Solid Waste On Federal Lands In Alaska Second Report To Congress ------- SOLID WASTE ON FEDERAL LANDS IN ALASKA Second Report to Congress ------- This report ( SW-639.2 ) required by Section 3, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (PL.9«80), was prepared by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for the UJS. Environmental Protection Agency and delivered in May of 1978 to the President and the Congress. ------- FOREWORD This Second Report to Congress presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the second phase of a study carried out pursuant to Section 3 of Public Law 94- 580, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. The first phase report, entitled, "Solid Waste on Federal Lands in Alaska: A Report to Congress" was submitted to Congress on October 21, 1977. This report contains some additional data on waste material which was gathered subsequent to the publication of the earlier report; however, the primary emphasis during the second phase of the study was to develop rationale, criteria, and methodology for analyzing the most appropriate disposal alternatives for the various regions of Alaska. This Report details this methodology and approach and offers recommend- ations for effecting cleanup of the significant waste problems encountered. It has been through the efforts of the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation that this study and the resulting two reports to Congress were completed in a timely and impressive manner. The leadership demonstrated by that Agency in resolving environmental problems on Federal lands in Alaska has been exemplary. In particular, the enthusiasm and dedication of Mr. Jerry Reinwand, Deputy Commissioner of the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation was instrumental in initiating this study and seeing it through to its completion. Deserving of special recognition also is the U.S. Department of the Interior for their excellent cooperation during the study and for the provision of $60,000 to assist in financing the study. Mr. Jerry Gilliland, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior in Anchorage deserves recognition for his support and contribution throughout the study. Several Agencies and organizations in Alaska are espec- ially deserving of acknowledgement for their excellent cooperation during the study. The organizations listed below were particularly responsive and contributed signifi- cantly to the success of the study effort: Koniag, Inc. Regional Native Corporation Husky Oil National Petroleum Reserve Operations, Inc. U.S. Coast Guard 17th Coast Guard District i ------- U.S. Forest Service Chugach National Forest Tongass National Forest U.S. Air Force 1931st Communications Group (Air Force Communications Service) This Report, along with the First Report submitted earlier, alerts Congress to a significant environmental problem in the State of Alaska. The resolution of this problem will take a concerted, well-coordinated effort on the part of Congress, the Federal landholding Agencies, the native organizations, and the State of Alaska. The cooperation received during the Study illustrates a willingness to satisfactorily resolve the waste problem. The implementation of the recommendations of this Report will do much to effect that resolution. —Steffen W. Plehn Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste flay, 1978 11 ------- PREFACE This is the second report on a study of solid waste on Alaskan federal lands. The first report was submitted to Congress by the President on October 21, 1977. Together, both reports identify one hundred and eighty locations of abandoned solid waste. Ninety sites were in- ventoried in the first report; ninety sites are inventoried in this second report. These sites include substantially all of the major waste locations on federal land in Alaska. Sixteen debris sites were selected due to their size or their representative nature. They were examined in greater depth to identify the methods and costs of cleanup. Ten sites were presented in the first report. The remaining six are presented in this report, and all sixteen are listed in a priority for disposal. This report presents a regional approach to waste dis- posal by identifying the environmental and economic consider- ations peculiar to each area of Alaska. It contains a rec- ommended method for establishing a disposal priority among debris sites. It discusses those statutes and regulations which will govern any waste prevention and cleanup effort in the state. The report concludes with recommendations regarding solid waste cleanup on federal lands in Alaska. ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD i PREFACE iii FIGURES vi TABLES vii I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. REGIONAL ANALYSIS 5 Arctic and Northwest Region 13 Yukon Region 19 Southwest Region 24 Southcentral Region 29 Southeast Region 34 III. SELECTED SITE ANALYSIS 39 East Arctic Slope 41 Big Mountain AC&W 47 Koniag Native Selections 49 Tawah Creek Military Disposal Area 53 IV. DISPOSAL PRIORITY 57 Considerations for Creating a Priority List . . 57 Disposal Hierarchy of Sixteen Analyzed Sites . . 62 V. AUTHORITY FOR WASTE DISPOSAL OR PREVENTION .... 65 OMB Circular A-106 65 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 67 Alaska Administrative Code Title 18, Chap. 60 . 68 Toxic Substances Control Act 69 Federal Land Policy and Management Act 69 Proposed Regulations for Surface Management of Public Land under U.S. Mining Laws 71 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 75 APPENDICES Appendix A: Letters to Native Corporations . . . A-l Appendix B: Supplemental Waste Site Inventory . . B-l Appendix C: Survey Questionaires C-l Appendix D: Sample Lease/Permit Provisions . . . D-l BIBLIOGRAPHY E-l v ------- FIGURES Figure 1. Map: 2. Map: 3. Plates: 4. Plates: 5. Plates: Credit 6. Plates: Regions of Alaska Analyzed for Solid Waste Disposal Analyzed Waste Sites Debris on Flaxman Coast Flaxman Island DEW Line Site Barrels and Sea Wall at Barter Island Barter Island Dump Partial View of Demar- cation DEW Site Abandoned Machinery and Barrels at Demarcation Buildings at Brownlow Point Quonset Skeleton at Brownlow Big Mountain White Alice Site Reflectors and Buildings at Big Mountain Abandoned Barracks on Long Island Bell Flats - Selected by Koniag Natives Abandoned Pump at Bell Flats 10. Plates: Barrels at Sargent Creek Waste Site After Clean- up and Recontouring 7. Plates: 8. Plate: 9. Plates: 11. Plates: Quonset Hut and Debris at Tawah Quonset Hut at Tawah Military Disposal Site Tari Olson, ESL U.S. Air Force A.R. McKay, ESL U.S. Forest Service Page 11 38 40 42 44 45 46 48 50 51 52 VI ------- FIGURES Figure Credit Page 12. Map: Tawah Creek Military 54 Disposal Site 13. Map: Tawah Creek - Area A 55 14. Map: Tawah Creek - Areas B and C 56 15. Map: Distribution of Alaskan Waste B-3 Sites Identified in this Study 16. Map: Inventory - Category 1 B-5 17. Map: Inventory - Category 2 B-9 18. Map: Chugach National Forest B-10 19. Map: Arctic National Wildlife Range B-12 20. Map: Tongass National Forest B-14 21. Map: Inventory - Category 3 B-21 Miscellaneous Waste Sites TABLES 1. A Sample Matrix Analysis of Four 59 Hypothetical Waste Sites 2. Disposal Hierarchy of Sixteen 61 Analyzed Sites vii ------- I. INTRODUCTION This is the second report on a study of solid waste on federal lands in Alaska. The study was conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in compliance with Section 3 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (PL 94-580). The report has been prepared by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation with the assistance of Environmental Services Limited of Anchorage, Alaska. This study encompasses all lands in Alaska that are currently within the federal domain. It includes lands which are selected and those which were conveyed to the native corporations under the Native Claims Settlement Act. As required by Section 3, the twelve native corporations were invited to cooperate in the study (Appendix A). Five corporations responded that they had no solid waste problem on selected lands. One group, the Koniag Regional Native Corporation, identified two waste sites and contributed to the analysis contained in Section III. It is presumed that the remaining six corporations had no solid waste which fell within the scope of this study. The study did not include federal land on the Alaska Peninsula west of Port Heiden, nor did it include the Aleutian Islands. This region was the object of a study authorized by the Civil Works Omnibus Bill (PL 93-251). In 1976, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers examined military debris which was left in the Aleutians after World War II. The Corps visited twenty-eight waste sites and inventoried many abandoned buildings, docks, and storage tanks, as well as large quantities of machinery, vehicles, barrels, and rubble. Their report, which was published in 1977, contains detailed information about the historical, archaeological, and environmental setting of this debris. In addition, it presents methods and cost estimates for total, intermediate, and minimal cleanup at each site. The Corps of Engineers is currently preparing an envir- onmental impact statement for proposed cleanup of this region. It is expected that the draft impact statement will be filed by September, 1979, with the Secretary of the Army, who will then forward it to Congress. 1 ------- Neither report in this study has identified waste arising from mining operations on federal land. Such waste does present a problem in Alaska, particularly in the mining country north of Mount McKinley National Park. However, such an analysis would be both lengthy and costly. The first step in analyzing these sites, determining land status, involves a site-by-site record search to determine whether the mine lies upon land that is patented to the operator (private land) or upon land which either has been retained by, or has reverted to the federal government. This analysis is beyond the scope of this report and might well be the object of a separate in-depth study. Or, as indicated in Section V, the problem of abandoned mining waste may be cured by proposed regulations. The total waste identified by both reports in this study consists of 315 buildings, 944 poles or towers, 126 abandoned vehicles or large pieces of machinery, 99,705 barrels, 9 storage tanks, and 30 acres of assorted debris. However, it would be very misleading to conclude that these figures represent the entire quantity of debris on Alaskan federal lands. Several factors suggest that not all the solid waste has been identified by this study. First, most of the data were gathered from the records and reports of the agencies themselves. Often the agencies had to rely upon memory, estimate, or on a quick inspection by their field personnel; little on-site verification of this data was possible due to the limited scope of this study. Secondly, the agencies did not quantify the waste at many sites; often, their reports referred to "many barrels," an "abandoned dump," or "several buildings." In such cases, the debris was not included in these figures. Finally, because of the immensity of Alaska and the remoteness of its land, it is inevitable that many smaller waste sites were missed altogether. However, it is the larger waste sites—those from military operations or resource exploration—which give Alaska its unique waste problem. Of these sites, it is estimated that 95 percent have been identified and located by this study. The first report of the current study, which was submitted to the President and Congress on October 21, 1977, contained an inventory of ninety waste sites. Ten of these sites were examined in depth. For five sites, the report presented a cost analysis of cleanup methods and alternatives. For the remaining five, the report discussed planned cleanup and, where possible, estimated cleanup costs. 2 ------- This second report presents a regional approach to waste disposal. It discusses environmental and economic considerations for cleanup in each of six geographic areas of Alaska. The second report also contains inventories of ninety waste sites, identified since submission of the first report. It estimates the cost of cleaning up ten of these sites according to recommended and alternate cleanup methods. This report presents a methodology for determining a cleanup priority and presents all of the analyzed sites in a cleanup ranking. It contains a discussion of existing laws and recommended practices for the removal and prevention of abandoned debris. The report ends with conclusions and recommendations for solid waste cleanup on Alaskan federal lands. 3 ------- II. REGIONAL ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The character of Alaska and its climate, wildlife, and human resources vary dramatically across the great expanse of this state. As wide as these variations are, however, they tend to align into common systems which follow distinct physiographic boundaries. Consequently, Alaska is often described on the basis of major physiographic regions. This section of the report presents a description of six regions of Alaska, followed by an analysis of the environ- mental and economic considerations for solid waste cleanup. The regional analysis is appropriate for several reasons. First, an individual, site-by-site analysis is beyond the scope of this study. It would be based upon assumption, since exact conditions at each of the one hundred and eighty waste sites could not be verified. On the other hand, a statewide examination of all sites together would tend to neglect the significance of Alaska's regional ecosystems. Although a regional approach is appropriate, there are several features of debris cleanup which are uniform across the state. Many of these factors are unique to Alaska, with its northern latitude and relative lack of development. Since they will have an impact upon debris cleanup in every region, these factors are worth examining. The climate is an important factor which largely deter- mines many other features. In the arctic city of Barrow, for example, the average January temperature is 14.7 Fahrenheit degrees below zero. The winter sun does not rise for 67 days, and the summer sun does not set for 84 days. The average annual precipitation is a scant 4.89 inches. This northern climate accounts for permafrost, a per- manently frozen layer of subsoil which covers the entire polar region and certain portions of central Alaska. Perma- frost holds ground water on the surface and is responsible for the thousands of lakes which dot the arctic tundra and for the nearly complete freezing of rivers in these areas. Permafrost is also very sensitive to human activity. Vehic- ular traffic or cleanup activity can cause thermal degrada- tion and hydraulic erosion if precautions are not followed. In permafrost areas, vehicles with large, low-pressure tires are recommended and removal of the protective layer of vegetation should be avoided. 5 ------- Most of Alaska's northern latitudes are covered by tundra. This vegetation consists of delicate lichens, mosses, and grasses which have low propagation and growth rates. Because of the frailty of tundra, particular care must be taken to avoid unnecessary disturbance of its surface. Disturbed areas may be artifically revegetated following debris removal or may be left for natural revegetation if erosion potential is low. For most northern areas of Alaska, the establishment of native vegetation is likely to be slow and disturbed areas will be visually apparent for a number of years following debris removal. There, artificial revege- tation is contingent upon proper seedbed preparation to assure friable soil and upon proper fertilization to provide the required nutrients for plant growth and development. In addition, it is necessary to carefully select species that are adapted to the harsh environment and to properly time the seeding to assure germination and adequate stand estab- lishment. Such revegetation is recommended in northern latitudes for aesthetic as well as erosion control purposes. In contrast to the polar regions, the southeastern city of Ketchikan is marked by a relatively mild, wet climate. The average January temperature is 35.1 degrees Fahrenheit and the shortest day has seven hours of sunlight. However, the annual precipitation is a drenching 151.9 inches per year. Permafrost occurs only on the highest elevations and the lush vegetation can naturally restore itself in relatively short time. Thus, cleanup planning for the southern latitudes of Alaska will require less concern for disturbing the soil and plant life. Alaska has a valuable resource in its wildlife. It has a greater variety of big game species than any other state and has significant populations of fur bearers, upland birds, waterfowl, marine mammals, and fish. To name just a few, these species include bear, moose, goats, foxes, grouse, whales, crab, and salmon. To avoid adverse impacts on these animals, cleanup efforts must be properly scheduled and monitored to avoid interference with their critical life history phases or their migratory movements. Methods and costs of waste disposal will be governed by several state-wide features. Combustible materials with little or no salvage value can be burned throughout Alaska if the appropriate burning permits are obtained from regu- latory agencies and if care is taken to prevent wildfires. Forced-air incineration in pits or metal burning boxes can efficiently dispose of combustibles with little air pollution. Smoke would be quickly dispersed and, since no waste sites are within highly populated areas, burning would present a negligible threat to human health. 6 ------- Non-combustible debris such as empty barrels and sheet metal can be crushed, or shredded and compacted to reduce scrap volume prior to removal or burial at the debris site. In some cases, lumber and sheet metal can be salvaged for reuse on the site or for use in nearby villages. Unsalvaged lumber may be burned, and scrap metal not reusable in the local area may be shipped to Seattle, Washington, for recycling. As an alternative to sending scrap to Seattle, it could be left in stockpiles near major ports until it becomes more economical to remove it from Alaska. Aggregating large quantities of scrap metal at a seaport could make a scrap shipment to Japan economically feasible. Construction of landfills is practical in those portions of Alaska where there are significant amounts of thawed soils. However, permafrost areas present greater difficulty for burying debris. In these regions, excavations are confined to the "active" layer, a shallow zone of thawed soil. This means that large surface areas must be disturbed to bury relatively small volumes of solid waste. Since permafrost sites are often water saturated, waste liquids may leach into surface waters. Removal of debris which cannot be burned or buried is hampered by the lack of transportation modes in Alaska. Since there are only 5,270 miles of maintained highway in the state and less than half of these are paved, the majority of waste sites are not accessible by road transport. The Alaska Railroad serves a corridor through the Southcentral and Yukon Regions. Since the railroad totals only 478 miles of mainland track, it cannot serve most remote sites. Alaska has 6,640 miles of coastline and several major rivers including the Yukon, the Tanana, and the Kuskokwim. Thus, marine transportation f debris is an alternative for those sites which are accessible to the coast or to navigable rivers. However, this mode is hampered by the lack of adequate port facilities throughout the state and by the ocean ice pack and frozen winter conditions which limit marine travel in the north. The Hercules cargo aircraft charter rates are uniform throughout the state. The rate schedule on the following page represents an average of $2000 per flying hour out of Fairbanks or Anchorage. 7 ------- Flight Leg Mileage Cost Per Leg 101-150 151-200 201-300 301-500 501 + 1-100 $1407 $1782 $1926 $8.80/mile $7.88/mile $7.56/mile Depending on the fuel carried, the cargo capacity of this aircraft is nearly 25 tons. For a Hercules positioned in remote regions and flying short hops, such as from interior areas to coastal locations, a "positioning and depositioning" fee of $7880 is levied on the user. Shuttle flights are then billed at the standard mileage rates previously listed, and fuel costs in excess of $0.50 per gallon are passed on to the user. In remote areas, fuel may cost as much as $2 per gallon. Labor costs throughout Alaska are relatively high. Debris cleanup is predicated upon using a twelve-person crew made up of unskilled, skilled, and supervisory personnel. At current union scales for Alaska, labor costs would average $320 per man-day for a twelve-hour day, or nearly $4000 per day for the entire crew. In remote areas, work crews would have to be housed in mobile camps. In order to support a 12-person crew, a camp consisting of two sleeping units, a mess hall and washroom unit, an electrical generation unit, and a water truck are required. The camp structures and equipment rent for approxi- mately $25,000 per month with a six-month minimum period of use. In addition to the cost of the physical facilities, the cost of food, fuel, and support personnel must be included. These raise the total camp support costs to about $150 per man-day or $54,000 per month for a 12-person crew. In developed areas where workers can drive to the job site, these costs may be drastically reduced or eliminated. In outlying areas, an intermediate situation might exist whereby workers are provided daily transportation to the waste site by the contractor, but reside at home or receive a per diem payment to find their own lodging. Finally, heavy equipment will be necessary to clean up major solid waste sites. Construction equipment is available only in developed areas. The cost of transporting this machinery to remote sites will be a significant economic factor. At some sites, equipment could be barged on the 8 ------- river network, delivered by coastal vessels, or trucked on the highway system. At others, Hercules aircraft could be utilized to transport D-7 or D-8 caterpillar tractors, front-end loaders, and dump trucks. These should be suf- ficient to perform most cleanup tasks. In the event that equipment cannot be barged, trucked, or flown directly to a solid waste site, overland travel by cat-train may be feasible. If undertaken, cat-train travel should be limited to winter months to minimize surface disturbance. The regional boundaries shown in Figure 1 are those utilized m the Alaska Regional Profiles, published by the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center of the University of Alaska, and are based upon major watersheds. While these regions do not always optimally divide Alaska by environmental or logistic similarities, they are easily recognized and are in general use. 9 ------- PAGE NOT AVAILABLE DIGITALLY ------- ARCTIC AND NORTHWEST REGIONS Geography, Climate, and Land Status Since the Arctic and Northwest regions have many common solid waste problems, their discussion is combined in this section. This area encompasses 148,000 square miles stretch- ing from the Canadian border westward to the Seward Peninsula and Bering Strait. Three major drainage basins divide the area north of the Brooks Range and DeLong Mountains (Arctic Region) into the subregions designated as East Arctic, Colville, and West Arctic. The area south of the DeLong Mountains (Northwest Region) is broken into the Kotzebue Sound and Norton Sound subregions. The three northern subregions cross three physiographic provinces. These are the Brooks Range, the Arctic Foothills, and the Arctic Coastal Plain. The two western subregions cross similar physiographic features and also include river- ine lowlands, plateaus, and interior basins. Thus, the regional topography varies from rugged, glaciated peaks to extensive expanses of wetlands and lakes. The climate of the Arctic Region is characterized by the cold average temperatures, persistently strong winds, and low precipitation of the Arctic Climatic Zone. The Northwest Region has the slightly warmer temperatures and higher precipitation of the Continental and Transition climatic zones. In both regions, winters are severe and summers are short. Deep permafrost covers the Arctic and Northwest regions except along major rivers. This permanently frozen ground is characterized by polygonal surface patterns created by ice wedges, numerous thaw-induced ponds in the coastal plains, and by zones of soil movement on the slopes of the foothills. The vegetation north of the Brooks Range and DeLong Mountains is primarily tundra. This cover varies from a water-saturated condition known as wet tundra at lower elevations, to a dry alpine tundra at higher elevations. The major river valleys which drain to the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are characterized by high brush vegetation along their upper reaches. To the south of the mountains, additional types of vegetation appear. There, upland spruce-hardwood forest, bottomland spruce-poplar forest, and lowland spruce-hardwood forest are common at lower altitudes. Sea ice may be present in excess of ten months per year in the Beaufort Sea and seven to eight months per year in the Chukchi Sea. Open water is present for about three months each year in the Bering Strait area, and scattered ice is present for two additional months. 13 ------- The majority of the lands in the Arctic and Northwest Region are federally owned. The United States Department of the Interior administers this area through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and tiic U.S. Geological Survey. A number of waste sites are located on military reservations administered by the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Coast Guard. The remainder of this area consists of lands selected by the native corporations and by the state of Alaska. Types of Waste Sites The Arctic and Northwest Regions contain debris sites that are larger in quantity and areal coverage than many of those in the remainder of the state, excluding the Aleutian Islands. The major sites were caused by oil and gas explora- tion on the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and by construction of the Distant Early Warning (DEW Line) sites in the early 1950's. In addition, debris has been generated by the construction of several U.S. Air Force stations which are still active and by construction of a former U.S. Army installation, now used by the U.S. Coast Guard. Each of these activities established temporary camps or permanent housing facilities and then accumulated vehicles, steel drums, communications equipment, and scrap lumber. The quantity of waste at each site is directly proportional to the number of its occupants and to the duration of its use. Solid waste is still accumulating at those active military installations and villages that do not have operational debris disposal programs. In addition to the major solid waste problems in the Arctic and Northwest regions, numerous smaller debris sites are scattered over these areas. This material often consists of steel drums, gas cans, and camp debris and is usually present in small quantities at scattered locations. None of the waste sites identified in these regions have any signifi- cant historical or recreational value. Environmental Considerations for Cleanup The environments of the Arctic and Northwest regions are severe. Long winters, dominated by low temperatures, extreme wind chills, and continual darkness, create very difficult working conditions in the arctic. Biological degradation of solid waste is very slow in the cold, dry climate of these regions. At the debris sites 14 ------- along the Beaufort Sea, a distinct water pollution potential exists where waste has been deposited in tidal lagoons. Residual petroleum products or toxic substances which remain in abandoned drums may eventually discharge into streams, lakes, or the sea. Therefore, if cleanup is not undertaken, natural processes would require many decades to eliminate the environmental hazards here. The Arctic and Northwest regions contain nesting areas for raptors, such as the endangered peregrine falcon, and contain much of the range lands of the Western Arctic, Central Arctic, and Porcupine caribou herds. Brown bears and wolves are found throughout these regions. Dall sheep occupy the mountainous areas, and various streams contain arctic char, grayling, salmon, whitefish, and sheefish. Proper disposal planning is required to avoid adverse impact on these species. Disposal techniques for the Arctic and Northwest regions must be carefully selected to avoid damaging the vegetative cover on permafrost soils. Thawed or thaw-stable river gravels may be traversed during summer months only if surface disturbance is minimized. The remaining areas, however, should be traversed only after the ground freezes and snow cover protects the tundra vegetation. Physical removel of debris is often necessary in these regions because landfill operations are extremely difficult in permanently frozen soils. In such cases, excavations are confined to the shallow, thawed zone of soil and require that large surface areas be disturbed to bury relatively small volumes of solid waste. Since these sites are often water-saturated, liquids from them may leach into surface waters. In addition to these problems, gravel supplies for covering debris are scarce in much of the Arctic region. The presence of sea ice in the Beaufort, Chukchi, and northern Bering seas throughout much of the year complicates seaborne transport of scrap materials from the Arctic and Northwest regions. Such materials must be loaded and shipped during the brief summer period of open water, but even this season can be treacherous if unfavorable winds push the pack ice toward shore. For sites with smaller amounts of debris, such as many of the interior sites on the Arctic National Wildlife Range, single visits by helicopter-transported crews are recommended. Debris can be gathered, combustibles burned, and noncombustibles removed in a cargo net beneath the helicopter. Small areas of disturbed ground can be hand-seeded following debris removal. 15 ------- Disturbed areas may be revegetated following debris removal or may be left for natural regeneration if erosion potential is low. The establishment of native vegetation is likely to be slow in the arctic north. Thus, it is recommended that all cleanup efforts conclude with reseeding operations. It is apparent that the removal of solid waste from the Arctic and Northwest regions requires careful scheduling of logistics and careful planning of transportation modes to prevent environmental damage. Nevertheless, such a program is feasible, as is demonstrated by the cleanup operations now being carried out by the Husky Oil Company in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey, Husky Oil has developed a "no-damage" cleanup program for the National Petroleum Reserve. Debris sites are initially visited by helicopter in the summer season. At nearby collecting points, crews stockpile scattered debris on dunnage and burn combustible debris. The stockpiled material is left in place until mid-winter when crews remove it with vehicles having low tire pressure that cause no significant damage to the frozen, snow-covered tundra. Any remaining debris is removed by helicopter during the following summer, and disturbed areas are reseeded to prevent erosion. Since this method of site cleanup has been successful in the National Petroleum Reserve, it is recommended that it be followed at northern sites where surface transportation is necessary for solid waste removal. Economic Considerations Several transportation modes provide logistic alter- natives for debris removal from the Arctic and Northwest regions. One alternative is to transport the debris by coastal barge to Prudhoe Bay and then use the Bay re-supply barges for scrap transport to Seattle. This alternative is recommended for the northwestern coastal areas where scrap can be stockpiled at locations other than Prudhoe Bay. Barges could stop at these stockpiles for loading and then haul the material to Seattle, via Prudhoe. For the eastern and central Arctic Slope, debris hauled to Prudhoe Bay by coastal barge could be offloaded and transported by road to Fairbanks, by rail to Whittier, and then by rail-barge to Seattle. If sufficient quantities of scrap could be accumulated at an Alaskan port like Seward, it could be shipped to Japan where it might command a higher price. 16 ------- A third logistic alternative, applicable to the eastern portion of the Arctic Slope and the Arctic National Wildlife Range would be to transport debris through Canada down the Mackenzie River system to Hay River, Northwest Territories, and then by rail to final recycling locations. Air transport may have significant advantages for re- moving debris from some portions of these regions. First, air transport provides year-round access to many sites, while water transport is restricted to coastal locations and is available only during the ice-free summer months. For some locations, air transport may be less expensive than other transportation modes. Airstrips capable of handling C-130 "Hercules" cargo aircraft are available at several places in these regions. Debris brought to such airstrips by surface hauling during the winter or by helicopter during the summer could be airlifted to Fairbanks for rail-barge transport to Seattle. Other alternatives involve airlifting scrap directly to a major seaport where it could be consolidated with locally generated materials for shipment to Seattle or Japan. The cost of transportation from the Arctic and North- west regions is relatively high due to the regions' remoteness. Freight rates for backhauling scrap on Prudhoe Bay re-supply barges are approximately $125 per ton. However, an additional $15 per ton is levied for on- and off-loading by the freight company, and ARCO and British Petroleum charge $50 per ton for the use of their causeway at Prudhoe Bay. Thus, scrap can be shipped from Prudhoe Bay to Seattle at approximately $190 per ton ($0.05 per ton-mile) by this method. Barge transportation costs from the western portion of the Arctic Region and from the Northwest Region are represented by the rates existing at Nome and Kotzebue. The highest rate charged in Nome is nearly $120 per ton, including lighterage. In Kotzebue this rate increases to $122 per ton. Because of the high user fee for the Prudhoe Bay causeway, it appears that barging scrap directly from there is nearly as expensive as trucking the material to Fairbanks for rail shipment and rail-barge transport to Seattle. The latter method has an approximate total cost of $195 per ton. Air shipment is the most expensive mode for these regions. Assuming a 20-ton minimum usable payload and an average round-trip distance of 950 miles between Fairbanks and the coastal areas of the Arctic and Northwest regions, scrap transportation to the railhead by C-130 Hercules would cost about $375 per ton. Depending on the specific location 17 ------- from which the scrap was being hauled, this cost could vary from about $305 per ton to as much as $435 per ton. These costs are equivalent to $0.40 per ton-mile, based upon round-trip mileage. It is apparent, then, that the Northwest and Arctic present transportation difficulties. The cost of scrap removal is very high, and environmental factors limit the time periods during which various transportation modes can be utilized. It appears that either ocean-going barges or highway, rail, and rail-barge combinations are the most effective transportation alternatives for the Prudhoe Bay area of the Arctic Region. For the remainder of the western portion of the Arctic Region and for the Northwest Region, transporting scrap materials by ocean-going barge appears most economical. Local labor is available at fewer locations in the Arctic Region than in the Northwest Region. Only the villages of Kaktovik and Barrow could provide significant numbers of laborers in the central and eastern Arctic, while Unalakleet, Nome, Selawik, Kotzebue, and Point Hope are labor sources for the western portion of the Arctic Region and the entire Northwest Region. In spite of the availability of labor within these regions, the debris sites are usually isolated, and self-contained camps would be necessary to house the workers. Heavy equipment will be needed to clean up major waste sites. Such construction equipment is not readily available in the Arctic Region but may be available at Nome in the Northwest Region. The cost of transporting this machinery will be a significant cost factor. Equipment could be barged from Seward, Anchorage, or Nome to coastal locations and then moved to interior sites by cat-train during winter. At some sites, C-130 Hercules aircraft could be utilized to transport caterpillar tractors, front-end loaders, and dump trucks. This equipment should be sufficient to perform most site cleanup tasks. Labor, camp support, and equipment rental costs in the Arctic and Northwest regions are high. A Rolligon all- terrain vechile that will not harm the tundra rents at $1700 per day with an operator. Disposal of large waste sites may require several pieces of equally expensive equipment. 18 ------- YUKON REGION Geography, Climate, and Land Status The Yukon Region covers 204,000 square miles of interior Alaska, stretching from the Canadian border on the east to the Bering Sea on the west. It covers much of the portion of the state lying between the Brooks Range on the north and the Alaska Range on the south. The topography of the Yukon Region is basically flat, but low mountains occur in every one of its six subregions. The topography of the Lower Yukon Subregion is characterized by lowlands and tide flats with some low mountains, while the Central Yukon Subregion has wetlands, lowlands, and low mountains. The Koyukuk Sub- region is similar to Central Yukon Subregion but has deep valleys and isolated rugged mountains. The Upper Yukon Subregion is generally flat with some low ridges and mountains to 5800 feet, while the Upper Yukon-Canada Subregion is comprised of uplands with rounded ridges and mountains to 6800 feet which are interspersed by flat, broad valleys. Finally, the Tanana Subregion varies from lowlands to mountains of 6800 feet. The Yukon Region has a continental climate with a zone of transitional climate in its lower portion. The Continental Climatic Zone is characterized by great temperature extremes, light precipitation, and light winds. This climate has resulted in a thick layer of discontinuous permafrost over much of the region with a large section of continuous permafrost along the northern boundary. The dominant vegetation of the Yukon Region varies with altitude and location. On the Yukon delta, the vegetation is primarily wet tundra interspersed with small sections of high brush. Limited areas of low brush bog and muskeg are scattered throughout the inland area, with high brush occurring near the Canadian border. Nevertheless, lowland spruce- hardwood forest and alpine tundra predominate in this region, and bottomland spruce-poplar forest is present along its rivers. Ice covers the rivers and coasts of the Yukon Region from November until May and prevents navigation for six months of the year. The Yukon Region is composed primarily of federal lands with smaller amounts of state and private land. Most of the federal lands are administered by the Department of Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. The Department of Defense controls the remaining one-fifth of the federal lands in this region. 19 ------- Types of Waste Sites The solid waste in the Yukon Region originated primarily from mining activity, aircraft crashes, fuel dumps, and unauthorized land fills. The typical debris includes abandoned mining equipment, vehicles, empty fuel drums, scrap iron, and abandoned buildings. With the exception of one military station which has a large open dump, the debris sites have only moderate quantities of waste. None of the sites have any known historic value. Several, however, are near highways and are located in areas which receive recreational use. Environmental Considerations for Cleanup Climatic conditions are more favorable for cleanup operations in this region than in the Arctic and Northwest regions because its warmer climate is less harsh. Since the vegetation includes dense forests, some of the debris is screened from view and is not so aesthetically offensive as solid waste located on the tundra. As in the arctic, however, natural degradation is slow due to this region's dryness and low average temperature. Thus, unless disposed of, solid waste will remain for decades. Large runs of salmon occur in the Yukon Region's major rivers and their tributaries. Grayling, char, sheefish, and whitefish also occur in these streams. In addition, the region contains nesting areas for raptors, such as the endangered peregrin falcon, and contains the winter range for the Porcupine caribou herd. Brown bears and wolves are found throughout much of this region, and Dall sheep occupy the more mountainous areas. Proper planning is required to eliminate the impact of cleanup on these animals. Disposal techniques for the Yukon Region must be carefully designed to avoid damaging the vegetation on permafrost soils. As in the arctic, these areas should be traversed only after the ground freezes and snow cover protects the plant life. South-facing slopes that are ice-free and thawed or thaw-stable river gravels may be traversed during summer months only if care is taken to minimize surface disturbance. The presence of discontinuous permafrost in portions of the Yukon Region allows selection of routes for overland travel that avoid areas of potential thermal degra- dation. In addition, several transportation modes that permit cleanup with minimal overland travel serve the region. Construction of landfills is practical in those portions of the Yukon Region where there are significant amounts of thawed soils. As in the arctic, permanently frozen ground presents greater difficulty when landfilling is attempted. 20 ------- Economic Considerations A number of transportation modes provide logistic alternatives for debris removal from the Yukon Region. One alternative is to transport solid waste to coastal locations by river barge and then to Seattle by ocean-going barge. This alternative is available for solid waste sites near the lower Yukon River. At sites on the middle Yukon River and lower Tanana River, scrap could be barged to Nenana and loaded on the Alaska Railroad for shipment to Whittier and subsequent rail-barge transport to Seattle. Highway transportation is available in the central and eastern portions of the Yukon Region. The North Slope Haul Road, Elliot Highway, Manley Hot Springs Road, Steese Highway, Taylor Highway, Parks Highway, Richardson Highway, and Alaska Highway all serve portions of this area. Scrap can be trucked to Fairbanks from points along this network, loaded on the Alaska Railroad for shipment to Whittier, and then sent by rail-barge to Seattle. Alternately, air transportation can be utilized to remove solid waste debris from some of the sites in this region. Materials can be moved to airstrips by surface or helicopter transport, stockpiled, and then airlifted to the railhead at Fairbanks. For some areas of this region, air transport directly to a major port facility may be more feasible than transshipment by railroad. Air transport has significant advantages for removing debris because it provides year-round access to most sites, whereas water transport is restricted to the ice-free summer months and to major river systems. In addition, for some locations air transport may be less expensive than other transportation modes. Airstrips capable of handling C-130 "Hercules" cargo aircraft are available at several locations in the Yukon Region. Debris brought to such airstrips by surface transport or by helicopter could be airlifted to Fairbanks for shipment to Whittier by rail, and then by rail-barge transport to Seattle. Other variations involve airlifting scrap directly to a major port where it could be consolidated with locally- generated materials for shipment to Seattle or Japan. The cost of transportation from the Yukon Region varies significantly according to the distance along major rivers, highways, and the Alaska Railroad. Barge transportation is available along the coastal areas and on the Yukon River system. On the latter, approximate barging costs per ton of scrap metal is equal to $40 plus $.11 for each mile of river transport. This calculated rate is approximate and is subject to change. Specific situations may afford lower costs by utilizing empty backhauls or special charters. 21 ------- Ocean-going barges serve Saint Michael on the Bering Sea north of the mouth of the Yukon River. Scrap metal may be shipped from this point to Seattle for $91.40 per ton including loading and unloading fees. Should it be neces- sary for the ocean-going barge to enter the Yukon and load the scrap at Saint Marys, the cost would increase by 7 5 percent to $160 per ton. Barging scrap metal up the Yukon and Tanana rivers to Nenana and shipping it by rail to Whittier and rail-barge to Seattle is cheaper than shipping downriver from many locations. Scrap metals may be shipped from Nenana to Seattle for $25 to $31 per ton, depending on the weight of the scrap. Trucking scrap metal is a feasible alternative for the southeastern portion of the Yukon Region. The rate for scrap metal is approximately $0.20 per ton-mile, depending on scrap value and total weight. Trucking could be combined with rail and rail-barge transport for the area between Fairbanks and the Canadian border. With this combination, scrap can be shipped to Seattle for less than $90 per ton. The C-130 Hercules aircraft costs about $2000 per flying hour to charter out of Fairbanks or Anchorage. Assuming a 20-ton minimum usable payload and an average round-trip distance of 500 miles between the interior waste sites and Fairbanks, scrap transportation to the railhead by C-130 would cost about $220 per ton. Depending on the specific location, this cost could vary from about $190 per ton to as much as $265 per ton. These costs are equivalent to $0.45 to $0.55 per ton-mile, calculated upon a round trip. Because it is served by barge, rail, and highway trans- portation modes, the Yukon Region presents fewer transportation difficulties than the Northwest and Arctic regions. It appears that transporting scrap by barge or truck to Fairbanks or Nenana, and then shipping it to Seattle via rail and rail-barge are the cheapest alternatives for most of this region. Lower Yukon and coastal locations may be best served by river and ocean-going barges. Air transportation is expensive, but it may be the only logistic alternative for some remote sites. Local labor is available m most parts of the Yukon Region. Numerous villages are located along the Yukon River, and the city of Fairbanks has a relatively large labor pool. In spite of the availability of labor within this region, some of the debris sites are isolated and will require self-contained camps to house the workers. Heavy equipment will be necessary to clean up major solid waste sites. Although construction equipment is available in Fairbanks, the cost of transporting this machinery 22 ------- will be a significant economic factor. Equipment could be barged from Nenana to sites on the Yukon River system and could be trucked from Fairbanks to sites on the highway network. At some sites, C-130 Hercules aircraft could be utilized to transport caterpillar tractors, front-end loaders, and dump trucks. These should be sufficient to perform most site cleanup tasks. In the event that equipment cannot be barged, trucked, or flown directly to a solid waste site, overland travel by cat-train may be feasible. If undertaken, cat-travel should be limited to winter months to minimize surface disturbance. For remote areas of the Yukon Region, equipment trans- portation costs may be significant and the time required to haul the equipment could greatly inflate rental costs. In such instances, it may prove more economical to purchase construction equipment than to rent it, particularly if a number of sites are to be cleaned up in one season. For less remote sites, however, equipment rental for brief periods is not prohibitive. A D-7 caterpillar tractor, a 966 front-end loader, and a 10-yard dump truck would rent for approximately $3100 per day or slightly more than $90,000 per month. Cleaning up a major debris site might require additional equipment at comparable costs. At these rates, double-shifting could save significant amounts of money by reducing rental time. Camp support and camp equipment costs are high in remote areas of the Yukon Region and will be approximately $79,000 per month for a 12-person crew. In less remote areas of this region where workers can drive to the ]ob sites, these costs may. be reduced or totally eliminated. 23 ------- SOUTHWEST REGION Geography, Climate, and Land Status The Southwest Region covers about 98,000 square miles of Alaska, an area roughly triangular in shape with corners at Nunivak Island in the Bering Sea, at the headwaters of the Kuskokwim River, and at Port Moller on the Alaska Peninsula. Regional topography varies from very flat to very mountainous in its two subregions. In the Kuskokwim Bay Subregion, the large, lake-covered Kuskokwim delta is flat. Further inland, however, the terrain becomes quite mountainous. The Bristol Bay Subregion is a mountain-bordered basin opening onto shallow Bristol Bay. It is characterized by many rivers and large lakes. Climate varies over the Southwest Region from maritime on the coast to continental further inland. The former climate has fewer temperature extremes, more precipitation, and stronger winds than the latter. As a result of these climatic patterns, permafrost is discontinuous or isolated over most of the area and soils are free of permafrost around the southern rivers and Alaskan Peninsula. Tundra vegetation covers much of the Southwest Region. In the northern portion, wet tundra is interspersed with small areas of upland spruce-hardwood forest, lowland spruce- hardwood forest, bottomland spruce-poplar forest, high brush, and low brush bog and muskeg. In the southern portion of the region, tundra accompanied by areas of dense spruce- birch or cottonwood forest is the most prominent form of vegetation. Sea ice usually exists in the Southwest Region until April. During January and February, the ice is solid along the northern coastal area between Nunivak Island and Naknek on Bristol Bay. During November, December, March, and April, however, the ice is normally broken. Seaborne trans- portation is possible for at least six months of the year. River barges can operate for a slightly shorter period than the ocean-going barges. Land ownership in the Southwest Region is largely federal. The Bureau of Land Management controls most of this land, but the National Park Service administers Katmai National Monument and Mount McKinley National Park and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages several large game refuges along the coast. There are significant amounts of state land in the region, but very little private land. 24 ------- Types of Waste Sites The majority of the solid waste sites in the Southwest Region are associated with military communication facilities. In addition to these sites, an abandoned open dump and several locations of miscellaneous debris are present in this region. For the most part, the quantity of debris currently at these sites is relatively small. However, several military stations may have significant amounts of scrap when their planned deactivation occurs. Recreational use of the region is low and none of the sites have any apparent historical value. Environmental Considerations for Cleanup The Southwest Region presents significant difficulties for debris cleanup and removal. Portions of this region are similar to the Arctic and Northwest regions because surface transportation is limited and permafrost may be present. The environment of the Southwest Region is relatively severe. The coastal areas are subject to high windchill factors during the winter, and interior areas are subject to very low temperatures. Thus, winter working conditions are harsh. During the summer season, the surface of permafrost soil thaws to a shallow depth and leaves the ground wet. Summer travel on this thawed surface can disrupt the vege- tative cover and expose the underlying permafrost to erosion. Thus, travel over permafrost areas should be limited to the winter season. Travel over non-permafrost areas can be undertaken during the summer if normal precautions are taken to protect the vegetation. Extremely valuable salmon populations spawn in the Bristol Bay drainages and in the Kuskokwim River tributaries. These drainages also contain Dolly Varden, grayling, white- fish, and trout. In addition to fish resources, caribou, brown bear, moose, and raptors are found in the Southwest Region. These species are subject to impacts from solid waste cleanup if disturbed during migration, calving, denning, nesting, or spawning seasons. However, proper planning can eliminate this threat. Since the vegetation of the Southwest Region is predomi- nantly tundra, solid waste sites may be highly visible. Biological degradation of solid waste debris is slow in the interior of this region because the climate is dry and the mean annual temperature is relatively low. Natural breakdown of debris, therefore, cannot be depended upon to remove objectionable wastes. 25 ------- Disposal techniques for the Southwest Region must be carefully planned to avoid damage to the vegetative cover on permafrost soils. Such areas should be traversed by surface transportation only after the ground freezes and snow cover protects the vegetation. Many portions of this region are ice-free and can be traversed during summer months if surface disturbance is minimized. Debris disposal in landfills is practical in those portions of the Southwest Region where significant amounts of thawed soils are found. As mentioned in the sections on the northern regions, permanently frozen ground presents greater difficulty when landfilling is attempted. The establishment of native vegetation is likely to be quicker in the Southwest Region than in the arctic areas. However, at those sites which are prone to hydrologic and thermal erosion, it is recommended that artificial revege- tation be included in cleanup planning. Economic Considerations The available transportation modes in the Southwest Region are very limited. Since highways and railroads are not present, transportation is restricted to river barge and aircraft. The Southwest Region has large areas of land drained by the Kuskokwim River, which is navigable by barge over much of its length. Debris from waste sites along the Kuskokwim can be moved by river barge to the coast where ocean-going barges could carry it to Seattle. The areas around Bristol Bay are also served by seaborne transportation during the summer months when the Bering Sea is ice-free. On the Kuskokwim River, approximate barging costs per ton of scrap metal is equal to $62 plus $.28 per mile of river transport. These rates are subject to change and may be lower in specific situations where empty backhauls can be utilized. Ocean-going barges serve Bethel on the lower Kuskokwim. Scrap metal may be shipped from this point to Seattle for $91.40 per ton including loading and unloading fees. Some points on Bristol Bay and the Alaska Peninsula may be best reached by ocean-going barge on a charter basis. Solid waste could be shuttled to coastal locations by over- land travel during winter or by aircraft during summer. The stockpiled scrap could then be hauled to Seattle by barge during the open-water season at an estimated cost of $140 per ton. Air transport may have significant advantages for removing debris from many portions of the Southwest Region. First, such transport provides year-round access to most 26 ------- sites, whereas water transport is available only during the summer months when the rivers and coasts are ice-free. Second, for some locations, air transport may be less expensive than other transportation modes. Airstrips capable of handling C-130 "Hercules" cargo aircraft are available at several locations in this region. Debris brought to such airstrips by surface transport or by helicopter could be airlifted to Fairbanks for shipment to Whittier by rail and rail-barge transport to Seattle. Other variations involve air-lifting scrap directly to a major port where it could be consolidated with locally generated materials for shipment to Seattle or Japan. For solid waste sites more than 200 miles upriver from Bethel, air transport costs approach those of barge transport. Assuming a 20-ton minimum usable payload and an average round-trip distance of 600 miles between the interior areas of the Southwest Region and Fairbanks or Anchorage, scrap transportation to the rail-head by C-130 would cost about $265 per ton at $8.80 per mile. Depending on the specific location from which the scrap was being hauled, this cost could vary from about $220 per ton to as much as $315 per ton. These costs are equivalent to $0.40 to $0.45 per ton- mile based upon a round trip. The Fairbanks-to-Seattle rail and rail-barge rates are $26 to $31 per ton, depending on the total weight of scrap shipped. Thus, scrap metal shipping costs between a debris site and Seattle would total about $290 per ton for a com- bination of air, rail, and rail-barge transport. The Southwest Region, then, presents significant trans- portation problems. The cost of scrap removal is higher than that of the Yukon Region, and environmental factors limit the time periods during which various transportation modes can be utilized. It appears that barge transport is the cheapest method of scrap removal for coastal and lower Kuskokwim River areas, while air transport, combined with rail and rail-barge transport, is the most feasible method for interior areas. Local labor is available at most locations in the Southwest Region. Bethel, Aniak, Sleetmute, McGrath, and Dillingham could provide significant numbers of laborers in the Kuskokwim and Bristol Bay areas. Both Fairbanks and Anchorage could supply workers from outside the region. In spite of the availability of labor within the Southwest, the debris sites themselves are usually isolated and self- contained camps will be necessary to house the workers. Heavy equipment will be necessary to clean up major solid waste sites. Such construction equipment is not 27 ------- present in most of the Southwest Region, although a limited amount may be available at Bethel. The cost of renting and transporting this machinery will be a significant economic factor. Equipment could be barged from Seward, Anchorage, or Bethel to coastal or river locations, and then moved to interior sites by cat-train during the winter. At some sites, C-130 Hercules aircraft could be utilized to transport caterpillar tractors, front-end loaders, and dump trucks. In remote areas, camp equipment and camp support costs would be approximately the same as those quoted in the introduction to this section. Labor costs would be the same as those previously quoted, approximately $4000 per day for a 12- person crew. 28 ------- SOUTHCENTRAL REGION Geography, Climate, and Land Status The Southcentral Region, which covers 83,000 square miles of Alaska, reaches from the tip of the Alaska Peninsula on the west to the Canadian border on the east, and from the Gulf of Alaska on the south to the Alaska Range on the north. The region is divided into three subregions, whose topography varies from high mountains to plateaus and lowlands. The Kodiak-Shelikof Subregion is largely glaciated and moun- tainous, while the Cook Inlet Subregion consists of a low basin which is surrounded by mountains. The Copper River- Gulf of Alaska Subregion varies from the plateau topography of the Gulkana upland to the fiord-indented, mountainous coast. Climate varies widely over the Southcentral Region. Coastal and island areas have a cool, moist, maritime climate while inland areas are characterized by a dryer, continental climate with far greater temperature extremes. Heavy snow- fall in coastal areas, especially at higher elevations, creates unfavorable winter working conditions, as do the low winter temperatures occurring in some inland portions of the region. Permafrost is absent in some coastal areas of the Southcentral Region, but occurs in isolated masses over the remainder of the region. The presence of permafrost must be considered when planning off-road surface transportation. The vegetation of the Southcentral Region varies with climate and altitude. Coastal areas are characterized by coastal western hemlock-Sitka spruce forests, upland spruce- hardwood forests, high brush, and tundra. Inland areas are characterized by upland spruce-hardwood forests, bottomland spruce-poplar forests, lowland spruce-hardwood forests, low brush bog and muskeg, and alpine tundra. Sea ice occurs in Cook Inlet, but larger vessels can navigate through this waterway during most winters. Seaborne transportation is possible throughout the year to the remaining coastal areas of this region. Although most of this region is federally owned, signif- icant amounts of state and private land occur in southcentral Alaska. The U.S. Forest Service administers Chugach National Forest, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages Katmai National Monument and Mount McKinley Park, which lies partially within the region. The majority of the remaining federal lands are administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Land selections by Native corporations and selections by the State of Alaska will result m a higher proportion of non- federal lands in the future. 29 ------- Types of Waste Sites The Southcentral Region contains a variety of solid waste sites. Active Coast Guard stations, abandoned military facilities, open dumps, old cabins, abandoned canneries, and an abandoned FAA facility are among the types of solid waste found in this region. These sites contain structural debris, tanks, pilings, lumber, steel drums, and communication towers. However, since most sites occur near population centers, they have never accumulated the large quantities of waste often present at more remote sites. Some of the debris sites in this region have historical or recreational value which should be considered when planning their cleanup. Designated historical sites are protected by law from destruction, and recreational use of some sites is high because most of the state's population resides in this region. Thus, these sites may be of high value to the public and should be retained in a safe or restored condition. Solid waste presents an objectionable sight to most viewers. Some of debris sites in southcentral Alaska are well-screened by forest vegetation. Other sites are located on the beach or in treeless areas where they are highly visible to the population concentrations in this region. Biological degradation of debris may occur at a moderate rate in the moist, coastal portions of the region, but deg- radation is slower in the drier, interior areas. Therefore, if cleanup is not undertaken, natural processes cannot be depended upon to eliminate a debris hazard or to hide its offensive appearance. Environmental Considerations for Cleanup The Southcentral Region's climate varies with distance from the coast and with elevation. Due to the high snow- falls of coastal areas and to the low winter temperatures of interior areas, winter work is difficult here. The presence of permafrost over much of this region requires that care be taken to avoid disrupting surface vegetation overlying frozen ground. Such areas should be traversed by surface transportation only after the ground is frozen and the vegetation is protected by snow cover. Summers in most of this region are mild and favorable to cleanup operations. South-facing slopes that are ice-free and thawed river gravels may be traversed during these months if surface disturbance is minimized. Debris disposal in landfills is practical in those portions of the Southcentral Region where significant amounts of thawed soils are found. As mentioned earlier, permanently frozen ground presents great difficulties when landfilling is attempted. 30 ------- Many streams in the Southcentral Region support spawning populations of salmon, Dolly Varden, grayling, and trout. Raptors are also found in significant numbers in the region; bald eagles nest along the coast and interior rivers, as do peregrine falcons. Sitka black-tailed deer, moose, caribou, Dall sheep, mountain goats, black bear, and brown bear are present in significant numbers. Cleanup operations should be planned to avoid interference with the life history patterns and migratory movements of these species. The establishment of native vegetation is likely to be quicker in the Southcentral Region than in most other areas, but disturbed areas may be visually apparent for a number of years following debris removal. Artificial revegetation is not as critical here as it is in the northern climates. Economic Considerations The cost of transportation from the Southcentral Region is lower than most other regions because adequate transportation systems are available over much of the area. These include the Alaska Railroad, the state highway system, and well- developed marine and air routes with access to major ports. Highway transportation is available in the central portion of this region. The Parks Highway, Denali Highway, Seward Highway, Sterling Highway, Richardson Highway, Tok Cutoff, and Glenn Highway all serve this area. Trucking scrap metal is a feasible alternative for this portion. The rate for scrap metal is approximately $0.20 per ton- mile, depending on scrap value and total weight. For debris within 300 miles of the Alaska Railroad, trucking could be effectively combined with rail and rail-barge transport to Seattle for less than $90 per ton. Scrap could also be trucked to Anchorage and shipped by container ship to Seattle for about $80 per ton. For solid waste sites located in the railbelt of the Southcentral Region, rail transport of scrap to Whittier and subsequent rail-barge transport to Seattle may be the most feasible alternative. The rates from Nenana to Seattle are approximately $25 to $31 per ton, depending on the weight transported, and would be less for loading points near Anchorage. Coastal and ocean-going barges provide another logistic alternative for cleanup at coastal sites in this region. The Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island, Kenai Peninsula, Prince William Sound, and Gulf of Alaska coastal areas can be reached by this transportation mode. Barge transport directly from coastal debris sites to Seattle is preferable because it eliminates the cost of multiple transshipments. Barge 31 ------- rates are difficult to obtain for areas not having regular service but are estimated between $50 and $90 per ton, depending on location and cargo weight. Container ship rates for scrap are $20 to $30 per ton for regular runs out of Anchorage and Kodiak, and rail-barge rates vary from $26 to $31 per ton out of Whittier. Charter costs would be much higher. Regardless of the other systems, air transport may be the most feasible method of waste disposal for some portions of the Southcentral Region. This is because air transport provides year-round access to many remote sites and, at these locations, air transport may be less expensive than other transportation modes. Airstrips capable of handling C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft are available at several locations in this region. Debris brought to such airstrips by surface transport or by helicopter could be airlifted to Anchorage for shipment to Whittier by rail and rail-barge to Seattle. Another alter- native involves airlifting scrap directly to a ma]or port where it could be consolidated with locally generated materials for shipment to Seattle or Japan. Assuming a 20-ton minimum usable payload and an average round-trip distance of 500 miles between the interior areas of the region and Anchorage, scrap transportation to the railhead or port by C-130 would cost about $220 per ton at a rate of $8.80 per mile. Depending on the specific location from which the scrap was being hauled, this cost could vary from about $140 per ton to as much as $315 per ton. These costs are equivalent to $0.40 to $0.70 per ton-mile (round-trip mileage), depending on leg mileage. For a C-130 flying short hops, such as from interior areas to coastal locations, the "positioning and depositioning" fee and excess fuel costs are passed on to the user, as well as the standard mileage rates listed in the introduction to this section. In summary, the Southcentral Region presents fewer transportation difficulties than any other region because it is served by air, rail, and highway transportation modes. The availability of moderately-priced transportation and favorable summer weather should simplify solid waste site cleanup in this region. It appears that transporting scrap by truck to Anchorage and shipping it to Seattle via con- tainer ship or rail and rail-barge are the cheapest logistic alternatives for most of this region. Coastal locations may be best served by ocean-going barges. Air transportation is expensive but may be the only logistic alternative for some remote sites. Local labor is available at most waste sites in the Southcentral Region since Palmer, Willow, Wasilla, Talkeetna, Glennallen, Valdez, Cordova, Kenai, Seward, Homer, Anchorage, 32 ------- and Kodiak provide a large labor pool. In spite of this availability, however, some of the debris sites are isolated and will require self-contained camps to house the workers. Heavy equipment will be necessary to clean up major solid waste sites. Although construction equipment is readily available in much of the region, the cost of trans- porting this machinery will be a significant economic factor. Equipment could be barged from Whittier or Valdez to sites on Prince William Sound, and from Anchorage to other coastal locations. Also, equipment could be trucked from Anchorage to sites on the highway network. At some sites, C-130 Hercules aircraft could be utilized to transport caterpillar tractors, front-end loaders, and dump trucks. In the event that equipment cannot be barged, trucked, or flown directly to a solid waste site, overland travel by cat-train during the winter would minimize surface disturbance. Labor, camp equipment, and camp support costs at remote sites would approximate those rates quoted in the introduction to this section. For sites near one of the many population centers in this region, the cost of remote camps may be eliminated since workers could commute from their homes to those locations. For most solid waste sites in this region, construction equipment rental for brief periods is not prohibitive. A D- 7 caterpillar tractor, a 966 front-end loader, and a 10-yard dump truck would rent for approximately $3100 per day or slightly more than $90,000 per month of use. Cleaning up a major debris site might require additional equipment at comparable costs, but double-shifting could reduce rental time. 33 ------- SOUTHEAST REGION Geography, Climate, and Land Status The Southeast Region covers 42,000 square miles of Alaska. It encompasses the Alexander Archipelago and the Boundary Range and stretches from Dixon Entrance near Prince Rupert, British Columbia, northward to the giant Malaspina Glacier in the Saint Elias Mountains. The topography is mountainous with glaciated peaks and numerous fiords that penetrate the extensive coastline. Glacial deposits and outwash materials form the narrow coastal plain of this region. The Southeast Region lies in the Maritime Climatic Zone. This climate is characterized by moderate tempera- tures and high precipitation that ranges from 40 to 300 inches per year. Permafrost occurs at lower altitudes. The vegetation of southeastern Alaska varies with altitude. Coastal western hemlock-Sitka spruce forest, commonly interspersed with bogs, occurs at lower elevations and alpine tundra exists at higher altitudes. Grass-sedge meadows also occur in some areas of this region. The channeling effect of mountain passes creates very high winds in this region. Salisbury Ridge near Juneau frequently experiences winds in excess of 100 mph, and winds of 200 mph have been estimated for this location. Sea ice does not occur in this area. Thus, seaborne transportation is feasible during all seasons of the year. Much of southeastern Alaska is within the Tongass National Forest and is administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Land use permits issued by the Forest Service have permitted canneries, lumbering operations, sawmills, and some private dwellings on federal property. Land selections by the State and by natives under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will eventually result in increased private land ownership in the Southeast Region. Types of Waste Sites Much of the solid waste debris found in the Southeast Region has resulted from commercial activity. The abandon- ment of canneries, logging camps, sawmills, and mines has left behind partially deteriorated buildings, rusting machinery, wooden pilings, steel drums, and miscellaneous trash. Solid waste has accumulated near villages where 34 ------- adequate ,trash disposal facilities do not exist, and recrea- tional use has added additional litter. Finally, a unique' debris problem was created by the abandonment of the Salisbury Ridge portion of the Snettisham Power Line. Several of the abandoned canneries in this area have potential historical value since they are evidence of a by- gone era in the fishing industry. Although the population of this region is small, its wilderness areas are receiving increased recreational use, particularly by boaters. Environmental Considerations for Cleanup The Southeast Region is characterized by a moderate environment that diminishes the potential impact of debris removal. In particular, the absence of permafrost at lower elevations reduces the detrimental effects of off-road surface transportation during the summer season. However, care must still be taken during these months to avoid creating scars that could develop into hydraulic erosion channels on steep slopes. Since most debris sites in this region are accessible by water, the negative impacts of surface transportation can often be avoided by using barges for scrap removal. Most streams in this region, even very small ones, support spawning populations of salmon, Dolly Varden, char, steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout. In addition to sig- nificant fish populations, southeastern Alaska is character- ized by high numbers of bald eagles. Mountain goats, wolves, moose, Sitka black-tailed deer, and brown bears all are found in the region. Cleanup planning, however, can avoid harmful impact on these species. In the forested areas of the Southeast Region, debris is often less visible than in treeless regions. However, the beaches of this area contain significant amounts of trash which are offensive to by-passers. Biological deg- radation of solid waste occurs more rapidly in this region than in other areas of Alaska, but some wastes will remain for many decades. Debris disposal in landfills is practical in those portions of the Southeast Region where sufficient soil depth exists for waste burial. Many areas of this region have steep slopes with shallow soils, and in some cases, proper community landfill facilities are lacking. Nevertheless, suitable landfill sites should not be difficult to locate near most waste sites at lower elevations. The establish- ment of native vegetation is likely to be very quick in this region, but high rainfall may require artificial revegetation to prevent erosion. 35 ------- Economic Considerations Logistic alternatives are very limited in the Southeast Region. Since only one highway and one railroad connection exist between this region and other areas, transportation is largely limited to the marine and air transportation modes. Marine transportation can be used for the cleanup of most debris sites. Beachable vessels operating out of Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, or other ports in southeastern Alaska could haul scrap debris from waste sites to major south- eastern ports where it can be transferred to ocean-going barges and shipped to Seattle. The cost of marine transportation from the Southeast Region does not differ greatly from that of the Southcentral Region. Barge rates from Skagway to Seattle range from approximately $40 to $60 per ton, depending on the weight of scrap shipped. Rates from Ketchikan to Seattle range between $30 to $35 per ton. These costs are equivalent to $0.04 to $0.05 per ton-mile. In the vicinity of Haines and Skagway, debris could be transported on the Haines Highway or on the White Pass and Yukon Railroad through Canada to eventual recycling destinations. Helicopter transport of debris to coastal areas or major ports for marine shipment is a logistic alternative for inland sites. This should be an efficient means of cleaning up areas that are distant from the beach. Daily helicopter rental of a Bell Jet Ranger 206B costs $335 per hour with a 3.5 hour minimum rental. Preslinging cargo for transport to the beach would reduce helicopter flight time and rental costs. Airstrips capable of handling C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft are available at several locations in the region. Debris brought to such airstrips by surface transport or by helicopter could be airlifted to recycling locations. This alternative may not be economically feasible, however, when compared to the marine transportation modes which are acces- sible from nearly all sites in this region. Aircraft rates, positioning and depositioning fees, and excess fuel costs would be the same as those quoted in the introduction to this section. Assuming a 20-ton minumum usable payload and an average round-trip distance of 400 miles, scrap transportation by C-130 would cost about $195 per ton at $1926 per flight leg. This cost is equivalent to $0.48 per ton-mile based upon round-trip mileage. The positioning fee of $7880 is not included in these rates. Scrap metal shipping costs between Yakutat and Seattle would total about $250 per ton for a combination of air and barge transport. The Juneau to Seattle barge rates are 36 ------- estimated to be $55 per ton including loading and unloading fees, depending on the total weight of scrap shipped. In summary, the Southeast Region presents few trans- portation difficulties. The cost of scrap removal is lower than that found in more remote regions, and environmental factors allow periods during which various transportation modes can be utilized. It appears that barge transport is the cheapest method of scrap removal for the entire region. Air transport, combined with barge transport, is not economi- cally competitive with barge transport alone. Local labor is available at most locations in the Southeast Region. Haines, Juneau-Douglas, Sitka, Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Wrangell could provide significant numbers of workers. In spite of the availability of labor within the region, some of the debris sites are isolated and self- contained camps will be necessary to house the workers. The support costs for these camps and their equipment would be approximately the same as those quoted in the introduction to this section. Heavy construction equipment for cleaning up major sites is readily available in the Southeast Region. The cost of transporting this machinery will be less significant here than in other regions. Equipment could be barged from Juneau, Haines, or Ketchikan to coastal locations in the region and then moved to interior sites. At one site, C-130 Hercules aircraft could be utilized to transport caterpillar tractors, front-end loaders, and dump trucks. Equipment rental periods should be brief for most sites in the region. A D-7 caterpillar tractor, a 966 front-end loader, and a 10-yard dump truck would rent for approximately $3100 per day or slightly more than $90,000 per month. 37 ------- Arctic National Wildlife Range • Nome Fairbanks • Anchorage • Bethel Juneau Kodiak Ketchikan ANALYZED WASTE SITES Sites Selected For Disposal Analysis (numbers indicate page number in report) 38 Figure 2 ------- III. SELECTED SITE ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION In the first report of this study, a disposal analysis was presented for ten selected sites. In this report, ten additional sites were chosen to show a representative picture of solid waste problems in Alaska. Seven of the sites were combined to present the problems and alternatives for solid waste disposal in arctic regions. Other sites were selected to show solid waste in southeastern Alaska, on native-selected lands, and at a location where future waste problems may exist. These analyses give brief descriptions of the history, location, and types of debris present at each site. Methods for cleanup are recommended, and cost estimates are quoted for each of the alternatives. The location of each selected site is indicated on the facing map, page 38. 39 ------- Debris on Flaxman Coast Flaxman Island DEW Line Site 40 Figure 8 ------- EAST ARCTIC SLOPE The sites analyzed on the East Arctic Slope are the Arctic National Wildlife Range (see pp. 76-80 of the Executive Summary Report), the Barter Island Dew Line Station (pp. 49- 53, Executive Summary Report), and the abandoned Dew Line sites at Flaxman Island (p. B-7, this report), Manning Point (p. 31, Executive Summary Report), Demarcation Bay, Gordon Point, and Brownlow Point (B-13, this report). Figures 3 through 6 show the various types of debris at these sites. These seven sites are treated collectively in order that cleanup will be more cost-effective. Were each site treated separately, the mobilization and demobilization costs would be excessive due to the short working season. It is recommended that the entire cleanup operation be carried out in a single summer season of sixty to ninety days. Equipment and crews would be moved from site to site during this period while the coast is ice-free. The stated costs were based upon the estimated debris at each site. Unit manpower costs and equipment needs were determined assuming that operations would be conducted simultaneously. Work crews would be housed at one location, Barter Island, which is central to all the debris sites. They would be transported to the work sites by helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft. Equipment would be transported using LCMs (self-propelled, beachable barges) and the debris and equipment would be removed by the same vessels. It is recommended that cleanup of the interior areas of the Arctic be carried out entirely by helicopter. These aircraft will deposit crews at several sites to pick up the debris, and then will carry the waste by sling to Barter Island. Beach cleanup will be accomplished by a single sweep of the coast from east to west. A pickup crew, barrel crushing machine, and a Rolligon will stockpile crushed barrels at various locations along the beach. The debris will be removed by LCM to the closest of the several collection points. Cost estimates were determined for two alternate methods of disposal. Alternate I is to bury all the debris with mined gravel wherever this is possible. The debris would be crushed, deposited directly above the permafrost, and covered over with a gravel berm of sufficient depth to prevent degradation of the permafrost. Alternate II is to bury only the non-metallic debris, and to haul all recyclable scrap metal to Seattle by barge. 41 ------- Barrels and Sea Wall at Barter Island Barter Island Dump 42 Figure 4 ------- It may seem a paradox that it is less expensive to ship the recyclable waste, which has negligible scrap value, than it is to bury it at the site. This is due to the high cost of landfilling in the arctic, where gravel covering is scarce, the soil depth is shallow, and all earthmoving equipment and crews must be transported long distances to the side. In these latitudes, the total cost of burial is conservatively estimated to be at least $512 per cubic yard of debris. Alternate I: Demolish, Cleanup, and Bury All Debris Arctic National Wildlife Range $ 4,729,000 Gordon Point 316,000 Demarcation Bay 4,091,000 Manning Point 1,079,000 Barter Island 3,840,000 Brownlow Point 1,989,000 Flaxman Island 7,451,000 Total $23,495,000 Alternate II: Demolish, Cleanup, and Bury All Non-Metallic Debris and Haul Scrap to Seattle by Barge Arctic National Wildlife Range $ 3,834,000 Gordon Point 297,000 Demarcation Bay 2,931,000 Manning Point 389,000 Barter Island 3,840,000 Brownlow Point 1,855,000 Flaxman Island 6,363,000 Total $19,509,000 43 ------- Hi?? wm- 7 - "¦ Wk Partial View of Demarcation DEW Line Site Abandoned Machinery and Barrels at Demarcation 44 Figure 5 ------- Buildings at Brownlow Point Quonset Skeleton at Brownlow 45 Figure 6 ------- Big Mountain White Alice Site Reflectors and Buildings at Big Mountain 46 Figure 7 ------- BIG MOUNTAIN Big Mountain is a White Alice communications station located on the southern shore of Lake Iliamna, approximately 280 miles southwest of Anchorage. It is owned by the Air Force and is presently in active operation. Its deactivation is expected to take place in the next few years, along with the deactivation of the entire White Alice tropospheric scatter station network. Since this particular site is one which is not likely to be reused by any government agency, it is being analyzed as a potential waste disposal problem. Figure 7 shows two views of the Big Mountain site. Structures at the site include four sixty-foot parabolic reflectors and two dish-type reflectors. Support facilities consist of operating and living quarters, a diesel generator power house, and water and fuel tanks. There is a 4200 foot airstrip, which is capable of handling Hercules-type aircraft, a hanger structure, and some small storage buildings. Access to the Big Mountain site is primarily by air. It can also be reached by following an existing road overland from Williamsport on the west side of Cook Inlet to Pile Bay Village on Lake Iliamna. From Pile Bay Village, Big Mountain can be reached by barge, across Lake Iliamna. Conventional planning would suggest that the marine route would be the most cost-effective one for bringing in and removing cleanup equipment, and for removing scrap from the site. However, several factors detract from that approach. Time considera- tions make the cost of marine travel by barge and tug between Anchorage and Williamsport very high. In addition, there is limited availability of barges on Lake Iliamna, and the overland road to Cook Inlet would require improvement in order to handle heavy loads. Thus, the most effective alter- native for equipment movement and scrap removal is by air. The scrap would be placed in containers compatible with rail barge systems and then flown to Anchorage for rail shipment to Seattle through either Whittier or Seward. Dismantling and cleanup of this site would take approxi- mately four to five months. Housing for the crew would con- sist of an air transportable camp, with camp support and resupply provided by air. Cost analysis has ieen based on the assumption that most of the electronic equipment will be removed when the site is abandoned, leaving only the support structures for cleanup. It is estimated that about 5000 cubic yards of debris and scrap will be disposed of. Recyclable scrap will total approximately 600 tons. This will be primarily scrap steel, with possibly several tons of copper. 47 ------- Two basic options exist for disposal of this debris. The first would be to dismantle all structures, then burn, compact, and bury all debris and revegetate where necessary. Burial would be relatively easy since permafrost does not exist at Big Mountain. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $2,693,000. The second option is to dismantle all structures and burn, compact, and bury all unsalvable debris. The recyclable scrap would be separated and shipped by the air-rail-barge system to recycling points. After revegetation, this option would cost approximately $3,107,000. Abandoned Barracks on Long Island 48 Figure 8 ------- KONIAG NATIVE SELECTIONS Two solid waste sites exist in the Kodiak area. Both of these, Long Island and Bell Flats, are inventoried on page B-27 of this report. The Long Island site, which is southeast of the city of Kodiak, is a part of the land selected by the Lesnoi Village Corporation under the Native Claims Settlement Act. The island is an area of great scenic value and is currently used for recreation and as rangeland for cattle and hogs. During World War II, Long Island was used as an Army artillery outpost. Numerous concrete bunkers still exist, as well as a number of wood buildings and metal quonset huts. The latter are deteriorating and pose a safety hazard to people using the area. Figure 8 shows a view of these buildings. Cleanup of the site would involve controlled burning or dismantling of the buildings. The foundations could be left intact and the remaining debris could be buried. Local manpower and equipment are available in the immediate area. It is estimated that the cost of demolishing these structures and their cleanup would be approximately $100,000. The major debris site at Bell Flats is a garbage dump containing from three to four hundred tons of metallic debris. Partial views of the site are shown in Figure 9. The land formerly belonged to the U.S. Navy, and much of the debris is of military origin. It includes large quantities of old household appliances, stripped and abandoned quonset huts, and oil barrels. Other debris, including many abandoned automobiles, do not appear to be of military origin. Additional debris exists four or five miles from Bell Flats area along Sargent Creek. This debris consists of about 250 barrels, apparently remaining from the unfinished construction of a river erosion control system. The debris at these sites could be compacted and buried in a landfill similar to one previously used by the Navy. This landfill, an excellent example of proper waste disposal and recontouring, is shown in Figure 10. A possible source of labor is the Koniag Regional Native Corporation, which has selected these sites under the Native Claims Settlement Act. This area was also selected by the Lesnoi Corporation, but the certification of this selection is being appealed by private parties claiming title to the land. Consequently, a cost assessment of cleaning Bell Flats and Sargent Creek was not conducted because of the probability that these lands are privately owned and do not fall within the scope of this study. 49 ------- Bell Flats — Selected by Koniag Natives - Abandoned Dump at Bell Flats 50 Figure 9 ------- Barrels at Sargent Creek Waste Site After Cleanup and Recontouring 51 Figure 10 ------- Quonset Hut and Debris at Tawah Quonset Hut at Tawah Military Disposal Site 52 Figure 11 ------- TAWAH CREEK MILITARY DISPOSAL SITE The Tawah Creek Military Disposal site, located near the village of Yakutat, is a former World War II Army base. Large quantities of material were abandoned at the site, including 180 quonset huts, 14 building foundations, one tracked vehicle, one aircraft, and approximately 6000 cubic yards of metal debris. The buildings are in various stages of collapse and constitute a moderate safety hazard to the residents of Yakutat. Figure 11 shows two representative views of the Tawah Creek site. A map of debris sites is shown in Figure 12. Figures 13 and 14 represent enlargements of the areas located in Figure 12. There is only one practical approach to cleanup of this site. The buildings should be dismantled and burned at the site, and the foundations, aircraft, and other large debris should be broken down into movable pieces. All material can be hauled by road to the local landfill site in Yakutat. The cleanup procedure will be labor-intensive, but most of personnel labor and necessary equipment can be obtained from the town of Yakutat. There is virtually no scrap metal at the site which could be profitably recycled. The total cost for cleanup of this site is estimated at $228,000. 53 ------- Tawah Creek Military Disposal Site Yakutat Summit Lakes •Tracked Vehicle v Dump 'enlargement of each area is contained on following pages) 54 Figure 12 ------- LEGEND ~ Power House ~ Warehouse Q Quonset Hut A.C. Increase Group 1 — Light Duty Road — Dirt Road 0 Q Air Warning Filter Center A.C. Increase Group 2 Tawah Creek — Area A 55 Figure 13 ------- LEGEND Gun Emplacement * Quonset Hut o Light Duty Road Dirt Road Hospital Area Beach Area C N A.C. Increase Warehouse Group 1 Area B Tawah Creek — Areas B and C 56 Figure 14 ------- IV. DISPOSAL PRIORITY This section presents a method by which an agency can develop disposal priorities among its debris sites. The section also contains a disposal priority among several selected sites. Establishing a priority among waste sites can be a complex task. It involves many factors, most of which are interrelated. However, there are six predominant factors which must be considered by an agency when deciding where to allocate cleanup resources. Environmental Hazard Environmental hazard is determined by the type of materials at a waste site. Barrels leaking oil and other toxic substances would be very hazardous to the environment, while biodegradable wood and paper debris would not be so polluting. Metals and flammable materials are potential pollutants whose hazard is often overlooked. The quality of the surroundings must be considered as well. Oil barrels left near a stream would constitute a greater hazard than the same barrels left in a municipal landfill. Permanence of Debris Permanence is an important consideration because it underlies all of the other factors. Some types of debris, such as steel and concrete, will remain for decades unless removed. Other waste, such as wood, paper, and organic matter, will naturally degrade and become insignificant within a short time. A site composed of degradable debris will have a lower priority, even though it presents other hazards. Quantity of Debris The quantity of debris will also affect all of the other factors. The greater the amount of waste, the greater impact it will have on the environment. An abandoned trapper's cabin does not present the same problem as does an abandoned DEW Line site. The impact of a dozen barrels is minimal compared to that of 5,000 drums. 57 ------- Human Safety Hazard A high safety hazard exists at a site which has structures that could collapse, where flammable materials are present, or where offshore debris creates navigational danger. The safety hazard is closely related to the next factor, the degree of human contact. Regardless of the injury potential of the debris, the safety factor will be minimal at a site which receives little human contact. Contact By Humans Contact by humans is a factor which also relates to the aesthetics of waste site. A site that presents an eyesore will have a higher priority for disposal if it is often visited by humans. Regardless of its blight, a remote site that is rarely seen by humans will have a lower priority. Conflict with Surrounding Land Use Waste must be considered relative to its surrounding land use. High conflict occurs where the presence of the debris would be very offensive to persons using the land in its normal capacity. For example, abandoned debris would have a higher priority if situated in a wilderness or recre- ational area, than if situated near industrial land. This factor is a measure of aesthetic values and therefore is highly subjective. The presence or absence of complaints by surrounding land users may be helpful in measuring this conflict. Using these six factors, the immediacy of waste dis- posal at a particular site can be determined. The task may be simplified with the aid of a matrix system as shown in Table 1. In that example, point values are assigned which rate four hypothetical sites on each of the six factors. Some qualitative judgment cannot be avoided when attempting to prioritize waste sites. For qualifying a large number of sites, subjectivity can be minimized if a specific rating system is devised for the matrix. As an example, one might decide that in evaluating "contact with humans," 1,000 or more visits a year will be worth 5 points, 100-1,000 visits will be worth 3 points, and no points will be given if the site is visited by less than 100 people a year. The six factors interrelate, and some may be con- sidered more significant than others in determining prior- ities. This weighting also involves subjective judgment. For simplicity, the sample matrix in Table 1 uses a point range of 0-10 for each factor. 58 ------- TABLE A SAMPLE MATRIX ANALYSIS OF FOUR HYPOTHETICAL WASTE SITES Site in the Arctic National Wildlife Range. Debris consists of an abandoned tracked SITE A: vehicle and 25 metal barrels leaking gas- oline. The site is adjacent to a stream, and has been the subject of many complaints from citizens using the area for back- packing. + 10 + 6 + 4 + 10 + 10 +1 51 A roadside dump next to the Glenn Highway, one mile from a town of 1500 people. De- SITE B: bris consists of twenty junk cars and 1/4 acre of metal debris including many old refrigerators. +5 + 10 + 10 + 5 + 10 + 5 45 SITE C: An abandoned military base on an isolated island near St. Matthews Island. The debris includes 15 large collapsing wood buildings, 48 quonset huts, 11 concrete foundations, a gravel airstrip, and sev- eral towers. It is occasionally seen from the air, but rarely, if ever, visited by humans. + 5 + 2 + 0 + 0 + 10 +10 27 An old camp adjacent to a popular hiking SITE D: trail in the Chugach National Forest. Ten demolished wood cabins. +0 + 0 + 6 + 10 +0 + 5 21 ------- The matrix system is only a first step in determining the relative importance of cleanup at any site. Each site will have specific factors that do not fall within the general considerations. For example, in certain sites the cost-effectiveness of cleanup may override many of the other considerations. Accessibility, availability of labor, and availability of equipment are all directly related to the cost of waste disposal and should be examined for each site. If waste materials can be reused at the site, if they are recyclable, or if they can be easily burned or buried, the cost of disposal will be lower. If materials must be trans- ported from the site, the cleanup costs will be higher. This is particularly true in Alaska, where labor costs are high and waste sites are distant from support and transpor- tation facilities. If several sites are relatively equal in their matrix value, limited cleanup resources will go further if first directed to the less costly ones. If there is an existing cleanup program in an area, nearby sites should be given a higher priority. A simultaneous cleanup will minimize mobilization and demobilization cost, a major factor in cleaning up remote sites. Once a cleanup method is selected, the environmental impact of this method must be anticipated. For example, it may cause great environmental damage to bury waste in fragile tundra, but this may be the only feasible method of disposal. Where the effect of cleanup itself would be damaging, such sites should be given lower priority. Finally, the historic value of any waste should be considered. When an area has a potential for preservation as a historic site, the method and priority for cleanup may change. It may need a higher priority if neglecting the site will result in irreversible damage to its historic value. For this study, no attempt was made to prioritize all one hundred and eighty waste sites that were identified. To do so would involve a high degree of subjective judgment and assumption, since most of the information about them is incomplete. The following is a priority list of those sixteen major sites which were analyzed in depth by this study. The sites are described on the pages indicated. Reasons are stated which justify each site's position in the priority ranking. 60 ------- TABLE 2 DISPOSAL HIERARCHY OF SIXTEEN ANALYZED SITES PRIORITY SITE REASONS FOR HIGHER DISPOSAL PRIORITY REASONS FOR LOWER DISPOSAL PRIORITY ARCTIC SLOPE Barter Island (see pp. 49-53, first report) Flaxman Island (see p. B-7, this report) Manning Point (see p. 31, first report) Brownlow Point (see p. B-13, this report) Demarcation (see p. B-13, this report) Gordon Point (see p. B-13, this report) Arctic National Wildlife Range (see pp. 76-80, first report) Relatively high environ- mental hazard, safety hazard (navigation) Visible at great distance Highly incompatible with surrounding land use High degree of permanence Large quantity of debris Cleanup efforts which are now underway at NPR-4 (see pg. 43, Executive Summary Report) could be completed in con- nection with other Arctic Slope cleanup 2 XONIAG NATIVE SELECTIONS (see p. 51, this report) Long Island Bell Flats Human safety hazard Used as recreation area Incompatible with surround- ing land use Used for agricultural purposes High degree of permanence Large quantity of debris Environmental hazard is not high ------- PRIORITY SITE REASONS FOR HIGHER DISPOSAL PRIORITY REASONS FOR LOWER DISPOSAL PRIORITY U.S.C.G. PORT CLARENCE Loran Station Environmental hazard Efforts are now underway for (see p. 23, first report) Human safety hazard cleanup—debris may not be Incompatible with surround- permanent ing land use Large quantity of debris U.S.A.F. INDIAN MOUNTAIN (see p. 7, first report) Relatively high environ- mental hazard Large quantity of debris Conflict with surrounding land use Low safety hazard Permanence may be low—cleanup program underway SAWMILL BAY CANNERY (see p. 13, first report) Human hazard Relatively high human contact Possible value as historic site Little environmental hazard Permanence of debris questionable- cleanup action now under consideration Moderate quantity ------- PRIORITY SITE REASONS FOR HIGHER DISPOSAL PRIORITY REASONS FOR LOWER DISPOSAL PRIORITY TAWAH CREEK MILITARY DISPOSAL SITE (see p. 55, this report) Large quantity of debris Permanent Moderate human hazard Little human contact Low environmental hazard Low conflict with surround- ing land use BETHEL BIA (see p. 19, first report) Toxic material Moderate safety and envi- ronmental hazards Small quantity of debris Material may be re-used on site SALISBURY RIDGE (see p. 35, first report) Some conflict with sur- rounding land use Large quantity Low environmental hazard Low human hazard Not permanent—cleanup plan underway 9 BIG MOUNTAIN (see p. 49, this report) Large quantity of debri^ Only a potential waste site- facilities still being us by government ------- V. AUTHORITY FOR WASTE DISPOSAL AND PREVENTION When the waste identified by this study was deposited on Alaskan land, there was no mandate which governed its disposal or its growth. Since then, legislation and practices have been developed to deal with this problem. This section contains a review of selected policies which may alleviate present waste or may prevent the accumulation of future debris. Any cleanup of existing waste will be governed by federal and state laws which regulate disposal methods. These laws are intended to protect the environment, and in turn, to protect human health and welfare. They should be consulted by a landholding agency when determining what cleanup method to use. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1151 et. seq.), the Safe Drinking Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 300f et. seq.), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (PL 94-580) govern any disposal efforts that will impact water resources. The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et. seq.) restrict any planned ocean dumping of debris. Finally, the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq.) regulates any incineration of solid waste. Once an acceptable method has been chosen, the agency must locate a source of funding. There are three funding channels for solid waste cleanup on federal lands. The most obvious is through the annual budget request that is submitted by each agency. A landholder could request cleanup funding as a supplement to its annual operating expenses during several consecutive years. This method has several drawbacks, however. The major one is that cleanup funds can be diverted by the recipient to non-cleanup items. A second method would be to utilize the funding mechan- ism provided by the Office of Management and Budget Circular Number A-106 (OMB A-106). Section 3(a)(3) of Executive Order No. 11752 requires that federal agencies submit annual plans for pollution abatement and waste management to bring their facilities into compliance with federal environmental statutes. OMB A-106 sets forth the general procedures for preparing and submitting these plans and furnishes a method of line- item budgeting of solid waste cleanup. The circular requires 65 ------- that each agency submit semi-annual reports to the Director, OMB, through the Administrator of the EPA. The report consist of two parts. The first part identi- fies new pollution control projects or changes to previously reported projects. The second part contains estimated or actual costs of all active pollution control projects for that agency and the current status of those projects. These exhibits are assembled by EPA into a priority order and then are presented as a combined budget request to Congress. The advantage of this mechanism is that any appropriated funding is earmarked for that cleanup project and cannot be diverted to other agency uses. Finally, cleanup funds can be acquired through a direct Congressional appropriation. This method is suitable only where special circumstances justify by-passing the normal funding channels. For the majority of Alaskan waste sites, this method is not recommended. These sites, being widely scattered, relatively small, and little threat to humans or the environ- ment, would not justify the cost of an immediate large-scale cleanup effort. Since the responsibility for this debris can be traced, and in many cases lies with the underlying landholder, it is recommended that this agency assume the task of cleaning up their sites through annual budgeting or OMB A-106. However, one group of Alaskan sites does accommodate this approach. Those sites analyzed as the East Arctic Slope in Section III of this report are appropriate for an immediate, Congressionally-funded cleanup program. As indicated in Section IV, these sites are high in removal priority due to their size, longevity, and their incompati- bility with surrounding land use. This debris is largely the result of defense-related activities and resource explor- ation activities during the 1950's. Since that time, most of the land has passed into the management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. An integrated cleanup of the Arctic Wildlife Range, its coastline, and the territory to the west would complement the efforts now underway to clean up the National Petroleum Reserve in northwest Alaska. Both projects would dispose of waste that blights the most fragile environmental zone of Alaska, the Arctic Slope. 66 ------- Several recent laws will have a significant impact upon solid waste cleanup and prevention in Alaska. One is the law which mandated this study, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (PL 94-580). As an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 3251 et. seq.), this legislation was signed into law on October 21, 1976. The Act deals with hazardous waste and provides standards governing the generation, transportation, storage, and treatment of this type of debris (Subtitle C). However, these standards have little application to the waste in this study. With the exception of small quantities of petroleum products found in abandoned vehicles and barrels, the solid waste on Alaska's federal land is predominantly inert. Very little would qualify as "hazardous waste" under the Act, i.e., waste which may cause death, serious illness, or may pose a substantial hazard to the environment if improperly managed (Section 1004(5)). Of more importance is Subtitle D, entitled "State or Regional Solid Waste Plans." This portion will have sub- stantial impact upon the land disposal of Alaskan debris. It calls for the State to draw up a comprehensive plan for solid waste disposal according to guidelines to be promul- gated by the Environmental Protection Agency (Section 4002(b), (c)). At a minimum, each plan must identify the authorities, the funding, and the means for regional planning and program implementation (Section 4003(1)). The thrust of this subtitle is contained in Sections 4003, 4004, and 4005. The State's plan must prohibit the creation of new open dumps and must require the closing or eventual upgrading of existing open dumps. The EPA will eventually publish criteria for distinguishing acceptable landfills from prohibited dumps and will publish an inven- tory of the latter (Sections 4004(a), 4005(b)). At this point, however, it is apparent that these regulations will discriminate against those dumps which present a reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment (Section 4004(a)). By limiting disposal to approved landfills, Congress has prohibited a common method of waste mismanagement in Alaska, the dumping of debris in unapproved dumps. The Act has several other features which will affect cleanup. Sections 4002(a) and 4006(a),(c) provide for the identification of regions which have common solid waste management problems. Since these regions may cut across state lines, the Act calls for interstate cooperation in implementing the regional waste management plans. 67 ------- Section 4008 authorizes federal funding for the de- velopment and implementation of state plans. These funds are prorated among the states according to population. Thus, Alaska, with her disproportionate waste problem, will be limited to .5 percent of any annual appropriation. Section 4008 also authorizes a special appropriation to be granted to one community in each state which has a serious problem with solid waste disposal. If it has a population of less than 25,000 and the source of the waste is predomi- nantly outside its jurisdiction, the community will be eligible for additional funds for the construction or improve- ment of disposal facilities. Alaskan towns may also benefit from Section 4009, which authorizes assistance to rural communities. Since 44.8 percent of Alaskans live in boroughs (counties) of less than twenty persons per square mile and are distant from urban solid waste systems, their local governments may qualify for these additional grants. Subtitle F of the Act waives federal immunity from state requirements for solid waste abatement. Although the President may exempt federal facilities from immediate compliance with state regulations, such exemptions must be renewed each year and must be justified to Congress. This waiver of immunity means that federal landholders must comply with solid waste laws and regulations enacted by the State of Alaska. These regulations, authorized by laws governing the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (AS 46.03.020), are contained in Chapter 60 of Title 18, Alaska Administrative Code. Alaska regulations specify that any solid waste de- posited on public property must be placed in an authorized disposal facility (18 AAC 60.080). Each facility must be granted a state permit according to the filing requirements contained in 18 AAC 60.020. In addition, the facility must be managed according to the operating requirements of 18 AAC 60.030. Other regulations will affect cleanup methods. 18 AAC 60.060 governs "reclamation facilities," places where solid waste is treated to recover salvageable materials for sale or reuse. 18 AAC 60.040 specifies standards for waste incinerators. 18 AAC 60.090 prevents the use of junked ve- hicles and equipment for erosion prevention. Any land disposal of solid waste, even in an approved facility, must comply with the requirements of 18 AAC 60.050. 68 ------- They prohibit open burning in landfills and prohibit the deposit of waste in a manner that would allow contamination of state waters. The regulations restrict the disposal of putrescible waste and limit the working area of landfills. Finally, they require spreading, compaction, and covering of waste, as well as a final inspection by the state of a com- pleted landfill ((10) (12)). Thus, the Act and Alaska regulations expose landholders to a wide scope of liability for improper waste management. Section 7002 of the Solid Waste Act provides that any person may enforce regulations or permits arising under it if he has first given notice to the government and the latter has not effectively prosecuted the violation. Conceivably then, a federal agency could be sued by a private individual for not disposing of its abandoned debris in a state-approved facility. The Toxic Substances Control Act, (PL 94-469), governs the disposal of chemical substances which may present a danger to humans or the environment. Enacted on October 11, 1976, this Act specifically addresses polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCB's. These toxic substances, which can cause significant environmental damage, are often found in electric or electronic equipment such as transformers and capacitors. Since it is probable that such equipment exists at many Alaskan waste sites, particularly the abandoned communication and DEW line stations, this debris should be examined for the presence of PCB components. If discovered, these devices must be properly disposed of according to the recent EPA regulations contained in 43 Fed. Reg. 7150 (1978). Other significant legislation is contained in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-579). Commonly referred to as the "Organic Act," this legislation was enacted on October 21, 1976, the same day as was the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Any legislation which affects the operations of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will, in turn, have a large impact on land management in Alaska. The Bureau is respon- sible for managing the nation's 473 million acres of "un- appropriated lands," that is, lands which have never been designated for a special purpose such as National Park or Forest. The status of federal land in Alaska is currently in a state of flux due to pending transfers under the Alaska Statehood Act and the Native Claims Settlement Act. As of 1976, however, the Federal government controlled 350 million of the 375 million acres in the state. Of this land, BLM manages 295 million acres, an area which alone is 70 percent greater than the next largest state in the Union. The Organic Act is Congress's first clear-cut mandate to BLM for the administration of these lands. Prior to the 69 ------- Act, the Bureau was governed by thousands of laws bearing on the administration of public lands which were vague, contra- dictory, or obsolete. The Act will supersede most of these; as new regulations are adopted under it, the current re- gulations governing the Bureau will be replaced. The Act will gradually reverse the traditional policy of land disposal and replace it with a concept of land retention. The retained acres will be managed in a way that will protect the quality of environmental values and will preserve certain lands in their natural condition. Thus, the Act presents an opportunity for long-term planning, including solid waste management, for the largest section of Alaskan federal lands. Traditionally, BLM has had the authority to limit activities on the public domain to a particular purpose, or to transfer jurisdiction over a certain land area among federal agencies. Such "withdrawals" are generally long- term in duration and are the means by which the land is appropriated for a particular use, e.g., a National Park. For large withdrawals, the Organic Act provides for Congressional review and "veto" of the planned use. Section 204(c)(1) requires that the Interior Department notify Congress for intended withdrawals of five thousand acres or more. Thereafter, the Department must furnish Congress a description of the proposed use and its effects, including any that may cause environmental degradation (Section 204 (2) (c) (2) ) . If Congress does not approve of any aspects of the proposed use, it may terminate the withdrawal by adopting a concurrent resolution to that effect. The notice and approval are also required whenever a withdrawal, granted before the Act came into law, is thereafter presented for an extension beyond its original term (Section 204(f)). With this review and veto power, then, Congress can insist that large with- drawals be governed by proper solid waste practices, as well as other features that are in the public interest. In addition to withdrawals, the unappropriated lands may be used for limited occupancy and development. Section 302 authorizes the regulation of habitation, cultivation, and small business through easements, permits, leases, and licenses. These instruments can be revoked or suspended if the holders violate their terms. Thus, the Bureau can insure that proper solid waste practices are followed by requiring them in their permits and leases. As a matter of practice, all BLM permits have a standard stipulation requiring compliance with federal, state, and local law, including solid waste laws. 70 ------- Under Section 303, the Department of the Interior must issue regulations which are enforceable through fines, imprisonment, or injunction. Among the regulations proposed under the Organic Act are ones governing the surface manage- ment of public land under federal mining laws. The second draft of these proposed regulations (41 C.F.R. 235) is currently under revision and a third draft is expected to be published in the summer of 1978. A review of the second draft is valuable for two reasons. If adopted, it will help solve the particular problem of mining discussed in the Section I of this report. More important, it has features that are worthy of adoption by any landholder who has a solid waste problem. The purpose of the proposed regulations is to minimize the adverse impact of mining on public lands. Prior to commencing operations which might disturb surface resources, the mine operator must file a Notice of Intent with the BLM. If the Bureau determines that this disturbance will occur, the operator will be required to file a Plan of Operations. In addition, the Bureau will make an environ- mental analysis and technical examination which identifies the resources, land uses, and the impact of proposed opera- tions on the area. Stipulations which will protect the environment and measures to meet these stipulations will be inserted into the Operations Plan. Mining operations must be conducted in accordance with the Plan and with other regulations. Several of these deal specifically with solid waste. Section 3809.3-2 (c) states that all refuse and mining waste shall be removed, disposed of, or treated to minimize their adverse impact upon the environment. The operator shall maintain his site in a neat and safe condition during non-operating periods (Section 3809.4-8(b)) and, within one year of ceasing operations, shall remove all structures and equipment and shall clean up the site. Finally, the operator must post a performance bond to insure rehabilitation of the areas disturbed by his operation. The bond will be released only after a BLM inspection determines that the Operations Plan has been complied with. In addition to the bonding requirements, the proposed regulations have several enforcement features. Mining which is undertaken without a required Plan of Operation will subject the operator to criminal prosecution and civil damages for trespass. BLM must periodically inspect approved operations to insure that the Plan and pertinent regulations are being complied with. In the event of non-compliance, BLM will send the operator a notice specifying a date by which corrective action must be taken. If not taken, BLM may order forfeiture of the bond and shall order suspension 71 ------- of non-complying operations. In the event of intentional violations, the operator will be subject to the fines, imprisonment, or injunctions available under the Organic Act. Thus, this scheme contains features that are recommended for a waste prevention program. These features are: 1. Alerting mechanism (the Notice of Intent) This alerts the agency that a future user may present a solid waste problem. 2. Environmental inventory (the environmental analysis/ technical examination) This provides the agency with baseline evidence of conditions prior to use. 3. Notice of requirements (the standing regulations and any particular stipulations inserted into the Plan of Operations) This gives the user specific notice of the standards and requirements to which it will be held. 4. Regular monitoring (periodic inspection by BLM) This affords the agency with early notice of non-compliance. 5. Immediate enforcement tool (notice of non-compliance with follow-up bond forfeiture or suspension of operations) Acting upon early notice, the agency can use this to encourage remedial action before the problem becomes acute or irreversible. 6. Final inspection (BLM inspection prior to releasing bond) This insures that all regulations and stipulations are satisfied after the use but before the user has vacated the land. 7. Complete enforcement scheme (possible trespass and contract actions, bond forfeiture, fines, imprison- ment, injunctive relief) This insures that in the end, the user will be liable for administrative or judicial enforcement of his obligation to restore the land. From this review, it is apparent that there is enough present legislation to govern waste removal and prevention. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the BLM Organic Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the State of Alaska laws and regulations contain mandates for proper waste disposal and protection of public lands. OMB-106 provides a specific funding mechanism for cleanup projects. 72 ------- Acting under the authority and intent of these Acts, federal agencies can develop waste management practices for their lands. Appendix D contains model provisions which can be inserted into the leases and permits of land users. Proposed regulations under the Organic Act contain a model plan for monitoring and enforcing these provisions. The success of a prevention program depends only upon the intent of the agencies. Policies should reflect two basic maxims: the cost of cleanup must be included in the cost of use; waste must be disposed of as it is generated. The problem lies not in the authority for, but in the en- forcement of these maxims. By respecting them, the agencies may avoid a much greater cost, the millions required for an after-the-fact cleanup of solid waste on their lands. 73 ------- VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BACKGROUND Until very recently, virtually all Alaskan land ownership resided with the federal government. The Alaska Statehood Act of 1959 marked the beginning of a new era during which large quantities of federal land would be selected for transfer to ownership by the State of Alaska. Further large-scale land transfers to private ownership became possible following passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. These acts together authorize the removal of over 140 million acres of land from federal control. During the earlier period of nearly exclusive federal land ownership in Alaska, large volumes of solid waste debris accumulated in many portions of the state. The land management policies of several federal agencies administering Alaskan lands did not recognize or prevent the adverse im- pacts of solid wastes on the environment, human safety, recreational values, or aesthetics. In particular, the Department of Defense habitually abandoned obsolete, expend- able or excess materials on or near the sites where they were used and often did not utilize environmentally accept- able disposal techniques. During this period, other federal agencies issued land-use permits that did not have provisions requiring waste disposal, site cleanup after use, or other environmental safeguards. Thus, private entities also de- posited solid waste on federal lands in Alaska. Today, a changing land-use ethic has altered our per- ception of proper waste disposal. Federal agencies are now requiring private individuals or companies to comply with strict permit requirements for the privilege of using federal lands, and the agencies themselves are following improved waste disposal practices in the pursuit of their activities. In light of these new policies, Congress has authorized the study of solid waste on federal lands in Alaska by Section 3 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (PL 94-580). This study has now been completed; its conclusions and recommendations are presented in this report. CONCLUSIONS The high cost of solid waste cleanup m the more remote areas of Alaska is a striking feature of the analyses presented m Sections II and III of this report. This is particularly 75 ------- true when costs are calculated on the basis of dollars per unit weight or unit volume of debris. Nevertheless, when the total cleanup costs are apportioned between all the responsible federal agencies, they do not appear as prohibi- tive. Such costs may be viewed as the rapid repayment of deferred environmental debts which have been incurred over many years. Thus, the total cost of solid waste cleanup on federal lands in Alaska should be regarded as being expended over a like number of years. Future problems and costs associated with solid waste on federal lands in Alaska can be alleviated by land-use planning that incorporates environmentally acceptable waste management practices. The mechanisms for such planning exist within the agencies administering those federal lands. In addition, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 precludes disposal of solid waste by open dumping. This requirement of the Act is to be implemented by state and local agencies. However, the Act has not been funded to the extent to provide funds to local agencies to implement these provisions; therefore, existing open-dumping situations in Alaska may not be cleaned up in the near future, unless federal agencies take the initiative to carry out a cleanup program. A cleanup priority for solid waste debris sites may be established on the basis of six factors that reflect the physical characteristics of the debris, its threat to bio- logical organisms, the appropriateness of the debris in its surroundings, and the frequency of man's interaction with the debris. Thus, waste sites are ranked according to the sum of the numerical scores for each factor. It is desirable to clean up the sites with the higher scores before lower- scored sites are considered. Between equally-scored debris sites, the cost-effectiveness of cleanup may be used to establish fine-scale priorities. Existing legislation and procedures provide the mechan- isms to clean up solid waste on federal lands in Alaska and to prevent the further occurrence of environmentally unsound disposal. It is apparent that the critical step in obtaining these goals is funding. Funding for solid waste cleanup on federal lands in Alaska and for programs to prevent the future occurrence of such problems should be obtained by the responsible federal agencies. Only through federal initiative will Alaska's federal land be cleared of this solid waste. 76 ------- RECOMMENDATIONS Because cleaning up solid waste on federal lands in Alaska will be an expensive undertaking, the efficiency of this effort should be maximized to reduce overall costs. It is recommended that a joint committee representing each federal agency administering Alaskan land, or otherwise responsible for debris on federal lands in Alaska, be formed to develop an overall solid waste cleanup strategy for Alaska and to define a detailed program to carry out this strategy. Each agency should seek individual funding through its normal budgeting process or through the Office of Management and Budget A-106 process. If appropriate, two or more federal agencies should seek a joint appropriation. The committee should, within one year from the date of this report, and each year thereafter, until the problem is re- solved, submit a status report on the cleanup program to EPA and to the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. It is further recommended that future solid waste cleanup programs be integrated with those currently in operation or soon to be funded. For example, the entire Arctic Slope should be cleaned up in conjunction with the ongoing program for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska or in conjunction with the program proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Aleutian Islands and lower Alaska Peninsula. The great efficiencies of this coordinated approach would result in significant savings by avoiding duplicated personnel, camps, equipment, and logistic costs. Because an integrated approach to solid waste cleanup on federal lands in Alaska is recommended, it is also recom- mended that each site be visited and scored according to the ranking system proposed in this report. Thus, cleanup priorities would be objectively established under the inte- grated program. 77 ------- Appendix A: Letters to Native Corporations August 10, 1977 (President, Native Corporation) Dear Sir: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Public Law 94-580, was signed by the President on October 21, 197 6. Section 3 of this Act directs an executive department study to determine the best overall procedures for removing exist- ing solid waste on Federal lands in Alaska. The President designated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to coordinate and conduct this study so that it may be completed and forwarded to Congressional Committees by October 21, 1977. Funds have been made available to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) by the EPA to coordinate and contract the necessary studies. Environmental Services Limited (ESL) of Anchorage, Alaska has contracted with the ADEC to conduct the final report. This contract was entered into on July 19, 1977. For purposes of this study, "Federal land" has been deemed to include that land, formerly Federal, which was conveyed to the Native organizations and also that Federal land which has been selected by them pursuant to the Native Claims Settlement Act. In order to conduct a complete inventory, ESL requests any information, reports, or photo- graphs which you may have of debris and abandoned waste existing on these lands. We have attached a questionnaire form which indicates the information needed for the inventory. Besides this data, we welcome any suggestions you may have concerning methods of disposal, cost analysis, and the environmental impact associated with the removal of waste. Should you have any questions or recommendations con- cerning this study, please do not hesitate to contact Environmental Services Limited. Yours truly, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD. A-l ------- Appendix A: (continued) October 21, 1977 (President, Native Corporation) Dear Sir: Last summer, the Environmental Protection Agency tasked the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to coordinate the solid waste study authorized by P.L. 94-580. In turn, the ADEC contracted with Environ- mental Services Limited (ESL) of Anchorage to conduct an inventory and disposal analysis of waste sites throughout the state. Since this study involved Federal lands conveyed or selected under the Native Claims Settlement Act, ESL con- tacted your corporation by letter dated 10 August, 1977. At that time, ESL requested information about abandoned debris on this land and your suggestions regarding the removal of it. To date, ESL has received no response from your corporation. This study is progressing into a second phase which will culminate in a final report to Congress in April, 1978. That report will include a supplemental inventory of waste sites and further recommendations concerning the cleanup and prevention of waste on these lands. Should your corpora- tion desire to comment upon this study or offer suggestions on the content of that report, I urge you to contact ESL prior to 15 November, 1977. They may be reached by calling (907) 276-4216 or by writing Environmental Services Limited, 835 West 9th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Ernst W. Mueller Commissioner A-2 ------- Appendix B: Supplemental Waste Site Inventory This appendix contains an inventory of ninety waste sites which were identified after the completion of the Executive Summary Report. In that report, ninety sites were listed in five categories according to land use. In this report, the ninety additional sites have been listed in three categories: (1) Military (2) National Parks, Forests, and Wildlife Refuges and (3) Miscellaneous Waste Sites. At the beginning of each category is a map which shows the approximate location of its sites. For the second category, additional large scale maps are provided to assist in pinpointing the debris. Thereafter, each waste site is identified by name, type of site, and location, and is inventoried according to the nature and quantity of debris. The distribution of all sites identified by this study is indicated on the map on page B-3. Inventory data was collected through a survey of those government agencies which hold or control federal lands in Alaska. In most instances, the agencies were requested to provide photographs, reports, or other materials which identified debris on their lands (Appendix C). In those cases where such data was either unavailable or was insufficient, an on-site inspection was conducted. For example, data was unavailable for the Alaska Railroad, an agency of the Department of Transportation which operates the only rail transportation in Alaska. However, an on-site inspection revealed that the railroad's cleanup program has left no major debris on their right-of-way or yards. B-l ------- PAGE NOT AVAILABLE DIGITALLY ------- INVENTORY - CATEGORY 1 • Nome Fairbanks # f Anchorage # Bethel * Juneau Kodiak Ketchikan Military Sites (numbers indicate site identity in inventory) B-5 Figure 16 ------- MILITARY SITES Site #1: NE Cape, St. Lawrence Island (USAF Station) Location: 63°17'N 168°45'W Debris: Twenty-five buildings, forty-two assorted structures, (fuel tanks, power poles, fence posts) Site #2: Fort Wainwright (active Army Base) Location: 64043'N 147040'W 64019'n 147O20'W Debris: Four wooden towers, 2,500 barrels Site #3: Flaxman Island (abandoned DEW line site reported on page 66 of the Executive Summary Report) Location: 70oil'N 146°51'W Debris: Thirteen buildings, eight storage tanks, with connecting pipelines, three antenna towers, 1500 foot gravel airstrip, 1500 barrels, assorted debris Site #4: Wainwright/LIZ-3 (active DEW line station) Location: 70°36'N 159°52'W Debris: Collapsed tower (200 foot) Site #5 Oliktok/POW-2 (active DEW line station) Location: 70O29'N 149054'W Debris: One storage tank, 2000 barrels The following military sites reported no solid waste within the scope of this study: Point Lay/LIZ-2 (active DEW line station) Lonely/POW-1 (active DEW line station) Clear Air Force Station B-7 ------- INVENTORY - CATEGORY 2 Arctic Wildlife Range Mount Mckinley Park Clarence Rhode W ildlife Range kenai Moose Range katmai Monumenl Chugach Forest Tongass Forest kodiak Refuge Nunivak Wildlife Refuge Glacier Bay Monument National Parks, Forests, and Wildlife Refuges B-9 Figure 17 ------- Portage Whittier Kertai Lake Chugach National Forest (numbers indicate site identity in inventory) B-10 Figure 18 ------- CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST Site #1: Lower Trail Lake Summer Home Group Location: 60°26'N 149°22'W Debris: 150 barrels, one-half acre of wood debris Site #2: Russian River Rendevous Location: 60°27'N 149°49'W Debris: Six barrels, pipe, debris from burned building Site #3: Boundary of Forest Service and State Land Location: 60008'N 149°27'W Debris: One-quarter acre of debris from burned building Site #4: Byron Camp Location: 60°40'N 149°27'W Debris: One snowmachine, one sled, one-quarter acre of assorted debris Site #5: Lauritsen Cabin Location: 60°40'N 149°28'W Debris: One building (20' x 15' ) , one-half acre of wood and insulation debris Site #6: Good Rock Mining Claim Location: 60°40'N 149°28'W Debris: Pipe (3' x 20'), two acres of mining debris Site #7: Oracle Mine Road Location: 60°33'N 149°33'W Debris: Two abandoned vehicles B-ll ------- Arctic National Wildlife Range (numbers indicate site identity in inventory) B-12 Figure 19 ------- ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE RANGE Site #1: Brownlow Point (abandoned DEW line site #29, reported on page 80 of the Executive Summary Report) Location: 69°59'N 144°52'W Debris: Three buildings (floor plans: 3000 sq. ft., 1400 sq. ft., 1300 sq. ft.), two collapsed steel towers, five construction vehicles, electronics equipment Site #2: Demarcation (abandoned DEW line site #30, reported on page 80 of the Executive Summary Report) Location: 69Q59'N 142O20'W Debris: Four buildings (floor plans: 3000 sq. ft., 1400 sq., 1300 sq. ft., and 64 sq.ft.) one collapsed steel tower, five construction vehicles, eight power generating plants, electronic equipment, barrels Site #3: Gordon Point (abandoned DEW line site #31, reported on page 80 of the Executive Summary Report) Location: 69°43'N 141°10'W Debris: Building (1800 sq. ft.), airstrip, barrels B-13 ------- Tongass National Forest (numbers indicate site identity in inventory) B-14 Figure 20 ------- TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST Site #1: Murder Cove Fish Cannery Location: 57°01'N 134°28'W Debris: Wood and tin buildings, cannery vehicles Site #2: Abandoned Military Base, Kruzof Island Location: 57°N 135°5'W Debris: Several vehicles, WW II gun emplacement, bunkers Site #3: Gavinski Island Location: 57O08'N 135°25'W Debris: One wood cabin Site #4: Katlian Bay Location: 57°09'N 135°23'W Debris: One wood and steel barge (20' x 50') Site #5: Kalinan Bay Cabins Location: 57°19'N 135°43'W Debris: Eight wood cabins, assorted trash Site #6: Camp Coogan Bay Location: 57oN 135°14'W Debris: Three wood and steel barges Site #7: Nawkasina Bay Location: 56054^ 135°15'W Debris: Forty wooden pilings B-15 ------- TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST (continued) Site #8: Port Conclusion Fish Saltery Location: 56°17'N 134°38'W Debris: Wood and metal buildings Site #9: Red Bluff Bay Fish Cannery Location: 56°50'N 134°42'W Debris: Collapsed wood buildings, wood pilings, wood docks, machinery Site #10: Todd Fish Cannery Location: 57°28' 135O02'W Debris: Wood docks, wood piling, 100 sq. ft. of scattered wood debris Site #11: Sitkoh Bay Location: 57°28'N 134°51'W Debris: Four wood fish trap frames Site #12: Neva Strait Location: 57°15' 134°34'W Debris: One wood cabin Site #13: Girl Scout Camp, Olga Strait Location: 57°11'N 135°27'W Debris: Wood buildings Site #14: Idaho Inlet Location: 58°10'N 136°12'W Debris: Twelve wood and tin buildings, assorted debris B-16 ------- TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST (continued) Site #15: Chichagof Mine Location: 57°37'N 136°01'W Debris: Wood and tin buildings, mining machinery, debris Site #16: White Rock. Survey Cabin Location: 57°32'N 134°50'W Debris: Wood cabin, barrels, wood and tin debris Site #17: False Point Sawmill Location: 58°06'N 136026'W Debris: Wood building, machinery, metal debris Site #18: Big Port Walter Fish Cannery Location: 56°23'N 134°43'W Debris: Seven wood and tin buildings, wood pilings, machinery, tanks, barrels, pipe Site #19: Elovoi Island Cabin and Fox Farm Location: 56°49'N 135024'W Debris: Wood Buildings and fox pens Site #20: Port Armstrong Fish Cannery Location: 56°18'N 134°40'W Debris: Wood buildings, wood uprights, machinery, vehicles, barrels Site #21: Green Cove Location: 58°09'N 134°17'W Debris: Grounded fishing vessel (60' in length) B-17 ------- TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST (continued) Site #22: Comet Mines Location: 58°52'N 135°09'W Debris: Four wood and tin buildings, processing mill Site #23: Tawah Creek Military Disposal Site Location: 59°28'N 139o37'W Debris: 102 quonset huts, one power house, two warehouses, one tracked vehicle, four gun emplacements, abandoned dump Site #24: Goddard Hot Springs Location: 56°50'N 135°22'W Debris: Wooden debris from docks and cabins Site #25: Chatham Fish Cannery Location: 57°03'N 134°55'W Debris: Wood and tin buildings, wood uprights, machinery, containers Site #26: Hawk Inlet Fish Cannery Location: 58°05'N 134°46'W Debris: Wood buildings, wood uprights, machinery, containers, pipe debris Site #27: Snettisham Power Project Location: 57°59'N 133°47'W Debris: Wood, paper, plastic debris Site #28: Angoon Dump Location: 57°30'N 134°35'W Debris: Five acres of assorted debris B-18 ------- TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST (continued) Site #29: Elfin Cove Location: 58°12'N 136°21'W Debris: Assorted debris Site #30: Abandoned Logging Roads Location: Baranof and Chichagof Islands Debris: Approximately eighty wood bridges (average length of 50 feet), 1500 wood and metal culverts (21 x 30' each), approximately 100 miles of shotrock road (14* in width) Site #31: Chichagof Island Fish Cannery Location: 57°30'N 135°13'W Debris: Collapsed wooden structures, wharf Site #32: Fairway Island Light House Location: 57°N 134°52'W Debris: Abandoned light house B-19 ------- INVENTORY - CATEGORY 3 Fairbanks Anchorage • Bethel Juneau Kodiak Ketchikan Miscellaneous Waste Sites (numbers indicate site identity in inventory) B-21 Figure 21 ------- MISCELLANEOUS WASTE SITES Site #1: Chicken Creek (BLM 4 0-mile Resource Area) Location: 63°24'N 141°21'W Debris: 300 barrels, vehicles, metal and mining debris Site #2: Charley River (BLM 40-mile Resource Area) Location: 65°40'N 144°02'W Debris: One B-25 aircraft Site #3: Wade Creek (BLM 40-mile Resource Area) Location: 64°04'N 141°37'W Debris: Barrels, metal and mining debris Site #4: Joseph Airstrip (BLM 40-mile Resource Area) Location: 64°23'N 143°05'W Debris: One wrecked single engine aircraft Site #5: Mile 112 Taylor Highway (BLM 40-mile Resource Area) Location: 64°35'N 141°21'W Debris: One abandoned vehicle Site #6: Mile 40 Taylor Highway (BLM 40-mile Resource Area) Location: 63049'N 142°12'W Debris: One abandoned vehicle Site #7: International Border (BLM 40-mile Resource Area) Location: 64°04'N 141°06'W Debris: Vehicles, mining debris B-23 ------- MISCELLANEOUS WASTE SITES (continued) Site #8: Scottie Creek ( Location: 62°41'N 141°16 Debris: Vehicles, metal BLM 40-mile Resource Area) ¦W debris and trash Site #9: Steele Creek Airstrip (BLM 40-mile Resource Area) Location: 64017'N 141°17'W Debris: One wrecked aircraft Site #10: Mile 48 Taylor Highway (BLM 40-mile Resource Area) Location: 64°03'N 142°04'W Debris: Metal debris and trash Site #11: Eagle (BLM 40-mile Resource Area) Location: 64047'N 141°12'W Debris: Metal debris and trash Site #12: Tok (BLM 40-mile Resource Area) Location: 63°20'N 142°59'W Debris: Metal debris and trash Site #13: Wolf Head Mountain (BLM Yukon Resource Area) Location: 65°33'N 145°W Debris: 200 barrels, trailer, buildings Site #14: Big Creek (BLM Yukon Resource Area) Location: 64°48'N 155°19'W Debris: F-102 aircraft B-24 ------- MISCELLANEOUS WASTE SITES (continued) Site #15: Peedee Road (BLM Yukon Resource Area) Location: 64°49'N 147°26'W Debris: Concrete building Site #16: Old John Lake {BLM Yukon Resource Area) Location: 68°04'N 145°03'W Debris: Five gallon cans Site #17: Circle (BLM Yukon Resource Area) Location: 65°49'N 144o03'W Debris: Metal debris and trash Site #18: Central (BLM Yukon Resource Area) Location: 65°34'N 144°48'W Debris: Metal debris and trash Site #19: Mile 57, Elliot Highway (BLM Yukon Resource Area) Location: 65°26'N 148°10'W Debris: Metal debris and trash Site #20: Miles 66 and 101, Steese Highway (BLM Yukon Resource Area) Location: 65O20'N 146°15'W and 65°28'N 145°25'W Debris: Metal debris and trash Site #21: Miles 45, 47 and 52 Elliot Highway (BLM Yukon Resource Area) Location: 650ll'N 148o05'W, 65°15'N 148°08'W, 65°20'N 148°20'W Debris: Abandoned vehicles B-25 ------- MISCELLANEOUS WASTE SITES (continued) Site #22: Miles 6, 15, 16.5, 21, 29.5, 33.5, and 55, Trans Alaska Pipeline Road (BLM Yukon Resource Area) Location: 70°15'N 148°25'W to 69°30'N 148°30,W Debris: Abandoned vehicles Site #23: Charley River (BLM Yukon Resource Area) Location: 65°40'N 144°02'W Debris: Barrels and five gallon cans Site #24: Fuel Cache (BLM Arctic-Kobuk Resource Area) Location: 66°10'N 157°20'W Debris: 200 barrels (leaking) Site #25: Mining Camp (BLM Arctic-Kobuk Resource Area) Location: 66°22'N 157°50'W Debris: Buildings and barrels Site #26: Wales (BLM Arctic-Kobuk Resource Area) Location: 65°37'N 168°05'W Debris: Several hundred barrels on beach Site #27: Vicinity of Mary's Igloo and New Igloo (BLM Arct Kobuk Resource Area) Location: 65°09'N 165°10'W Debris: Several hundred barrels Site #28: Haycock (BLM Arctic-Kobuk Resource Area) Location: 65°18'N 161°03'W Debris: Mining debris B-26 ------- MISCELLANEOUS WASTE SITES (continued) Site #29: Shishmaref (BLM Arctic-Kobuk Resource Area) Location: 66°18'N 166°05'W Debris: Barrels Site #30: Point Lay (BLM Arctic-Kobuk Resource Area) Location: 69°46'N 163°03'W Debris: Barrels Site #31: Takahula River Fuel Cache (BLM Arctic-Kobuk Resource Area) Location: 67°21'N 153°40'W Debris: 2 5 barrels Site #32: Coastal Beaches from Nome to Kotzebue (BLM Arctic- Kobuk Resource Area) Location: Seward Peninsula Debris: Barrels, debris Site #33: Long Island (Lands selected by Koniag Native Corporation) Location: 57°46'N 152Q17'W Debris: Metal quonset huts, wood and concrete bunkers, lumber and concrete debris Site #34: Bell Flats (Lands selected by Koniag Native Corporation) Location: 57°43*N, 152°34'W Debris: Fuel barrels, abandoned vehicles, debris Site #35: Mary's Igloo (Former BIA Facility) Location: 65°27'N, 165°43'W Debris: Two small wooden buildings, one concrete foundation, six barrels B-27 ------- MISCELLANEOUS WASTE SITES (continued) Site #36: Solomon (Former BIA Facility) Location: 64°35'N 164°25'W Debris: Five wooden buildings, quarters building (30'x80')r generator building (10'xl2'), shed (8'xlO1), boardwalk (100')> 10 barrels Site #37: King Island (Former BIA Facility) Location: 46°46N 168°05'W Debris: Two wooden buildings (30' x 60', 10' x 12'), boardwalk (100'), 5 barrels Site #38: Sterling Dump, Scout Lake Road (BLM Lands) Location: 60°32'N 150°55'W Debris: 2 acres of debris, abandoned vehicle Site #3 9: Portage Dump (BLM Lands) Location: 60°52'N 148°56'W Debris: Twenty abandoned vehicles, assorted debris The following miscellaneous sites reported no solid waste within the scope of this study: The Alaska Railroad B-28 ------- Appendix Q: Survey Questionaire ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LIMITED 835 West Ninth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska - 99501 276-4216 Debris and Abandoned Waste Inventory Part A Site Name Site Ownership Site Location I. Description of Debris (check and fill in details) A. Structures (buildings, wharves, bridges, etc ) 1. Construction material 2. Dimension per structure 3. ' Quantity 4 Ownership of structures ~ B. Uprights (pilings, utility poles. Lowers, etc ) 1. Construction material 2. Dimension per item 3. Quanti ty 4 Ownership of uprights C. Surface Construction (airstrips, roads, earthworks, etc ) 1. Construction material 2. Dimens ion 3. Quantity 4. Ownership of structures D. Vehicles and machinery (trucks, aircraft, vessels, etc.) 1. Description 2. Size__ 3 Quantity 4. Ownership E. Containers (barrels, pipe, storage tanks, etc ) 1. Description 2. Dimension 3. Quantity 4. Ownership of containers 5. Contents, if any F. Debris (garbage, lumber, concrete rubble, etc ) 1 Description 2. Area covered 3. Quantity 4. Ownership of debris G. Other (ordnance, wire, etc ) 1. Description 2. Dimension 3 Quantity 4. Ownership of material II. Photos, Diagrams, Maps If you have any photos, diagrams, or maps of the debris, will you enclose them with this report? If you cannot enclose these materials, will you please give a brief description of them? Thank you for your assistance1 Person completing this form Phone number Date. c-l ------- Appendix C (continued) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICLS, LIMITED 835 West Ninth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 276-4216 Debris and Abandoned Waste Inventory Part fl Waste Site Type of Waste 1. Are there land fills in the vicinity of the waste' Yes No 2. If not, can landfills be constructed nearby"* _____ Yes 3. What transportation facilities are accessible from the debris site? a. Roads Surface (paved, gravel, tundra, etc.) Connects^ b. Airstrips Capacity (helicopter, light plane, commercial) Distance from site c. Alaska Railroad ^ Distance to nearest track d. Navigable waterway Name Distance from site Navigable by what type of craft__ 4. Can debris be utilized on or near the site? Yes No a. For what? b. By whom? 5. Is there a local source of labor' Yes ___ No If yes, please describe 6. Is there a local source of removal or disposal equipment? Yes No If yes, please describe 7. Identity of populated areas near site a. Distance and direction from site b. Size and population of each area 8. Are there breeding, brooding, or migration areas near the site'5 Yes No a. If yes, where are they located relative to the site? b. What animals use each area' How often? 9. Are there life-supporting waterways near the site' Yes No a. If yes, what are their locations relative to the site' b. What animals use the waterway' 10. What type of soil exists at the site' (e.g., tundra, sand, etc.) 11. What is the ground cover? {moss, grasses, etc.) 12. What bushes, trees, and other vegetation are found nearby? 13. What is the local wind (direction and force) at site? 14 What is the depth and flow of water table' — 15. What is the period during which ground is frozen or snow covered' 16. Do you have any other information which will help us in determining the methods, costs, and environmental impact of disposing of this waste' Thank you for your assistance I Person completing this form. Phone number: Date: C-2 ------- Appendix D: Sample Lease/Permit Provisions The following provisions were adapted from leases and permits issued by the Bureau of Land Management. They may assist landholders who desire to prevent solid waste pollution by outside users. A. Sample Lease/Permit Provision All waste generated from activities conducted under this lease/permit shall be removed or otherwise disposed of in a manner acceptable to the landholder. All applicable standards and guidelines of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency shall be adhered to by the lessee. The term "waste" as used in this stipulation means all discarded matter, including but not limited to human waste, trash, garbage, refuse, gas cans, oil drums, petroleum products, ashes and equipment. The best practicable portable or permanent waste disposal systems shall be used and shall be approved in advance by the Authorized Officer. B. Sample Bonding Provision Permittee shall furnish a bond or other security (hereinafter called "Bond") of such type and on such terms and conditions as are acceptable within 30 days after issuance of permit to Permittee. D-l ------- Appendix C (continued) Said bond shall have the purpose of: (1) Ensuring the performance by Permittee of each and every obligation of Permittee under the terms and conditions of any permit issued to Permittee by the United States; and (2) Providing for immediate payment to the United States of any cost or obligation incurred by the United States in performing any said obligation of Permittee which, in the absolute judgment of the Authorized Officer, Permittee has not performed satisfactorily. Said bond shall be maintained in force and effect while activities are being conducted in the permit area, or for so long thereafter as may be necessary. C. Sample Inspection Provision In the event a Performance Bond is required for the subject activity, the user will notify the landholder within 20 days prior to project completion to arrange for a field inspection of the subject site. If the site is left in a suitable condition, including all litter and debris removal, the Performance Bond will be returned to the appropriate party. D-2 ------- BIBLIOGRAPHY EXISTING LITERATURE Selkregg, Lidia L. 1976. Alaska Regional Profiles, Vol. I-VI. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage. U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska Corps of Engineers, 1976. Debris Removal and Cleanup Study—Aleutian Islands and Lower Alaska Peninsula, Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company. 1977. Facts About Alaska "The Alaska Almanac." CORRESPONDENCE Most of the material included in this study was obtained through personal and written communications with the following agencies: Federal Agencies Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service U.S. Forest Service Forest Supervisor, Chugach National Forest Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest Regional Forester Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries National Weather Service, Alaska Region Chief, Engineering Division Department of Defense Department of the Air Force Headquarters, Aerospace Defense Command Headquarters, Alaska Air Command Department of the Army 172nd Infantry Brigade, Office of the Director of Facilities Engineering Department of the Navy Naval Arctic Submarine Laboratory Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration Regional Director E-l ------- Department of Health, Education and Welfare Public Health Services Alaska Area, Indian Health Service Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Facility Management Office Bureau of Land Management District Manager, Anchorage District Office District Manager, Fairbanks District Office State Director Bureau of Mines Fish and Wildlife Service Manager, Arctic National Wildlife Range Manager, Kenai National Moose Range Regional Director National Park Service Area Director Superintendent, Glacier Bay National Monument Superintendent, Mount McKinley National Park U.S. Geological Survey Department of Transportation Alaska Railroad Office of the Chief Engineer Federal Aviation Administration Alaska Regional Office U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 17th Coast Guard District Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Waste Management Branch General Services Administration Federal-State Coalition Agencies Land Use Planning Commission (Department of Interior State of Alaska) State Agencies Department of Environmental Conservation Department of Military Affairs Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks E-2 ------- Private Agencies Alaska Native Corporations AHTNA, Incorporated Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Bering Straits Native Corporation Bristol Bay Native Corporation Calista Corporation Chugach Natives, Incorporated Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated Doyon, Limited Koniag, Incorporated NANA Regional Corporation Sealaska Corporation The Aleut Corporation Husky Oil National Petroleum Reserve Operations, Incorporated RCA, Alascom E-3 ------- |