HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES

STANDARD OF REVIEW

According to the CBJ Mining Ordinance (49.65.135), the CBJ shall require that:

Policy 4.18 of the Comprehensive Plan of the City and Borough of Juneau (1996) states:

This staff report examines the potential impacts of the Kensington mine project on historic and archaeological resources in the vicinity. The emphasis is on known historic resources, to the extent they have been identified as significant through past studies.

BACKGROUND

The Kensington Gold Project is located approximately 45 miles northwest of Juneau. It is known that there are a number of pre-historic Tlingit cultural sites in the Berners Bay area. Since the early 1980s, studies have been undertaken by the U.S. Forest Service and the Kensington mine applicant to inventory the historic/cultural resources in the vicinity of the mine project. This staff report summarizes work done prior to the original Kensington mine project review in 1991-92. Also, we report on recent field investigations conducted in spring 1997 and consultations with native groups in Haines and Juneau in February - April 1997.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires a Federal agency with jurisdiction over a federal, federally assisted, or federally licensed undertaking to take into account the effects of the agency's undertakings on properties included on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Section 106 process begins with the identification of historic resources on or adjacent to the project site. Identified resources are evaluated and a determination of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is made. To qualify for the National Register, a property must be significant; that is, it must be representative of the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture of an area, and it must have retained historic integrity that makes it a characteristic representation of properties associated with a particular aspect of the past. 1992 Changes to the National Historic Preservation Act now also require consultations with natives about the potential for cultural resources in a project area.

If cultural resources are determined eligible for listing on the National Register, further analysis is to be done to ascertain the impacts of the proposed project. In the event that adverse impacts (impacts which are irreversible and irretrievable) are determined, the federal agency must negotiate with the Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer to arrive at reasonable mitigation measures. In addition, interested parties must be invited to participate in the review of proposed mitigation for the loss of the cultural resources. The City and Borough of Juneau is a Certified Local Government and as such is automatically invited to concur with any Memorandum of Agreement for mitigation proposals.

If cultural resources are determined to be not eligible for listing on the National Register, no further analysis or mitigation is required and the site is considered "cleared" for the proposed development. Again, the Certified Local Government is asked to review and concur with the non-eligibility determination.

Historic Resources Advisory Committee. As a Certified Local Government, the CBJ is required to maintain a historic resources review process. Section 49.10.410 of the CBJ Land Use Ordinance establishes the Historic Resources Advisory Committee for this and other purposes. The duties of the committee include:


Identified Historic/Cultural Resources. Some resources have been identified or designated in the general vicinity of the Kensington mine project:


Cultural Resource Baseline Studies. In 1988, A Cultural Resource Site Baseline Study of Proposed Construction Areas Performed in Conjunction with the Kensington Project, Southeast Alaska was produced by Edwin S. Hall, Jr., a consultant to the Kensington Venture. The purpose of the study was to ascertain if proposed construction activities and mine operation were likely to impact either known cultural resource sites or sites that might be identified as the result of a preliminary aerial/pedestrian survey. Additionally, the archaeological potential of the project area was assessed on the basis of the environmental and cultural parameters of sites known from elsewhere in the general region.

A pre-field investigation of the principal reference sources containing Southeast Alaska archaeological site listings failed to disclose the presence of any known or reported prehistoric/historic Native sites along the east shore of Lynn Canal although several have been reported along the shores of Berners Bay. However, the report goes on to say, considering the many historic Tlingit sites in the general vicinity of the project area, it seems reasonable to assume that the potential for cultural resource sites dating to the prehistoric period is favorable.

The 1988 Hall report identifies three shipwreck sites which relate to the historic fishing industry in the vicinity : Princess Mary, 1910; Star, 1918; and Comus, 1908. The Comus is worthy of note because of the vessel type, a schooner, and its reported location immediately off-shore of the project area.

The 1988 Hall report identifies several large-scale mining remains which possess qualities which might make them desirable as "outdoor" exhibit items. The report indicates that if a facility can be located which would accept such objects, and if transportation costs can be minimized, it is possible that the ultimate return in community relations would exceed the initial outlay of money and effort. An historic steam locomotive from the Kensington Mine is now located at Miner's Plaza in the Juneau Downtown Historic District.

In 1991, Edwin Hall and john Lobdell performed another evaluation of the Kensington Gold Project site for purposes of meeting the Section 106 requirement of the National Historic Preservation Act. Much of the material for the report, A 106C Culture Resource Study of the Kensington Venture Project Area, Alaska, was obtained from previous investigations and reports about the area.

The 1991 study performed additional investigations over and above the ones previously made. The surveying techniques used included pre-field investigations of the principal reference sources; examination of color aerial photographs; low level helicopter survey; ground traverses; subsurface testing; and use of a metal detector. In subsurface investigations at the Comet Landing site and the Kensington Mill site there is no evidence of buried cultural soils. The historic mining remains found at the sites included burned structural members, dilapidated milling equipment, fuel drums, a boiler, and a blower. They were scattered throughout the sites and in poor condition.

ANALYSIS

The 1988 Hall report found no prehistoric archaeological remains during their investigation. The report states that the likelihood of prehistoric archaeological remains occurring at either Comet Landing or Kensington Mill is remote. They cite three reasons for this observation: 1) historic mining activities have considerably disturbed these areas; 2) landforms are steep and access is impaired; and 3) Sherman Creek possesses natural barriers which limit its aquatic resource potential. Also the report says that for reasons related to storm action, ice movement, and exposure, it is unlikely that archaeological remains exist within the intertidal zone or along the beach fringe.

The 1991 Hall study concludes:

On April 7, 1993, the CBJ Historic Resources Advisory Committee reviewed the section of the 1992 CBJ Planning Commission Notice of Decision regarding cultural resources and concurred with the determination of non-eligibility of historic resources of the Kensington Gold Project, including the Kensington Mill site listed on the CBJ inventory. The Committee approved the conditions as stated on the 1992 Notice of Decision. Since that time no new evidence has been found which would cause the determination of non-eligibility to be reversed. Therefore the site of the proposed Kensington Gold Project is considered cleared for impacts to CBJ designated historic resources. The investigation of archaeological resources is continuing thus the potential impacts to these resources are as yet undetermined.

On behalf of the U.S. Forest Service, SAIC (consultant preparing Kensington SEIS) conducted additional field investigations of the Kensington Mill Site in the Spring of 1997. SAIC concurs with previous investigations that the remaining mining structures and equipment are not significant and not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.

CBJ staff also consulted with Mr. Tim Smith of the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology regarding the historic sites and structures that have the potential to be impacted by the proposed project. He concurred with the findings of the previous reports that the site and the remains are not deemed eligible for placement on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore mitigation is not required. CBJ staff reviewed all of the reports prepared to date on behalf of the Kensington Gold Project regarding these historic resources within the proposed project area and concur with their findings regarding the non-eligibility of the sites explored. Included in this review was the Kensington Mill Site which is listed in the CBJ inventory.

CBJ staff also discussed recent Tlingit cultural site investigations with Kathy Brown (Archeologist) of the U.S. Forest Service. The process for this activity is the federal Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In the spring of 1997, SAIC conducted additional surveys and subsurface testing investigating the potential for Tlingit house depressions at Sweeny Creek and Sherman Creek. The depressions were determined to be associated with historic use of the area when the mining town of Comet existed. No pre-historic/archaeological sites were discovered in the field. The Sweeny Creek and Sherman Creek sites are also not listed in the CBJ inventory.

Finally, SAIC undertook consultations with Chilkat and Chilkoot Tlingit natives in Juneau, Haines and Klukwan, on behalf of the U.S. Forest Service. These consultations occur pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act amendments dating from 1992 as well as the Native Americans Grave Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. While no physical evidence of prehistoric use has been identified in past field investigations, the interviews identified oral history about the importance of one potential Tlingit cultural property within walking distance of the mine site. However, no traditional cultural properties -- places associated with a living community, rooted in its history, and important in maintaining traditional beliefs and practices -- are located at the Kensington mine site.

The Final SEIS (1997) notes that mitigation for the nearby cultural property will include training of mine project personnel to reduce impacts of visitation on cultural resources and restrictions on access by mining camp personnel. Ms. Kathy Brown, U.S. Forest Service, noted that the nearby cultural property is fairly difficult to access by land so that the topography affords some natural protection. Also, mine personnel will be trained in the steps to be taken if cultural resources are inadvertently discovered. The U.S. Forest Services will provide Alaska Natives the opportunity to review these company procedures, with ongoing consultations likely. Further, an agreement among Alaska Natives, the U.S. Forest Service, the company, and State Historic Preservation Office will address issues of confidentiality.

STAFF FINDINGS


STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the following conditions be included in the large mine permit:

Return to Kensington Mine Review Page
Return to the Capital City Home Page

Our URL is http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/cdd/Kensingt.htm

Last revised on 06/28/99 - bgb