were observed in the transect. 


The wave-eroded toe of the Beartrap Creek fan is too severely deflated to have any 

archaeological potential. 

Plate TR13-1: View W of sloping reservoir beach and debris at 

the E end of adjusted TR13. (MK080510_007) 





5.7 Results Summary 


Field reconnaissance included systematic survey of the six transects (2, 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13) 

within the reservoir drawdown zone covering a total area of 76.7 ha – 52 % more than that 

required within the survey terms of reference (BC Hydro 2008: 26). Total survey area per 

transect is summarized in Table 5-1. 

The field survey also substantially increased the archaeological record within the reservoir 

including the recording of three sites which are the first in their respective Borden blocks (EdQf- 

1, EdQf-2, EdQg-1). 

In total, eight archaeological sites were identified and recorded during the present survey (Table 

5-1) including: four large and relatively diverse new assemblages (EcQf-5, EcQf-6, EcQf-7, 

EdQf-1); one previously known but unrecorded site (EcQf-4 / DR2); an isolated find with 

potential for additional buried materials situated in proximity to a previously reported isolated 

find (EdQg-1 / DR3); and two additional isolated finds with potential for additional materials to be 

present (EcQf-3, EdQf-2). 

As a result of the current survey, the updated archaeological record for the Duncan Reservoir 

(Figure 5-13) may be summarized as identification of sixteen discrete loci (+ 60%) including: 

fourteen provincially registered archaeological sites (+ 133%), and two reported isolated finds. 

A total of seventy-five artifacts were documented, geo-referenced and photographed during the 

current survey (Table 5-2). 



Table 5-1. Summary of Transects Surveyed including Archaeological Sites Recorded 

TR Total ha 

2 20.629 

3 6.723 

3 

5 2.362 

5 

10 21.855 

10 

11 22.532 

Archaeological 

Sites 

EcQf-7 

(EcQf-T1-05) 

EcQf-5 

(EcQf-T10-03) 

EcQf-6 

(EcQf-T10-04) 

EcQf-3 

(EcQf-T10-01) 

EcQf-4 

(EcQf-T10-02) 

Part of the former 

DR2 

EdQf-1 

(EdQf-T10-01) 

EdQf-2 

(EdQf-T10-02) 

EdQg-1 

(EdQg-T10-01) 

DR3 

Previously reported 

DR3 ~ 100 m N 

have included into 

the same site form. 

13 2.57 None 

# 

Artifacts 

9 

15 

22 

Elev. 

(m) 

555 

to 

562.5 

560 

to 

572.5 

563 

to 

567.5 

1 559 

20 

76.671 8 75 

6 

554 

to 

563 

555 

to 

565 

1 561 

1 567 

Site Microtopography Stratigraphic Notes 

Lower terrace remnant 

sloping south ward to 

natural beach of predam 

Duncan Lake 

Gravelly delta fan 

terrace 

Deflated silt terrace 

Nearly level terrace 

surface 

Large, stepped terrace 

Remnant apron terrace 

Distal portions of the 

Clancy and Dunn 

Creek fans. 

Lower south-facing 

portion of Cockle Creek 

fan. 

Artifacts found in wave 

reworked fine sediments 

on the deflated slope at 

the reservoir’s edge. 

Artifacts found in beach 

strands on the highest 

gravelly delta fan terrace. 

Artifacts found in deflated 

areas on the high silt 

terrace. 

Artifact identified mostly 

encased in the 5 – 10 cm 

thick blanket of reservoir 

silt. 

Evidence of significant 

reservoir action including 

deflation and wave 

sorting obscures site, 

however remnants of 

intact soil were also 

observed. 

A remnant Bf horizon 

was observed beneath 

the thick reservoir beach 

lag. 

Deflation & re-deposition 

Artifact identified 

amongst beach gravels. 

No areas of intact soil 

were observed during 

this assessment as the 

locality was found to be 

either extremely eroded 

or wave-reworked or 

mantled by reservoir fine 

sediments at the lower 

elevation. 


Figure 5-13. Updated Archaeological Record within DDMMON12 Study Area 



Table 5-2. Summary of Archaeological Sites Recorded 

Borden No. Cultural Material Comments 

EcQf-3 Quartzite flaked cobble (1) 

EcQf-4 

EcQf-5 

EcQf-6 

EcQf-7 

Quartzite worked cobble fragments 

(2) 

Quartzite shatter fragments (2) 

Quartzite flakes (7) 

Quartzite flake fragments (2) 

Quartzite chopper (1) 

Kootenay argillite flakes (3) 

Quartzite core (1) 

Quartzite core fragment (1) 

Quartzite utilized spall (1) 

Quartzite core fragment (2) 

Quartzite shatter fragments (2) 

Quartzite slab tools (4) 

Quartzite cobble choppers (4) 

Quartzite tested cobble (1) 

Quartzite flake (1) 

Hammer stone (1) 

Quartzite core fragments (2) 

Black tourmalinite flake (1) 

Dark grey chert flake (1) 

Quartzite slab tools (5) 

Quartzite cobble choppers (3) 

Quartzite tested cobble (1) 


Hammer stone (1) 

Quartzite cobble spall graver (1) 

Quartzite core fragments (2) 

Quartzite cobble chopper (1) 

Quartzite phyllite slab tool (1) 



• The current survey identified one artifact mostly 

encased in a 5-10 cm. thick blanket of reservoir silt 

(as at low pool May 8, 2010). 

• At the time of the survey, the silt was found to cap 

almost the entire surface. 

• Artifacts have been observed on the surface of 

EcQf-4 for a number of years (Choquette 2010). 

• Some previously noted were not visible at the time 

of this survey while numerous others previously not 

observed were recorded. 

• The original site on this large terrace was most 

likely substantial prior to creation of the reservoir. 

• Although areas of remnant soil were observed 

during the current survey, it is impossible to 

estimate how much of the site may remain intact. 

• Artifacts found on an estimated 0.44 ha of beach 

strands on the highest gravelly delta fan terrace in 

the reservoir. 

• Within the reservoir environment, using nonintrusive 

survey methods, it was impossible to 

determine exact dimensions of the original site. 

• Artifact distributions observed within the reservoir 

deflated area on a high silt terrace (as at low pool 

May 10, 2010) comprised approximately .63 ha. 

Original site dimensions impossible to ascertain. 

• Remnants of the pre-reservoir podsolic soil were 

identified beneath a cap of reservoir silt. 

• Intact deposits may be present beneath silt cap. 

• Artifacts were found in wave reworked fine 

sediments on the deflated slope. 

• EcQf-7 is situated within a reservoir environment 

and as such the original dimensions are impossible 

to ascertain. Within this context, artifact 

distributions observed within the reservoir deflated 

area on a high silt terrace (as at low pool May 10, 

2010) comprise dimensions ~.072 ha. 

• Intact deposits may be present beneath reservoir 

beach sediments. 


Borden No. Cultural Material Comments 

EdQf-1 

Quartzite tested cobble fragments 

(3) 

Quartzite utilized spall (2) 

Quartzite cobble chopper (1) 

EdQf-2 Utilized quartzite flake (1) 

EdQg-1 Quartz metasediment spall (1) 


• EdQf-1 was located and recorded on a heavily 

eroded remnant apron terrace within reworked 

reservoir beach gravel. 

• A remnant Bf horizon was observed beneath the 

thick reservoir beach lag which indicates the 

potential for intact subsurface cultural deposits. 

• The current survey identified and recorded a UTM 

for one artifact found on deflated and reworked 

terrace surface. 

• Single artifact identified amongst wave-reworked 

beach gravels ~ 68 m SE of an isolated find 

documented by Choquette in 2005. 

• No areas of intact soil were observed during this 

assessment as the locality was found to be either 

extremely eroded or wave-reworked or mantled by 

reservoir fine sediments at the lower elevation. 


6.0 DISCUSSION 


The Duncan Reservoir drawdown zone represents a linear segment of the Purcell Trench where 

vegetation has been removed and the Holocene fine sediment cap has been exposed, along 

with some of its archaeological constituents. 

The present survey sample of the Duncan Reservoir consists of a series of transects of 

individual landscapes subjectively selected as the possible repositories of parts of the 

archaeological record of past human activity. Interpretation of the results of the survey must 

consider the serious constraints upon discovery and condition of archaeological remains 

imposed by the reservoir environment, including differential destruction of landforms and 

sedimentary strata in some cases, and burial beneath obscuring accumulations of post-reservoir 

sediments in other instances. Despite these limitations, the brief field survey associated with this 

project has produced significant positive results in the form of eight discrete loci of 

archaeological remains. 

At the present state of knowledge of the Duncan Reservoir, it was possible to define a set of 

informed expectations with regard to the micro-topographic features present within the reservoir 

drawdown zone. However, the actual representation of these in the reservoir must be first 

identified and then mapped before they can be quantified in any way that would be meaningful 

in a statistical sense for supporting extrapolations of correlations between landforms and “sites” 

(c.f. Muir 2007). 

The existing Duncan Reservoir archaeological inventory itself is the result of a range of data 

inputs over a considerable span of time, the recording of which has been based on varying 

degrees of familiarity with the character of the regional archaeological record. This ranges from 

reports of artifact finds of local residents through removals of burials exposed by erosion 

through the judgemental boat survey by Keenleyside and Fladmark (which was apparently 

targeted to examination of beaches) to the 2002 landform-oriented WUP transect survey and 

the multi-year monitoring of deflating cultural materials at EbQf-7. The products of such diverse 

data inputs do not at the present time lend themselves to classification into “site types” that 

would be meaningful in terms of a population with which to project a quantitative inventory. An 

additional consideration is the characteristic relative paucity of the physical archaeological 

evidence that typifies most localities in the region. 



The orientation of the sampling strategy employed in the present study was primarily towards 

obtaining information about the presence of archaeological remains in the Duncan Reservoir 

and about the character and condition of the strata and landforms containing the archaeological 

materials. 

The strategy employed to sample the Duncan Reservoir had three main objectives: 

a. to identify components of the landscape likely to have associated pre-contact 

archaeological remains; 

b. to stratify the sample objectively to yield optimal coverage of target landforms; 

and 

c. to examine these via field survey to confirm and describe relationships between 

archaeological remains, components of the landscape and the reservoir 

processes that affect them. 

Previous sections of this report have provided information regarding the former two objectives 

while Section 5 has provided descriptive data pertaining to the archaeological remains that were 

identified, their contexts in the reservoir and the remnants of the landscape with which they are 

associated. In this section, the results of the survey are interpreted in the context of the pre- 

contact human settlement (land and resource use) models that guided the selection of the 

survey transects. A preliminary significance assessment is also provided in support of the 

recommendations that are presented in Section 7. 

6.1 Representation of Hypothetical Pre-Contact Human Settlement Models 

6.1.1 Models 1 and 2 

The first and second of the models described in Section 3.0 relate to human presence in 

association with the hydrological baselines of the last half of the Holocene (i.e. the last 5000 

years). Archaeological remains in Duncan Reservoir dating to this time would most likely be 

associated with the alluvial floodplain and the gently sloping distal portions of alluvial fans (i.e. 

those in proximity to water and riparian ecosystems). 

In the present study area, almost all of this level terrain beside Duncan Lake and Duncan River 

is in the bottom of the reservoir and was observed to be buried beneath a thick deposit of 



reservoir silt, therefore largely inaccessible to surficial archaeological investigation. While no 

cultural materials diagnostic of the last half of the Holocene (for example, fire broken rock 

concentrations, cultural depressions, small flake blank-based artifacts of cryptocrystalline stone) 

were found during the present survey on these landforms, one artifact potentially assignable to 

Model 2, a Kootenay Argillite uniface, was observed on a beach at EbQf-3 in 2002 (Choquette 

2005). 

The archaeological remains found at EcQf-7 on the sloping wave-eroded margin of the lowest 

terrace at the south end of Transect 2 are of considerable interest in this context, as this setting 

is below the hydrological baseline to which the higher terraces are graded. These artifacts 

include double-ended high angle cores (Plate TR2-10) and a thin phyllite slab tool (Plate TR2- 

12). 

Site EcQf-2 is reported to be in this immediate vicinity and, although the site form only mentions 

the find of a single artifact (a side and basally notched projectile point), a range of artifact types 

was collected by Keenleyside and Fladmark in 1965. These include Kootenay argillite and 

quartzite flakage, a large phyllite biface, and the medium-sized projectile point of tan 

cryptocrystalline silica (shown in Choquette 2005). Figure 5-1. shows the site to the northwest 

of the south end of Transect 2 but the form notes that the mapped location is not necessarily 

accurate. Artifacts may have been collected from beach sand that was inundated at the time of 

the present survey. The cultural materials observed at EcQf-7 during the present survey are 

situated immediately above the possible location of this beach. Assemblages from both sites are 

different enough in technology and lithic material representation from known early postglacial 

assemblages to suggest a cultural affiliation different from that of Models 3 and 4. As they 

appear to date on morphological and technological grounds to the early Neoglacial, EcQf-2 and 

EcQf-7 could therefore be representations of model 2. 

6.1.2 Models 3 and 4 

With regard to the two early Holocene models, the survey produced very positive, if equivocal 

results. 

While some of the numerous flaked quartzite pieces that were found during this study could be 

coarse chopping tools used by later Holocene inhabitants (i.e. those found at EdQf-1, EdQf-2 

and at EdQg-1), the vast majority of the large quartzite artifacts observed are either forms such 



as bifacial cobble choppers and large "scraping planes" that characteristically are found 

associated with early diagnostic artifacts (eg. EbQf-7 at Glacier Creek) or are themselves such 

diagnostics, such as large bifaces and large expanding flake blanks with ground striking 

platforms. These are indicative of early Holocene / late Pleistocene lithic technology related to 

the Stemmed Point Complex, of which the Goatfell Complex is a local representative. In addition 

to being identified at EbQf-7, these artifacts were found on the high terraces at Griz Creek 

(EcQf-5 and EcQf-6) and Howser Creek (EcQf-4) and may be taken as tentative confirmation of 

early postglacial human inhabitation related to Settlement Pattern Model 3 or 4, or both. The 

latter instance reflects the likelihood that these two models are representative of a single cultural 

continuum that occupied the valley as the hydrological baseline was lowered with the drainage 

of post-glacial lakes and establishment of the early Holocene lake and riverine regimes 

(themselves later replaced by Neoglacial regimes). A greater and more detailed inventory of the 

contents of these sites is required to illuminate this, but the presence of intermediate terraces at 

the south end of Transect 2 and at Howser Creek in Transect 5 is potentially highly significant in 

this regard. While no cultural material was observed on the terraces in Transect 2, much of their 

surfaces are obscured by reservoir sediment. This is also true of the terrace upon which EdQf-2 

is situated where a single artifact is visible, but not temporally or culturally diagnostic. There is 

great potential for the use of all of these terraces in developing a local geochronological 

framework for the archaeological remains associated with them. 

6.2 Archaeological Site Evaluation 

The foregoing leads into an assessment of the significance of the findings of the present survey, 

bearing in mind the above mentioned constraints regarding the condition and visibility of the 

contents of the various cultural deposits encountered. 

6.2.1 Site Significance Assessment Criteria 

Four types of significance (scientific, public, ethnic and economic) are identified in Appendix D 

of the British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines (Apland and Kenny 1998) 

With regard to ethnic significance, it can be stated categorically that all of these sites are highly 

significant to the First Nations in whose territory the reservoir is situated. Public and economic 

significance are more difficult to evaluate. All known sites have some public, interpretive value 

by virtue of their existence and accessibility. Economic exploitation of this interpretive value is 



inadvisable at present: too little is known about the sites, information sharing protocols with 

First Nations have yet to be established, and security issues are too great. More detailed 

assessments of public and economic significance are premature given the present stage of 

stewardship of archaeological values within Duncan Reservoir. Both public and economic value 

are highly dependent upon the scientific validity and significance of the sites. Only scientific 

significance can be preliminarily evaluated at this time. 

Scientific significance is based on the information value of sites, that is, the degree to which the 

evidence they contain can contribute to understanding the archaeological record. In the upper 

Columbia River drainage, this value relates to the condition and diversity of cultural objects and 

features, to the inter-relationships amongst them, and to their relationships with the 

environmental context that includes the landform and palaeohydrological associations and the 

soil and sedimentary stratigraphy. At the present level of investigation, our information about 

most of these characteristics is severely limited by the extent of exposure of cultural deposits; 

and does not preclude the potential for intact cultural deposits. 

The cultural materials encountered during the present survey are quite diverse, and can be 

differentiated into two broad groups, which will be assessed separately: isolated finds or sparse 

and scattered cultural deposits. 

6.2.2 Assessment of Single Artifact Occurrences 

Three sites contained isolated finds: EcQf-3, EdQf-2 and EdQg-1. 

EdQf-2 identified on a small remnant apron-terrace in Transect 10 and EdQg-1 on the Cockle 

Creek fan in Transect 11 could be individual artifacts used and/or discarded where they were 

observed. Alternatively, they may be remnants of sparse cultural deposits. Severe reservoir 

actions were evident in these locations and it was impossible to determine whether or not there 

were intact deposits beneath reservoir sediments. Table 6-1 summarizes the significance of 

these artifacts in terms of the evaluation criteria. 



Table 6-1. Significance Matrix for Archaeological Sites with Single Artifact Occurrences 

CRITERION EcQf-3 EdQg-1 EcQf-2 

stratigraphy 3 1 1 

temporal diagnostics - - - 

datable materials - - - 

ancient landform association x - x 

lithic/tool diversity 2 2 2 

activity areas - - - 

distinctive tool types - - - 

features - - - 

subsistence remains - - - 

exotic items - - - 

uniqueness/representation 2 2 2 

integrity 3 2 2 

Stratigraphy: • 1 indeterminate; 2 may extend into 

undisturbed sediments; 3 stratification 

observed 

Lithic / Tool Diversity: 

Uniqueness / Representation: 

Integrity: 

Datable materials, temporal 

diagnostics, landform association, 

activity areas, distinctive tool types, 

features, subsistence remains and 

exotic items 

• 1 not observed; 2 one tool / lithic type 

observed; 3 more than one tool or lithic type 

observed 

• 1 indeterminate; 2 possibly representative; 3 

unique 

• 1 indeterminate; 2 completely / highly 

disturbed; 3 partially intact 

• - = not observed or relevant; 

• x = present / identifiable 

*Numbers do not represent quantities, but gradations; in general, the higher the number the greater the 

significance value. The scoring is symbolic and is not intended to be manipulated mathematically. 

EcQf-3 at Howser Creek in Transect 5 had a single artifact occurrence. However, given its 

location on a relatively large level terrace near the mouth of a major creek adjacent to another 



site where multiple artifacts are present, this artifact is likely accompanied by a considerably 

more extensive, completely buried, cultural deposit not visible at the time of the survey, as 

evidenced by the observed presence of intact soil beneath the capping reservoir sediment. This 

artifact is therefore assessed with other larger deposits in Table 6.2 and is accorded higher 

significance than the other individual artifacts. 

6.2.3 Assessment of Multiple Artifact Exposures 

The other cultural deposits encountered during this survey are characterized by numerous lithic 

artifacts. No definite pre-contact features were observed during the survey, however EcQf-7 on 

the west shore of the 'peninsula', EcQf-5 on the high terrace north of Griz Creek, EcQf-6 on the 

rock-defended glaciolacustrine terrace to the north and EcQf-4 on the high terrace at Howser 

Creek all exhibited large and relatively diverse assemblages that moreover included artifacts 

diagnostic of early Neoglacial or early Holocene temporal provenences. 

EcQf-7, EcQf-4 and EcQf-5 all appear to be heavily wave-altered but remnants of Bf soil 

horizons were observed at the latter two. The level and sheltered character of EcQf-6 appears 

to have resulted in less extreme reservoir-induced erosion; much of the latter site may still be 

intact. At present, it can be concluded that all of these sites are highly significant, given their 

relative rarity in the provincial inventory and the sparse population of sites of any age in the 

archaeological inventory of the Duncan Reservoir area itself. 



Table 6-2. Significance Matrix for Archaeological Sites with Multiple Artifact Exposures 

CRITERION EcQf-7 EcQf-4 EcQf-5 EcQf-6 EdQf-3 

stratigraphy 2 3 3 3 - 

temporal diagnostics x x x x - 

datable materials - - - - - 

ancient landform association x x x x x 

lithic/tool diversity 3 3 3 3 2 

activity areas - - - - - 

distinctive tool types x x x x - 

features - - - - - 

subsistence remains - - - - - 

exotic items x - - - - 

uniqueness/representation 3 3 3 3 2 

integrity 1 3 1 3 2 

Stratigraphy: • 1 indeterminate; 2 may extend into 

undisturbed sediments; 3 

stratification observed 

Lithic / Tool Diversity: 

• 1 not observed; 2 one tool / lithic type 

observed; 3 more than one tool or 

lithic type observed 

Uniqueness / Representation: • 1 indeterminate; 2 possibly 

representative; 3 unique 

Integrity: 

Datable materials, temporal 

diagnostics, landform 

association, activity areas, 

distinctive tool types, features, 

subsistence remains and exotic 

items 

• 1 indeterminate; 2 completely / 

highly disturbed; 3 partially intact 

• - = not observed or relevant; 

• x = present / identifiable 


7.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 


The Duncan Dam AOA was undertaken to facilitate Duncan Dam Water Use Planning Process 

(WUP) and to make recommendations to guide a second phase of the Cultural Monitoring 

Program. The ability of the WUP to address its aims to protect and maintain cultural sites in the 

Duncan Reservoir has been seriously hampered by the lack of a complete archaeological 

inventory, incomplete analysis and synthesis of documented sites and the absence of 

knowledge of the condition of cultural sites. 

The extent, availability and quality of the existing archaeological data within the Duncan 

Reservoir make it difficult to judge the significance of previously recorded archaeological sites 

as well as to put into context the new sites found during the AOA. It remains difficult to assess 

the impact of reservoir operations on the heritage resource. Ongoing study and monitoring in 

Phase 2 of the AOA must acknowledge the limits of the existing, though expanded, 

archaeological inventory. 

The highly positive results of the current survey affirm the predictive value of the pre-contact 

land settlement models for locating archaeological sites, while further contributing to our 

knowledge of the pre-contact human history of the area. It is therefore recommended that the 

model framework be applied through Phase 2 of the five year Cultural Resource Monitoring 

program. 

1. Reservoir-Wide Monitoring 

The dynamic environment of the reservoir must be considered in putting all finds into 

context. Visible surfaces change radically from year to year; the results of any given 

reconnaissance (particularly a non-intrusive study as required by the Comptroller of 

Water Rights) are therefore somewhat arbitrary. A combination of archaeological and 

operations considerations is likely to yield considerable further information, including the 

potential for additional important discoveries. In this context, reservoir-wide monitoring is 

recommended and should be oriented to identifying and surveying landforms with high 

archaeological potential within the model framework. The effects of dam operations and 

associated landscape processes on the archaeological resource are not well 

understood. Phase 2 of the Duncan Dam Reservoir AOA should include reservoir-wide 

study of erosion processes, including an assessment of how and where archaeological 

remains are exposed, transported and deposited throughout the reservoir. An 



experimental approach involving tagging and monitoring of 'model artifacts' may yield 

information unavailable from traditional archaeological field surveys. 

A unique aspect of the current study was the use of historic air photos, and considerable 

effort was expended in their digitization. This technique was highly successful and 

should be widely utilized in all BC Hydro's future Reservoir Archaeology programs. 

The establishment and delineation of permanent monitoring sites is recommended, 

including setting up permanent photo points and repeat photography. 

2. Survey Transects 1 and 12 

Two transects that were not surveyed due to difficult access contain terrain 

unrepresented by the six surveyed transects. Transect 1 at the outlet of Duncan Lake is 

in a very low elevation setting that is probably buried beneath reservoir sediment. This 

location may also be characterized by strong currents that could on occasion result in 

erosion that could expose significant archaeological remains. Transect 12 represents an 

otherwise unduplicated sample of the Duncan River floodplain on the west side of the 

valley, terrain that is considerably more level than most of that sampled during this 

survey. This transect is in the upper part of the reservoir, hence is not inundated for as 

long a duration as most of the other valley bottom landscape and retains a partial 

vegetal cap. Based on observation from the opposite side of the river, this location may 

have deflated exposures of pre-contact archaeological remains as well as the possibility 

of some intact sediments. Both of these settings should be surveyed in the first year of 

follow-up monitoring, and evaluated for inclusion for site-specific monitoring. 

3. Site – Specific Monitoring 

Many loci of exposed archaeological remains identified during the present survey are 

characterized by remnants of intact pre-reservoir soil horizons which have potential for 

containing additional archaeological remains still in their stratigraphic contexts. The high 

variability in the reservoir area that has resulted from the dynamic Holocene landscape 

evolution combined with the sinuous nature of the valley is such that the large majority of 

the sites identified so far are highly distinctive, and have potential for contributing a wide 

range of information not duplicated by that from any of the other sites. 



Most of the sites recorded during the present survey are worthy of further investigation 

and site-specific monitoring. 

EcQf-3, EcQf-4, EcQf-5, EcQf-6 and EcQf-7 as well as EbQf-7 (the previously recorded 

site near Glacier Creek where some monitoring has already taken place) are all worthy 

of focused monitoring that is likely to yield valuable additional information regarding their 

archaeological and stratigraphic contents, as well as information pertaining to the effects 

of reservoir operations in their distinctive settings. 

Table 7-1. Site Specific Monitoring Recommendations (as entered on BC Site Inventory Forms) 

Borden No. Site Monitoring Recommendations 

EcQf-3 

EcQf-4 

EcQf-5 

EcQf-6 

EcQf-7 

EdQf-1 

Site should be revisited and condition / extent monitored as almost the 

entire level terrace was encased in a 5 – 10 cm blanket of reservoir silt at 

time of survey. 

Site should be revisited and condition / extent monitored as some previously 

noted artifacts (i.e. Choquette 2005) were not visible at the time of this 

survey while numerous others previously not observed were recorded. The 

original site on this large terrace was most likely substantial prior to creation 

of the reservoir. Although areas of remnant soil were observed during the 

current survey, it is impossible to estimate how much of the site may remain 

intact. 

Site should be revisited and condition / extent monitored as remnants of the 

pre-reservoir podsolic natural soil were observed to be present beneath 

lagged beach gravels and coarse sands. Determine whether intact deposits 

are present including extent beneath reservoir beach sediments. 

Site should be revisited and condition / extent monitored as remnants of the 

pre-reservoir natural soil was identified beneath a cap of reservoir silt. 

Determine whether intact deposits are present beneath silt cap. 

Site should be revisited and condition / extent monitored to determine 

whether intact deposits are present beneath reservoir beach sediments. 

Site was located and recorded on a heavily eroded remnant of a small 

apron within reworked reservoir beach lag. However, a remnant Bf horizon 

was also observed which may indicate that there may be intact subsurface 

cultural deposits. 

EdQf-2 No recommendation made 

EdQg-1 No recommendation made 


4. Protection and Mitigation Measures 


The next phase of study should include an evaluation of different options for long-term 

stewardship and protection of the archaeological resource. Traditionally, these options 

have included shovel testing, excavation, burying (or capping), artifact collection, site 

stabilization, erosion control, vegetation establishment, etc. On-going consultations with 

the Duncan Dam Water Use Planning Committee, including affected First Nations, 

should guide the development of a long-term stewardship plan. 


8.0 REFERENCES CITED 


Alexander, J.W.E. 

1998 Lardeau Duncan Memories. Creston: Ken E Alexander, publisher. 

Andrefsky, William 

2004 Materials and Contexts for a Culture History of the Columbia Plateau. In Complex Huntergatherers: 

Evolution and Organization of Prehistoric Communities on the Plateau of 

Northwestern North America, edited by W.C. Prentiss and I. Kuijt, pp. 23-35. The 

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Apland, Brian and Ray Kenny. 

1998 British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines, Archaeology 

Branch,Victoria. 

Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd. 

2006 Archaeological Data Summary to 2005 in BC Hydro Reservoirs Archaeological Data 

Collection Project. Prepared for BC Hydro (Duncan Reservoir section). 

Baker, Richard G. 

1983 Holocene Vegetational History of the western United States. in Wright, H.E. Jr. ed. Late 

Quaternary Environments of the United States, Vol. 2: 109-127. Minneapolis: University of 

Minnesota Press. 

BC Hydro 

2008 Duncan Dam Water Use Plan. Monitoring Program Terms of Reference. Cultural 

Resources Monitoring Plan. DDMMON-12 Duncan Reservoir Archaeological Overview 

Assessment. Appendix 1-2 Terms of Reference. December 15, 2008. 

2009 Duncan Dam Water Use Plan. RFP Consulting Services (with Site Work) Reference# 

RFP# 197. Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan. DDMMON-12 Duncan Reservoir 

Archaeological Overview Assessment. 

Bouchard, Randy and Dorothy Kennedy 

1985 Lakes Indian Ethnography and History. Report prepared for the BC Heritage 

Conservation Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts (TCA), Victoria. 

2000 First Nations’ Ethnography and Ethnohistory in British Columbia’s Lower Kootenay. 

Columbia Hydropower Region. Report prepared for Columbia Power Corporation, 

Castlegar. 

Brunton, William 

1998 Kootenai. In Walker D. E., ed., Handbook of North American Indians Volume 12, 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. 223-238. 

Campbell, Bonnie 

2000 Report on Archaeological Impact Assessment of Proposed Forestry Developments within 

the Kootenay Lake Forest District. On file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Natural 

Resource Operations, Victoria. 

Chance, David H. and Jennifer V. Chance 

1985 Kettle Falls: 1978, Further Archaeological Excavations in Lake Roosevelt. University of 

Idaho Anthropological Research Manuscript Series, no. 84. 



Chance, David H., Jennifer V. Chance and John Fagan 

1977 Kettle Falls: 1976, Salvage Archaeology in Lake Roosevelt. University of Idaho 

Anthropological Research Manuscript Series, no. 39. 

Chapman, Peter 

1981 Where the Lardeau River Flows. British Columbia Provincial Archives Sound Heritage 

Series No. 32. 

Choquette, Wayne T. 

1984 A proposed cultural chronology for the Kootenay Region. in Gough, Stanley, ed. Cultural 

resource investigations of the Bonneville Power Administration's Libby Integration Project, 

northern Idaho and northwestern Montana. Archaeological and Historical Services, 

Eastern Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History 100-29: 303- 316. 

1985 Excavations at DiQj-18, South Slocan: A Test of a Model of Upper Columbia Basin 

Human Settlement Dynamics. On file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Natural Resource 

Operations, Victoria. 

1987a A Palaeoclimatic model for the Upper Columbia River drainage basin. in McKinnon, Neil 

and Glenn Stuart, eds. Man and the Mid-Holocene Climatic Optimum. Calgary: The 

Students' Press, pp. 311-344. 

1987b Archaeological investigations in the Middle Kootenai Region and vicinity. Chapter 3 in 

Thoms, Alston and Greg Burtchard, eds. Prehistoric Land Use in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains: a perspective from the Middle Kootenai Valley. Washington State University, 

Center for Northwest Anthropology, Project Report, no. 4: 57-119. 

1993 Archaeological Resource Overview for the Nelson Forest Region. On file, Archaeology 

Branch, Ministry of Natural Resource Operations, Victoria. 

1996 Early post-glacial habitation of the upper Columbia region. In Carlson, R. ed. Early 

Human Occupation in British Columbia. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. 

2005 Archaeological Component of Duncan Reservoir Water Use Planning Process. Final 

Project Report prepared for BC Hydro, Vancouver. 

2006 Archaeological Overview Assessment and Archaeological Potential Mapping of 

Landscape Units K12 and K26 in the Kootenay Lake Forest District. Prepared for Meadow 

Creek Cedar Ltd. Maps, databases and reports on file, Kootenay Cultural Heritage Centre, 

Yahk. 

2007 Ecological Archaeology. Proceedings of the 2007 Conference Ecological Restoration in 

Southeastern British Columbia: Grasslands to Mountaintops. Columbia Mountains 

Institute: 10 - 18. 

Choquette, Wayne T. and Craig Holstine 

1982 A cultural resource overview of the Bonneville Power Administration's proposed Garrison 

- Spokane 500 Kv transmission line. Bonneville Cultural Resources Group, Eastern 

Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History, no. 100-20. 

Clague, John 

1989 Cordilleran Ice Sheet. In R. J. Fulton, ed. Quaternary Geology of Canada and Greenland. 

Geological Survey of Canada, Geology of Canada 1. 

EbQf-1 

1965 BC Archaeological Site Inventory Form for EbQf-1. Recorded January 1, 1965 by F. 

Bildstein. On file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria. 



EbQf-2 

1966 BC Archaeological Site Inventory Form for EbQf-2. Recorded May 22, 1966 by K. 

Fladmark & D. Keenlyside. On file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria. 

EbQf-3 

1966 BC Archaeological Site Inventory Form for EbQf-3. Recorded May 22, 1966 by K. 


EbQf-4 

1997 BC Archaeological Site Inventory Form for EbQf-4. Recorded May 28, 1997 by Kutenai 

West Heritage Consulting. On file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria. 

EbQf-5 

1997 BC Archaeological Site Inventory Form for EbQf-5. Recorded May 29, 1997 by Kutenai 


EbQf-6 

2002 BC Archaeological Site Inventory Form for EbQf-6. Recorded July 12, 2002 by Kutenai 


EbQf-7 

2002 BC Archaeological Site Inventory Form for EbQf-7. Recorded May 2, 2002 by W. 

Choquette, R. Williams & J. Emery. On file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria. 

EcQf-1 

1966 BC Archaeological Site Inventory Form for EcQf-1. Recorded May 21, 1966 by F. 

Bildstein & D. Keenlyside. On file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria. 

EcQf-2 

1966 BC Archaeological Site Inventory Form for EcQf-2. Recorded May 22, 1966 by K. 


Eldridge, Morley 

1984 Vallican Archaeological Site (DjQj-1): a synthesis and management report (Non-permit 

report). On file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria. 

Fulton, Robert 

1967 Duncan Dam area, Purcell Trench. in Report of Activities, Geological Survey of Canada 

Paper 67-1. 

1968 Olympia Interglaciation, Purcell Trench, British Columbia. Geological Society of America 

Bulletin 79:1075-1080. 

Goodale, Nathan, William Prentiss and Ian Kuijt 

2004 Cultural complexity: a new chronology of the Upper Columbia drainage area. In William 

Prentiss and Ian Kuijt, eds. Complex Hunter-Gatherers: Evolution and Organization of 

Prehistoric Communities on the Plateau of North America. Salt Lake City: University of 

Utah Press. 

Hallett, Douglas and Robert Walker 

2000 Palaeocology and its Application to fire and vegetation management in Kootenay National 

Park. Journal of Palaeolimnology 24: 401-414. 



Handly, Martin 

2002 Archaeological Impact Assessments within the Arrow, Kootenay Lake and Revelstoke 

Forest Districts. (Permit 2001-080). Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry Natural 


2003 Archaeological Impact Assessments within the Arrow and Kootenay Lake Forest Districts. 

(Permit 2002-169). Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Natural Resource 


Handly, Martin and Robert Lackowicz 


Forest Districts (Permit 2000-117). Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Natural 


Handly, Martin J., Robert Lackowicz and Tracy Johnson 


Forest District (Permit 1997-100) Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Natural 


Ignace, Marianne Boelscher 

1998 Shuswap. Pp. 203-219 in in Walker, Deward Jr. ed. Plateau, Handbook of the North 

American Indians, Volume 12. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 

Johnson, Olga W. 

1969 Flathead and Kootenay: the Rivers, the Tribes and the Region's Traders. Northwest 

Historical Series 9. Glendale: Arthur H. Clarke. 

Keefer, Michael 

2002 Ktunaxa Kinbasket Treaty Council Duncan Water Use Planning Traditional Use Study. 

Prepared for BC Hydro December 2002. Report on file with BC Hydro and the Ktunaxa 

Nation. 

Lackowicz, Robert 

1999 Summary of Archaeological Impact Assessments within the Arrow, Kootenay Lake and 

Revelstoke Forest District (Permit 1998-142). Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry 

of Natural Resource Operations, Victoria. 

2001 Archaeological Impact Assessments within the Arrow, Columbia and Kootenay Lake 

Forest Districts. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Natural Resource 


Magee, M.J. 

1998 Archaeological Field Reconnaissance and Impact Assessment, Small Business Forest 

Enterprise Program, Kootenay Lake Forest District (Permit 1997-184). Report on file, 

Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Natural Resource Operations, Victoria. 

Mierendorf, Robert R. 

1984 Landforms, Sediments, and Archaeological Deposits along Libby Reservoir. Chapter 7 in 

Thoms, Alston (ed.), Environment, Archaeology, and Land Use Patterns in the Middle 

Kootenai River Valley. Washington State University, Centre for Northwest Anthropology, 

Cultural Resource Investigations for Libby Reservoir, Lincoln County, Northwest Montana. 

Project Report, no. 2: 107-136. 

Mohs, Gordon 

1981 The Vallican Archaeological Project, Heritage Site DjQj-1. Report on file, Archaeology 

Branch, Ministry of Natural Resource Operations, Victoria. 



Muir, Robert J. 

2007 Archaeological Inventory Strategies For BC Hydro Reservoirs. Prepared for BC Hydro. 

Richmond, G.M., R. Fryxell. G.E. Neff and P.L. Weiss 

1965 The Cordilleran Ice Sheet of the Northern Rocky Mountains and Related Quaternary 

History of the Columbia Plateau. Pp. 231-42 in H.E. Wright and G. Frey, eds. The 

Quaternary of the United States: A Review Volume of the VII Congress of the International 

Association for Quaternary Research. Princeton University Press. 

Rousseau, Michael 

2004 A culture historic synthesis and changes in human mobility, sedentism, subsistence, 

settlement, and population on the Canadian Plateau, 7000-200 BP In William Prentiss and 

Ian Kuijt, eds. Complex Hunter-Gatherers: Evolution and Organization of Prehistoric 

Communities on the Plateau of North America. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 

Ryder, J. M. 

1981 Biophysical Resources of the East Kootenay Area: Terrain. British Columbia Ministry of 

the Environment, APD Bulletin no. 7. 

Schaeffer, Claude E. 

1940 The Subsistence Quest of the Kutenai. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. 

Smith, Allan H. 

1984 Kutenai Indian Subsistence and Settlement Patterns, northwest Montana. Seattle: U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. 

Tamasi, Ian 

2008 Archaeological Impact Assessments within the Kootenay Lake Forest District. Report on 

file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Natural Resource Operations, Victoria. 

Teit, James A. 

1909 The Shuswap. American Museum of Natural History Memoirs Vol. 2: 448-594. 

1930 Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateaus. Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Report, 

vol. 45: 23-296. 

Touchstones Nelson Museum of Art and History 

2007 Balance of Power: Hydroelectric Development in Southeast British Columbia. Dams of 

the Columbia Basin – Duncan Dam Photo Archive, Nelson, BC. 

Turnbull, Christopher J. 

1977 Archaeology and Ethnohistory in the Arrow Lakes, Southeastern British Columbia. 

National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, 65. 

Turney-High. H.H. 

1941 Ethnography of the Kutenai. American Anthropological Association Memoir 56: 1-202. 

Virtual Museum of Canada 

2007 Balance of Power: Hydroelectric Development in Southeast British Columbia. Dams of 

the Columbia Basin – Duncan Dam. Online Exhibit and Archive. 

Wood, Barry P. 

2003 Archaeological Impact Assessments in Kootenay Lake Forest District (Permit 2002-108). 

Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Natural Resource Operations, Victoria. 



2004 Archaeological Impact Assessments in Kootenay Lake Forest District (Permit 2003-150). 

Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Natural Resource Operations, Victoria. 

2006 Archaeological Impact Assessments in Kootenay Lake Forest District 2005 Harvesting 

Areas (Permit 2006-145). Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Natural

November 2010 - BC Hydro

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?