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
------- |