Kuiu Timber Sale FEIS Chapter 3 • 219

3.16 Heritage Resources 

Heritage resources include an array of historic and prehistoric cultural 

sites and traditional cultural properties. The National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) sets forth Government policy and 

procedures regarding these "historic properties" -- that is, districts, 

sites, buildings, structures and objects included in or eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of the NHPA 

requires that Federal agencies consider the effects of their actions on 

such properties, following regulations issued by the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800). 

The Section 106 review process seeks to consider historic preservation 

concerns with the needs of federal actions. Review occurs through 

consultation with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), 

Federally-recognized Tribal Governments, and other parties with an 

interest in the effects of the proposed action on historic properties, 

commencing at the early stages of project planning. One of the goals 

of consultation is to identify historic properties that potentially may be 

affected by the proposed action, assess potential effects and seek ways 

to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on historic 

properties. The Forest Service consulted with the Organized Village of 

Kake, the tribal group that is culturally affiliated with the Project Area. 

To ensure that the procedural requirements of 36 CFR 800 were met, a 

heritage resource investigation of the project’s Area of Potential Effect 

was conducted (Figure 3-12). In accordance with the Programmatic 

Agreement (2002) among the Forest Service Alaska Region, the 

ACHP, and the SHPO, the resource report was submitted under 

modified 36 CFR 800 regulations implementing Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. The heritage resource survey did 

not result in the identification of any new sites, and made a 

determination of no historic properties affected. The Organized 

Village of Kake, the Petersburg Indian Association, Sealaska 

Corporation, and the Tlingit-Haida Central Council were provided 

copies of the Forest Service Heritage Resource Report for review and 

comment. We received no response regarding our report and 

recommendations from any of these groups. 

According to oral tradition and various ethnographic accounts, the 

Tlingit are the dominant native group of Southeast Alaska. The Project 

Area lies within the traditional territory of the Kake Tlingit, who 

occupied the northern half of Kuiu Island and the western portion of 

Kupreanof Island, with some occupation along the mainland shore of 

Frederick Sound as well as parts of Baranof Island and Prince of 

3.16.1 

Introduction 

3.16.2 

Affected 

Environment 
3 Environment and Effects

220 • Chapter 3 Kuiu Timber Sale FEIS 

Wales Island. Prehistoric archaeological site types common to the 

region include villages, seasonal camps, gardens, rock art sites, and 

both wood and stone fish traps and weirs. The earliest known 

archaeological site in Southeast Alaska is on Prince of Wales Island, 

where investigations suggest people have been living in the region for 

close to 10,000 years. 

Trapping, fur farming, fishing, timber harvest, mineral exploration, 

and homesteading are some of the historic endeavors that have drawn 

people to Southeast Alaska and helped shape it into what it is today. 

Many of these activities are represented in the archaeological record in 

the form of historic period cabins, mines, fur farms, canneries, 

salteries, and culturally modified trees (CMTs). 

3.16.2.1 Known and Reported Cultural Resources 

Previous archaeological investigations have provided insight into some 

of the early human activity on Kuiu Island. Many village sites, 

prehistoric fish traps and weirs, midden sites, burials, pictographs, 

petroglyphs, rock shelters, fort sites, historic trappers’ cabins, CMTs, 

and evidence of beach logging illustrate the wide array of cultural 

activity that has taken place on Kuiu Island. A review of the Heritage 

Program site files and atlases reveals 16 sites that were previously 

recorded within the Project Area, all of which are on the coastal terrain 

of Saginaw Bay or Security Bay and not within the APE. No activities 

associated with the proposed action have the potential to impact these 

sites. 

3.16.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

Heritage resource surveys identified no new sites and no known 

historic properties would be affected with project implementation. 

None of the proposed action alternatives would have a direct or 

indirect effect upon known sites in the Project Area and no sites are 

located in the APE. All of the nearby archaeological sites and 

culturally modified trees are within a protected buffer established 

along the beach and estuary fringe defined in the Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines (Forest Plan p. 4-4). All of the planned timber harvest 

units and proposed roads are inland and on relatively steep terrain, 

within the low probability zone for cultural resources (Programmatic 

Agreement 2002). The use of existing LTFs at Rowan Bay and 

Saginaw Bay would not affect any known archaeological sites. 

3.16.3 

Environmental 

Consequences 
 Heritage 3

Kuiu Timber Sale FEIS Chapter 3 • 221

Figure 3 - 12. Area of Potential Effect for Heritage Resources 

11x17 fold-in 

needs 2 pages 

replace with filename = f3_12heritage_bw.pdf 
3 Environment and Effects

222 • Chapter 3 Kuiu Timber Sale FEIS 

blank 
 Heritage 3

Kuiu Timber Sale FEIS Chapter 3 • 223

3.16.3.2 Cumulative Effects 

Current and past use of the Project Area centers around timber-related 

activities, hunting, and recreation. No known historic properties were 

affected by past activities that have occurred in the Project Area. 

Logging occurs inland while most of the recreation activities take 

place along the beach. Some of the existing logging roads allow inland 

hunter access as well. Over the years these activities have had little 

known effect on historic properties. This trend would likely continue 

unless new uses develop. Future expanded use of the beach and 

estuary fringe could eventually affect historic properties, but would not 

be a result of any of the project alternatives.