HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUS10024proceedings of the
surface protection
• seminar
theme: travel and transportation practices to prevent surface destruction
in the northern environment
U. S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Alaska State Office
proceedings of the
SURFACE PROTECTION SEMINAR
theme: travel and transportation practices to prevent surface destruction
in the northern environment
January 19-22, 1976
Anchorage, AlaSka
Edited by Margaret N. Evans
Published by the Bureau of Land Management
Alaska State Office
SSS Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 August 1976
This publication includes papers presented at the Surface
Protection Seminar. Several of the papers were transcribed
from recordings, and all papers were edited for publication.
A few presentations have been omitted because neither a
paper nor a suitable recording was available. Printing
limitations made it impossible to reproduce color slides used
by many participants in their seminar presentations.
Views expressed are those of the participants and not
necessarily those of the Bureau of Land Managment or the
u. s. Department of the Interior. Neither does the use of
commercial names constitute an endorsement by the BLM or the
USDI.
Please contact authors for permission to reprint any of the
material in the proceedings of the Surface Protection Seminar.
ii
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTIOO • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • page iv
SESSION ONE • 1
Keynote address • • 2
Federal and State statutes, laws, and regulations for
surface protection • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8
Ecological and environmental consequences of off-road
traffic in northern regions • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • 40
SURFACE DISTURBANCE
SESSION TWO--Effects of vehicle travel on surface • 54 c
SESSION THREE--Effects of industrial development on surface • • 102
SESSION FOUR--construction of public facilities and
utilities . . . . . .
SESSION FIVE--Fire control and disturbance of surface
SURFACE PROTECTION
SESSION SIX--Agency policy and procedures; corporation
policy and procedures •
SESSION SEVEN--Resource data needs •
SESSION EIGHT--Regulation of type and use of equipment •
Equipment development • • • • • • • • •
SESSION NINE--Stabilization and maintenance of disturbed
••• 130
155
182
• • 207
• 235
surf aces . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
introduction
From an historical point of view, human occupation has operated
chiefly to harm the landscape, not to preserve it. In the past
there were always new opportunities beyond the frontier for those
men who had.worn out their landscape or, in the modern vernacular,
"degraded their environment."
We now find that there are no more frontiers and that the
limits of the earth are finite. Man is moving into the least
hospitable areas of the globe and causing the desert to bloom and
the tundra to bring forth oil. Once called "Seward's icebox" and
thought to be a barren wasteland, Alaska is yielding her riches to
the nation in ever-increasing variety as advancing technology
provides means to cross the tundra, traverse mountain ranges, and
bridge wilderness rivers. But at what cost?
Modern technology gives man the ability to cause drastic
changes in the landscape. This situation is dangerous because the
ability to make specific changes is not balanced by an equal
ability to predict or control other unwanted and damaging changes
that occur as inadvertent and unforeseen consequences of specific
actions. Ability to plan and create monumental projects carries
with it the likelihood of making monumental mistakes.
Each technological triumph changes the face of Alaska; game
trails and dog sled trails have become highways, remote scrub
forests have been pushed aside to make landing strips, dust devils
dance in gravel pits, and scattered among the tiny, bright wild-
flowers of the north is man's litter. The rusty 55 gallon gasoline
barrel is wryly referred to as a "tundra blossom" and "the Alaska
state flower."
As the tracks of technological progress increase on the
Alaskan scene, so has the awareness of some people that man need
not deface the earth in order to enjoy the bounty of nature's
resources. While many of the industrial vanguard were insensitive
and uncaring, others have been searching for methods of travel and
resource extraction that would rest lightly upon the landscape.
iv
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
With these problems and opportunities in mind, the Bureau of
Land Management convened this surface protection seminar as a
means of discussing the range of disturbances and sharing knowledge
among interested individuals from government, industry, and citizen
groups. As a unifying theme for the diversity of invited speakers,
we chose: "travel and transportation practices to prevent surface
destruction in the northern environment."
The four-day seminar was held in Anchorage in January 1976,
and more than 50 eXperts in a wide range of fields addressed an
audience of about 350 persons. The nine seminar sessions were
divided roughly into two broad categories: surface disturbance
and surface protection. These proceedings follow the same format
as the seminar.
This is the first attempt in Alaska to bring together the
most recent knowledge on the very broad subject of surface protec-
tion, and we hope that by publishing the proceedings we can make
that knowledge available to an ever larger audience. We are also
hopeful that the information contained here will encourage greater
respect for the sensitivity to disturbance of our northern ecosys-
tems and foster an active concern for the health of the land.
v
--or. H. William Gabriel, Chief
Branch of Biological Resources
Bureau of Land Management
Alaska State Office
-
•
•
J
• session one
CHAIRMAN: Curtis V. McVee, State Director
Bureau of Land Management
Alaska State Office
Anchorage, Alaska
Keynote address--Bureau of Land Management Responsibilities to
Page
Prevent Surface Damages During Use of National Resource Lands • 2
Curtis v. McVee
Federal and State Statutes, Laws, and Regulations for Surface
Protection
Federal law of surface protection of the public lan4s • • • • • • • a
Robert E. Price
Regional Solicitor
Office of the Solicitor
U. S. Department of the Interior
Anchorage, Alaska
State law of surface protection of the state lands
Jeffrey B. Lowenfels
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law, State of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
. . . . . . . . 24
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Act • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 32
William J. Moses
Assistant Regional Solicitor (TAPS)
Office of the Solicitor
Department of the Interior
Anchorage, Alaska
Ecological and Environmental Consequences of Off-Roaa Traffic
in Northern Regions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 40
Dr. Jerry Brown
Research Soils Scientist
U. S. Army Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory
Hanover, New Hampshire
1
-
Keynote address-
Bureau of Land Management Responsibilities
to Prevent Surfac.e Damages ·
During Use·ofNational·Resource Lands·"'
CUrtis V. MCVee
ABSTRACT
The Bureau of Land Management's role in surface protection in
Alaska began in the late 1950's when fire lines were built to pro-
tect property and showed the relation between such activity and
surface disturbance. The application for.the oil pipeline opened
the way for new studies, while development and accelerated use of
off-road vehicles have contributed to surface disturbance problems
and need for study and regulation, both for prevention and rehabil-
itation. It is hoped that information shared during the Surface
Protection Seminar will help establish regulatory standards and
procedures, develop guidelines, promote cooperation among agencies,
and suggest research needs.
Maybe the term surface protection is new or awkward to you, and you
know the subject by other names, such as soil conservation or watershed
protection. Yet, I believe we are all thinking and talking about the
same problem.
I have tried my pen at a definition of surface protection, and it
came out. like this: The integrated application of engineering and biolog-
ical skills to prevent damage to and reclaim lands used by man. While
this definition probably leaves much to be desired, by the end of the
week, after hearing all the e¥cellent speakers on the program, I should
be able to write a better one.
2
I
•
41
'
While most of us think of a wheeled or track-type motorized vehicle
as the culprit, we can all think of instances where man, without much
help from a machine, made an adverse impact upon plant life and the
soil regime which resulted in accelerated hydrologic or thermal erosion.
With the help of simple tools, such as pulaski and shovel, this impact
is compounded. Add ATV's or a dozer, and the potential exists to mul-
tiply many times what man can damage.
The effects of man's use or extraction of resources is not a newly
discovered problem, but rather one that has needed attention of managers
and scientists for some time. Only a small number of people appreciate
this problem as it affects the Arctic and Subarctic--most of them are in
this room.
Early m~n~ng activities, beginning before 1900 and including the
work of individual miners as well as large dredges, left their mark upon
Alaska. The effects of military projects, particularly those of World
War II vintage, are still apparent. Winter roads and trails, many now
called historic, left their marks, as have oil and gas exploration acti-
vities.
My concern is that technology developing at a geometric rate carries
with it the potential to accelerate destruction of land. This, coupled
with time and money for people to spend in recreational pursuits, such as
purchase of ORV's, and increased mobility of our population, makes it
imperative that we--land manager or land user--concern ourselves with
surface protection.
Here are some significant highlights in the history of BLM's surface
protection program in Alaska.
1. In the late 1950's during a season of disastrous wildfires,
BLM began using dozers to build fire lines to protect valu-
able timberland and private property close to Fairbanks.
This was our first exposure to BLM-induced surface damage;
it made us acutely aware of the delicate temperature, soil,
and moisture balance. I have inspected most of these old
fire lines as well as many newer ones, as have people who
have much more expertise than I do. Many of these have re-
claimed themselves naturally and some of them are continu-
ing to erode and cause destruction of the land and siltation
of streams.
2. In 1969 Trans-Alaska Pipeline Company (TAP), predecessor to
Alyeska, filed an application for an oil pipeline. This has
contributed to our knowledge more than any other action by
~oncentrating the collective minds of industry, government,
and the scientific community on the problem of surface pro-
tection.
3
3. About 1970, Jerry Hok, then of the University of Alaska,
spent a summer with BLM, compiling data on the North Slope.
He did an inventory of all the old trails, winter and sum-
mer, on the Slope. This further defined the problem and
convinced us there were some simple do's and don'ts, al-
though the efforts identified more problems than solutions.
4. In 1971, we initiated a study aimed at defining the problem
of managing permafrost soils and from this study generated
a policy statement to serve as guidance for the Bureau in
Alaska.
No one agency can take credit for collecting all the existing know-
ledge on the subject. This is obvious if you look at our seminar program
and the variety of speakers who will be making contributions during the
next four days. The problems identified here will become the collective
property of all concerned and our responsibility to resolve. Similarly,
solutions will be common property to apply.
How does BLM manage the public lands within its defined statutory
and regulatory responsibilities to mitigate surface damage?
1. Through the development of standards and procedures applied
to our own operation and to those of permittees or licensees
who use the public lands.
2. Through the rehabilitation of areas which have been dis-
turbed by surface use. I think we are generally better
equipped with knowledge and ability to repair damage and
rehabilitate areas disturbed by vehicle use than we are
with an understanding on how to prevent this damage in
the first place.
Bob Price will elaborate upon the legal aspects and some of the legal bases
for management of the lands.
Increasing interest in exploration and development of natural re-
sources in Alaska is leading to increasing off-road travel and subsequent
damage to vegetation. The energy crunch and the interest in developing
some of the energy reserves in Alaska are compounding this problem.
Most visible to the airplane traveler are the oil and gas seismic
lines. While these may not damage resources or cause erosion, they have
visual impact and may not be esthetically pleasing in an expanse of un-
marred virgin wilderness.
Access trails to cabins, hunting areas, fires, and mining claims have
been recognized in given situations as contributors to surface damage that
has resulted in soil erosion and stream siltation.
4
In some areas--such as the Denali Highway--hunters using ATV's and
ORV's have caused the type of disturbance normally associated with devel-
opment activities. This type of use has grown enormously, and the
variety of vehicles has proliferated greatly over the past 10 to 15
years. We used to think of recreational off-road vehicles in terms of
four-wheel drive vehicles or motorcycles. But now there is a vast array
of. tracked, multiwheel drive, and soft-tired vehicles. Even surplus
tanks have been used to carry moose meat home from the hunt.
An unwanted side effect of the increasing use of ATV/ORV's by recrea-
tion users is the unsightly scars and eroded surfaces they create.
Another problem is conflict between motorized and nonmotorized recreation
users.
Public Outcry Over Observed Damages
BLM has been publicly chastised in various newspapers, magazines, and
conservation group newsletters for allowing certain situations to occur.
Here are some examples:
Kantishna area mining claim access trails
-Steese Highway area mining access trails
-Tangle Lakes archeological area, where we have been charged
with "destruction by neglect" because use of recreation ORV's
is not regulated
-Denali Highway hunter and general recreation trails
-Campbell Airstrip Tract--conflict with dog mushers, snow
machine users, and skiers
Some of these are a legal problem, some a management problem. All
have technical implications and impact on the soil-vegetation-animal com-
plex .•
The USDI issued regulations for ORV use on public lands in 1974 and
these generally permitted use everywhere. The National Wildlife Federa-
tion sued, and the court held that regulations were invalid because
designation of all public lands as open to ORV's was not in conformity
with Executive Order 11644 which required that lands be identified as
open or closed to off-road vehicle use. Regulations now are being revised.
What is BLM Doing about the Problem?
We have revised our policy on forest fire control, the location of
fire control lines, and the method of their construction. A soils or
other natural resource specialist now participates in decisions on line
location and inspects lines for rehabilitation needs before crews and
5
equipment are moved from the fire line.
Other steps BLM has taken to control surface damage follows:
-Promulgated Campbell Tract regulations to zone recreation
use
-Initiated a study this summer (1976) under contract with
Colorado State University on ORV use along the Denali High-
way
-Is working with the Alaska Miners Association to develop
"specifications" and standards to be used as a guide by
miners
Organized a coordinating committee with other d-2 agencies
to review actions affecting d-2 lands. (D-2 lands are pub-
lic lands identified under Section 17(d) (2) of Alaska Native
Claims Act. Public Law 92-203.)
-Is holding this seminar to determine the "state of the art"
at this time
We, however, still find ourselves applying a double, or maybe even
a triple, standard. An applicant for a right-of-way under the 1920 Min-
eral Leasing Act can anticipate that a set of rigid guidelines and spe-
cifications will be attached to his grant or permit. Failure to follow
these requirements results in forfeiture of bonds, cancellation of the
authorization, and other legal actions. The recreationist or prospector
with an ORV does not have to acquire permission before entering on public
lands. Although some laws have been modernized to reflect the environ-
mental ethic, others exist from a prior era.
We hope to resolve this dilemma. Basically, this seminar is a start-
ing point to help us define the problem, identify sources of information,
exchange ideas, and hopefully come up with some solutions.
What do we expect from this Seminar?
Here are some goals we hope to achieve:
-Establish a basis for developing realistic standards and prd-
cedures for all-season operations for all persons wanting to
take part in any type of activity or use of public lands to
prevent surface damages in the future
-Develop a comprehensive set of "specifications" which can be
used to cover the spectrum of situations in Alaska
-Promote agreement and continuity among land management agencies
6
in issuing permits for travel and transportation across
public lands
-Suggest research needs for the development of methods, prac-
tices, and equipment to prevent future surface damages
We have a diverse group of users in Alaska, making it very difficult
to meet the needs and desires of all. For example, a geologist on a
seismic line may also be a recreationist on a snow machine.
I would suggest we continue to work cooperatively to define stand-
ards, prepare land use stipulations, and establish priorities. I am
concerned about maintaining the proper balance between land use and land
use stipulations. I am also concerned about developing standards which
are realistic and will provide the degree of protection to the resource
necessary to perpetuate its production and use. I am concerned about the
imposition of different local standards to different classes of the using
public.
I am confident that this seminar is going to benefit BLM, and I hope
it will be of benefit to all those who attend and participate.
7
Federal Law of Surface Protection of the Public Lands
Robert E. Price
ABSTRACT
In this discussion a legal overview is made of the basis of feder-
al statutes pertaining to surface disturbance to demonstrate their
limits and problems which might arise in their enforcement. It
covers federal law only--not state law--and is restricted to those
laws affecting public lands. The discussion does not cover pro-
posed legislative or regulatory solutions to the problems which
arise under existent law, except to emphasize present law, since
Congress has not acted on such matters as the BLM Organic Act.
Major topics considered are the following: 1. Federal constitu-
tional basis; 2. The National Environmental Policy Act; 3. Federal
statutes and regulations which regulate mineral disposal; 4. Rights
of access; 5. Sanctions for noncompliance with federal surface pro-
tection requirements; and 6. The "taking" issue.
1. Federal Constitutional Basis 1
1see Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States, Report of the
Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal
Areas within the States, Part I: The Facts and Committee Recommendations,
GPO April, 1956, and Part II: A Text of the Law of Legislative Jurisdic-
tion, GPO June, 1957; Federal Legislative Jurisdiction, Report prepared
for the Public Land Law Review Commission by the United States Depart-
ment of Justice, 1969.
8
A. Property Clause
The "property clause" of the u. s. Constitution is the source
of the authority of Congress to enact laws dealing with federal lands.
This clause is found in Article IV, section 3, clause 2, of the Constitu-
tion and provides: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make
all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other pro-
perty belonging to the United States .••. " It is only legislation based
on the property clause that I will discuss today, but I will briefly
mention other constitutional bases for other statutes in order to em-
phasize the differences in authority for the public land statutes.
B. Legislative Jurisdiction
Article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution provides
that the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District
of Columbia and like authority over all places acquired by the federal
government, with the consent of the state involved, for various federal
purposes. It is the second type of property that presents certain pro-
blems with the states on questions of jurisdiction. The past practice
has been for states to enact statutes consenting to the acquisition by
the federal government of land within the state. More recently, certain
states have enacted statutes making a cession of jurisdiction to the fed-
eral government. A third means for the acquisition of legislative juris-
diction by the federal government is a reservation of jurisdiction over
certain areas in the state-enabling acts.
The federal legislative jurisdiction characterized as "exclusive"
means that the federal government has all of the authority of the state
within an area, with no reservation made to the state except for the right
to serve process resulting from activities which occur off the land
involved. "Concurrent" legislative jurisdiction applies in those instances
wherein in granting to the United States authority, which would otherwise
amount to exclusive legislative jurisdiction over an area, the state con-
cerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise, concurrently with the
United States, all of the same authority. "Partial" legislative juris-
diction is applied where the state has reserved to itself the authority,
by itself or concurrently with the United States, to do more than serve
process in the area; for example, the right to tax private property.
By way of illustration of these types of jurisdiction, the situa-
tion in Alaska is as follows: Section ll(a) of the Statehood Act provides
that in Mount McKinley National Park there is "exclusive jurisdiction"
in the federal government and reserves to the State of Alaska the right
to serve process and the right to tax persons and corporations in the park.
This is technically described as "partial" legislative jurisdiction.
Therefore, state legislation, with limited federal statutory exceptions,
is inapplicable in Mount McKinley Park. This is the only area of this
type of jurisdiction in Alaska. Section ll(b) of the Statehood Act re-
served to the United States "the power of exclusive legislation" over
9
those lands held for military, Naval, Air Force, or Coast Guard purposes,
including NPR 4, at the time of Statehood, with three provisos: (1)
service of process by the State; (2) the State.JPB.y exercise "concurrently"
with the United States jurisdiction over the lands as long as its exer-
cise is "consistent with the laws hereafter enacted by Congress pursuant
to such reservation of authority:" and (3) the federal power of exclusive
legislation remains only as long as the land is owned by the United
States and is used for military, Naval, Air Force, or Coast Guard pur-
poses. This is technically described as "concurrent jurisdiction."
Mobil Oil Corporation v. Local Boundary Commission, 518 P. 2d 92, 99
(Alaska 1974) upheld the inclusion of NPR 4 in the North Slope Borough
on the basis that the state had concurrent jurisdiction over NPR 4.
The Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 u.s.c. 13, 7 adopts for places
under "the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction" of the United States,
as federal law, the criminal laws of the host states defining crimes not
made punishable by any act of Congress. The first legislation of this
type was enacted in 1825, 4 Stat. 115, and was necessary because there
was no applicable criminal law in such areas, except for certain serious
crimes covered by the Federal Crimes Act of 1790, 1 Stat. 112.
c. Proprietorial Interest
The term "proprietorial interest" is used in those instances when
the federal government has acquired some right or title to an area in a
state but has not obtained any measure of the state's jurisdiction over
the area. In Alaska, this means that the federal government has a propri-
etorial interest only in all of the. lands owned by the United States within
the state--except for Mount McKinley National Park and the military reser-
vations discussed earlier. The laws relating to surface protection that
I am discussing today are based on the property clause of the United States
Constitution. These laws deal only with the public lands that are dealt
with in that particular legislation and do not intend to regulate acti-
vities off of these public lands.
There is a significant distinction to be made between these pub-
lic land laws and the environmental protection type laws. The environ-
mental laws, such as the Clean Air Act (42 u.s.c. 1857), the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 u.s.c. 1251), the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(42 u.s.c. 3251), the Noise Control Act (42 u.s.c. 4901), and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 u.s.c. 136), apply irre-
spective of the land status. Their constitutional basis is not the pro-
perty clause but the commerce clause insofar as they regulate the acti-
vities of persons off of federal lands.2 Article I, section 8, clause 3
2see Rosenthal, The Federal Power to Protect the Environment: Available
Devices to Compel or Induce Desired Conduct, 45 Southern California Law
Review 397 (1972). See Soper, The Constitutional Framework of Environ-
mental Law in Federal Environmental Law, Environmental Law Institute
(1974), pp. 20-125.
10
grants to Cpngress the power "To regulate Commerce ••. among the several
States.· ••• " The cormnerce power has been broadly construed by the courts
to sustain environmental protection laws even though the effect on
interstate commerce is quite remote.
D. Preemption3
A preemption problem arises when a state or local government
attempts to regulate an activity which is also regulated by federal
statute. The u. S. Supreme Court has rendered recent decisions on pre-
emption problems which have arisen in the environmental law context but
there are no such decisions directly in point under the federal mineral
disposal statutes. There is, however, present interest in this aspect
of the preemption problem, and I think that the subject is worth some
of your time today.
The preemption doctrine has its basis in the supremacy clause
of the u. s. Constitution, which is found in Article VI, clause 2, which
provides in part: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof ••• shall be the supreme Law of
the Land •••• "
In applying the supremacy clause to subjects which have been
regulated by Congress, the primary task of a court is to determine whether,
under the circumstances of the case, a state "law stands as an obstacle
to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives
of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 u.s. 52, 66-67 (1941). This
generalization was refined in Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 u.s.
132, 142 (1963) in this way: "The principle to be derived from our
decisions is that federal regulation of a field of cormnerce should not
be deemed preemptive of state regulatory power in the absence of per-
suasive reasons--either that the nature of the regulated subject matter
permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so
ordained." Recent decisions of the u. S. Supreme Court have indicated
an inclination to sustain state legislation unless there is a necessary
conflict with federal law. See, for example, Goldstein v. California,
412 u.s. 546 (1973); Askew v. American Waterways Operators, 411 u.s. 325
(1973).
The question of federal preemption on the public lands of state
laws which regulate matters also regulated by federal mineral disposal
3see The Pre~tion Doctrine: Shifting Perspectives on Federalism and
the Burger Court, 75 Columbia Law Review 623 (April 1975); Landstrom,
State and Local Governmental Regulation of Private Land Using Activities
on Federal Lands, Natural Resources Lawyer, Vol. VII, No. 1, pp. 77-85
(Winter 1974); Olsen, Surface Reclamation Regulations on Federal and
Indian Mineral Leases and Permits, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute,
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Institute (1972).
11
statutes has not been the subject of frequent court decisions. Many of
the recently decided cases, however, have been in the environmental law
field and it may be only a question of time before the states enact laws
which provide for the regulation of activities on federal lands or begin
the enforcement of already enacted statutes.
The first distinction to be made in federal land cases in which
there is a supposed conflict with state law is whether the state has any
jurisdiction to enact such legislation. This is a decision to be made
before any discussion of preemption. I discussed this subject earlier
on the question of legislative jurisdiction. In an area of exclusive
legislative jurisdiction, such as Mount McKinley National Park, the state
has no authority to enact statutes which are operative within the park,
unless such law is expressly authorized in the Statehood Act or in other
federal statutes.
Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 u.s. 389 (1917) was
perhaps the first Supreme Court decision to construe the basic land dis-
posal authority of the federal government. The question of preemption
was never explicitly discussed, but the language of the decision is often
cited as general authority in that area. The case involved a suit by
the United States to enjoin the continued occupancy and use, without
its permission, of lands within forest reservations in Utah as electric
power sites • The court enjoined the occupancy and awarded damages to the
United States. Justice Van Devanter, at p. 405, stated:
"And so we are of opinion that the inclusion within a state of
lands of the United States does not take from Congress the power
to control their occupancy and use, to protect them from trespass
and injury, and to prescribe the conditions upon which others may
obtain rights in them, even though this may involve the exercise
in some measure of what commonly is known as the police power.
'A different rule,' as was said in Camfield v. United States, 167
u.s. 518, 42 L. ed. 260, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 864, 'would place the
public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of
state legislation.'"
The court was not faced with a serious preemption problem in the
Utah Power case inasmuch as it only involved a question of whether a user
of the public lands needed to comply with federal law to acquire an in-
terest in the public lands.
Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 u.s. 343 (1918), was decided the fol-
lowing year by the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Brandeis, and
did involve a clear question of preemption. This was an action to review
a conviction by the state court in Idaho of a defendant accused of grazing
sheep on the public lands in Idaho in violation of a state statute which
disallowed such grazing on a range previously occupied by cattle. This
was before the enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, see 43 U.S.C.
12
315 ~seq., and there were no federal grazing regulations. The only
relevant federal statute was the Unlawful Enclosures Act, the act of
February 25, 1885 (43 u.s.c. 1061 ~seq.). The court upheld the Idaho
statute in this language, at p. 346: "The police power of the state
extends over the Federal public domain; at least, when there is no
legislation by Congress on the subject." Justice Brandeis found no
conflict between the Unlawful Enclosures Act and the Idaho Statute
after a close analysis of the two statutes. He reasoned that the state
could regulate grazing on the public lands because this grazing was not
a matter of federal statutory right but by sufferance of the federal
government. It is of interest to note that Justice Van Devanter, the
author of the Utah Power decision which found preemption, dissented in
the Qmaechevarria case.
There is one other federal decision which discusses preemption
under the mineral disposal statutes. Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Phillips
Petroleum Co!RPany, 277 F. Supp. 366 (W.o. Okla. 1967), aff'd., 406 F.
2d 1303 (lOth Cir. 1969) cert. denied, 396 u.s. 829 (1970), was a suit
by owners of oil and gas leases on federal lands in Oklahoma, requesting
that their title in lands be quieted by declaring a forced pooling order
of Oklahoma Corporation Commission to be void. The court held that
there was no federal preemption under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
of state conservation laws under the circumstances of that case. One
of the principal reasons for that decision was the language of section
30 of the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 u.s.c. 187, which provides for lease
provisions. It states in its final sentence: "None of such provisions
shall be in conflict with the laws of the state in which the leased pro-
perty is situated."
The court also relied on the language of section 32 of the Min-
eral Leasing Act, 30 u.s.c. 189, which provides: "Nothing in this chapter
shall be construed or held to affect the rights of the States or other
local authority to exercise any rights which they may have, including
the right to levy and collect taxes upon improvements, output of mines,
or other rights, property, or assets of any lessee of the United States."
The court also noted that there were the requisite federal appro-
vals for assignment of interest and communization in the case.
The court, at p. 369, observed that s.tate police power in this
area of conservation could only attach after the satisfaction of these
prerequisites. The Texas Oil & Gas Co7P. case is consistent with the
rationale of Solicitor's Opinion, M-36416, 64 I.D. 44 (1957), to the
extent that it requires federal assent, but the Solicitor's Opinion ar-
rived at a contrary result on the question of the applicability of state
community property law under 30 u.s.c. 189. Ohmart v. Dennis, 196 N.W.
2d 181 (Neb. 1972), followed the Texas Oil & Gas Corp. case in a decision
involving pooling under Nebraska law of a federal oil and gas lease and
held that it was essential to have the approval of the Secretary of the
Interior for state pooling orders.
13
These are the major federal decisions on preemption in public
land law cases. There is, however, one state superior court decision
which I will mention because it is an Alaskan case, State of Alaska v.
Nelson, Case No. 74-42-CR (Superior court, First Judicial District at
Sitka). This was a criminal action brought against a logger for felling
trees into a salmon-spawning creek in alleged violation of AS 16.10.010(1),
which prohibited felling trees in salmon-spawning waters. The logging
was being done in the Tongass National Forest pursuant to a U. s. Forest
Service contract. The contract required clearcutting in the area in
which was located the particular salmon-spawning creek, but separate
contract provisions regulated the cutting of trees along streams. The
court held that the Alaska statute could not be enforced under the cir-
cumstances of the case because it conflicted with the forest-management
responsibilities of the Forest Service. The enforcement of the federal
statute placed the logger "in the unenviable position of either complying
with State law and thereby exposing himself to penalties for failing
to comply with the federal management decisions embodied in his contract
or complying with his federal contract and exposing himself to criminal
liability at the hands of the state." (at p. 22). The judge implied in
the decision that the state should attempt to attain its objective of
the protection of salmon-spawning streams by direct suit against the
Forest Service.
I believe the case illustrates quite clearly the preemption issue
within surface protection. I suggest, however, that the case does not
mean that a court will always find federal preemption of state fish and
wildlife conservation legislation under the federal mineral disposal
statutes. It is necessary to analyze closely the particular activity
authorized or, as in the Nelson case, required by federal law, regulation,
or contract to determine if there has been a preemption of state law.
I would like to close the discussion of preemption by pointing
out at least one solution to the preemption problem which arises out of
a conflict between the federal government and a state. This is the
adoption by the federal government of state surface use controls for
application on federal lands. The Public Land Law Review Commission
recommended in its 1970 report that Congress enact legislation for that
purpose and that, in the interim, federal administrators require adher-
ence to state standards. See One-Third of the Nation's Land, Recommenda-
tion 17, p. 70. This is the procedure proposed by the Department of the
Interior in Proposed Rulemaking for Coal Mining Operating Reaulations.
These proposed regulations were published September 5, 1975, in the Fed-
eral Register, and hearings were held in several of the western states
in December. The problems associated with strip mining of federal coal
deposits in the western states has been and still is a controversial
subject. It has resulted in a presidential veto on May 20, 1975, of H.R.
440 F.R. 41122.
14
25, a proposed surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1975, and
this veto was sustained by the House on June 10.5 I believe that one
of the objectives of the Proposed Rulemaking for Coal Mining Operating
Regulations is a partial resolution, insofar as federal lands are con-
cerned, of the strip mining problems. Proposed Rule 43, CFR 3041.8,
provides for the adoption by the Secretary of the Interior of state
reclamation law as federal law when he determines that this would result
i~ the· protection of environmental values which is at least as stringent
as would otherwise occur under exclusive application of federal controls
and would be consistent with the interest of the United States in the
timely and orderly development of its coal resources. There is a differ-
ence in approach here and in H.R. 25. Section 505 of H.R. 25 provided
for the automatic applicability of state reclamation law whenever that
state law was more stringent on land use and reclamation than federal
law. This is, perhaps, one of the differences that led to the veto.
I call this to your attention to emphasize the significance of the pre-
emption doctrine.
2. The National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 u.s.c. 4321-4347,
became effective on January 1, 1970. The environmental impact state-
ments (EIS's) are familiar to all of you, and I will not discuss that
part of NEPA. Instead, I would like to call to your attention other
aspects of NEPA that relate to our considerations today on surface pro-
tection.
NEPA also established policies and goals for federal agencies which
are to be considered in the implementation of other federal statutes.
These environmental objectives are set out in the first sections of Title
I of NEPA. See 42 u.s.c. 4321, 4331. NEPA also directed that "the pol-
icies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be inter-
preted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this
chapter," see 42 u.s.c. 4332 (1), and also provided that the policies and
goals of NEPA were "supplementary" to existing authorizations of federal
agencies, see 42 u.s.c. 4335. See Union Oil Company v. Morton, 512 F.
2d 743, 749 (9th Cir. 1975).
Therefore, in matters of surface protection of the public lands,
federal agencies have not only the authority but the obligation to con-
sider NEPA policies for discretionary actions authorized under other
statutes. I used the term "discretionary" deliberately because the
Interior Board of Land Appeals has held that NEPA does not apply to non-
discretionary actions. United States v. Kosanke Sand Corporation, 12
IBLA 282 (1973), held that the Bureau of Land Management was not obliged
to prepare an EIS before issuing a patent to a mining claim.
5see 121 Cong. Rec. H 3650 (May 5, 1975) for Conference Report on H.R.
25; u.s. Code Cong. & Ad. News, No. 5, p. 786 (June 25, 1975) for veto
message.
15
The approach of the Department of the Interior, however, in actions
which do involve discretion, is the inclusion of surface protection sti-
pulations in the particular approval document; for example, in the permit,
right-of-way, or lease. The Interior Board of Land Appeals has upheld
the inclusion of envirorunental stipulations in such documents. See, ~·
J.D. Archer, 2 IBLA 303 (1971). The best known illustrations of such
stipulations are those included within the right-of-way grant under
section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 u.s.c. 185, for the trans-
Alaska pipeline. I call to your attention the fact that all of the
federal mineral disposal statutes, except of the Mining Law of 1872, 30
u.s.c. 21, 49a, which you will be discussing at this conference, are
discretionary statutes.
3. Federal Statutes and Regulations which Regulate Mineral Disposal
I have set out for you in a footnote the pertinent statutes and regu-
lations which regulate the disposal of mineral resources from the public
lands. They are set out in their chronological order of enactment.
I will not discuss comprehensively each of the statutes but instead
will only note certain surface protection features of each.
The mining laws were first extended to the Territory of Alaska by
section 8 of the Act of May 17, 1884, 23 Stat. 24.6 The extension of the
mining laws, which is presently in effect, is from the Act of June 6,
1900. See 30 u.s.c. 49a. The mining law that is thus made applicable
was the Mining Law of 1872, 30 u.s.c. 21-54. The Mining Law of 18727
has its origin in the California Gold Rush and, it is the atmosphere of
that era which helps to explain the operation of the mining laws today.
Furthermore, the vast majority of claims staked in Alaska are still for
gold. There are no surface protection restrictions in the mining laws.
This is not, however, peculiar to the mining laws, as there are other pub-
lic land disposal statutes, for example, the homestead laws, which also
do not provide for surface restrictions. One of the consequences of this
6see "Legal Aspects of Mineral Resources Exploitation" by Robert W. Sven-
son, pp. 699-765, in History of Public Land Law Development, Public Land
Law Review Commission, 1968.
7Mineral Law of 1872 (30 u.s.c. 21, 49a) (43 CFR 3830, 3840);
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 u.s.c. 181 et seq.) (43 CFR 3109) (30 CFR
221) (30 CFR 211) (30 CFR 231);
Materials Act of 1947 (30 u.s.c. 601) (43 CFR 3600);
Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (1947) (30 u.s.c. 351-359);
MUltiple Surface Use Act of 1955 (30 u.s.c. 611-615) (43 CFR 3710);
surface Exploration, Mining and Reclamation of Lands (43 CFR 23);
Geophysical Exploration (43 CFR 3045);
Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 u.s.c. 1001-1025) (43 CFR 3200);
Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 u.s.c. 2la).
16
lack of authority to control surface use was the institution of the
withdrawal authority to close the public lands to mineral entry. The
basis for these withdrawals is the inherent authority of the President
and not the Pickett Act, 43 u.s.c. 141-142, because the Pickett Act
does not provide for the withdrawal from the mining laws of metallifer-
ous minerals, for example, gold.8 In Alaska, pursuant to section 17 (d)
(2) of the Alaska Native Claims settlement Act, 43 u.s.c. 1616 (d) (2),
Public Land Order 5179, 37 F.R. 5579, (March 16, 1972), withdrew 80
million acres from appropriation under the public land laws, including
the mining laws. One exception to the general statement of lack of
governmental authority to place surface restrictions on mining is the
surface use regulations on mining operations in the National Forests
promulgated in 1974. See 36 CFR 252. The legal authority for these
regulations is the Forest Service Organic Act, 16 u.s.c. 551, 478, and
not the mining laws. There are also regulations which govern surface
use of mineral locations in Mount McKinley National Park, 36 CFR 7.44
and 43 CFR 3826.1, and Glacier Bay National Monument, 43 CFR 3826.4,
and the legal authority for these regulations is in the acts establish-
ing these areas. See 16 u.s.c. 350a (Mount McKinley) and 49 Stat. 1817
(Glacier Bay).
The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 u.s.c. 181-287, provides for the
leasing of coal, oil, and gas (and several other minerals) owned by the
United States. It is inapplicable in national parks and monuments and
Naval petroleum reserves. Various provisions provided by 30 u.s.c. 187
in these leases, include "such other provisions as [the Secretary of the
Interior] may deem necessary ••• for the protection of the interests of the
United States •••• " Section 2 (q) of the current oil and gas lease form
(Form 3120-7, October, 1967) contains provisions for the protection of
surface resources.9 It includes a provision that states in part: " ••• and
8see Study of Withdrawals and Reservations of Public Domain Lands, by
Public Land Law Review Commission, 3 Vol., 1969.
9"(q) Protection of surface, natural resources and improvements. To take
such reasonable steps as may be needed to prevent operations on the leased
lands from unnecessarily: (1) causing or contributing to soil erosion or
damaging crops, including forage, and timber growth thereon or on Federal
or non-Federal lands in the vicinity; (2) polluting air and water1 (3)
damaging improvements owned by the United States or other parties; or
(4) destroying, damaging or removing fossils, historic or prehistoric
ruins, or artifacts1 and upon any partial or total relinquishment or the
cancellation or expiration of this lease, or at any other time prior there-
to when required and to the extent deemed necessary by the lessor to fill
any pits, ditches and other excavations, remove or cover all debris, and
so far as reasonably possible, restore the surface of the leased land and
access roads to their former condition, including the removal of structures
as and if required. The lessor may prescribe the steps to be taken and
restoration to be made with respect to the leased lands and improvements
thereon whether or not owned by the United States."
17
-
so far as reasonably possible, restore the surface of the leased land
and access roads to their former condition •••• " BLM is authorized in
43 CFR 3109.4-2 to require special stipulations necessary for the protec-
tion of lands embraced in cases of leases in certain withdrawals. On
April 17, 1958, Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton issued Circular
No. 2000, which authorized the issuance of special stipulations for in-
clusion in permits and leases for surface control in "Alaska Wildlife
Areas," which included the Kenai Moose Range. See 43 CFR 3109.4-2 and
43 CFR 3101.3-2 (d). The history of federal environmental stipulations
for mineral development in Alaska--if not in the United States--began
with those stipulations.
· The geophysical exploration for oil and gas on the public lands is
controlled by regulations contained in 43 CFR 3045. There are no pro-
visions in the Mineral Leasing Act which regulate such geophysical ex-
ploration and the authority for the regulations is presumably 43 u.s.c.
1201, the general rulemaking authority of the Secretary of the Interior.
The regulations require the filing of a "Notice of Intent to Conduct
Oil and Gas Exploration Operations." This Notice of Intent contains a
statement that the signers agree that exploration operations will be
conducted pursuant to the terms and conditions listed on the form. One
of the forms in use in Alaska, Form 3045-1 (December 1973), includes
general provisions for surface protection. There is also the possibility
for inserting special stipulations on that form. Special stipulations
for winter and summer exploration operations have been developed for use
in Alaska. Upon completion of exploration, a "Notice of Completion" must
also be filed with the BLM.
The Materials Act of 1947, 30 u.s.c. 601 -603, authorized the Secre-
tary of the Interior to dispose of common varieties of mineral materials,
which include sand, stone and gravel, and timber on the public lands.
The secretary of Agriculture has like authority in the National Forests.
See 43 CFR 3600, 36 CFR 251.4. The Multiple Surface Use Act of 1955,
30 u.s.c. 601, precluded the further filing of mining claims based on
common varieties of sand and stone and gravel and since then the Mater-
ials Act is the sole federal authority for the disposal of sand and gravel.
The State, under the Submerged Lands Act, 43 u.s.c. 1301 et ~·· is the
owner of the sand and gravel in the beds of navigable bodies of water and
those disposals are state disposals. Detailed regulations, enacted in
1969, control surface exploration, mining, and reclamation of lands in-
volving sand and gravel disposals by the BLM.10 See 43 CFR 23.
These are the principal mineral disposal statutes and regulations of
importance in Alaska. The surface protection possibilities extend from
the mining laws at one end of the spectrum to the leasing and sale statutes
lOsee Olsen, Surface Reclamation Regulations on Federal and Indian Min-
eral Leases and Permits, supra.
18
•
•
•
at the other end of the spectrum. It is a safe generalization that there
has been increasing surface use regulation since the time of the Mining
Law of 1872.
4. Rights of Access
Access to mineral deposits is one of the principal questions dis-
cussed at mineral conferences attended by lawyers. I am sure that one
of the reasons for such frequent discussion is that it is an unclear
area of the law. I will explain some of these difficulties to you so
that you can understand the surface protection problems associated with
access.
The principal legal problem associated with access to mineral deposits
is that the few statutes that deal with such access are inadequate. For
example, the legal argument over the trans-Alaska pipeline was mainly
an access problem while it was before the courts, although the resolution
of the problem was decided on a broader basis by Congress. See Wilderness
Socie~ v. Morton, 479 F. 2d 842 (C.A.o.c. 1973) cert. denied, 411 u.s.
917. It was necessary for Congress to enact not only the "Trans-Alaska
Pipeline Authorization Act," which is Title II of P.L. 93-153, 87 Stat.
576, 43 u.s.c. 1651-1655, but an amendment to section 28 of the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1920, which is Title I of the Act, 30 u.s.c. 185. Title
I dealt with the technical right-of-way problems involved in Wilderness
Society v. Morton. Title II dealt with the National Environmental Policy
Act questions which were never reached by the courts. The access problem
I would like to discuss, however, is not pipeline rights-of-way but vehi-
cular access.
The major environmental concern appears to be with access to m2n2ng
claims. This is because the Mining Law of 1872 and its regulations do
not provide for governmental approval of road construction on the public
lands. This is not true of the Forest Service regulations, 36 CFR 251,
which do require approval of road construction.
It is the legal position of the Department of the Interior that no
authorization is needed for access across the public lands to mining
claims: Alfred E. Koeni9, 4 IBLA 18 (1971); Solicitor's Opinion, M-36584,
66 I.D. 361 (1959). The legal basis for this position is that the mining
law "necessarily presupposes a right of passage as an incident to the
other rights granted, and the general rule that free passage over the
public lands has always been recognized." See Solicitor's Opinion, supra,
at p. 362. ~urface protection is difficult in this situation but the
Solicitor's Opinion, at p. 366, recognizes that the miner may be "liable
in damages if he unnecessarily causes loss or injury to the property of
the United States" in the exercise of his right of access.
Private roads for m2n2ng purposes across the public roads are speci-
fically authorized under the Act of January 21, 1895, 43 u.s.c. 956.
These are technically referred to as tramroads. The difference between
19
....
tramroads and the miner's rights of access is that the tramroads re-
quire the approval of the Department of the Interior. The regulations
43 CFR 2811 provide that a tramroad right-of-way is valid for a six-
month period, with the possibility of one six-month extension. A
tramroad is subject to the terms and conditions of all rights-of-way
which require departmental approval, 43 CFR 2801.1-5, which includes
provisions for environmental protection.
Another significant road right-of-way statute is that referred to
as "R.S. 2477" (the R.S. referring to Revised Statutes, the codifica-
tion of federal statutes in effect prior to the u.s.c. designation).
See 43 u.s.c. 932, 43 CFR 2822. This right-of-way provision was enacted
as section 8 of the Act of July 26, 1866, which was the mining law of
1866. It provides as follows: "The right-of-way for the construction
of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby
granted." A number of legal questions are associated with the right-of-
way grant under R.S. 2477. One of them arises from footnote language
of United States v. Dunn, 478 F. 2d 443 (9th Cir. 1973), which stated
that the statute was not intended to grant new rights-of-way but only
to legalize rights-of-way existent prior to the 1866 Act. Also, one of
the legal requirements for the acceptance of the grant is that it be
by some governmental authority or by the public at large by user. See
Hamerly v. Denton, 359 P. 2d 121 (Alaska 1961); Girves v. Kenai Penin-
sula Borough, Alaska Supreme Court, No. 1168 (June 13, 1975). Finally,
if the lands are reserved, it is necessary for the applicant to file an
application for a right-of-way. The regulations 43 CFR 2822.2-2(b) pro-
vide for the applicability of environmental protection measures in such
cases. Public Land Order 5418, 39 F.R. 11547 (March 29, 1974) withdrew
all remaining unreserved public lands in Alaska; therefore, any future
right-of-way acquisition would be by way of application.
The final topic I would like to mention is on the subject of vehi-
cular access across the public lands by off-road vehicles (ORV). The
Department of the Interior published final regulations for ORV use of
the public lands on April 15, 1974. These are 39 F.R. 13612 (1974).
See 43 CFR 6290. The preamble to those final regulations stated that
proposed exceptions to the ORV regulations for geophysical exploration
for oil and gas and exploration and development under the mining laws
had been deleted from the final regulations. Therefore, the ORV regu-
lations do encompass those activities. The statutory basis for the ORV
regulations is the general regulatory authority of the Department of the
Interior over the public lands, 43 u.s.c. 1201, the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969, and Executive Order 11644, in 3 CFR, p. 332
(1974). The regulations establish criteria for designating restricted
and closed areas and further provide that all public lands not so desig-
nated remain open to off-road vehicle use. National Wildlife Federation
v. Morton, 396 F. Supp. 1286 (D.C. Dist. of Col. 1975) held that these
20
regulations were invalid.ll One of the grounds of invalidation was that
the designation of all.public lands as open was not in conformity with
E.O. 11644 in that it created "a subtle, but nevertheless real, inertial
presumption in favor of ORV use" (at p. 1292). I understand that these
regulations are under revision.
5: Sanctions for Noncompliance with Federal Surface Protection Require-
ments
In conclusion, I would like to discuss the authority of the Department
of the Interior to enforce the federal requirements for surface protec-
tion. This is the basic question of whether or not the law has any teeth
in it. The resolution of the question of whether or not there is effective
enforcement authority for these requirements is, of course, with Congress.
A. Criminal Protection
I suppose that we might refer to this first option of Congress
as the criminalization of environmental degradation. It is imperative
in this sanction that there be a statute which sets out the offense and
the penalty for a violation thereof. There are, however, only two fed-
eral statutes which make it a criminal offense to injure or destroy re-
sources on the public domain, and these relate to the wanton destruction
or willful setting of fire to timber on the public lands. See 18 u.s.c.
1852, 1855. There is a contrast between this approach and that of the
more recent environmental pollution control statutes. For example, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 u.s.c. 1319 (c), criminalizes
violations of the statutes or of conditions in permits issued thereunder.
There are bills before Congress which would criminalize violations of regu-
lations of the Department of the Interior and grant law enforcement auth-
ority to departmental employees. SeeS. 507, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., sec.
306-307.
B. Injunctions
The only way for the federal government to prevent an unwanted
surface disturbance to the public lands is to obtain an injunction from
the u. S. District Court which prohibits the objectionable activity.
The most common procedure here is a request from the Department of the
Interior to the Department of.Justice to file a complaint which requests
a permanent injunction accompanied by a motion for a preliminary objection
pending a decision on the permanent injunction. It is necessary for the
government to show at a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction
11But cf. Wilderness Society v. Morton, 479 F. 2d 842 (C.A.D.c. 1973},
cert. denied 411 u.s. 917 (1973); Bird Bear v. McLean County, 513 F. 2d
190 (8th Cir. 1975}. Also see, Biddle, Access Ri9hts Over Public Lands
Granted by the 1866 Minin9 Laws and Recent Re9ulations, in Rocky Mountain
Mineral Law Institute, 1973, at pp. 415-435.
21
-
that there will be irreparable damage to the land. Most cases are actu-
ally resolved on the issue of the preliminary injunction. This is
especially true when the government's case is not successful at this
stage because the unwanted activity perhaps will have occurred by the
time of a hearing on the permanent injunction. It may also be the case
when the government obtains a preliminary injunction, however, because
the defendant is then made aware of the probabilities of success by the
government. See ~· United States v. Barrows, 404 F. 2d 749 (9th Cir.
1968); United States v. Foresyth, 321 F. Supp. 761 (D. Colo. 1971). In
the Barrows and Foresyth cases, the court granted preliminary injunctions
wnich prohibited further mining operations of the defendants in National
Forests pending an administrative decision on the validity of the claims.
c. Damages
A civil action for damages in the u. s. District Court is also
an appropriate remedy when it is too late to prevent the damage by in-
junction. This is very often the case because of the almost impossible
task of surveillance of the vast public domain in Alaska. The basis of
a complaint for surface damage is trespass. There is no general trespass
statute and the basis of such an action by the government is the property
interest of the United States. The rule of damages in such cases is the
measure of damafes under state law, unless federal law prescribes a
different rule. 2 Therefore, in a government trespass suit in Alaska,
the u. s. District Court adopts as federal law the Alaska law on damages.
G & A Contractors, Inc. v. Alaska Greenhouses, Inc., 517 P. 2d 1379
(Alaska 1974) held that the plaintiff may elect as damages in cases of
surface disturbance the cost of restoration or the loss in value of the
land. The appropriate measure of damages for surface disturbance, there-
fore, is the cost of restoration. These damages could be considerable
in Alaska. I believe that it would be interesting for one of the con-
ference participants to discuss these costs in detail because it would
present a cost analysis of environmental degradation.
6. The "Taking" Issue
I would like to conclude my remarks with a brief reference to what
lawyers refer to as the "taking" issue. I thought it might be interest-
ing for all of us to realize that there is a point at which government
regulation may become confiscation of private property. The issue arises
out of the language of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution,
which provides: "(N)or shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 u.s. 393 (1922) is perhaps the
leading case on the subject and it is pertinent to the discussion today
12see 43 CFR 9239.0-8; Damages for Trespass on u. s. Lands, 58 I.D. 694
(1944); Moore's Federal Practice, Vol. lA, Sec. 0.321.
22
because i~ did involve surface protection. The case involved the inter-
pretation of a Pennsylvaftia statute that forbids the mining of coal in
such a way as to cause the subsidence of, among other things, any struc-
ture used as a human habitation. An action was brought by the owner of
a house to prevent the coal company from mining under his property.
Justice Holmes held the statute unconstitutional and ruled in favor of
the coal company. It is the language of the opinion that is signifi-
cant, however, and I quote to you the significant part of it:
"The general rule, at least, is that while property may be regu-
lated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be
recognized as a taking. It may be doubted how far exceptional
cases, like the blowing up of a house to stop a conflagration,
go--and if they go beyond the general rule, whether they do not
stand as much upon tradition as upon principle •••• In general it
is not plain that a man's misfortunes or necessities will jus-
tify his shifting the damages to his neighbor's shoulders •
••• We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to
improve the public conditi6n is not enough to warrant achieving
the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of pay-
ing for the change. As we already have said, this is a question
of degree--and therefore cannot be disposed of by general pro-
positions." (at pp. 415-416).
A recent decision relies upon Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon in the
context of environmental protection, and I mention it to you so ~hat you
can appreciate the limits of regulation. Union Oil Company of California
v. Morton, 512 F. 2d 743 (9th Cir. 1975) held that the Secretary of the
Interior had the authority to suspend operations of Union Oil for a rea-
sonable period of time under a lease in the Santa Barbara channel issued
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act so that the Secretary could
further study the development of new technology to lessen threats to the
environment. The court also held, however, that the Secretary did not
have the authority to order an open-ended suspension of Union's operating
rights under the lease. The court remanded tpe case to the District court
to determine the factual basis of the secretary's suspension orders.
There is reason to believe that one of the most significant issues
of environmental protection in the near future will involve the degree,
of permissible regulation by the government to achieve environmental
objectives. The general rules are so broadly stated at this time.that
it will be for the courts to determine under the peculiar circumstances
of each case whether there has been a Fifth Amendment taking or a valid
exercise of the police power. The courts will have to weigh the public
interest in the protection of the environment against the public interest
in the protection of property rights.
23
-
State Law of Surface Protection of the State Lands
Jeffrey B. Lowenfels
ABSTRACT
The primary source of authority to protect state lands is the
Alaska State Constitution. The state legislature, given authority
by the constitution, has delegated responsibilities for state land
protection to the Department of Environmental Conservation, the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and the Division of Lands.
In this paper are listed those statutes and portions of the Alaska
statutes describing the authority and other aspects of land pro-
tection. The definition of the term "land pollution" in Alaska
statutes has been attacked as vague and may be subject to litiga-
tion. The effectiveness of laws to prevent land pollution has been
subject to few tests as yet and only time will show their adequacy.
I have been asked to speak this morning on the state law and its
application to surface protection of state lands. When I agreed to parti-
cipate in this seminar, I thought of the old story of the newly elected
corporate president who wanted to see how sharp his staff was. First, he
asked his accountant how much two plus two was. The accountant took out
his calculator and, as is common practice, added up the two figures and
said, "Four." Pleased with his accounting staff, the corporate president
then asked his engineer the same question. The engineer took out his
slide rule, fiddled around with it, then turned to the corporate president
and said, "About four." Pleased with the accuracy of his engineering
staff, the president went to his attorney and asked him how much two plus
two was. The attorney got up, pulled down his window shades, buzzed his
24
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
secretary and ~old her to hold his calls, pulled out a yellow legal pad
and, turning to the corporate president, said, "Now, how much do you
want it to be?"
In a sense, that is what the situation is in regard to Alaska law
and the protection of surface lands. Accountants have definite answers.
Engineers have approximate answers, but the attorney, making a speech
in front of an august body such as this, finds there is a variety of
approaches to the topic. Thus, my presentation will be only a general
overview of what one member of the Alaska Department of Law considers
to be the important sources of authority that can be used to protect
Alaska lands from environmental degradation.
THE ALASKA CONSTITUTION
The primary source of authority to protect state lands is the Alaska
State Constitution. Article 8 of the state constitution deals with
Alaska's vast natural resources. Section one of the article is the
statement of policy regarding our natural resources:
"Section 1. Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the State
to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of
its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent
with the public interest."
One of the areas which is considered to be within the public interest
is conservation. (One must remember that that is the old word for protec-
tion of our environment, and it was still in vogue when our constitution
was written in 1956!) This is evidenced by Section 2 of Article 8 which
grants to the state legislature the power to enact laws to protect the
surface environment of Alaskan lands.
"Section 2. General Authority. The legislature shall provide
for the utilization, development, and conservation of all nat-
ural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters,
for the maximum benefit of its people."
Other sections of Article 8 provide further authority in support of
this legislative power over lands. Section 6 states:
"Section 6. State Public Domain. Lands and interests therein,
including submerged and tidal lands, possessed or acquired by the
State, and not used or intended exclusively for governmental pur-
poses, constitute the state public domain. The legislature shall
provide for the selection of lands granted to the State by the
United States, and for the administration of the state public do-
main."
Finally, Section 8 describes leasing authority.
25
"Section 8. Leases. The legislature may provide for the leasing
of, and the issuance of permits for exploration of, any part of
the public domain or interest therein, subject to reasonable con-
current uses. Leases and permits shall provide, among other
conditions, for payment by the party at fault for damage or in-
jury ar1s1ng from noncompliance with terms governing concurrent
use, and for forfeiture in the event of breach of conditions."
This, then, is the primary source of authority to protect state
lands. Since statehood, the State of Alaska has selected approximately
70 million acres of land, an area equal to about one-fifth of the entire
state. By 1984, when the State must complete its land selection under
the Statehood Act, nearly 30 percent of the land in Alaska will belong
to the State. Except for the small fraction of this which will eventu-
ally find its way into private ownership, this land represents a public
trust of unparalleled dimension. The framers of the state constitution
must have realized this when they set up the basic foundation for the
protection of our most abundant natural resource--land.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
The legislature, given the authority by the State Constitution, has
delegated part of its responsibility to protect state lands to the De-
partment of Environmental Conservation. This occurred as a result of
sweeping legislation passed in 1971 which resulted in the creation of
the Department and Title 46 of the Alaska statutes. Title 46 was, I
think, inappropriately titled "Water, air, and environmental conserva-
tion." Fortunately, the absence of the term "land" is corrected in the
declaration of policy which is set out in section 46.03.010:
"Sec. 46.03.010. Declaration of policl:;. (a) It is the policy
of the state to conserve, improve and protect its natural resources
and environment and control water, land and air pollution, in
order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of
the state and their overall economic and social well-being."
The powers of the Department of Environmental Conservation are set
out in AS 46.03.020. Besides having the authority to review and appraise
programs and activities of other state departments and agencies in light
of the policy set out in the introduction to Title 46, the department may
adopt regulations providing for the control, prevention, and abatement of
air, water, and land pollution. In addition, the department has been
given the power to adopt any regulation consistent with the policy declar-
ation.
While AS 46.03 has major sections dealing with air, radiation, water,
and pesticide pollution, it does not have a section dealing specifically
with land pollution. One section of Title 46, Article 7, however, does
provide some additional authority to control land pollution. This is the
26
"prohibited acts" section. Under it, "No person may pollute or add to
the pollution of the air, land, subsurface land or water of the state."
The penalties for polluting land are also set out in this section:
"A person who violates §§ 710, 730, 740, or 750 of .this chapter
is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction is punishable by
a fine of not more than $25,000, or by imprisonment for not more
than one year, or by both. Each unlawful act constitutes a
separate offense."
And AS 46.03.780 provides for liability for restoration of lands
affected:
"(a) A person who violates a prov1s1on of this chapter, or who
fails to perform a duty imposed by this chapter, or violates or
disregards an order, permit, or other determination of the de-
partment made under the provisions of this chapter, and thereby
causes the death of fish, animals, or vegetation or otherwise
injures or degrades the environment of the state is liable to the
state for damages.
"(b) Liability for damages under (a) of this section includes an
amount equal to the sum of money required to restock injured land
or waters, to replenish a damaged or degraded resource, or to
otherwise restore the environment of the state to its condition
before the injury.
"(c) Damages under (a) of this section shall be recovered by the
attorney general on behalf of the state.
(§3chl20SLA197l)
"Sec. 46.03.790. Wilful violation. (a) A person found guilty of
wilfully violating a provision of this chapter, or a regulation,
written order or directive of the department or of a court made
under this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon convic-
tion shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 and
costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment for not more than one
year, or by both such fine, cost, and imprisonment at the discre-
tion of the court.
"(b) Each day upon which a wilful violation of the provisions of
this chapter occurs may be considered a separate and additional
violation."
Next, the Department of Environmental Conservation has certain emer-
gency powers •
"Sec. 46.03.820. Emergency powers. (a) When the department finds,
after investigation, that a person is causing, engaging in or
27
maintaining a condition or activity which, in the judgment of its
commissioner presents an imminent or present danger to the health
or welfare of the people of the state or would result in or be
likely to result in irreversible or irreparable damage to the
natural r~sources or environment, and it appears to be prejudicial
to the interests of the people of the state to delay action until
an opportunity for a hearing can be provided, the department may,
without prior hearing, order that person by notice to discontinue,
abate or alleviate the condition or activity. The proscribed
condition or activity shall be immediately discontinued, abated
or alleviated."
Now, one thing has been left out of the discussion so far. What is
the definition of land pollution? In its infinite wisdom, the legislature
gave this definition to be used in connection with Title 46:
"(15) 'pollution' means the contamination or altering of waters,
land or subsurface land of the state in a manner which creates a
nuisance or makes waters, land or subsurface land unclean, or nox-
ious, or impure, or unfit so that they are actually or potentially
harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or
welfare, to domestic, commercial, industrial, or recreational use,
or to livestock, wild animals, bird, fish, or other aquatic life1"
A friend of mine sat down and figured out how many permutations of
this definition there are. The figure is an astounding, more than 4,000
combinations! The definition had been attacked as void for vagueness in
one case here in Alaska (the Stock case), but upheld under the circum-
stances of the case. I am certain that the definition of "pollution" will
be the subject of further litigation.
I know of only two cases that deal with land pollution. The first
was settled out of court with an admission of guilt by the offending party.
The second suit is pending, and I am not at liberty to discuss it.
THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE DIVISION OF LANDS
The second primary authority delegated by the legislature deals with
the protection of state lands and reposes in the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources and the Division of Lands. This is set out in AS 38.05,
and is known as the Alaska Land Act. This act defines the duties of the
Division of Lands in regard to the public lands of the state.
The Commissioner of Natural Resources has the following power:
"Sec. 38.05.020. Authority and duties of the commissioner. (a)
The commissioner shall supervise the administration of the land
division.
"(b) The commissioner may
28
"(1) establish reasonable procedures and adopt reasonable rules
and regulations necessary to carry out this chapter and may, when-
ever necessary, issue directives or orders to the director to
carry out specific functions and duties1 all rules and regulations
adopted by the commissioner shall be adopted under the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act (AS 44.62)1 orders by the commissioner clas-
sifying lands issued after January 3, 1959, are not required to
be adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act (AS 44.62)1"
The Director of the Division of Lands is given the power to execute
these regulations and orders:
"Sec. 38.05.035. Powers and duties of the director. (a) The
director shall
"(1) have general charge and superv1s1on of the division and may
exercise the powers specifically delegated to him1 may employ
and fix the compensation of assistants and employees necessary
for the operations of the division1 and is the certifying officer
of the division, with the consent of the commissioner, and may
approve vouchers for disbursements of money appropriated to the
division;
"(2) manage, inspect and control state lands and improvements on
them belonging to the state and under the jurisdiction of the
division1
"(3) execute laws, rules, regulations and orders adopted by the
commissioner1"
Thus, the leasing of state lands, for example, is governed by regu-
lations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Re-
sources and executed by the Director of the Alaska Division of Lands. It
has been the practice of the Division of Lands to consult with other state
and local agencies when granting leases of all kinds. Thus, with input
from the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of Fish
and Game and other agencies, many leases contain provisions which seek to
protect the surface of the lands involved.
Finally, there is the most important section of Title 38, 38.05.360
which states:
"Sec. 38.05.360. Waste or injury to land. A person who commits
waste, or trespass or other injury upon state land, in addition to
being civilly liable for damages caused, upon conviction, is pun-
ishable by a fine of not more than $1,000."
This provision is the basis for the suit mentioned earlier that is
currently pending.
29
Later this week, Dr. Michael c. T. Smith, director of the Division of
Lands, will speak to you concerning the policies which are implemented
by the sections I have summarized. Some of these policies are evident
from the regulations which have been promulgated by the Alaska Division
of Lands. In particular, I wish to point out those regulations contained
in Chapter 96 of the 11 AAC.
"llAAC 96.010. OPERATIONS REQUIRING PERMITS. A permit is re-
quired for the following activities on state lands:
11
(2) activity which the director determines may result in unnec-
essary harm to lands having special scenic, historic, archaeolog-
ical, scientific, biological, recreational, or other special
resource values. The activities will be listed, and the lands
designated as 'Special Use Lands,' on the official records of the
division. The records will be available in all state land offi-
ces. Activities requiring a permit on lands so designated will
not be considered a violation of these regulations unless the
user has received written notice of the designation or the desig-
nation has been effective for 90 days;"
"11 AAC 96.070. COMPLETION OF OPERATIONS. Upon completion of
the operations under a permit and its extensions, the permittee
shall file a map showing the location of all permit activities
which were not shown in the permit plan, or any modifications of
the permit plan, and include a detailed statement of cleanup and
restoration work at the site. Within 90 days of filing an accept-
able completion statement, the permittee will be notified of any
cleanup and restoration work required. (Eff. 1/1/70, Reg. 32)
Authority: AS 38.05.020
AS 38.05.035"
"11 AAC 96.100. PENALTY. Any activities on state lands done in
violation of sees. 10-150 of this chapter shall be considered
waste, trespass, or injury to state lands under AS 38.05.360.
(Eff. 1/1/70, Reg. 32)
Authority: AS 38.05.020
AS 38.05.035"
"11 AAC 96.120. PURPOSE. The purpose of sees. 10-150 of this
chapter is to provide controls over activities on State of Alaska
lands in order to minimize adverse effects on the land and its
resources. (Eff. 1/1/70, Reg. 32)
30
Authority: AS 38.05.020
AS 38.05.035
AS 41.20.020"
•
"11 AAC 96.130. APPLICABILITY. Sees. 10-150 of this chapter
apply to all land use activities on Alaska state lands except
activities authorized under any State Division of Lands adminis-
tered permit, lease, or contract, by the permit, lease, or
contract holder, or his authorized agent and except lands which
have, by administrative action or act of the legislature, been
reserved from multiple use management. (Eff. 1/1/70, Reg. 32)
Authority: AS 38.05.020
AS 38.05.035"
And of particular interest to this group:
"11 AAC 96.140. GENERAL STIPULATIONS. All land use activities
are subject to the following provisions:
"(1) Activities employing wheeled or tracked vehicles shall be
conducted in such a manner as to minimize surface damage.
"(2) Existing roads and trails shall be used whenever possible.
Trail widths shall be kept to the minimum necessary. Trail sur-
face may be cleared of timber, stumps, and snags. Due care shall
be used to avoid excessive scarring or removal of ground vegeta-
tive cover."
That is the extent of our laws to prevent "land pollution." Alaska
has an abundance of land to protect from pollution and spoilation. For-
tunately, Alaska's lands are largely unpolluted because of our low popu-
lation and limited industry. Since pollution of the surface of our lands
is not widespread, we have the unique opportunity to prevent rather than
correct damage.
The tests of the strength of our land laws designed to prevent pol-
lution are few. Will they prove to be adequate and meet the obvious
impending onslaught of cases?
Time will tell.
31
-
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Act
William J. Mqses
ABSTRACT
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) Act consists of four
titles. Title 1 is the amendment to Section 28 of the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1920. Title 2 is the TAPS authorization act.
Title 3 deals with negotiations with Canada. Title 4 set~ forth
miscellaneous provisions such as Section 403, the civil rights
section. Title 2 and Title 1 are discussed in that order as most
appropriate to the seminar topic. After January 1973, the fed-
eral government issued federal authorizations under the TAPS Act.
These may be grouped into categories such as that of authoriza-
tions to the State of Alaska, a category including 30-year grants
of right-of-way for the line pipe and related facilities and for
access roads, another category relating to mineral materials, and
a final category consisting of various tiPes of temporary ~ermits.
When I was asked to speak on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)
project and laws applicable to it, I reviewed the Act, which I live with
day-to-day, and came up with what I felt was a concise summary of what
it is all about. Yesterday evening, somewhere between the Walt Disney
program and the feature "Eleanor and FDR," my wife and youngest son
looked at some of my notes. My son conunented, "Oh, Daddy, you're not
going to talk about something as boring as that, are you?"
With their reaction in mind, I decided to cover just the highlights,
recognizing that in this room are some of the real experts on various
32
•
•
• !
aspects of TAPS. I would like to avoid covering the technical aspects
of the so-called TAPS stipulations and do perhaps the one thing that,
as a lawyer, I should be doing: discuss basically the law itself.
Public Law 93-153, the TAPS Act, was passed by the u. S. Congress
in November 1973. It consists of four titles. The first title is the
~endment to Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Title 2
is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act. Title 3 deals with
negotiations with Canada, and Title 4 sets forth miscellaneous provi-
sions. Actually, we are interested in Title 2 and Title 1, in that
order. Title 3 has received some public attention recently because of
the Title 3 study on feasibility of an oil-gas line across Canada.
Title 4 should be mentioned briefly, as it contains Section 403, the
civil rights and equal opportunity section, which provides for nondis-
crimination in activities conducted under Title 2 permits, rights-of-
way, and authorizations •
Title 2
Let's look at Title 2, which consists of six sections. The first
section is nothing more than the short title, stating that this is to be
known as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act. Section 202, the
second section, sets forth the congressional findings that construction
and delivery of North Slope oil and gas are in the nation's interest
and that the Department of the Interior and other federal agencies had
conducted extensive studies, etc.
Section 203 is really the significant section in the TAPS Act. This
section contains the congressional authorization or mandate, and I would
like to dwell on this somewhat because it has same unique aspects. In
Subsection (a), Congress states the purpose of the act and it's rather
interesting to note the exact language used. Congress states that 11
it is the intent of Congress to exercise its constitutional powers to the
fullest extent. 11 in enacting the law. This language should be kept
in mind because I'll touch upon it later.
Subsection 203 (b) is the congressional authorization and direction
to the Secretary of the Interior and to any other appropriate federal
officers or agencies to take all necessary action to issue, administer,
and enforce rights-of-way, authorizations, and permits necessary for or
related to construction, operation, and maintenance of the TAPS project.
Subsection (c) is quite complicated but it says essentially that
authorizations issued under the TAPS Act are subject to the provision
of Title 1; that is to say, the amendments to Section 28 of the Mineral
Leasing Act, with certain specified exceptions. Authorizations under
Section 203 (b) of the TAPS Act are subject to mandatory provisions of
law that would otherwise be applicable were it not for the enactment of
the TAPS law itself.
33
-
Congress also provided that so-called discretionary or procedural
provisions that would otherwise be applicable but not mandatory may be
inserted into the appropriate federal authorization. They may also be
waived.
Congress then concluded this subsection by once again using some
rather blunt language. It said that the directions contained in Sub-
section 203 (b) are to the Secretary of the Interior and to all federal
officers and agencies to take all necessary actions to issue authoriza-
tions to build the pipeline. Those directions shall supersede the pro-
visions of any laws or regulations relating to an administrative deter-
mination as to whether the authorizations for construction of the trans-
Alaska oil pipeline shall be issued.
Since Subsections (b) and (c) mandated that the authorizations
necessary to construct the pipeline and get it to full capacity be
issued, the job of federal officials is to make sure that the appropri-
ate stipulations, conditions, terms, and the like are inserted in the
authorizations.
Subsection (d) of 203 is perhaps the one subsection that most people
are familiar with. This is the so-called NEPA override provision.
Subsection (d) also contains some unique language. Congress specifically
provides that actions of federal officers concerning issuance of neces-
sary permits for construction of the line shall not be subject to judi-
cial review in any court with the following exceptions: Claims alleging
the invalidity of the statute itself can be brought within 60 days of
enactment of the statute; claims involving an alleged denial of consti-
tutional rights and claims alleging that the actions of a particular
federal official exceed the authority of the act can be brought within
60 days of the action complained of.
Congress went further by providing that any such claim that is per-
missible under Subsection 203 (d) under any state or federal law can be
brought only in the U. S. District court. The complaining party is not
entitled to preliminary injunctive relief in that proceeding. The hear-
ing itself is entitled to an early setting and review of the District
Court decision is directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Subsection (e) of 203 says that the Secretary of the Interior or
other federal officials can amend or modify at any time any authoriza-
tion issued under the TAPS Act when necessary to protect the public
interest. I submit to you that Section 203 makes quite clear that this
congressional enactment is unique.
Let 1 s look now at Section 204. This is the so-called liability sec-
tion and consists of three separate concepts, each of which is a concept
of strict liability or liability without fault. The limits of liability
differ in each subsection, however.
34
Subsec~ion 204 (a) deals basically with Alaska Natives# their organ-
izations, and other persons who rely on fish, wildlife, and.other
resources for subsistence purposes and who live on or near the pipeline
right-of-way. In this subsection, congressional directions are not
limited merely to federal lands. Essentially, the subsection provides
strict liability for the holder of the right-of-way, the original
permittee companies.
Subsection 204 (b) has a slightly different wording. Again, it
imposes strict liability that relates to pollution, on or off federal
lands, which results in damages to the public or private persons. It
essentially provides a rule of strict liability for those damages and
further provides that if the holders of the right-of-way permits don't
adequately correct the damage# the Secretary of the Interior has the
authority, with other federal and state agencies, to repair the damage
and bill the holders of the right-of-way.
Subsection (c) of Section 204 is the third and final area of liabil-
ity. This involves discharges of oil from tankers carrying oil that has
been transported through the TAPS pipeline. It imposes absolute liability
and is not limited to federal lands. As a matter of fact, the scope is
broad enough to cover damage incurred by Canadian citizens.
A bill that is pending, H. R. 9294, should be noted here. It is
called the Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act.
If passed by Congress in 1976 in its present form, it would supersede
Subsection 204 (c) and provide a comprehensive federal standard not
limited to TAPS oil spills.
The fifth section of the TAPS Act says simply that the grant of
right-of-way issued under the act doesn't provide the various holders of
rights-of-way with immunity from the antitrust laws.
The sixth and final section of the TAPS Act provides that a right-
of-way or permit under Subsection 203 (b) for a road or airport can be
for a public road or airport.
This then is the TAPS Act itself. Because the TAPS Act in Section
203 mandates incorporating the provisions of Section 28 of the Mineral
Leasing Act into authorizations issued under the TAPS Act, it is neces-
sary to look at Title 1.
Title 1
Title 1 is a lengthy, detailed statute. I will highlight just a
few of the significant subsections in Title 1 that concern the TAPS
project.
The definition section found in Section 28 (b) defines federal
35
....
lands in this manner: " ••. all lands owned by the United States except
lands in National Park systems, lands held in trust for Indians or Indian
tribes, and the Outer Continental Shelf."
As of November 1973, Section 28 presumably was going to be the
basic statutory authority for using pipeline rights-of-way across fed-
eral lands with noted exceptions. A little more than a year after
Section 28 was enacted, however, a technical amendment was made to the
National Wildlife Refuge System Act, 16 USC 668dd, which raises a ques-
tion as to whether National Wildlife Refuge lands are still covered by
Section 28. The Department is presently considering the relationship
of the two statutes.
Subsection 28 (d) is where we get to the width of the right-of-way,
which is basically 50 feet plus the land occupied by the line and its
related facilities. The term~related facilities•is defined to mean such
things as communication sites, block valves, etc. A provision now
enables the Secretary of the Interior to make determinations that a
greater width is needed if he records the reasons for that determination.
Subsection 28 (e) gave the specific authority for temporary permits,
which we use extensively on the TAPS project.
Perhaps the really significant subsection of Section 28, as far as
we on the TAPS project are concerned, and perhaps as far as you as land
managers should be concerned, is Subsection 28 (h) (2). This is the
environmental protection language. It is the legislative basis for the
stipulations used on the TAPS project. Basically, the Secretary is
required under Subsection 28 (h) (2) to provide either regulations or
stipulations covering environmental protection. Regulations have not
been issued to date by BLM although draft regulations were published by
u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service this spring. Since they weren't issued
at the time the TAPS project was ready to go, we used stipulations that
have been worked on for so many years by some of you in this room.
Presumably, when the Department of the Interior issues regulations
under Subsection 28 {h) (2), many of the things that have been covered
in the stipulations that are universal in scope will be put into regu-
latory form and the stipulations will be changed to the special conditions
necessary for a particular project.
What has to be covered in the stipulations or regulations? First
is a restoration plan for vegetation, methods to curtail erosion, methods
to ensure that air, water quality, and facility siting standards are met,
and requirements to control or prevent damage to the environment, includ-
ing fish and wildlife habitat. Damage to public or private property and
hazards to public health must be covered in the stipulations. The in-
terests of people who live in the general area and who rely on fish,
wildlife, and other biotic resources for subsistence must be considered.
36
Most of· the other subsections of Section 28 are not significant
here except for Subsection 28 (v). This section, entitled "State
Standards," provides that "The Secretary or agency head shall take into
consideration, and to the extent practicable, comply with the state
standards for right-of-way construction, operation, and maintenance."
Once again I quote from Title 1 because Congress succinctly stated
what it meant and I think those of you who are federal land managers
ought to be familiar with the following: "Section 28 (v) relating to
state standards is included because rights-of-way frequently cross from
state or private land into federal land and back to state or private
land. Different construction, operation, and maintenance standards may
apply. This section is. intended to ensure that the Secretary or agency
head will carefully consider state standards and comply with them in the
interest of uniform practice throughout the state where such compliance
is practical in the judgment of the Secretary or agency head. The sec-
tion is not intended to require that those standards are to be followed
in every case."
This is essentially the same approach that the executive branch of
the federal government used in Executive Order 11752, published December
19, 19731 in the Federal.Register, regarding prevention, control, and
abatement of environmental pollution of federal facilities. In that
executive order the President provided that to further the purposes and
policies of basic environmental acts, such as those covering clean air,
water quality, insecticides, and fungicides, federal facilities are re-
quired to comply with federal, state, interstate, and local substantive
standards and limitations to the same extent that any other person is
subject to them. But in the light of the principle of federal supremacy
found in the u. S. Constitution, federal facilities need not comply with
state or local administrative procedures with respect to pollution abate-
ment and control.
I refer to this executive order because the term "federal facilities"
is defined broadly enough to include lands owned by the federal govern-
ment. This executive order is still in effect.
Before leaving the TAPS Act and Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing
Act, I would like to make one comment regarding a point Mr. Price raised
earlier on the constitutional basis for laws relating to the public
lands. As he pointed out, the property clause in the Constitution is
the traditional basis for this type of legislation. From this discussion
of some of the details of the TAPS Act and Section 28 of the Mineral
Leasing Act, however, it is probably apparent that the statutes refer to
activities that may or may not be related directly to federal lands.
Thus, the question arises of whether or not there is a broader constitu-
tional basis than just the "property clause."
In a case before the United States Supreme Court, ~ vs. Morton,
which tests the constitutionality of the TAPS Act, the United States has
37
taken the position that the act was a broad constitutional exercise of
congressional authority and that the basis was more than merely the
property clause of the Constitution. The United States' position was
sustained by the Supreme Court in a brief decision upholding the lower
court finding of constitutionality.
Federal Authorizations under the TAPS Act
Let me now try to bring this to a rapid close by describing briefly
the authorizations that are actually used on the TAPS project. These
are basically the agreement and grant of right-of-way between the United
States and the original seven permittee companies for the TAPS project.
It is comprised of 44 sections, most of which contain administrative
types of provisions dealing with the relation of the United States and
the permittee companies, but including some substantive provisions. For
example, the provisions relating to the Port of Valdez terminal site
are in the basic agreement.
The next part of the basic document is Exhibit A, which describes
the scope of the grant in the basic document. Not only is the alignment
of the pipeline described, but various other related facilities, commun-
ication sites, the Valdez terminal site, and valve sites are listed.
Exhibit B should be of interest to those of you with the federal
government, because even though the Department of the Interior eventually
issues regulations pursuant to Subsection 28 (h) (2) of the Mineral
Leasing Act regarding environmental protection, there will be times when
special conditions are needed to meet special circumstances. Exhibit B
relates to requirements for the Department of Defense on military instal-
lations. These special needs and circumstances are going to exist even
if environmental protection takes a regulatory form.
Exhibit c is an extremely short exhibit, dealing with requirements
of the Federal Power Commission relating to power sites. Once again,
this sort of thing is undoubtedly going to be part of the right-of-way
authorizations in the future, regardless of what the Department of the
Interior does in the way of regulations under Section 28.
Exhibit D includes the basic stipulations, divided into three cate-
gories: general, environmental, and technical. That's really getting out
of the scope of expertise of a lawyer and into the fields of land mana-
gers, environmentalists, and engineers. I will leave that for the experts
to discuss.
After January 24, 1973, the federal government issued a broad var-
iety of other federal authorizations under the TAPS Act. I'm not sure
what the exact figures are, but perhaps there are up to a thousand.
These fall into several general categories. There is a broad category
of authorizations to the State of Alaska. Those include authorizations
for the road, three airports, and communication sites. Another category
38
•
•
•
•
I
includes various temporary use permits, and authorizations for construc-
tion zones, spoil disposal sites, and temporary erosion-control sites.
There is also a category including 30-year grants of right-of-way for
access roads. The other big category relates to mineral materials.
State Stipulations
The State, by virtue of its cooperative agreement with the Depart-
ment of the Interior, has issued its own set of stipulations that are
essentially identical to the federal stipulations, subject to a few
notable exceptions. The only substantial exception to the standard-
form stipulations are those that were negotiated and agreed upon by the
State of Alaska and the Department of the Interior relating to highways
and airports. We came up with slightly different stipulations, which
were attached to our authorizing documents. Otherwise, the only differ-
ences between stipulations attached to Exhibit D, the main right-of-way
and those attached to the various temporary use authorizations are some
minor word changes to indicate that they refer to supplemental author-
izations rather than to the principal grant of right-of-way •
39
..
Ecological and Environmental Consequences
of Off-Road Traffic in N orthem Regions
Jerry Brown
ABSTRACT
The consequences of off-road activities depend on when the acti-
vity occurs (summer vs. winter) , the degree of impact, the nature
and response of the underlying permafrost to the surface modifica-
tion, and the rate at which the damaged environment will recover.
Regulations based on a knowledge of the environmental variables
and how they react to impact are required to minimize impact in
these areas which are sensitive to human and natural perturba-
tions. We should not underestimate the requirement for good en-
vironmental information and adequate resource mapping as first,
necessary steEs·
I have found the discussion just concluded extremely interesting.
Many of us have been asking for same time what types of constraints should
be placed on environmental disturbance due to development and which areas
should be conserved. I would hope that in the course of the week's meet-
ing we might, in addition to the main subject of the seminar, talk a bit
more about conservation practices. Conservation and surface protection
are closely related, and we should seek common solutions for both where
practical.
This report was prepared under USA CRREL Corps of Engineers sponsored
project, "Research in snow, ice, and frozen ground: cold regions environ-
mental factors."
40
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I appreciate sharing the platform with the lawyers. Scientists
are commonly accused of not having all the answers and it sounds to me
as though we've found our equals!
I was planning to conclude my presentation with several remarks
that I'm now going to put up front because we may run over into the lunch
hour, and in the process lose a few of you. I had planned to conclude
by saying that we've recently gone through a period of technological
conquest of Nature in the Arctic. The question is whether we will con-
tinue simply to conquer or overpower Nature or will design our activities
with Nature, a concept emphasized in the Environment Protection Report
of Canada. One aspect of design is regulation. Some of my comments
this morning will emphasize the need to better understand the environment
in order to design and implement rational regulations.
The question of restoration has been raised by a previous speaker,
and it is extremely interesting and pertinent. Traditionally, revege-
tation is an agricultural problem, and many of us trained in agriculture
are aware of some of the agronomic solutions to revegetation. We are
also concerned with applying ecological concepts to long-term restoration
needs. I would hope that we will define these terms more precisely.
"Restoration" implies the returning of the environment to approximately
the original conditions. Revegetation and rehabilitation are more or
less an interim process to provide a vegetated cover to prevent erosion.
Surface protection is a subject that's very close to our research
interests. In recent years we've been looking at surface modification,
which is the corollary of surface protection. A great deal of manmade
environmental modification currently is taking place. Our concern is how
to minimize the various impacts of surface modifications.
It is commendable that BLM is continuing to fulfill its responsibility
and leadership for surface protection. An earlier report (BLM 1973) pro-
vides insight into the surface disturbance problems in permafrost areas
of Alaska. I think we're going to make progress this week and 'undoubtedly
there will be needs for additional follow-up. I'm pleased to see that
there is a good representation of public and private groups present since
some of us don't often have the opportunity to interact with other than
the government and university people.
I'm going to confine my remarks almost entirely to tundra and pri-
marily to Alaskan tundra. Many of the federal and state agencies here in
Alaska have considerable experience in nontundra areas. On the other
hand, until recently university-based research activities have concen-
trated in the tundra.
Tundra also has received a considerable amount of international
attention over the last several years in both North American and other
circumpolar countries. The U. s. currently is involved at the federal
level in discussions with the Soviet Union on protection of the northern
41
-
environment. I will leave in the back of the room several reports which
deal with some of the recent Soviet environmental literature. One is
a short translation on protection of natural environments in the tundra
(Khantimer 1975). It's a statement on the environmental problems around
one of the major northern cities in Siberia. The report indicates that
the Soviets are vocal on the issue of conservation and protection of
their northern environment, particularly as development and recreation
exert greater pressure on the land. Another translation contains a
series of abstracts from an All-Union Conference held in October 1975
in Moscow. The conference topic was "Environmental Protection in Rela-
tion to Economic Development of Permafrost Regions." The abstracts deal
with the initial organization of scientific and engineering disciplines
in the Soviet Union for purposes of constructing pipelines, railroads,
and highways within reasonable environmental constraints (Melnikov 1976) •
My main objectives this morning are to discuss some of the princi-
ples of tundra impact and their consequences. I'll rely heavill on some
results of past observations and on slides to illustrate these.
By necessity the traditional form of overland transport in the arc-
tic tundra has always been cross country or off-road. The Yukon River-
Prudhoe Bay haul road and the local road net at Prudhoe make it possible
to use conventional wheeled vehicles on roads in these tundra areas.
Limited use of wheeled vehicles has been common throughout the Arctic
in local camps and villages. A variety of tracked vehicles have been
employed over the past three decades; Weasel, Nodwell, Bombardier, LVT,
snow machines, and bulldozers. Recently, surface effect vehicles (SEV)
or air-cushion vehicles (ACV) have been experimented with and low-pressure,
balloon-tired vehicles (Rolligon) are now in common use in both summer
and winter.
Visual impact is a very conspicuous type of modification, particularly
as viewed from the air. It's one that has considerable public interest
and one that has yet to be quantified from an ecological standpoint.
Another major impact is terrain degradation. Impact to wildlife can
occur from vehicle harassment and removal of habitat or damage to it.
Finally, terrestrial inputs have an impact on water quality or the aquatic
ecosystem.
Terrain degradation can occur by thermal erosion or thermokarst.
Thermal erosion requires flowing water and the presence of ground ice.
Thermokarst differs considerably from thermal erosion in that it does
not require moving water. Heat is simply conducted into the substrata
of the ice-rich permafrost and melting of the ice occurs in place. Ther-
mokarst can occur on both slopes and flat terrain. In the Canadian Arc-
tic, for instance, the ground under bulldozed trails has subsided and
!Because of printing limitations, color slides used by Dr. Brown in his
seminar presentation are not reproduced here.
42
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
gullied without the influence of running water; there was simply a
settting of the ground as ice was removed (Mackay 1970) • The off site
consequences of thermokarsting are different from thermal erosion in
that with thermokarst, sediments and soil nutrients do not run off into
·the streams. Therefore, thermokarst does not directly or adversely
affect fish resources or water quality. With thermal erosion there is
always the potential of reducing water quality and the aquatic biota.
I'd like to talk briefly about why tundra is frequently referred
to as being "fragile" (Bliss 1970) • Others of us talk about the tundra
as being sensitive. Tundra has a very low species number compared
with other ecosystems. Loss of any plant or animal species or a serious
reduction in species may be more serious than in other diversified eco-
systems.
Another major aspect of tundra is its low production. Plant growth
is limited to a very short period of time and this shortness of growing
season and accompanying low temperatures and droughtiness are serious
limitations to recovery of damaged surfaces.
Probably the most important aspect of tundra sensitivity is the
potential for the depth of thaw to increase followed by degradation of
the permafrost. Figure 1 shows the seasonality of the arctic tundra
and some of its major characteristics: the low mean annual temperature,
the seasonal developments of the snow cover and active layer, and the
Fig. L. SeasonaL course of sevePaL abiotic and biotic activities
fop the aPctic tundPa (fpom Mosaic, VoL. L~ No. L. L974).
43
short period available for vegetation to grow. Because 50 percent of
the annual radiation is received before the snow cover disappears, the
annual growth of arctic vegetation occurs as the incoming solar radiation
is decreasing. As a result of the negative mean annual temperatures,
permafrost develops and persists in Alaska. In the northern areas where
it's colder, there is the continuous zone of permafrost with the dis-
continuous zone occurring in the warmer areas of the south. In summary,
we might think of tundra sensitivity in terms of limited plant growth
and the potential for accelerated thaw and erosion.
Over the years we've been asking the questions, "How do we measure
impact and to what . condition do we restore the affected environment?"
Some have developed classifications for these impacts. One Canadian
study proposed a numerical scale from one to nine (Radforth 1972).
Number four represented 10 percent removal of vegetation. our own ef-
forts led to the following general and relative scale (Rickard and
Brown 1974): 1) esthetically objectionable, 2) minimal disturbance to
vegetation, 3) significant destruction of the plant cover, and 4) dis-
ruption of surface peat. A scale to measure impact is important in
order to know how to prevent or minimize the impact. We often recommend
a remedial measure for the entire range of impact and do not find an
answer for a given condition of impact. The problem remains as to what
is an acceptable level of impact and what is an acceptable level of
restoration once impact occurs.
The major components of the tundra, the plant canopy, ground inter-
face, the thawed organic and mineral soil, and the underlying permafrost
are shown in Fig. 2.
Surface disturbance or modification generally leads to reduced
albedo, an increased thermal input to the soil, increased depth of active
E~ACY t ~SS TRANSFERS
}
COOSUKR
AND
OECOMPOS(It
INTrRACTIOOS
44
Fig. 2. Major components of
the tundPa systems.
DEPTH
m
12
layer, and the thawing of the underlying permafrost. If there is very
little ground ·ice, plant growth can stabilize the surface, and major
subsidence is not a concern. When large quantities of ice are in the
permafrost, potential is good for subsidence and/or thermal erosion. The
natural plant cover has difficulty becoming re-established becaus~ the
subsurface has been changed drastically. Mechanical methods of stabil-
ization may be required before a stable plant cover can become established.
The major form of surface disturbance in the past has been by off-
road vehicular traffic. Hok (1969) presented excellent documentation
of the consequences of off-road activity during the early exploration of
NPR4. It's not necessary in this written report to illustrate the many
examples still present. suffice to say, the arctic terrain is well im-
printed with evidence of past activity. Current forms of disturbances
are more subtle and more time may be required before we can judge their
significance. I refer to potential impacts of dust blowing off roads,
early induced snow melt, the increased likelihood of air pollution affect-
ing tundra vegetation, and crushing effects on vegetation of low-pressure
vehicles across both snow-covered and snow-free terrain.
14 Fig. 3. Plot of ice volume vs.
depth for the Barrow area. These
values are for segregated iae
20 L---~-----L----~----L---~
45
and do not ina lude the volume
of ice assoaiated with ice
wedges~ whiah may be as high as
lO to 20 peraent. (Sel~n et
al. l975J
Ice occurs in the permafrost in two major forms, segregated ice and
ice wedge ice. The segregated ice forms as the original sediment slowly
freezes and water is drawn .into the freezing ground. In Fig. 3 is shown
the depth-distribution of this segregated ice contained in the upper layer
of permafrost. This. distribution is characteristic of most of the perma-
frost west of the Colville Delta, whereas the permafrost in the Prudhoe
Bay area has a lower ice content, mainly due to coarser grain substrata.
This high ice volume in the .upper several meters of the permafrost is the
reason that subsidence and erosion follow surface disturbances. The
surface disturbance, no matter how subtle, modifies the energy balance
at the ground surface and if recovery is not fast enough, the excess ice
begins to melt, with subsequent subsidence.
Ice wedges are vertical masses of ice which are commonly found
throughout the arctic tundra regions and occupy large volumes of the
upper 5 to 10 meters of permafrost. Although there frequently is no
surface expression of the buried ice mass, the common surface expression
of wedges is polygonal ground. The ice wedges occur beneath the narrow
troughs which form the outline of the polygon.
The same process of ground ice melting or removal occurs naturally.
Figure 4 is an aerial oblique of an arctic coastal lake, showing a deep
Pig. 4. Ae'l'ia.Z obZique of aratic aoastaZ pZain
Zake, showing deepe~ inne~ basin from whiah
gr>ound iae has been ~emoved, and the shaUow
sheZf s~ounding it. (SeZZmann et aZ. Z9'1 5 )
46
~
-~. . ' .-J-.:.z~
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
inner basin ana shallow shelf. The inner basin where the ice cake re-
sides is the result of melting of this excess ice, an indicator that the
surrounding area contains considerable ice in the near-surface perma-
frost •
What actually occurs when a vehicle crosses the tundra in the
s~er? The standing live and dead vegetation is crushed into the wetter
substrata. These plant remains soon begin to decompose faster than
the neighboring, undisturbed vegetation. This produces a strip of green
vegetation in contrast to the drabber-appearing brownish tundra. This
drab color results from the large quantity of several-year-old, dead
plant remains which stand upright in the tundra plant canopy. Thaw
under these so-called greenbelts is generally deeper than in the undis-
turbed area (Gersper and Challinor 1975). The initial impact of an
off-road track, however, is the adverse visual impact. The greenbelts
tend to last a number of summers due to enhanced soil and plant nutrient
and thermal conditions. The degree of disturbance a vehicle leaves
behind depends to a considerable degree upon substrata conditions, par-
ticularly moisture, and the frequency of passes. In a very wet, low
area rutting of the surface vegetation and peat will occur in a single
pass. These areas are now avoided by the Rolligon-type vehicle during
the summer •
Figure 5 is a cross-section of a multiple pass and multiyear track
in the Barrow area. This illustrates the fact that in a given track
there are major differences in depths of thaw. The upper, drier cross-
section (a) has the minimal thaw. In the lower, wet case, considerable
ice was removed and subsidence and thaw are greater under the track.
Also, the surface organic layer was virtually removed •
In Nature, heavy localized grazing by microtines (lemming) or car-
ibou can remove living and dead vegetation. When this occurs over ice
wedges, the wedges probably melt more quickly than they would normally.
Overgrazing under the snow by small animals can occur due to vehicle
compaction of the snow. Around Barrow, it was observed (pers. comm.
s. F. MacLean, Jr.) that the snow in snowmobile trails was compacted
so densely that the lemmings are unable to cross beneath or graze in the
snowmobile track. As a result, the areas adjacent to and between sev-
eral' tracks were grazed heavily, and upon snow melt, a linear contrast
in vegetation was visible. I used this example to demonstrate the fact
that winter cross-country traffic does leave a visual imprint on the
tundra. There are many examples where the trails are seen in the summer
to end at a lake's edge and resume on the opposite side: obviously, the
trail was made in the winter over snow and ice and the compacted vege-
tation and resultant greenbelt provide evidence.
The impact of tracked and balloon-tired vehicles on tundra has
been the source of several demonstration tests in the Prudhoe area (Burt
1970 a and b) • Another vehicle which has been experimented with in
,terms of environmental impact and performance is the surface effects
47
E
u
s: a.
"' 0
E
u
&; a.
"' 0
E
u
s: a.
"' 0
E
u
c:" a.
"' 0
Control
[)~~~~~~ F2 Scale
0
10
0
(North)
0
10
(North)
0
10
200
(North)
20
Date : 27 Aug '70
30
40
50
60
700
(North)
Distance, m
a . Plot 306
Distance, m
b. Plot 303
Distance, m
c. Plot 305
Plot 306
Plot 303
Plot 305
Distance, m
d . Thaw Depth
1.2 1.4
1.2
Change
I
I
I
I
I
Fig •. 5. Variation on thaw depth on o U Wease 7,
troack at Bar>r>OtJ (see Ge:rspe:r and ChaUino:r
(7,975) fo:r details).
vehicle (SEV) • CRREL has been involved in a major study at Barrow since
1971 and the results are summarized in a recent report (Sterrett 1976) •
The following discussion on the SEV is based on G. Abele's investiga-
tions at Barrow on the CRREL multiple-pass test sites and is applicable
to other coastal tundras (in Sterrett 1976).
48
Vehicle speed, number of traffic passes, length of hovering time,
and terrain characteristics (vegetation type, water content, microrelief)
were the primary test considerations. Traffic tests with a light
tracked vehicle (Weasel) were made for comparison. To. ascertain and
document the ecological effects of the traffic, observations and measure-
ments on the test sites have been made one, two, and three years after
the tests.
The effect on vegetation of the SK-5 cushion pressure (0.014 kg/cm2 ,
0.2 psi) itself is of no detectable consequence. The disturbance due
to the air flow (approximately 33 m/sec~ 100 ft/sec) consists of the
removal of some loose, dead vegetation; 50 passes with the SK-5 results
in the removal of virtually all loose, dead vegetation from the vehicle
trail. No apparent damage, such as detachment of sedge or grass blades,
moss, leaves, or blossoms, is done to live vegetation. Because of the
low air gap (<2.5 em~ ~lin.), the effect of skirt contact is considerably
more serious.
From visual observations, it appears that the degree of terrain
degradation is proportional to the number of passes. The rate of degra-
dation decreases somewhat with increasing traffic; for example, 10
passes are not quite twice as serious as five passes, etc. Since degra-
dation is caused mostly by skirt contact, the air gap, not the number of
passes, is the governing factor; i.e. the number of passes becomes less
significant as the air gap is increased. The visual appearance of the
SK-5 path (signature) is influenced to some degree by the direction of
travel, especially on wet terrain, due to the bending of vegetation.
The trail appears darker than the surrounding terrain when viewed against
the direction of vehicle travel and lighter when viewed in the direction
of travel. The effect on vegetation increases with an increase in vehi-
cle speed, since the impact force of the skirt against vegetation or
terrain microrelief increases correspondingly. No visible effect is
produced during prolonged hovering. Removal of some of the dead, loose
vegetation around the peripheral skirt occurs.
The extent of damage inflicted on organic terrain by SEV operations
depends to a certain degree on the vegetative characteristics. Mosses
are less resistant to skirt abrasion than sedges or grasses. Stiff vege-
tation is damaged more easily than soft or pliable vegetation. The SEV
traffic signatures are more pronounced in areas of high water content
than in dry areas. The microrelief of the terrain is the most significant
characteristic influencing the degree of degradation. Vegetation that
survived 50 passes by the SK-5 on level ground may be removed during the
first pass when it is on the contacted portion of raised features.
The major impact of SEV operations on organic surfaces is caused by
the skirt-terrain contact action, specifically the air gap-microrelief
relationship. The number of traffic passes and vehicle speed become
significant contributing factors with an increase in microrelief or a
49
Easily
Visible
Visible
Barely
Perceptible
Not Visible
Easily
Visible
Visible
Barely
Perceptible
Nat Visible
AERIAL SITE I GROUND
3
SITE 2
50
25
2 3 4
Years After Traffic Tests
Fig. 6. ReLative visibiLity of SK-5 traffia signatuFes
(~om StePPett L976).
decrease in air gap. Air escape velocity and vegetative characteristics
have a less significant effect, cushion pressure the least.
In comparison with their visual appearance immediately after the
tests, the SK-5 traffic signatures on tundra become notice~ly less
pronounced with time1 definite signs of recovery are evident. Signi-
ficant growth of new vegetation has been observed in areas where damage
had occurred due to skirt drag. A one-pass SK-5 trail is not detectable
after the first year.
The relative visibility, from air and ground, of the SK-5 test
trails at Site l (wet, level tundra) and Site 2 (drier, polygonal area)
after 1, 2, 3, and 4 years is shown in Fig. 6. It is apparent that l)
traffic signatures are more easily visible from the air than from the
ground and 2) traffic signatures on wet, level tundra are more easily
visible than those on drier areas having more vegetation and surface
relief variations.
The thermal effect (changes in thaw depth) on the vegetative mat
in a wet meadow, caused primarily by the removal of the insulating dead
vegetation and moss during SEV traffic, is shown in Fig. 7. In compar-
ing the visibility and thaw depth recovery trends, it is evident that
while the traffic signature's visibility begins to decrease within a
year and continues to decrease at a gradual rate, the effect on thaw
depth below a trafficked area continues to increase for a pe~iod of one
50
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t
In
5
= 4 ~ ...
0
~
0 3 s:; .....
.~ ... 2
"' 0 ... ..
u c: ....
0
em
0---SK-5
12 --Weasel (lioht
tracked vehicle) posses
10
8
6
2
0
0 2 3
Time After Traffic (Years)
Fig. 7. Effect of SK-6 and Weasel. traffic on the t'iu:DJJ depth of
UJet meadow tundro. (from SteZTett Z.976).
or two years, and then begins a recovery trend. The rate of recovery
4
of the traffic signature's visibility is slower than that of the effect
on thaw depth, once the thaw depth recovery process begins. That is,
the traffic signature may remain visible for some time after the thaw
depth below the signature has returned to its normal or original depth.
It may, therefore, be that the esthetic impact of ACV traffic on tundra
is a more serious consequence than the ecological impact (when expressed
as the effect on the thermal regime) •
Traffic on tundra with a light tracked vehicle has significantly
more impact than SEV traffic. On wet tundra (the worst condition), one
Weasel pass causes more visual impact than 25 passes with the SK-5, and
five Wea.sel passes are comparable to 50 passes with the SK-5 (Fig. 7) •
The question of off-road impact on tundra under snow-covered condi-
tions has been receiving considerable interest recently, particularly
in conjunction with winter construction techniques for gas pipelines.
Buttrick (1973) reports on the initial ecological results of vehicular
traffic across frozen tundra at Prudhoe. A comprehensive review of
winter road literature and recommendations for their use are provided
by Adam (1974).
Adam classified winter roads as follows: 1) Trails where the snow
is simply plowed aside to permit the required access; 2) Snow roads in
which the snow is dragged and compacted to the required density; 3) Ice-
packed roads where water is sprayed on the snow and worked in to provide
added strength1 4) Ice roads formed on lakes or rivers. Each type re-
quires environmental analysis to assess the types and magnitude of
damage which may occur. In general, winter impacts of off-road activity
are less than summer ones. Canadian reports indicate, however, that
heavy and repeated use of winter roads may kill vegetation completely.
51
Another form of surface disturbance is fire, particularly farther
south in the subarctic. Generally, following fire, depth of thaw in-
creases and if not stabilized on slopes, erosion of the ice-rich perma-
frost may occur. The Soviets have also found in some areas that the
depth of thaw actually decreases during the second year following fire
and the surviving trees stop growing because the active layer is too
shallow. This is called pyrogenic tundra (Kriuchkov 1969).
One essential ingredient to any surface protection plan is an inven-
tory of the resources. Fundamental to this inventory are adequate maps
of soil, vegetation, and wildlife distribution. It is our contention
that adequate maps should be at a scale of about 1:10,000 to be of use
in proper route or site selection and regulation. Once these basic
maps are available, a series of secondary or sensitivity maps can be
prepared to answer such questions as depth of snow cover to be expected,
areas of high lichen cover, location of unique ecological sites, areas
more or less susceptible to oil spills or summer traffic, etc. Such an
approach has been undertaken at Prudhoe Bay, building on the mapping
already reported (Webber and Walker 1975; Everett 1975). These detailed
mapping efforts are not the only ones required. Mapping from satellite
imagery is proving extremely useful in classifying large areas and show-
ing their seasonal variations (Sellmann et al. 1975, for instance).
Additional recommendations on mapping will be forthcoming in Wednesday's
sessions.
Selected References
Adam, K. M. 1974. Impact from winter road use and misuse. Chapter 2,
pages 29-36 in Environmental Impact Assessment of the Portion of the
Mackenzie Gag-Pipeline from Alaska to Alberta. Vol. IV, Research
Reports. Environment Protection Board, Canada.
Bliss, L •. c. 1970. Oil and the ecology of the Arctic. Pages 1-12 in
Tundra Environment. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada,
Fourth Series. Vol. VII.
Burt, G. R. 1970a. Summer travel on the tundra with low ground pressure
vehicles. Inst. Arctic Environment Engineering Note 7004. University
of Alaska. 9 pp.
Burt, G. R. 19./Ub. Trave.l on thawea t:unara. .Lnst. Arct1C t:nv1rorunent:
Engineering Note 7005. University of Alaska. 23 pp.
Bureau of Land Management. 1973. Influence of man-caused surface dis-
turbance in permafrost areas of Alaska. Report of Special Committee
· Assigned by State Director of Alaska.
Buttrick, s. c. 1973. Ecological effects of vehicular traffic on frozen
tundra. B.A. Ohio State University.
Eedy, w. 1974. Environmental cause/effect phenomena relating to tech-
nological development in the Canadian arctic. NRCC No. 13688. 125
pp.
52
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Everett, K. 1975. Soil and landform associations at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska:
A soils map of the Tundra Biome area. Pages 53-59 in Ecological in-
vestigations of the Tundra Biome in the Prudhoe BayJRegion, Alaska.
J. Brown, ed. Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, Special
Report No. 2.
G~rsper, P. L., and J. L. Challinor. 1975. Vehicle perturbation upon
a tundra soil-plant system,I. Effects on morphological and physical
environmental properties of the soil. Proc. Soil Science Society of
America 39:737-744.
Hok, J. R. 1969. A reconnaissance of tractor trails and related phe-
nomena on the North Slope of Alaska. u. s. Dep. Interior, Bureau of
Land Management. 66 pp.
Khantimer, I. s. 1975. Protection of natural environments in the tundra.
USACRREL Draft Translation 456. 4 pp. (Original text in Russian,
Agricultural development of tundra regions, Leningrad, Nauka, 1974,
Chapter 7, pp. 205-207.)
Kriuchkov, v. v. 1969. Soils of the Far North should be conserved.
Pages ll-13 in USACRREL Special Report 138. (Original text in Russian,
Priroda, No.~2, pp. 72-74, 1968.)
Mackay, J. Ross. 1970. Disturbance to the tundra and forest tundra
environment of the Western Arctic. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
7:420-432.
Melnikov, P. I. ed. 1976. Selected abstracts from symposium on environ-
mental protection in relation to economic development of permafrost
regions. USACRREL Draft Translation 518. (Original text from All-
Union Conference, Moscow, October 1975.)
Radforth, J. R. 1972. Analyses of disturbance effects of operations
of off-road vehicles on tundra. ALUR 71-72-13. Indian and Northern
Affairs. 77 pp.
Rickard, W. E., and J. Brown. 1974. Effects of vehicles on arctic
tundra. Environmental Conservation 1:55-62.
Sellmann, P. v., J. Brown, R. I. Lewellen, H. McKim, and c. Merry. 1975.
The classification and geomorphic implication of thaw lakes on the
arctic coastal plain, Alaska. USACRREL Research Report 344. 21 pp.
sterrett, K. F. 1976. The arctic environment and the arctic surface
effect vehicle. USACRREL Report 76-l. 28 pp.
Webber, P. J., and D. A. Walker. 1975. Vegetation and landscape anal-
ysis at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska: A vegetation map of the Tundra Biome
study area. Pages 81-91 in Ecological Investigations of the Tundra
Biome in the Prudhoe Bay Region, Alaska. ~Brown, ed. Biological
papers of the University of Alaska. Special Report No. 2.
53
session two
CHAIRMAN: Dr. Max Brewer, Chief Environmentalist and
Scientific Adviser for the Office of Naval
Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
Anchorage, Alaska
SURFACE DISTURBANCE
Effects of Vehicle Traffic on Surface
Recreation Vehicles
ORV use on State Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
George A. Hall, Deputy Director
Division of Parks
Department of Natural Resources
State of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
Page
56
ORV use on National Forests • • • • • • • • • • . • • • 60
Clay G. Beal, Forest Supervisor
-•
•
•
•
•
•
Chugach National Forest e
u. s. Forest Service
Anchorage, Alaska
ORV use on National Resource Lands • . . • •
Gerald W. Zamber, Assistant District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Anchorage District Office
Anchorage, Alaska
Industrial Exploration Vehicles
65
An overview of arctic exploration activity • • • • • • • • 70
M. Thomas Dean, Area Manager
Arctic-Kobuk Resource Area
Bureau of Land Management
Fairbanks District Office
Fairbanks, Alaska
--continued on next page.
54
•
•
•
•
Effects of Vehicle Traffic on Surface
Industrial Exploration Vehicles--continued
Seismic activity in a northern environment
Winter operation • . • • • • • • • . •
Lonnie Brooks, Geophysical Supervisor
Goephysical Service Inc.--Alaska Office
Anchorage, Alaska
Page
74
Summer operation • • . • • • . • • • . . . • • . 77
J. L. Hudson, Operations Supervisor
Alaska Division Exploration
Shell Oil Company
Anchorage, Alaska
Vehicles and roads for petroleum exploration • • . 80
Mickey L. Sexton
Field Party coordinator
Atlantic Richfield Company
Anchorage, Alaska
Problems and nonproblem of surface disturbance
in mineral prospecting • • • • • 82
Charles c. Hawley
C. c. Hawley and Associates, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
Government Vehicles
Military maneuvers • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 91
LTC Dennis L. Engen
Assistant Director, Plans, Training, and Security
172d Infantry Brigade
u. s. Army
Fort Richardson, Alaska
Transportation during the exploration of
Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4
John F. Schindler, Senior Scientist
Alaska Resource Sciences Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
55
95
ORV Use on State Lands
George A. Hall
ABSTRACT
The kinds of ORV's and their uses are growing. Regulation by
state agencies generally has been to permit ORV use where it is
not likely to damage state property. The State Fish and Game
Department must protect fish and game. All of us must help pro-
tect flora and fauna and their natural balance as well as preserve
cultural remains. During summer and winter, highway rights-of-way
are heavily used by ORV's but increasing Alaska traffic is likely
to force them into the back country. Regulatory needs include the
following: 1. Noise controlr 2. Permit procedures and enforcement;
3. Registration of ATV's and ORV's, speed and driver age limits,
and identifying decal aisplay. The public needs to agree on the
cost it is willing to pay for the operation of ORV's.
I read that the ORV is already an American institution, and although
we focus on the snow machine, the field includes trail bikes, dune bug-
gies, and four-wheel drive cars. New, larger track vehicles and rubber-
tired swamp buggies must also be considered. Of most importance is an
awareness that the test of what we do will be tomorrow, when a new exotic
machine appears--one-man helicopters, airfoil rafts, rocket packs--each
seeking inroads into the fragile back country for some reason. Not all
impacts are unacceptable: not all uses are acceptable. There's the dil-
emma--which is which?
The discussion also has a quality of the looking glass from Alice
56
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
in Wonderland·. Snowmachines are recreation vehicles here in Anchorage,
but transportation in the Bush. They are used for support to recrea~
tion hunting in some places and for subsistence support in other places.
The Bush communities will not support restrictions on ORV's because
they would be limiting their own flexibility •
I do not feel that state land can be segregated into the managing
divisions very simply because the common denominator of all state agen-
cies is responsibility for the state's resources. Land is possibly the
most fundamental resource, and in Alaska much of it is very fragile. It
is also my opinion that there is very little difference between state
land and land managed by federal agencies in Alaska. I have seen few of
the artificial lines laid by man on maps that were easily found on the
ground. We all have a common charge to treat the land with sensitive
care so that it can support the crop of a future.
How do the various state agencies treat the ORV? Are there major
differences in philosophies?
State agencies in general permit ORV use where surface damage is
not likely to constitute damage to state property.
Within state park areas, the use of ORV's is permitted only in areas
and on trails designated by the director. In the Chugach State Park,
five major drainages are open to winter activities based on adequate snow
cover. In Nancy Lake Recreation Area all but the northernmost portion
of the park is open on a trial basis. There is a developing feeling
that enough trails should be developed to respond to the demand, but
impacts should still be controlled •
No areas are designated for summer ORV use in any state park. Off-
road vehicles are treated as standard vehicles in all parks.
Protection of flora and fauna and preservation of the natural bal-
ance in parks is a responsibility of all of us. Another of~en over1ooked
responsibility is the protection of cultural remains. This translates
into "archeological remains" to most people, but the introduction of many
new devices, including maneuverable riverboats, has made visiting the
remote cabins or abandoned villages and towns exceedingly easy.
In the latter case, it has been far easier to identify the problem
than take a case to court. It may be within the conscience of each of
us to protect these relics of a remarkable frontier area. This must be
a role of the organized groups of users of ORV's.
The Fish and Game Department also constitutes an agency with recrea-
tion responsibilities, but it is charged with protecting and preserving
the fish and game resources. Limiting access to hunting areas does not
prohibit the entry of ORV's, but makes it illegal to use them for hunting.
Therefore, a hunter is not able to use an ORV, but a nonweapon-carrying
57
person can use an ORV in the same area. Some coordination of the two
sets of regulations seems desirable.
Highway rights-of-way, referring to "off-improved-road-surfaces,"
are heavily used by both summer and winter ORV's. Freshly seeded slopes
or other fragile ground cover is especially vulnerable to scarring.
The increasing interest in highway beautification will undoubtedly make
stronger control necessary. The increasing traffic in Alaska will begin
to limit permissibility for ORV use in rights-of-way and force the people
into the back country again. Summer bike paths seem unlikely to be a
useful alternative surface.
Off-road vehicles are also commonly used for industrial development
and exploratory work. While the use of these vehicles is permitted, the
damage to the terrain is carefully considered and the period of use is
carefully regulated. Overstaying the permit period can result in claims
for damage. But what does that mean? can you heal the scar on an al-
pine meadow? Can we close an archeological midden unknowingly torn open
by an off-road vehicle?
The commonest assumption is that most damage is from snowmachines,
but motorcycles and trail bikes have considerable impact on soil, by
compacting, displacing, or eroding it. The balance of natural mixture
is then blown away by wind. But it is fairly stated that the recreation
snowmachine takes a beating, possibly for problems shared by the all-
terrain vehicles used by nonrecreationists.
To propose regulation or control requires that we understand the
problem.
1. Refusal to adequately control the noise level has been a mistake
by the manufacturers, for this transforms wilderness buffs into raging
demons and a quiet cabin dweller into a jumble of nerves.
The decibel level has to be restricted to below 80 decibels and
regulatory intent must be enforceable.
2. The failure to control freewheeling off-road enthusiasts has re-
sulted in soil and vegetation damage in certain areas. Whether the ve-
hicle was for recreation or otherwise, the responsibility remains on the
land manager to assure that the user or user group does not take more
than its fair share.
Regulatory enforcement of use of specific or developed trails,
routes, or areas must be established. Permit procedures must be estab-
lished and enforced for both recreationists and industrial or exploratory
users. Failure to adhere to permit terms should be enforceable at the
field level. courts must cooperate.
Area closure to snowmachines should be effected by field orders
58
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
where soil and vegetation damage is possible. Field managers should be
capable of making this judgment.
Land managers should not be pressed to accommodate any and all
new devices concocted by industry. We have only one land and the care-
ful husbandry of this resource is mandatory if we are to leave something
for tomorrow.
3. The ATV and ORV are exempted from the definition of vehicle;
therefore, several objectionable results have occurred. Speed limits do
not exist. Driver age limits are not specified. Licenses are not re-
quired. Registration is called for but state park rangers found two
years ago that fewer than 50 percent of users had paid the registration
fee or carried a sticker.
The importance of recogn1z1ng the skill required to operate a
machine is mandatory, and age restrictions should be applied. Stringent
enforcement of registration and display of an identification decal are
urgently needed.
Through these devices the ORV can begin to find a degree of accept-
ance, although we should all agree here and now, it will be grudgingly
given. our challenge is not to solve yesterday's problem, but to see
tomorrow clearly enough to avoid the same pitfalls and to find a way to
bring the benefits to people at a cost we will all agree to accept.
59
ORV Use on National Forests
Clay G. Beal
ABSTRACT
A summary of policy and regulations pertaining to off-road vehicle
use on National Forest land is presented. A case history of off-
road vehicle zoning which has been completed for the Kenai Penin-
sula portion of the Chugac~National Forest is included. This
zoning was accomplished through considerable public involvement
and coordination with adjacent landowners. It became effectiv~
Auc;z,ust 1, 1975.
Although my talk is primarily directed toward the recreation ORV, I
thought I might lead out with just a brief review of the other types of
uses on National Forests that require surface protection and cover some
of the regulations that apply to them.
There are essentially four broad categories of uses of National For-
ests that result in a need for surface protection.
1. Special Uses. These range from ski resorts to packer permits,
from summer homes to road construction, and everything in between. Occu-
pancy of National Forest lands or use of National Forest lands to make
money requires a special use permit, included in which are clauses which
state what must be done to protect the surface and penalty for not comply-
ing. The clauses are backed by federal regulations.
2. Mining. New regulations came into effect a year and a half ago
60
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
which require an operating plan for all m1n1ng or prospecting activity
which will cause significant surface disturbance. This operating plan is
an agreement between the Forest Service and the miner to protect the
surface resources and rehabilitate the site when he is through. A bonJ
may be required to assure that the agreed-upon rehabilitation takes
place. These are federal regulations and, therefore, must be complied
with.
3. Timber Sale Contracts and other formal contracts, as for road
construction, trails, timber stand improvement, etc. These are made up
of standard national clauses and local clauses which require performance
and give direction for a variety of things, including surface protection.
Performance bonds are required for these also.
4. Recreation Use. This is an area where considerable conflict lies
and an area of much discussion and action in the past 10 years throughout
the country. The Forest Service has been able to regulate ORV use in the
past by federal regulations. The code allowed us to regulate for several
reasons:
1. To protect the resources of National Forest lands.
2. To promote safety of all users of those lands •
3. To minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.
These regulations can get quite specific in that a variety of uses
can be allowed or prohibited.
Most National Forests have considered the need for regulating uses of
one sort or another, and most forests have effected them. The Chugach's
first closure of a trail to motorized use was in 1970, when the Resurrection
Trail and other trails were regulated. The Turnagain Pass area was closed
to ORV use in the summer shortly thereafter.
The federal regulations give the authority for such closures to the
Regional Forester who has, in most cases, delegated this to the Forest
Supervisor.
Most of this type of regulating was done on a case-by-case basis, where
surface damage was taking place or was about to take place, or where con-
flict between users was the greatest. Where wilderness classifications
regulated use within the classified area, many areas adjacent to them were
regulated to minimize conflicts or make administration of the use within
the wilderness easier.
Classified wilderness is also regulated by specific wording in the Code
of Federal Regulations.
The Code of Federal Regulations defines ORV as motorized vehicles.
61
It excludes motorboats; excludes vehicles for official or emergency use;
excludes authorized use under permit, lease, etc.
We have been administering the National Forest with federal regula-
tions which authorized regulation of ORV's. our policy was that ORV's
use was legitimate and unless a closure was effected, the National Forests
were open for use. Regulation of the use, as I mentioned before, was
possible to protect the resource, for the safety and welfare of the user,
or to minimize conflict.
On February 9, 1972, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11644,
which directed each federal agency to ensure that the use of ORV's be
controlled on the lands it administered. On February 28, 1973, proposed
regulations on National Forest system lands were issued by the Assistant
Secretary of Agriculture and published in the Federal Register on March
2, 1973. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared. The pub-
lic and other agencies were invited to make comments by May 1, 1973. The
final version was published in the Federal Register on September 25, 1973,
and became effective October 20, 1973.
The EIS listed two alternatives:
1. Immediate prohibition of ORV's, followed by study.
2. Continued recognition of ORV use and provisions for it. Study
and identification of areas where use is and is not acceptable
and imposition of necessary controls.
The second alternative was selected.
Administrative instructions set December 31, 1976, to complete the
needed zoning on all National Forest lands.
To get this started on the Chugach National Forest, we decided the
area most used, where most conflicts and potential conflicts were expected,
was where we should begin our studies to regulate. Although the Copper
River Delta area is very sensitive, with swans, moose, geese, oil and gas,
etc., we determined that we should begin on the Kenai Peninsula.
At our request several organized groups representing the interests
of both motorized and nonmotorized users of the Forest presented proposals.
These proposals were later used in formulating original zoning proposals
that were presented in public meetings. We decided to include horse use
at the same time, since that, too, is an established use that can result
in surface damage as well as conflict with other uses.
In January 1974, a study plan was prepared for completing the zoning
on the Chugach National Forest portion of the Kenai Peninsula. Copies
of the study plan were sent to representatives of the other government
agencies in February 1974. Copies were also sent to more than 90 key
62
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
interested individuals and groups. During the summer of 1974, field exams
were made by our personnel of' all open trails and roads on the National
Forest on the Kenai. These field exams considered past and potential
resource damage as well as the physical properties of the facilities •
With the input from the various individuals, groups, and agencies,
we prepared a zoning proposal. In December 1974 and January 1975, we
presented it to representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Chugach
State Park, Bureau of Land Management, National Parks Service, Greater
Anchorage Area Borough, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game •
Public meetings were conducted during February, March, and April
1975 in the form of open house discussions at Cooper Landing, Seward,
Girdwood, Soldotna, and Anchorage (total of 11) • At these meetings the
people attending were asked for oral comment and then urged to follow up
with written comments. A form was provided that asked for ideas in spe-
cific areas and left plenty of room for general input. We got a total of
over 200 written replies as well as the benefit of hours of discussion
in the meetings.
As the result of the input from these meetings, the final zoning
decisions were made in June 1975, and August 1, 1975, was the date set
for them to go into effect •
The regulations were quite simple in some areas and mor~.complicated
in others. Most areas of the Forest were closed to cross-country ORV use
in the summer, and most areas were open to snow machines in the winter.
Trail regulations varied both in summer and winter. Generally, in the
winter regulations applied to areas, while in the summer, they related
more to individual trails •
Problems followed the zoning in informing the public of what we did
and then posting the information on the ground. By the time the snow got
deep enough for snowmobile use, most of the signs were up.
Our next effort is already under way and will be handled similarly
in the Copper River Delta Area.
I could go on to discuss the administrative problems related to en-
forcement of the regulations, but I'm sure you can appreciate that we
aren't a police force and that we aren't out on patrols to catch people.
Procedurally, we do have a system that works fairly well. Since
zoning is under a federal regulation, a violator can be cited to appear
before a federal magistrate and/or pay a fine. A Forest Officer can
issue the citation and the person cited then has a choice of appearing
before the magistrate to plead his case or of posting pay bond by mail.
A bond schedule has been determined for most of the common offenses and
the amount is written on the citation form. If he chooses not to appear,
his bond is forfeited as a fine for the offense.
63
In closing, I want to restate that the Forest Service considers a
variety of uses legitimate. Many of these uses do conflict. By policy
and direction we are committed to consider all of the uses and to regu-
late where it is needed to protect the resources, provide safety for
users, or to minimize conflicts among users.
64
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ORV Use on National Resource Lands
Gerald W. Zamber
ABSTRAcr
Off-road vehicle activity falls under the broader category of the
Bureau of Land Management's surface protection responsibility.
Surface protection includes such things as fire control, watershed
control, and vegetation or habitat protection. It includes any
activities that by their conduct could cause surface disturbance.
This presentation describes the surface protection problems in the
Denali area of Alaska and briefly describes the evolution of ORV
regulations by the BLM.
The Bureau of Land Management's ability to protect the surface values
of the land under its jurisdiction is directly related to the following
four factors: 1. Federal or state statutes and federal regulations avail~
able to the Bureau~ 2. The quality, interpretation, and applicability of
these laws and regulations; 3. Availability of personnel to administer
the laws and regulations7 and 4. Public concern and concurrence with sur-
face protection regulations.
It is one thing to be told to protect surface resources and quite
another to be physically and legally able to require or enforce consider-
ation for surface protection. This is especially true with respect to
general public use of an area. Individually, people are concerned for
the environment. Individually, however, they do not want to be restricted
in their use of off-road vehicles and probably do little damage. Collec-
tively, they can do a great deal of damage, which will be shown to some
65
t
extent in a slide series.l
Use of public lands·for ORV activities has increased steadily in
recent years. In 1971 it was noted that more than five million recrea-
tional off-road vehicles were in use. They were causing severe surface
disturbance, conflict with other uses, resource loss, and safety pro-
blems.
Most of you have seen the TV ads showing how these vehicles can
run over brush, plow through mud, climb straight up hills, and even
puddle across rivers and lakes. Many of the vehicles are C?Pable of
doing all these things, but the real problem is not what they can do,
but rather what people make them do.
In 1972, the President signed Executive Order (E. 0.) 11644 to pro-
vide for control of ORV's on public land.
--The E. o. essentially defined an ORV as any vehicle.
--It said that with full public involvement, areas would be desig-
nated as to their ability to tolerate ORV activity.
--It said that as far as possible, agencies could enter into coop-
erative agreement with enforcement agencies to regulate this program.
As a result of this E. o., in December 1972 a BLM briefing paper
was assembled and sent to BLM state offices. In the paper, the E. o. was
reiterated and some points were "clarified."
Point 4 of the briefing paper stated the following:
1. "BLM lands will remain open, closed, or restricted, as they are
now, until they can be put through the BLM planning system. BLM regu-
lations will apply to all vehicles except those used in mining or pros-
pecting under the Mining Law of 1872."
2. Maps will be made for the public. (A real problem in Alaska is
that the public can't tell who owns what, on maps as well as on the ground.)
3. Control or enforcement awaits passage of the BLM Organic Act.
In 1973 regulations dealing with ORV use were proposed in the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR). BLM said the regulations did not apply to
exploration or development of minerals or oil or gas geophysical opera-
tions on areas closed to ORV use. Public comments on these regulations
lsecause of printing limitations, color slides used by Mr. Zamber in his
seminar presentation are not reproduced here.
66
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
were 56 percent in favor of keeping lands open until closed, 44 percent
in favor of closing lands until they were opened, and 85 percent opposed
to mining exceptions stated in the proposed regulations •
Because of public comment, the preamble to the regulations published
in 1974 indicated that the referen~e to exceptions for oil and gas
geophysical operations and for mining operations in closed areas would
be deleted, since geophysical operations would be under lease or permit
and as most areas are open to ORV's, the regulations would not usually
apply to mining •
(What this says to me is that areas open to mining under the 1872
Mining Act and open to ORV's will not suffer under these regulations--
a difficult situation for those responsible for surface protection. We
would prefer a system that provided opportunity for mineral development,
with stipulations controlling surface degradation rather than the closed-
or-open alternatives, and more important, regulations that apply equally
to all ORV users. Also, ORV regulations should be found under the CFR
200CISeries, Land Management, rather than only in the recreation regu-
lations of the CFR 6000 series.)
The National Wildlife Federation then filed suit against the pro-
posed regulations. The Federation suggested that areas should be closed
until studied and, with public input, be evaluated through the BLM plan-
ning process. They also felt that the Environmental Impact statement
(EIS) was inadequate because it covered recreational ORV use only.
As a result of the suit, proposed amendments to ORV regulations
were forwarded to the field in September 1975 for review. Field comments
as discussed above were transmitted to the BLM Alaska State Office, but
final regulations have not as yet been published.
Let's look at a place that has extensive ORV activity--the Denali
area. This area includes about two million acres, stretching from Pax-
son Lake to Cantwell on both sides of the Denali Highway. Some charac-
teristics of the area follow:
--400,000 acres are in a National Archeological District.
--It has grizzly bear concentration areas.
--It has relatively heavy moose hunting pressure.
--Parts are used by the Nelchina caribou herd.
•-several potential wild and scenic rivers run through it.
--It is in a critical soil permafrost condition, with high ice-
content silts frozen at about 31 degrees F.
67
--It offers excellent sport fishing opportunities. Its rivers are
primary contributors to the Gulf of Alaska commercial salmon harvests.
--scenic beauty and variety are readily accessible to the traveling
public.
--The area has had some mineral activity and may have further po-
tential.
--The trans-Alaska oil pipeline has had impacts on area use, and
the area is a potential site for the proposed gas pipeline from Prudhoe
B~.
[The following comments on the uses and problems of the Denali area
were illustrated with color slides.]
One thing about Alaska is its variety, and people like to enjoy the
wilderness in a variety of ways. Some people enjoy strolling down a
misty trail to their favorite fishing hole; others would rather ride.
Some people will use existing trails for vehicular traffic; others like
to break their own trails. Some people enjoy the bush and keep it clean
as they found it so that others are not offended; others lay claim to an
area and treat it as if they owned it. Some cultural values are iden-
tified and protected to provide information about our past cultures;
some house pits are used as motorcycle jumping ramps.
People use every available means they can to enjoy the back country.
Some fly to where others drive; some use boats; some walk.
Should people be allowed to use these areas? Of course, but do we
need highway cloverleaves in the tundra? If one person uses an area
should others be restricted?
What are some solutions we believe are necessary? With some fore-
thought, trailheads and trails can be laid out to be esthetically pleas-
ing. Use can be geared to the time of year when surface is least likely
to be damaged.
Vehicles can be made to standards so that they will least affect
the land, and summer trails can be laid out to avoid areas of fragile
soils and vegetation.
We need to gather better information on high-use areas so we can
make better public use plans.
To obtain better information, last year we qontracted with Colorado
State University to do recreational interpretive work in the Denali to
help identify best uses and how to develop them. We are also studying
recreational ORV use in this area through a contract with the University
of Alaska.
68
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We need regulations that control ~ activities--not just recreation--
~ equality. We need the personnel as well as the regulating authority
to follow through with our plans.
Right now, our only alternatives are to leave an area open to any
use or completely close the area under emergency regulations. We don't
like to close areas. We'd rather see the areas used, but without damage
to the resources. This can only be accomplished in time with the backing
of a BLM Organic Act and properly developed and applied regulations.
As time goes by and more people come to Alaska and developnent con-
tinues, surface protection will intensify unless proper management tools
are available to plan, develop, and control ORV use on public lands.
69
An Overview of Arctic Exploration Activity
M. Thomas Dean
ABSTRACT
Before 1968, the Bureau of Land Management had few laws and regula-
tions to prevent surface disturbance from geophysical operations on
the North Slope. Some signs of disturbance remain from thos~ days.
Cooperating with the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, the BLM has
guidelines to give industry when notices of intent are filed. Con-
tinued cooperation and further regulations are needed to protect
surfaces on the North Slope
Before 1968, the Bureau of Land Management Fairbanks District was not
in an enviable position in regard to its responsibilities on the North
Slope. Although BLM administration extended over the North Slope lands,
we had few laws and regulations under which to perform surveillance, and
no guidelines to give industry. At that time, however, few people were
concerned about what happened on the North Slope. It was just a stretch
of frozen country where polar bears and caribou roamed.
I will illustrate with a few slides some of the things that occurred
before 1968.1 This slide, taken in 1968, shows what happens when you have
no guidelines or agreements and the workers consider the land just a piece
lBecause of printing limitations, color slides used by Mr. Dean in his
seminar presentation are not reproduced here.
70
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
of real estate where they go to do a job and then get out. The trail
shown is not a winter trail1 it is a seismic line, built in 1966. The
trail was made by a Caterpillar tractor operator who put the blade down
and traveled across the terrain. The work was done in the spring when
the surface was fairly soft. What probably happened was that someone
sent to work on the North Slope stayed too long. The ground started to
tliaw, snow began to melt, and they had to get out fast. To make the
trip out easier, they decided to move the soggy vegetation aside and run
the cat over the frozen ground. Today, instead of just a eat's blade
wide, some of the trail is 10 to 20 feet wide. In places it is 10 feet
deep instead of only 9 inches.
Along with some old trails and shot lines, some litter may still be
seen. So ubiquitous are the 55-gallon oil drums that they have been
called the Alaska State flower. If geophysical workers had no reason
to save the drums when they had used the contents, they dropped them
wherever they were. In camps, they stacked up the drums, but in the
field, they often dropped them off rigs as they moved across the tundra.
There was little awareness of how scarce unspoiled wilderness land would
become.
In the winter of 1968, the Bureau of Land Management and the Alaska
Oil and Gas Association got together to write a set of guidelines for
oil and gas exploration on the North Slope. Before the guidelines were
established, we saw scenes like this. Human waste, crankcase oil, and
partially burned camp garbage were dumped on the ice of a pond, with the
idea that when spring came, the litter would sink. unfortunately, a lot
of the garbage floats and ends up on shore. Debris floating in a lake
makes landing a floatplane very interesting. This kind of trash dumping
went on in the early days simply because no one thought about the conse-
quences.
Summer field camps also brought problems. Few crews returned to the
same area after one year, and they buried their trash without burning it.
Burial pits were dug in any convenient sandbank or wherever it was easy
to dig--out of sight, out of mind. Within a few days after the garbage
was neatly buried, foxes, bears, and ravens arrived to dig it up and
scatter it about.
Another little flower that "blooms" along Alaskan lakeshores is the
5-gallon gas tin much beloved by guides and aircraft pilots.
In the early days of oil and gas activities, well locations used
small amounts of gravel, and there was little concern about the surface.
Geophysical camps were set up on the ice on ponds and lakes. Because the
ice was level, the crews didn't need to block up the rigs during the week
or two they camped while running seismic lines in the area. They, too,
dumped their trash on the ice, assuming that at breakup it would disappear.
Crankcase oil and other petroleum products were discarded on the ice, as
well.
71
Equipment used to build the shot lines left its mark on the tundra.
Often, multiple passes were made on the same track. To make the ride on
the cat smoother and faster, operators would put down the blade, level
off the tops of the sedge tussocks, and clear away the snow. In spring
when it was time to stop work and store the equipment for the summer,
the crews would park all the machines in one area. They didn't bother
to block the heavy equipment, and during the summer, much of it settled
into the permafrost and vegetation. Summer crews were sent to rehabili-
tate the trailers, drills, engines, and other equipment and get them
into shape for the next winter's operation. Since work pads were not
put down to protect the permafrost, these crews usually spent the summer
working in the mud.
Snow roads generally were snow roads in name only. To build them,
cat operators usually pushed the snow out of the way, knocked the tops
off the tussocks, and sometimes filled in the holes with a little snow
dragged from the berms. If the job was rough, they often brought in a
grader to level the trail.
At our meetings with the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, we often
talked over these problems and wondered if there weren't better ways to
do things. One recommendation that came from these talks was that tracks
for seismic lines be staggered so the vegetation mat would not be com-
pacted and torn up as badly as when multiple passes were made on the same
track. There has to be one primary line where the charges are set off,
but most of the equipment can be run parallel to the primary line.
We also agreed that cats with blades should be kept off the North
Slope. Blades seem to have a strong affinity for the ground; the cats
can't seem to run with the blades up.
Placing airstrips on the lake or pond ice is ideal1 all the crews
have to do is push the snow off the ice and they have a nice level run-
way. our stipulations now prohibit setting camps on the ice, however.
Nothing except the runway is on the ice. Fuel and equipment storage is
pulled back onto the upland.
Most of our guidelines are just that--guidelines. We don't have
regulations for directing operators or for forcing them to operate in a
.proper manner. When industry comes to the BLM with a seismic operation
proposal, they file a Notice of Intent. This tells us in which town-
ships and ranges they want to operate. When we get the Notice of Intent,
we give industry guidelines that we recommend they use. The operators
are aware that if they follow these guidelines, they can operate with
little damage to the surface. The only enforcing action we can take at
this time is trespass action.
I should like to emphasize that our success on the Slope and in other
areas would not have been possible without good working relationships with
72
.. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the Alaska oil and Gas Association and the geophysical operators. A
number of our guidelines have come from the Association staff.
A typical present-day well location is shown [on the slide). The
BLM and USGS operate jointly on well locations, and these days, gravel
pads are used. Right now, gravel is the cheapest material to use for
insulating the surface to prevent heat transfer from the rig to perma-
frost. Gravel leaves a smooth surface and is easily policed after the
operators leave. It may become more expensive, however, and we may
need to find other ways to insulate the surface •
We are going to need more cooperation and be stricter with regula-
tions if we are to continue geophysical operations and protect the land.
Industry and government have made good strides in the past. I hope we
can continue to work together so we can keep the North Slope and the
rest of Alaska looking the way they should •
73
Seismic Activity in a Northern Environment--
Winter Operation
Lonnie o. Brooks
ABSTRACT
Thirty years of experience in winter seismic work in the Arctic
have taught the geophysical industry many lessons about the non-
destructive use of the land in the northern environment. Equipment
and procedures have evolved with a view not only toward increased
efficiency, productivity, safety, and quality, but also toward
protection of the environment.
The geophysicist with his crew of men and machines is part of the
leading edge of the petroleum industry's thrust into a new petroleum pro-
vince. Drilling for oil is expensive. About three years ago Imperial
Oil Limited, the Canadian affiliate of Exxon, drilled a well in the
Mackenzie River delta of the Northwest Territories, an area much like
Alaska's North Slope. By the time the hole was completed, including pre-
paration of the surface, the well cost Imperial a reported $10 million in
direct cost. That particular well was nonproductive. That is a cost of
which all of us bear some part. The task given to the geophysicist is to
reduce the risk involved that leads to that needless expense.
The seismic method is only one of many tools available to the geo-
physicist in accomplishing this task. But it is the most widely used, is
the one involving the most persons, and thus, is. the one most likely to
be encountered by people outside the industry and to have an impact on the
environment.
74
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
As far as Alaska's Arctic is concerned, geophysical work started
on NPR-4 in 1944, in the waning years of World War II when the country
was searching for secure sources of petroleum to support the war effort •
For about 30 years since then, the seismic industry has been more or
less continuously involved in searching for new reserves.
Most of the work in the Arctic has been done during the winter,
because that is the time when it is easiest to move around up there. It
is also the time when the ground is frozen solid and the least susceptible
to disturbance. In the picture on the screen! you see a typical winter
seismic camp parked during the summer on a raised gravel pad. It is
stored there ready and waiting to go to work when winter comes.
Many different types of vehicles have evolved during the industry's
30 years of arctic experience. Some have been developed for the indus-
try; others have been adopted from other industrial or recreational sour-
ces.
In
mounted
tracks.
supply •
this picture is an early tracked-type carrier with a seismic drill
on it. On this unit, steering was accomplished by turning the
This next picture shows another of this type, this one used for
Neither is in use any longer.
This is a snowmobile. It is a relatively . lightweight, fast~oving
vehicle, ideal for light cargo or personnel. It uses tracks for propul-
sion and weight distribution and front skis for steering. Tracks are not
separately braked for turning.
As the loads get bigger, the carrier and its running gear get bigger.
In the center of this picture is a drill mounted on a tracked carrier.
Vehicles like this evolved for purposes of mobility and ground protection;
the two goals are not incompatible.
This is a fairly recently developed flat track carrier with mounted
drill. The flat track seems to be a much better design environmentally,
with very little loss in towing traction.
Parallel with the development of new track systems, large rubber-
tire systems have been developed. Here is a picture showing an entire
crew's units mounted on wheels. These big tires are called Terra tires.
To give you an idea of the size of the tires, here's a shot of a man
kneeling by one, putting air in it. The tires are 4 feet wide and about
5 feet high.
!Because of printing limitations, color slides used by Mr. Brooks in his
seminar presentation are not reproduced here.
75
For fast, breezy mobility, the one-man open snowmobile is hard to
beat.
Camp transport has changed and is changing. One contractor's ver-
sion of the best method is illustrated here, although the sleigh runners
in the picture are narrower than the 12-inch-wide runners now in use.
At this point I should like to say a few words about our methods.
Seismology in its most widely used form does not give any indication
directly of the presence of oil or gas beneath the surface. What it
does do is give the interpreter an idea of what the rock structures are
like. This allows the geologist~-the exploration manager--to make an
educated guess based on previous experience of where petroleum has a
chance to accumulate. To reduce the risk in that guess, the accumulation
of as much data as possible is desired. Reconnaissance survey work usu-
ally involves straight-line traverses of from 20 to 70 miles in length,
with samples taken at intervals along that traverse with seismic waves.
The best method available for increasing the amount of data is to multiply
sampling. We now use 12-and even 24-fold methods. This multiplicity
has been accomplished without increasing the number of repetitive vehicle
passes. It has made crew size grow and camp size, as well. Crews now
are typically 40 to 50 persons and sometimes even more.
Continuing with the pictures, for very heavy loads this vehicle was
developed for the seismic industry. It is shown here in the manufactur-
er's test yard. It has six Terra tires for load distribution and non-
destructive traction.
This picture shows the vehicle with a drill mounted and a canvas
shroud enclosing it to protect men and equipment.
Procedurally, the camps are moved frequently--usually every day--to
keep vehicle traverses to the worksite to a minimum. This maximizes effi-
ciency and minimizes surface wear. Actual field techniques for the drill-
ing and loading of holes and for placement of recording instruments have
been designed to minimize the necessity for repetitive passes over·the
same ground while at the same time increasing the number of samples of
data from the same subsurface location that are extremely critical to the
high technology computer.
To sum up, the geophysical industry is continually working with regu-
latory agencies, its client oil companies, and its suppliers of equipment
to develop methods and equipment that are more efficient, more productive,
and less likely to damage the land. The goals of the regulatory agencies
do not have to be incompatible with those of the seismic industry.
76
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
Seismic Activity in a Northern Environment--
Summer Operation
J. L. Hudson
ABSTRACT
With the advent of low ground-bearing-pressure-tired vehicles,
land seismic activity in the summer months is now possible in many
parts of Alaska. For broad reconnaissance-type seismic programs,
the development of small portable recording systems offers hope
for man to utilize the more favorable summer months for mapping
under9round structures.
Until recently seismic activity on the delicate tundra was limited,
with few exceptions, to the months of the year when the ground was frozen.
Today with the advent of low ground-bearing-pressure-tired vehicles it is
possible, in some parts of Alaska, to conduct land seismic surveys during
the summer months with minimal disruptions to the tundra. A seismic sur-
vey was conducted in the Bethel Basin in the summer of 1974 utilizing all
low ground-bearing-pressure-tired vehicles.
In case some of you are wondering about this slide1 , this picture
was not taken in the Bethel Basin. I was unable to obtain the slides of
the summer's work in Bethel so the slides were borrowed from the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) •
1Because of printing limitations, slides used by Mr. Hudson in his seminar
presentation are not reproduced here.
17
This slide shows a Rolligon Model 660. I would like to call your
attention to the wheels of this model. They are 54 inches high and 68
inches wide. All the vehicles were designed so there was a ground-bearing
pressure of between 3 to 3-1/2 pounds per square inch. Some of the
vehicles were four-wheel drive, some were six-wheel; same were even
eight-wheel drive.
Generally, the equipment performed very well. There were a few
minor problems such as those associated with crossing small narrow
streams with sharp banks. Also, the center of gravity of the vehicles
was a little high, making it difficult to cross slopes at an angle.
The vehicles also encountered problems in brushy terrain because their
tires are vulnerable to brush. But in an area such as the Bethel Basin,
the equipment worked well.
Disturbance to the surface was minor. The work was monitored closely
by the BLM throughout the area. In low-lying areas the tall grass was
laid down as the tires ran over it. The grass did not immediately spring
back, and from the air, it appeared that surface damage had occurred.
After a period of time, however, the grass did spring back.
It is important to note that to prevent rutting in these low-lying
areas, the vehicles did not follow one another or make repeated passes.
Early in the 1975 summer, this area was inspected from the air and
the only notable difference was that the grass seemed greener in the
vehicle paths.
This slide was taken in the Bethel Basin in the spring of 1974. This
is the conventional Terra tire which, in this instance, is 42 inches wide.
This was sufficient to give the vehicle good flotation. In the next two
slides you will see some tracks that were left by this Terra tire. It
was before spring breakup and there was a light snow on the ground. The
next picture was taken during spring breakup and the only tracks you see
are the cleat marks •
The Bethel Basin is a large flat stretch of land lying in the west-
ern part of the State. The soil is such that the pennafrost has much
less ice than that on the North Slope and as a result very little erosion
occurs.
An interesting discovery during the summer's work was that the tun-
dra has remarkable ability to heal itself. An exploratory well was
drilled in 1961 and a rig was set up. Conventional 18-inch wide Rice
& Cane tires mounted on industrial tractors were used to haul supplies
2 miles over land to the project. Yqu can imagine the ruts that were
caused at that time. Today, although you can see the scars, the tundra
has healed.
This is where the boat and barge offload the supplies to be taken
78
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
by tractor tb the rig location. The next two pictures are from the rig
location. You will notice there that the tundra has grown back over
the ruts, and you cannot detect any disturbance from the air except the
ruts. This shows a view from the rig at a different angle .
In Alaska many basins have never been surveyed by the seismograph.
A broad reconnaissance-type seismic program would determine if further
exploration work is warranted in these unsurveyed basins. A highly
portable seismic crew could accomplish this reconnaissance.
Today, industry has 24-channel instrument systems that weigh approx-
imately 150 pounds and occupy about the same space as five ordinary
suitcases. A small backpack portable auger drill has been utilized
successfully to drill holes for explosives in many inaccessible parts
of the United States. All the equipment needed to conduct a survey
would go into a Bell 205 helicopter. You must keep in mind that an
operation such as this would be for reconnaissance only •
As more onshore areas of Alaska open for development there will be
places where other special skills or equipment are required. Given the
proper economic environment, industry will find a way to do the job with
minimum disruption to the surface •
79
Vehicles and Roads for Petroleum Exploration
Mickey L. Sexton
ABSTRACT
To meet transportation needs for North Slope petroleum exploration
where inadequate or no road systems exist, specialized load-
carrying equipment has been developed. Each vehicle type has
unique advantages and limitations and is used where travel needs
are small. For heavier use, snow roads are built.
The search for petroleum resources often requires heavy equipment
transport and travel within areas of Alaska where no road systems exist.
Existing roads may not lie in a direction that meets the rigid require-
ments of today's sophisticated exploration techniques.
To solve the problem of moving equipment within roadless areas and
to prevent excessive environmental damage, the transportation industry,
with cooperation from permitting agencies and the petroleum industry,
has developed specialized load-carrying equipment. These include air-
cushion vehicles, track-mounted carriers, and trucklike vehicles which
ride on large air bags. Each has unique advantages for traveling in such
problem areas as marshy, wet, or bog~ terrain, deep powderlike snow, or
permafrost overlain with a thin, protective tundra layer.
Vehicles such as these typically are used only when a limited amount
of travel along a route is needed. When a greater amount of traffic is
anticipated along a route, it may become necessary to construct a tempor-
ary road. In the Prudhoe Bay area this is done only in the winter, when
80
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ice roads are built over which conventional trucks and equipment can
travel.
A hovercraft was used in 1969-70 for a variety of test functions,
including hauling drill pipe from Prudhoe Bay to Nora Federal No. 1
and supporting a seismic crew on the ice in Prudhoe Bay. These tests
showed that while air-cushion vehicles can be used for transportation
on the North Slope, there are certainly definite limitations to their
useful operation.
In 1970-71 a vehicle called "Twister" was brought to Prudhoe Bay
by Lockheed. This was a prototype vehicle, which can be described
briefly as an eight-wheel-drive, articulated super dune buggy. It,
too, had use limitations. A larger version of Twister is now marketed,
however.
In the summers of 1971, 1972, and 1973, a Tundra Cleanup Program
was funded and operated by the oil industry. In 1971 two "Albee" rolli-
gons were used for this program, and in 1972 and 1973 two Bechtel RD 85
rolligons were used. Purpose of the program was twofold: first, to
remove some of the litter left by previous seismic activity; second, to
test the effect of summer travel on the tundra. Annual observations show
that tracks made during the cleanup program have largely disappeared.
Today's winter road construction technique consists of filling low
spots in the tundra with snow and spraying water on it to make a smooth
driving surface. Motor graders and steel drags are used to pull snow
onto the intended road surface, where multiple passes with steel drags
and water trucks help make a frozen road surface that is surprisingly
smooth. An important advantage with this technique is that no berms are
built on the road edges; therefore, blowing snow does not create drift-
ing problems.
With continued cooperation between permitting agencies and public
domain users, we can continue to convert natural resources to products
essential to our American way of life, enjoy our personal recreational
preferences, and leave some reso~ces for future generations.
81
Problems and Nonproblems of Surface Disturbance
in Mineral Prospecting
c. c. Hawley
ABSTRACT
Several techniques of modern mineral exploration are carried out
almost entirely without adverse surface impact, and perhaps only
need to be pointed out for the record. Most preliminary explora-
tion in Alaska is supported by helicopter, fixed-wing aircraft,
and boats, operated either from completely portable fly camps or
from lodges. The techniques of preliminary exploration--geologic
mapping, geochemistry, and electrical geophysics--involve, at most,
disturbance of the surface by shovel or hand auger.
Secondary exploration activities cause slight damage, which can
often be alleviated by good logistics. In summertime, drills and
equipment are most often airlifted to the prospect site, and in
winter, use of both cats and Nodwell-type vehicles allows move-
ment of equipment, camps, and crews with minimum surface disturb-
ance.
What then are the problem areas? One is the necessity of using
heavy equipment in secondary prospecting and development, and re-
lated to it, the process of moving the equipment to the prospect-
ing site. Other problems, such as removal of overburden, are
characteristic of placer mining. In part this problem is real,
but in many small streams damage is inconsequential, and in others,
removal of muck--by whatever means--can be beneficial to the en-
vironment.
82
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recognizing.that m1n1ng is a surface-disturbing industry, it is
possible that many problems of surface misuse could be alleviated
by research, education, and enforcement of mining laws.
Specific examples of possible solutions to problems are the use
of backhoes and powder rather than bulldozers for trenching, win-
tertime excavation of placer overburden, and possible extension
of the prudent man concept to mine access.
In general I don't believe that my assigned topic--surface damage in
prospecting--is a large problem, but it does have problem areas that are
worthy of discussion.
It is often difficult to get to gut issues in a conference like this,
but we might as well try to get to real problems like economy vs. ecology,
the role of the BLM, revision of the mining law, and miners running amuck
with cats on d-2 lands.
In general, I will suggest that some surface damage problems can be
lessened by a combination of things, including education, modification and
enforcement of laws, and research. But at the same time I will try to con-
vince you that you are going to have to face surface damage on a few square
miles in Alaska.
To set the stage for discussion of both problems and nonproblems, we
can review the process that is involved in finding and developing a mine,
at the same time examining surface impacts in various stages of this pro-
cess and possible remedies. Each of the major stages can be divided to
examine areas of surface disturbance.
Exploration--as used here--is the search for indications of signifi-
cant mineralization. In current practice in Alaska, it involves geochem-
ical sampling or panning, reconnaissance mapping, and sometimes airborne
geophysics. Most of the work is done without equipment other than a
geologist's pick, and access is usually by aircraft and foot. There is
almost no surface damage.
If significant indications of mineralization a+e found, a decision
may be reached to stake claims. Staking is not particularly surface dam-
aging, but brushing and clearing lines have been overdone in some instan-
ces, leaving temporary unsightly cuts. In most major staking programs,
brushing requirements are not met strictly. Most staking is done by end
line system which sets all corners up without brushing side lines, and
lines are run tight.
In many cases, the lines are used in the mapping or evaluation pro-
cess, but in most cases, a larger claim size tied to a protraction system
would be more efficient. For those of you familiar with the language of
both federal and state mining law, notice some short cuts. Most important
is really that a prediscovery system is being used. Claims are staked on
83
AREA USED STAGE SURFACE DAMAGE REMEDY
(aocees) -
Geometri ca 1
decrease EXPLORATION VERY MINOR MINING LAW
(Mainly airborne)
PROSPECTING MINOR TO MODERATE MINING LAW
Equipment use and EDUCATION
surface damage increase . RESEARCH
throughout this period. (Air and ground)
DEVELOPMENT MODERATE TO SEVERE EDUCATION
RESEARCH
(Air and ground)
j
Suzoface damage at three stages of mining deve 'Lopment and some l"emedies.
• • • • • • • • • • •
the basis of general evidence of mineralization, rather than a discovery
per claim.
Prospecting .follows. During this stage an attempt is made to vali-
date the claims by making discoveries. The process involves detailed
geologic mapping, geochemistry, and electrical geophysics with hand
tools. Generally, some surface is disturbed, with cuts or trenches and
shallow drill holes.
Although new mineralization may be found during the process and
further land acquired, the actual area used may shrink. Surface disturb-
ance is minimized by dominant air access, use of self-contained small
pneumatic drills, like the Cobra. Experience has shown that in ground
with little overburden, trenches with smaller surface area can be made
by blasting or backhoe rather than by cat, and blasted trenches need no
machine access but do require more hand work.
Alaska law has no claim validation requirement, so the practice
found in other states of making random cuts on all claims and calling
them discovery cuts does not take place. In general, it is not a problem
here.
Minor modifications in law specifying that geophysics or drill holes
could be used for discovery might stop some surface damage--as would
better education into the use of trenching powder.
In the prospecting stage, most access can still be by air, and if
cats are necessary, damage can be alleviated by using winter access or
following ridge tops. Here education and diplomacy can produce positive
results.
If these preliminary and general minor damaging studies are success-
ful, the stage is set for more advanced prospecting with larger drills,
bulldozers, and underground excavation.
There are cases where enforcement of mining law, or at least the
possibility of enforcement.can prevent needless surface damage, yet not
hinder a serious prospector. An example might be in so-called discovery
cuts which are really not put in to find minerals, but as window dress-
ing. The BLM has made the point, and doubtless with good reason, that
litigation is extremely expensive, but the examination of prospects on
a regular basis by BLM examiners, with the possibility of enforcement in
the background, should be sufficient in many cases to improve explora-
tion practice.
It is possible to transport the largest diamond drills being used
in Alaska to the drill sites with helicopters, but at about this stage,
heavy equipment helps, and prospect roads are commonly made. With few
exceptions, these are limited to the best of the claim areas. Semiper-
manent camps are a minor surface use here.
85
Forest Service regulations call for a prospecting plan to be made
and approved before work can proceed. This requires bonding and may
prove detrimental to the small operator. Industry has had little exper-
ience with these regulations, but in general they do not seem to inter-
fere with the serious prospector although in most forest areas, examples
of what appear to be arbitrary interpretations and exclusions have been
reported from highly scenic areas.
If the results of this stage are favorable, the next stage will be
the attempt to develop the mine. Except for placer mining in Alaska,
this stage has not been reached for a large mine since the early 1900's.
From placer mining, surface damage will occur. Some could be alle-
viated by research, and many placered lands are fairly easily reclaimed,
either at the time of operation or at a future point when economics make
the land valuable for other purposes. Although some people think that
dredge tailings are unsightly, those in the Fairbanks area are now gen-
erally free from permafrost and can be used for many purposes.
A major problem that does need research is removal of frozen muck
or overburden. Because of its extremely fine grain size, the material
is almost impossible to dewater if thawed or to get settling in a reason-
able distance.
At least two miners have had success with blasting and cat removal
of ice-rich permafrost. The material is drilled with rotary holes on a
pattern and blasted toward a free face. The ice material can then be
dozed behind temporary dams. Perhaps ripping and blast breaking of other
types of frozen overburden could be carried out in winter with heavy
equipment. Then the material could be transported by truck to sites
where it would not enter drainage systems when thawed. The system would
use more equipment and is several times more expensive than hydraulicking,
but perhaps could be economic in very large operations.
It should also be pointed out that in many creeks, conventional
hydraulicking still can be used without appreciable damage. Recent ex-
perience in the Yukon Territory, where placer mining is regulated, shows
that check dams used in narrow stream valleys are counter productive,
and at best only temporarily impound materials. In these cases, it
appears that flushing silt down at a rate that can be handled by the
larger streams is actually the best practice, even though it does produce
temporary downstream siltation.
While we are on placer mining, we might as well talk about Kantishna.
One of the main road-building flaps is there--terrible land destruction
in a sacred d-2 area. But that is not what's terrible. The fact is that
Kantishna is a mining district and could be an important one. The problem
is in putting it in d-2 land in the first place. In my work for the u. s.
Geological survey, I learned just what National Park Service attitudes on
minerals are. Rather than excluding mineral areas from parks or monuments,
86
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the policy has been and is to include them so they can't be exploited.
This same policy has been followed on d-2 lands in Alaska.
Mount McKinley National Park includes one mineral belt which essen-
tially bisects the park1 it is flanked on the north and south, respect-
ively, by the Stampede-Kantishna and Chulitna-Yentna mineral belts.
~ike all mineral belts, these are not uniformly mineralized, and it is
possible to select areas with outstanding scenery or wildlife values
which could be added without including minerals, but that has not been
the policy.
I believe the National Park Service policy at least potentially
causes increased surface damage by its effects on who mines there. The
restrictiveness of National Park Service policies has essentially limited
activities to previous owners of ground and to inexperienced operators
who believe that their rights to mine actually mean something. Larger
mining companies with expertise and capital for land protection know that
there are no important mines in those National Park areas supposedly
open, so they generally avoid them like the plague. Perhaps I am~ malign-
ing the parties who built the Kantishna road, but it is very likely that
they were not very experienced--either at mining or at road building.
There are other road problems. Here is one suggestion. If roads
are a real problem, why not try to extend "the prudent man" doctrine to
access? This concept has been one of the main bases of validity of min-
ing claims. Discoveries have been held valid if they were sufficiently
good that a "prudent man" would expend efforts to further develop them
into paying mines. It used to be common practice in the lower 48 ~or
speculative mining companies to build a mill before trying to prove ore
reserves; in almost all cases I have seen, the mine failed for lack of
reserves--surely an indication that a prudent man was not around when
the plans were made. Does a prudent man build a 50-mile road before going
to the considerable expense to prove reserves?
The typical attitude of BLM is that it does not have the manpower to
tackle all the violations, but it should have the manpower to try for
significant decisions which can be publicized.
I would like to go back to the outline. Although Alaska hard rock
properties have not really gotten to the mining stage, some are close.
We will accept the facts that actual large-scale mining does major damage
to surface and that quite a bit of damage can be alleviated and land
reclaimed. But much damage cannot be totally eliminated. A partial solu-
tion is to reemphasize underground mining, but this demands much more
research in order to regain economic feasibility, and it cannot be a
total solution because it will not apply to many large low grade deposits
lying near the surface. A major problem is ignorance--first, ignorance
of the populace of how little land mining actually disturbs; second, lack
of knowledge of the dependence of our economy on mineral products.
87
First some figures on land use. On a country-wide scale, all mineral
extraction activities, including oil and gas, sand and gravel, and all
nonmetallic, metallic minerals, use about 0.2 percent of the surface at
any one time. In two so-called mining states, for comparison, metal
mining uses l/7 of 1 percent of Arizona land, and in Idaho phosphate and
metal mininq together use less than .01 percent of the land's surface.
The fact is that mineral resources are extremely concentrated, and surface
disturbance, though major, is not important areally.
If we use country-wide statistics in Alaska, we could assume that at
any one time about 750 thousand acres out of 375 million acres would be
used. Actually, since most of the u. S. figure is based on urban area
use of sand-gravel and other construction material, the true figure would
be more like 75 thousand acres, or 0.02 percent of all Alaskan land. Al-
most certainly the land used for mining purposes over the next hundred
years in Alaska will be much less than land now disturbed in the immediate
Anchorage area.
If there is a problem, it is mainly in the eye of the beholder. In
terms of land use, mining is nothing. Agriculture uses over 50 percent,
commercial forests about 25 to 30 percent, urban impacted land some 12 per-
cent. Parks and refuges use at least 5 percent. Where is mining?
Our standard of living depends on production of about 40 thousand
pounds of mineral products per year per individual. Even if you are will-
ing to cut back on your standard of living by 50 percent, population is
still climbing drastically, and extreme and rapid tinkering with the
standard of living just isn't going to be tolerated by the electorate.
We've seen just how much people are willing to cut back on energy withou~
coercion, so imposed cuts on the standard of living may only serve to
hasten the day when an impoverished populace demands dictatorial rather
than democratic solutions.
Two laws are pertinent to today's discussion: one is the federal
mining law; the second is a BLM Organic Act. The Mining Law of 1872
widely denounced as an antique law not suitable for today's reality.
could a law more than 100 years old be adequate in 1976?
is
How
First of all, a law--any law--is not just the initial statute. It
is this, plus all the case law which has been applied, plus the regula-
tions, plus enforcement or lack of it. So, in reality, the law has
been updated by evolution over 100 years. As currently enforced, it
allows pre-discovery rights: it assumes vertical boundaries rather than
apex. Although most miners do not assume property rights without mining
potential, the law has not changed enough to suit its critics in its
emphasis on the freedom of the individual, both in what he does on his
claims and how he gets there and transports ore. Evidently, there are
many here who believe that surface damage is more important than individ-
ual freedom. I would join in denouncing irresponsible and ignorant
individuals who needlessly damage the surface, but I would prefer some
88
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
damage to the complete loss of individual freedom which is contemplated
in most proposed revisions of the mining law.
The Northwest Mining Association has made a series of recommenda-
tions, which preserve the spirit of the 1872 act, but correct some of
its deficiencies. These suggestions include the following:
"CLEAR the title of public domain lands of long-dormant and
abandoned claims.
"RECOGNIZE the validity of the right of secure title to the min-
erals based upon the fact that a mineral explorer is prepared
to expend substantial effort and funds in exploration and devel-
opment of a mineral property.
"PROVIDE for the Act of Location of a mineral claim to be per-
formed in an appropriate Federal Land Office.
"REQUIRE the conformance of claim locations to the legal sub-
divisions of Public Land Surveys.
"ELIMINATE the distinction between lode and placer claims.
"PROVIDE for flexibility in the size of claims and increase the
maximum size of claims to meet the requirements of modern ex-
ploration and mining methods.
"MAINTAIN extra-lateral rights on existing claims.
"CONFINE mineral rights to within the vertical boundaries of
claims located in the future •
"ALLOW for offsetting credits for excess annual assessment work
expenditures to be applied to succeeding years.
"PROVIDE for optional payments in lieu of work performance for
a limited number of years.
"REQUIRE that the burden of proof for the performance of assess-
ment work be that of the mine claimant.
"AVOID adding redundant provisions within the m1.n1.ng law per-
taining to laws and regulations already applicable to the mining
industry.
"TAKE into consideration the economic aspects of maximizing the
recovery and utilization of mineral resources.
"PRCYI'ECT the opportunity of the individual and small miner to
competitively participate in the future of the mineral industry.
89
"SUPPORT the continued role of private enterprise in national
mineral resource developnents."
Most industries today find themselves in the position of being damned
if they do or if they don't. If rev~s~ons are reasonable, they will be
supported; if not, they can only be opposed.
The same problem exists in the BLM Organic Act. One version of a
BLM Organic Act eliminated the Mining Law of 1872 and substituted a com-
petitive leasing provision within the Organic Act. Even though most of
us would agree that BLM should control surface use, we cannot support this
legislation.
In the last few years, all of us have learned about ecology, and the
principle that environment and life are interrelated; we have learned
that ecosystems are a natural entity. Now I believe that it is time to
remind some of another word which uses the same Greek root--oikos. The
word is economy, and in this sense "THE ECONOMY," which could be defined
as the economic structure of a country. Just as changes in environment
lead to changes in life, changes in any segment of the economy affect the
body as a whole.
People in high-risk industries or polluting industries like mining
estimate that the sum of all the new laws like NEPA, OSHA has increased
the cost of doing business by well over 50 percent. Further, it has cut
their productivity significantly and added to an already overloaded bureau-
cracy. This escalation of costs just cannot continue without the death
of our economic system.
I believe the evidence of the last few years is that industry will
consider environment--now may we have the return compliment from you?
90
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Military Maneuvers and Surface Disturbance
LTC Dennis L. Engen
ABSTRACT
The u. S. Army attempts in many ways to reduce surface damage dur-
ing maneuvers. Wheeled vehicles are confined as much as possible
to roads. Soldiers are trained to travel long distances on foot
in summer and on skis and snowshoes in winter. They also are in-
structed in ways to avoid damaging the environment. Helicopter
use helps reduce surface damage; weapon emplacements and fighting
positions are built up from the ground rather than dug in. Waste
is hauled out instead of dumped. During military exercises, oper-
ations are confined within designated areas, and airfields are
named neutral zones to serve as common refueling points and confine
oil spills. Considerable effort is made to coordinate with federal,
state, and local governments, Native corporations, and individuals
for land use. on some exercises, the Army has been able to improve
areas by removing trash.
On behalf of the l72d Brigade, I want to thank you for the chance to
tell you about some of the things we are doing to lessen the effects of
military maneuvers on our environment in Alaska.
Many of you have been in the Army, and you know that the practice
of marking off the maneuver area by painting rocks is a very traumatic
thing to some people. I've painted my share of rocks in my day and real-
ize it is a sore point for the dedicated natural rock fancier. Just to
91
set your minds at ease, we've quit painting rocks and outlining our
area when we go into the field. I've noticed, though, driving down Turn-
again Arm, that such sentiments as "John loves Mary" and "Class of '74"
are painted on the rocks, but I think that eventually, those too will
be corrected.
Seriously, the Army has made great strides in minimizing maneuver
damage. Like everyone else, we've got a long way to go but I think
we've made some significant progress.
When we think of military maneuvers, most of us visualize tanks
and armored personnel carriers knocking down trees and generally tearing
up the countryside. As shown on this slide1 we don't have tanks or
armored personnel carriers. This has not always been true. In the past
both tanks and armored carriers were used in the active Army. Now, our
use of wheeled vehicles is limited as much as possible to the existing
road network.
As you probably know from reading the newspapers, strong emphasis
is being placed on the physical conditioning of our soldiers. We aim
primarily toward developing soldiers to a standard so they can cover
long distances on foot in summer and on skis and snowshoes in winter.
A significant benefit is that we minimize the effect on the terrain when
we move by foot.
This slide shows the means by which we move troops in Alaska. Heli-
copters are extensively used for a wide variety of operations, such as
combat assaults, reconnaissance, resupply, moving of artillery, and com-
mand and control. Fortunately, they have little effect on the terrain.
I think probably the most obnoxious and most irritating problem with
helicopters, especially Hueys, is that they make so much noise.
Using helicopters saves us from damaging the terrain when we move
artillery into place. In addition, we sandbag the weapons to keep from
having to dig them in. As any of you old artillery men know, if we dug
in these artillery pieces as we should, we would tear up a lot of real
estate. Instead, we use sandbags and keep from cutting up the ground.
When infantry troops move into an area, their fighting positions are
built from the ground up. Tactically, this is not too good a practice1
however, it does eliminate the need for us to dig a lot of holes in the
hills all around Alaska.
Cutting trees or any other vegetation is prohibited. The soldiers
can use deadfall as long as they dismantle the position before moving out
of the area.
lsecause of printing limitations, color slides used by LTC Engen in his
seminar presentation are not reproduced here.
92
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
While occupying field positions, we take elaborate precautions to
protect the terrain. As you see on this slide, garbage, which attracts
a lot of animals, is disposed of by hauling it out in plastic bags in
summertime. In winter, we use double-lined heavy paper sacks. Ordin-
arily, dishwater and cooking water aren't much of a problem, but when
you're cooking and washing dishes for 200 troops, water disposal can
be a significant problem. We used to dump the waste water on the rocks
or into streams, but this attracts just as many wild animals and.dis-
turbs game just as much as if we left garbage lying on the ground. Now,
we backhaul the dishwater and cooking water as well as the garbage.
When you have a large number of troops in the field, this helps signif-
icantly to reduce disturbance of the local environment.
On the next slide, we show the Jack Frost exercise presently under
way. As you see, the area from Galena all the way to Big Delta is roughly
400 miles. To cut down on problems in the vicinity of Galena, Tanana,
and Nenana, we have confined objectives for the troops to a 10-mile
radius around these locations. Within these 10-mile radii is a lot of
land that we are not at liberty to use, so we are not really taking a big
swath all the way from Galena to Big Delta, but are limiting activities
to the land within these circles and to other areas that we have permis-
sion to use.
Another step we've taken in the Jack Frost exercise is to designate
the primary airfields as neutral zones. This enables us to have a common
refueling point for the good guys and the bad guys. We don't end up with
two refueling points in one area where we're likely to have oil spills
or other fuel spills.
A lot of legwork is needed in coordinating with the federal, state,
and city governments, the Native corporations, and individuals for use
of land during military exercises. We have been most appreciative of the
assistance we have had from the civilian community in getting maneuver
permits for this exercise.
To provide guidance for our soldiers, we have put out little infor-
mation booklets. Here are some guidelines from these booklets:
• Avoid aerial harassment of game •
• Avoid moose yarding areas, caribou herds, and beaver houses •
• Avoid traveling in clear-water streambeds •
• Avoid use of pyrotechnics •
• Don't cut live trees.
The 172d Infantry Brigade makes every effort not only to prevent
damage to the land but to improve it and leave it in better condition
93
than it was when we entered it.
As an example, last summer our artillery battalion hiked the Resur-
rection Trail. This provided an excellent opportunity to police up
trash and garbage that had been left along the trail. The amount that
they cleaned up there was significant.
During the 1974-75 period, we had a mission to provide a high-
altitude rescue team for emergency and contingency plans on Mount Mc-
Kinley. I think it's significant that we removed more than 2,000 pounds
of trash during that exercise on the side of the mountain. I think we
made it a better place.
The last slide shows the Eklutna area. Some of you know we train
in the Eklutna Glacier area where we have a little land. In return for
the many favors that we've gotten from the Park Service and other civil-
ian organizations, we maintain the seven miles of road leading back
toward the glacier. I'm sure that many of you have driven that road.
In October, we sent 200 troops out and policed around the entire shore
of Eklutna Lake.
In summary, we of the 172d Brigade want to do all we can to improve
our methods of protecting the environment by educating our soldiers and
placing emphasis on elimination of damage from maneuvers. Our stake in
this is extremely high since we must have continued access to these lands
if we are to train our soldiers adequately for defense of our land. One
way we feel that access can be assured is by being good neighbors and
making every effort to protect the beauty of the land and to make it a
better place for all.
94
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ABSTRACT
Transportation during Exploration of
• Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4
John F. Schindler
During early development of PET 4, tractors proved to be the most
effective freight movers. They were the principal hauling elements
of the winter cat· trains. It was found that as much hauling as
possible should be done over the ice of the ocean, lagoons, and
lakes, or parallel to streams. Cross-drainage hauling was iilfin-
itely more difficult because of the rough terrain and the hazards
of the low-cut banks of rivers and streams that would stop or delay
the tractors and sleds. ·
The logistics of transportation of workers, supplies, and equipment
was the major problem, and its solutions the most valuable lesson
learned in the early exploration of PET 4.
The history of Petroleum Reserve No. Four (PET 4) is really a descrip-
tion of a learning process--the gaining of experience and knowledge of
arctic operations by the United States military and subsequently by United
States industry. Prior to this effort, there had been little movement of
heavy equipment and supplies overland for any distance in the Arctic. Pre-
vious travel had always been by dog team and sled, and the loads carried
were, consequently, light. Any heavy loads were not moved far from the
coast or the rivers, as water transport in the brief sUDmer was the only •
feasible method •
The first white man to see a portion of the Reserve was capt. James
95
Cook in 1778, but he barely set foot ashore. The surveys of Capt. F. w.
Beechey, Master Thomas Nelson, Mate William Smyth, and Sir John Franklin,
all of the Royal Navy, as well as Peter w. Dease and Thomas Simpson,
Hudson's Bay Company officers, in the 1820's and 1830's also were essen-
tially sea borne. The first "overland" or inland trip was made by Ens.
(later Rear Adm.) William L. Howard in 1886. He traveled from the
Noatak area to the valley of the"Colville, then to the Chipp River by
sled and dog team in April and May. The trip to Barrow was completed
by skin boat. Almost all subsequent surveys, including those of the
geologic parties in the early days of exploration, were done this same
way--by dog team and/or by riverboat. This was the status of knowledge
of arctic transportation in the winter of 1943-44 when plans to explore
the Reserve were being made.
We must also remember that the United States was engaged in World
war II and patriotic fervor was at a peak. Every avenue for victory was
to be explored and exploited. On February 5, 1944, the Director of Naval
Petroleum Reserve (Rear Adm. Stuart) initiated action with a memo to
the Secretary of the Navy proposing further exploration of PET 4.
The bureaucracy worked admirably and efficiently in those days.
Within 40 days after the first memo was sent, the Secretaries of Navy
and the Interior, the Attorney General, the War Department, and the Naval
Affairs Committees of the House and Senate all agreed and authorized the
program. Preliminary reconnaissance was undertaken on March 21, 1944,
and further action was to be based on that first report.
The first reconnaissance was by bush aircraft and was quite limited.
Inclement weather kept the airplane in Barrow a good deal of the time so
the recommendations of Charles D. Brower played an important role in the
report. (Brower was a whaler and trader for the Cape Smyth Whaling and
Trading Co., lived in Point Barrow for 61 years, and often was called
King of the North.) The report was made a month later, and although there
was a brief period of uncertainty, decisions were made rather quickly and
procurement began. I am reiterating the schedule in this talk to empha-
size how little time there was to plan and consider the logistics problems
to be faced in an entirely new area. This short time for procurement and
the subsequent "full speed ahead" philosophy had a strong influence on
the attitude of the expedition party.
The original cargo estimate .was 5,000 tons, but it actually totaled
13,338 tons plus 196 Seabees and 235 stevedores. The first BAREX (later
called Barrow Expeditions) left Tacoma on July 20, rounded Point Barrow
on August 5, and reached Cape Simpson on August 6, 1944. For four days
the crew searched for a suitable landing beach and campsite near the oil
seeps, but finally gave up and returned to Barrow, the second choice for
a camp.
On August 12 the unloading began, and in spite of storms and high
96
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
. winds was just about completed by August 30. It is interesting to. note
that on August 30 one ship commander, thinking a hurried departure was
necessary because of closing ice, ordered the stevedore units back to the
ship. One unit of 66 officers and men didn't make it and was left
stranded. Fortunately, a civilian ship, the SS WaiEio of the Matson Co.,
came north at Governor Gruening's urging to deliver supplies to the
Native village. The stevedore unit assisted in its unloading and returned
south aboard that ship. Again, this demonstrates the attitude of the
personnel of the expedition and their lack of knowledge and subsequent
uneasiness about the North.
The crews moved materials, equipment, and supplies, and built the
primitive camp that first summer, all, in essence, without leaving the
confines of the gravel beach. It is also interesting to note that one
of their first efforts was to assemble a drill rig and try to drill a
water well, again demonstrating lack of knowledge.
In September, work was started on a permanent airstrip north of the
camp. Tundra was used as a binding agent on the sand and gravel for the
strip that paralleled the beach. A cross strip was constructed by leaving
tundra intact and filling in the area between the hummocks. Fortunately,
no early landing planes broke through the crust of either strip and after
freezeup, both served remarkably well. By the end of 1944, the PET 4 camp
was well established and exploration was ready to proceed.
The 1945 season strongly set the pattern for logistics within the
Reserve for the Navy as well as later for industry. By late 1944, it had
become apparent that one of the major tasks of PET 4 was to find some
means of freighting large tonnages many miles over the Reserve.
The tundra presented almost insurmountable difficulties to such oper-
ations in the summer. The profusion of lakes and streams made heavy haul-
ing extremely difficult, but the surface thawing of the frozen ground
posed the greatest problem. The crews soon learned that the tundra becomes
an untraversable quagmire if torn up by heavy motorized equipment. Some
trips were made in summer, especially by seismic crews, and the method
employed was devastating to the tundra. The lead tractor would drop its
blade and clear the thawed layer to the permafrost level. The sleds would
then travel on this base.
It was apparent by the beginning of 1945 that most heavy hauling
would have to be done in the winter. Preparations were begun, and wani-
gans for living quarters were mounted on bobsleds. Pipe sleds, called
Panecheks for the man who designed and built them, were made to supplement
the commercially designed Michler bobsled. A Panchek is a very heavy-
duty sled, with runners made of 6-to 8-inch drill pipe and a bed of
heavy timber held in an angle-iron frame. Athey wagons, a trailer arrange-
ment on tracks and bogies, were also employed.
The first sled trip was to Cape Simpson, 75 miles from Barrow, and
97
the tractor train started on January 22, 1945. It was quickly learned
that there were great advantages to freighting as much as possible over
ice rather than tundra. Travel was very bumpy because of ,the · rough
surface of the tundra, snow drifts, and the banks that had to be nego-
tiated at stream crossings. The sleds frequently burrowed deeply into
snow banks. As a first trial, two tractors (D-8's) were used to pull
five sleds each. This was found to be insufficient power, so the first
expedition was made using three tractors pulling a total of eight sleds,
four of which carried payloads. The other four were eating, sleeping,
and servicing wanigans.
The last half of the trip to Cape Simpson was over sea ice and was
so successful that the entire return trip was made over sea ice. Ice
travel was much smoother and easier hauling, although some difficulties
were encountered at thinly covered leads. With care in the nearshore
and lagoon areas, however, these leads could usually be circumvented.
The weasel (M29C) proved to be a useful vehicle for scouting ahead.
The performance of the tractors was excellent, as was that of the welded
pipe sleds and the Michler sleds. The Athey wagons had a great deal of
down time. Unfortunately for later generations, the first experience
showed that much rough travel and equipment wear and tear could be elim-
inated if a bulldozer blade was attached to the lead tractor. So trail
..
Fig. z.-Cat train Zed by D-8 Caterpil-Lar traator.with sn~w pl-ow
puZUng a wanigan on a MiahZer sl-eigh. Operator t.s aZeart.ng down
to tundra. Tractor traaks wiU Leave marks but Less sever~ marks
than when the top Layer of tundra is removed. (J. F. Saht.ndZer photo)
98
Pig. 2. 'l'he M29C Wease'L pel'sonne'L oan>iel' pu'LU.ng a 'Light 'Load.
This ~as the on'Ly 'Ligh~eight mechanised vehio'Le avai'Lab'Le at the
time of e:cp'Lozoation fol' ovel'-tundl'a/81101N pBl'Bonne'L tl'anspol'tation.
(~. P. Sohind'Lel' photo)
blazing often included knocking down hummock tops and other obstructions.
Fortunately, this was tough work and avoided as much as possible.
The first trip from Barrow to Cape Simpson and back took four and a
half days. On the second trip, the lead tractor (with the blade) hauled
only wanigans and followed the track of the first trip. As a result,
heavier loads could be hauled and the round trip was reduced to two and
a half days.
After this shakedown effort, the first long haul to Umiat was made.
This trip was important because everyone felt that unless it was success-
ful, the exploration program would not be feasible.
The route of the first Umiat freighting trip was Barrow to Cape
Simpson, up the Chipp River to the Ikpikpuk, up the east fork of the
Ikpikpuk to its head, and then 65 miles overland to Umiat. The last leg
was scouted by dog team because the scouts found the Weasel did not stand
up well to the rough terrain.
99
The first Umiat-bound cat train left Barrow on February 24 and going
was relatively easy to Cape Simpson. After Simpson, the river hauling
was much more difficult and slow. Deep snowbanks on the rivers gave much
trouble, as did sand bars hidden by snow. The narrow winding ice channel
was difficult to follow. The overland part of the trip was better than
expected because of careful scouting. The train made the trip to Umiat and
back (635 miles) in 22 days.
The second Umiat freighting expedition departed Barrow on March 28
and followed approximately the same route. The wind filled the bull-
dozed trail with snow within a few hours, but the windrow trace remained
for weeks. Several overland cutoffs were made, and although the round
trip was Shortened to 586 miles, it was found that the longer trail
over as much ice as possible saved wear and tear on the equipment and
required less time. The second and third trips required about 18 days
and the fourth and final trip, which went only one way, required eight
days. The final trail was 307 miles long (614 miles round trip) of which
58 miles were over sea ice, 176 miles over freshwater ice, and 73 miles
over tundra. The general pattern followed in hauling materials to such
sites was to take construction equipment first, then equipment for rig-
ging up, and finally, drilling equipment. Two crews alternated six
hours on and six hours off. Meals were served every six hours.
During the summer of 1945 both of the nation's major World War II
enemies were defeated, and an item of high priority became the discharge
of men eligible for release. It became apparent that continuation of
PET 4 would be possible only by converting the exploration program to a
civilian contractor operation. A letter of intent was written December
17, 1945, which allowed a consortium called Arctic Contractors to set up
its organization to continue the job.
A great amount of winter freighting was done in the years through
1952 but with little change in method. The operation was closed in 1953.
The major difference between the Seabee operation and that of the civil-
ian contractors was the choosing of a new route to Umiat. Justified on
the experience that sea ice hauling was easiest, a route was chosen from
Barrow via the Arctic Ocean to Teshekpuk Lake, across the lake to the
mouth of the Colville River, and up the Colville to Umiat. The scouting
was done by an Eskimo guide and two men in a weasel. Another innovation
forced by the increased program and a lack of equipment was the use of
trucks for the haul to Simpson. This was reasonably successful although
the maintenance cost was high. Tracto~ haul was still the preferred
method.
Overland freighting in the early days of PET 4 was done with the
following equipment.
1. Tractor type --The D-8 Caterpillar, often with cleats, cut
into the tracks to keep tJle equ:!,.pment from sl:ipping down
inclines. Another modification was the replacement of the
100
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
upper track rollers with blocks of oak to carry the track
and reduce clogging of the track with snow.
2. The Panechek sled --The welded pipe sled made at Barrow
with the large timber bed set on an angle-iron frame.
3. The Michler sled --The commercially available bobsled, good
for deep snow conditions.
4. Athey wagon --The commercially available trailer wagon .
. which traveled on a short track and bogie arrangement.
Because of the high cost of track maintenance and frequent
breakdowns, the wagon was used mostly in and around estab-
lished camps •
5. The M29C Weasel personnel carrier --Although this vehi-
cle had two weak points--the transmission and tracks--with
caution it served admirably over long trips. The 1.8 psi
ground pressure of its tracks left minimal scars, and it
was the only acceptable mechanized vehicle available at the
time. The easel was originally designed and built for the
invasion of Normandy and was to be used only for the ini-
tial push inland of about 100 miles. The original vehicles
had no provision for oil change.
6. Where roadbeds that could support trucks and jeeps were
maintained, wheeled vehicles had important use--limited
mainly to established camps such as Barrow and Umiat.
101
•
•
•
•
session three
-------------------------------------------------------------· CHAIRMAN: Richard H. Leoosquet, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Fairbanks District Office
Fairbanks, Alaska
SURFACE DISTURBANCE--continued
Effects of Industrial Development on Surface--Access
to and for developments
Access and effects of oil and gas development on
Kenai National Moose Range lands • • • • • • • •
Robert A. Richey, Assistant Refuge Manager
Kenai National Moose Range
u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kenai, Alaska
Surface protection and placer mining in the
Circle Mining District
John H. Stephenson, Manager
Yukon Resource Area
Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks District
Fair.banks, Alaska
Page
103
108
Commercial logging on National Forests • • • • • • • • 113
Thomas J. Sheehy, Soil Scientist
Chugach National Forest
u. s. Forest Service
Anchorage, Alaska
Surface protection and mining activities • • • • • • • 119
George R. Schmidt, Mining Engineer
Bureau of Land Managment
Alaska State Office
Anchorage, Alaska
User view of ~egulations and permits • • • • • • • • • 125
Frank Therrell, Manager
Project Permissions
A~yeska Pipeline Service Company
Anchorage, Alaska
102
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
Access and Effects of Oil and Gas Development on
Kenai National Moose Range Lands
Robert A. Richey
ABSTRACT
Development of an oil and gas industrial complex on the Kenai
National Moose Range has affected the surface of many hundreds of
acres of land. This discussion points out the extent of this dis-
turbance, compares it to exploration disturbance, and explains
methods used to keep the disturbance to a minimum. As a .result of
industrial activities, spinoff disturbance occurs and is also dis-
cussed.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss with you some of
the activities with which we are familiar on the Kenai. I shall limit my
talk to oil and gas development on the Kenai Refuge. Refuge Manager Jim
Monnie has asked me to focus my discussion on surface disturbance of these
Refuge lands. We must acknowledge that a good deal of disturbance can
accompany the extraction of oil and gas resources on most lands. I will
discuss some of the methods we use to minimize these disturbances on the
Kenai.
The Kenai National Moose Range was established in 1941 to preserve
in the national interest a distinct ecological and representative unit of
outstanding habitat for the prominent species--moose. This interest ex-
tends to all the indigenous species on these lands. The Moose Range 1.7
million acres were dedicated and withdrawn as a National Wildlife Refuge,
one of 18 in the State of Alaska and one of approximately 375 refuges
established throughout the Nation.
103
-
On these dedicated lands, we have been mandated to authorize the
development and exploration of gas and oil. The initial establishing
order of 1941 closed to entry all mining, except for valid and existing
mining claims; it did not, however, prohibit mineral extraction.
A major Refuge responsibility includes the protection of wildlife/
wildlands habitat. Before oil and gas leasing of these lands could take
place, the lands had to be classified in cooperation between the U. s.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management. This clas-
sification resulted in the designation of those lands that would not be
subject to oil and gas leasing. The submitted classification plan was
approved by the Secretary of the Interior on July 24, 1958, opening about
one-half of the Refuge lands to oil and gas leasing. That half not open--
primarily the foothills and mountainous areas--was set aside to protect
major physical resources such as prime moose habitat, scenic areas, and
natural areas that had not been involved in recent fires.
In reviewing the Kenai records, we find that in the early 1950's
a great deal of interest generated on the probability of considerable
gas and oil resources within the Refuge. It was not until July 31, 195~
that a unit plan for the development of these resources was approved.
In late 1956 a major road into the Swanson River Oilfield was constructed
to the first drilling site--at the extreme north end of the field. Oil
was discovered shortly thereafter at "Discovery Well," on July 23, 1957.
By 1960, drilling pads and associated surface disturbances covered about
10 to 12 square miles and 45 crude producing wells had been completed.
To develop this field, industry had to ge~ to it. The initial take-
off available to developers was the Sterling Highway at a point about 11
miles east of Soldotna. From the highway, they constructed a very fine
gravel road about 20 miles in an almost straight northerly direction.
The right-of-way followed the natural contours of the land and is still
very well maintained. During road construction as well as during con-
struction of the oilfield and pad facilities, Refuge regulations required
that topsoil and forest debris be saved for future rehabilitation along
the right-of-way or in other disturbed areas.
Associated with the development of the Swanson River Field was an
ongoing geophysical program of oil-related seismic activities. These
continue today. Two programs are proposed for this winter, and we hope
we will have sufficient snow cover so they can be conducted.
Before seismic operation could begin, however, certain general stipu-
lations were developed to protect the land resources. In addition, special
conditions were drafted by the Refuge manager to further protect these
specific lands. Because of these stipulations and regulations, found
mainly in Titles 43 and 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, we had a
unique opportunity to protect Moose Range lands. We really had laws with
teeth in them, in contrast to a situation described yesterday in which
vast amounts of land today are protected only by guidelines. That can
104
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
I
•
t
truly be a hardship on the land-managing agency.
In the process of administering these regu~ations and conditions,
we learned a great deal. None of the Refuge staff had training related
to oil and gas development and we had a lot of learning to do •
The initial seismic effort in the 1950's required the use of dozer
equipment to cut lines through mature timber stands of spruce, aspen,
and birch. Today, 2,500 to 3,000 miles of seismic trails crisscross
the northern half of the Refuge. Regulations required that the lines
be constructed in a right-of-way not more than 15 feet wide during proper
winter conditions; that is, when there was sufficient snow and ice cover
to protect the underlying vegetation and terrain. Stipulations were de-
signed to prevent the scarring of the surface and possible future erosion
problems.
By 1967, there were so many miles of seismic lines on the Kenai and
the technology for recording geophysical information was so advanced that
it was not necessary to construct additional lines. Since then, we have
not permitted the use of dozer equipment for new line construction and
the industry has been authorized to use existing lines only.
We are also concerned with proper cleanup following the seismic pro-
gram and prevention of stream blockage. Most recently, industry has used
Vibroseisl and Vibrotrack equipment on the Refuge and we have been well
satisfied with these Vibroseis operations. That is not to say that drill-
ing and use of explosives are not as effective for obtaining necessary
information, but we have observed that the Vibroseis operation is a cleaner
and less resource-disturbing operation.
Developing an oilfield requires the construction of roads, drilling
pads, bridges, pipeline transmission and powerline rights-of-way, airfields,
and support facility pads. Most of these facilities require gravel. For
the past 15 years, we have limited gravel recovery to certain locations
on the field. As the gravel sources have been exhausted at these loca-
tions, rehabilitation of the disturbed area follows. We also are conserv-
ing gravel by a program of re-use, rather than expanding and developing
new gravel source locations. We have asked industry to return to those
abandoned pads and roads to recover as much gravel as possible for use on
new facility areas. We have also restricted the construction of adjacent
new pads to support straight-hole drilling when directional drilling oper-
ations could be reasonably accomplished from existing well pads nearby.
lvibroseis is an electromechanical method of inducing seismic waves into
the ground for measuring reflections and refractions from the various
strata. The method does not generally give as good detail nor reach to
as great a depth as conventional explosive seismic methods, but avoids
the necessity of drilling a hole and discharging explosives where envir-
onmental or wildlife concerns are important.
105
..
Another method of conservation has been the re-use of contaminated
gravel. At each of the oil-producing facilities, some maintenance oper-
ations necessarily contaminate the surrounding gravel pad. Highly con-
taminated gravel is dumped at one end of a settling pond to drain out
oily residue for several seasons before it is available for re-use. If
the contamination is not too severe, we remove and stockpile the gravel
for future use rather than bury it. Even if this gravel is slightly
contaminated, it is useful as a base for future drilling equipment and
other facility set up.
Saving topsoil by keyholing near the construction site is most im-
portant because you just cannot replace easily lost topsoil necessary for
rehabilitation. Without topsoil, revegetation is extremely prolonged.
As facility areas are phased out, surface areas are recontoured to their
natural gradient as nearly as possible, seeded, and fertilized. Some-
times within a year, a program will call for another well on a rehabil-
itated pad, and the rehabilitated surface again will have to be disturbed.
We have experienced this several times.
A speaker yesterday commented on the use of gravel on the North
Slope and I wondered at the time, the possibilities of gravel recovery
from the site if they experience a dry hole. I am not certain such an
area can be completely restored but the gravel used in the construction
of pad and access road might be available to some other area, eliminating
a need to disturb an additional gravel source located perhaps in a stream-
bed.
For the last 10 or 12 years industry has not constructed a new well
pad at the Swanson River Field, although several new wells have been
drilled. Rather than authorize new construction of well pads and access
roads near other developed facilities, we have authorized the extension
of existing pad areas to accommodate two or three additional wells dir-
ectionally drilled from that existing location.
Another concern regards the loss of trees from the natural scene.
One unfortunate spinoff of seismic trail construction has been increased
spruce bark beetle infestation. These beetles attack mature and overly
mature white spruce, especially during periods of drought like those
that occurred on the Kenai Peninsula during the late 1960's. More than
a quarter million acres of white spruce habitat have been killed by the
spruce bark beetle. Much of this kill is located in the Point Possession
region, but it extends intermittently throughout the Refuge and western
Kenai Peninsula. Many of the trees that were felled for seismic opera-
tions also provide the necessary host trees for this insect. Beetle
infestation is not limited to seismic trails, however. We observe beetle-
infested areas where homesteaders have cleared the land and leave berms
of downed trees, later to become host trees for the spruce bark beetles.
In some portions of the Refuge we have known erosion problems asso-
ciated with past seismic activity when dozer equipment unnecessarily
106
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
disturbed the surface area. Because these lands were above treeline and
vegetative growth patterns are fragile, the vegetation could not return
quickly after topsoil was removed, and a serious erosion problem devel-
oped, becoming even more serious in following seasons. Siltation from
these eroded soils found its way into streams and drainages and directly
threatened the fishery resource.
With.the construction of seismic lines and surface oilfield facil-
ities, some wildlife habitat is also lost. Overall, this is not a great
loss and the moose have not suffered. At the same time, we have not ob-
served or recorded that the moose population increased as a result of oil
development. Some of you, I am certain, have read that oil development
on the Kenai has really helped moose, but there are no facts to confirm
this. While a small amount of moose browse may revegetate in some dis-
turbed areas, there are many miles of lines and disturbed areas where
moose browse does not return. In past years some trumpeter swan habitat
also was disturbed and the birds were displaced. This bird species does
not accept much disturbance and usually leaves industry-active areas.
In addition, seismic trails and access roads annually assist moose
hunters to obtain their share of moose by developing a pattern of access
into areas where the moose formerly were undisturbed. A few moose also
are road-killed each winter •
Another use of roads built on the Refuge for industry is the access
provided sportsmen to hunting areas and fishing lakes. They also provide
access to the very popular 150-mile Kenai canoe system. Industry dic-
tated this road placement and the roads are not necessarily where we
might have built them. It could have been many years, if at all, however,
before the Refuge was alloted funds to build adequate recreational roads.
We do have some problems with unauthorized vehicular access, for
instance, unauthorized travel on seismic trails and powerline/pipeline
rights-of-way. Off-road vehicle use is not authorized on the Refuge,
except for special use permits issued for seismic operations. These
permits dictate exactly what lines may be utilized and what routes may
be traveled. In addition, some snowmobile use is permitted in designated
areas of the Refuge when sufficient snow cover is present to protect vege-
tation and terrain along the route of travel.
[Editor's note: The remainder of Mr. Richey's presentation consisted
of color slides. Because of printing limitations, they are not reproduced
here.]
107
ABSTRACT
Surface Protection and Placer Mining
in 1 the Circle Mining District
John H. Stephenson
Increased gold prices and growing population in the Fairbanks area
account for the increase in placer gold operations in the Circle
Mining District. Surface disturbance problems arise from the need
to move paydirt to the sluice box near a water source, from use of
hydraulic methods, and from access construction. Some ways to
alleviate these problems would be to encourage miners to use set-
tling ponds, and to improve communications between miners and reg-
ulatory agencies to plan before construction for access that will
least damage the surface.
During the last couple of years, interest has been renewed in placer
gold mining activities in Alaska. More than 30 operations are in the
Circle Mining District alone. The renewed interest is due mainly to the
increased price of gold. Another factor contributing to the new activity
is the increase in population in the Fairbanks area. Many of these oper-
ations are taking place on d-1 lands in the Circle Hot Springs and Forty-
mile country. Existing mining access roads that were built in years past
lead into these areas.
Most of the mining activities are two-to four-man operations, with
some heavy equipment such as cat and front-end loader. They usually have
small trailers for summer housing. Some operators are old-time Alaskans
and others are newcomers from Outside, up just for the summer. Some never
get their operations off the ground. Others are recreational/weekender
108
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
miners. The slides you are about to see are mostly in the Circle Mining
District about 130 miles east of Fairbanks.! This area is accessible
from the Steese Highway that runs from Fairbanks to Circle City on the
Yukon River •
SLIDE #1 -This is placer gold operation on Deadwood Creek. It
consists of a reservoir and sluice box. Placer mining is actually a
form of strip mining and has related problems.
SLIDE #2 -Another view of the sluice box. The operator stockpiles
the paydirt near this chute. He then opens the gate to the reservoir
and begins to sluice. The water supply is temporary, and the miner must
close the gate and wait for his reservoir to fill.
SLIDE #3 -Most of the miners in the Circle Mining District are de-
veloping bench deposits now that the main paystreaks have been played out.
Bench deposits create some problems in that removal and disposal of muck
(overburden) and vegetation is necessary. Bench deposits may be far from
a water source, so the paydirt must be moved to the sluice box, which
must be near water. This creates wide areas of disturbed ground.
This slide shows a bench deposit being prepared for development. The
miner must remove approximately 10 feet of overburden before he can sluice
the gravel.
SLIDE #4 -Here the miner is spreading the overburden over old tail-
ings. Natural or artificial seeding of these areas could reduce the amount
of sediment that reaches the stream •
SLIDE #5 -This is a hydraulic operation on Harrison Creek. The miner
is cleaning out rock and gravel from below his sluice. This hydraulic
procedure is the most economical means of placer mining, but it is also
the most harmful because of all the fine sediments that are washed into
the stream; the overburden muck is also stripped in this manner; two giant
water nozzles--one above for washing the material through the sluice box
and one below the box for removing the sluiced material •
SLIDE #6 -Tremendous pressures are developed in hydraulic operations;
huge boulders are moved like marbles when materials are excavated by hy-
draulic methods.
SLIDE #7 -This is a settling pond which is located below the m1n1ng
operation. Its purpose is to allow the fine suspended sediments to settle.
This pond would work better if the outlet were in the left foreground.
Placer miners are being encouraged to incorporate settling ponds into their
!Because of printing limitations, color slides used by Mr. Stephenson in
his seminar presentation are not reproduced here.
109
..
operation to help alleviate stream pollution during the critical summer
months when fish are in the streams. Persuading some miners to do this
is difficult.
SLIDE #8 -This pond is ineffective because the stream channel by-
passes the pond's entrance, and the dam has no overflow outlet.
SLIDES #9 and #10 -Nevada Gold Inc. setting up operations for next
summer on Harrison Creek, a tributary of Birch Creek.
SLIDE #11 -Aerial view of water ditch, with the Steese Highway in
the background. The purpose of the ditch is to bring more water to the
miner's diggings, especially if the area the miner is working lacks
enough water to operate. The ditch has not been in operation to date.
SLIDES #12 and #13 -Profile view of ditch. Disturbed area is about
150 to 200 feet wide. Method of construction was to doze off the vege-
tative mat and mineral soil and deposit it on the downhill side to form
a berm; several breaks have been made in the berm from natural runoff.
SLIDE #14 -Boulder Creek Access Problem. This access road was
built over alpine tundra in June 1974 from the existing Harrison Creek
Road to mining claims on Boulder Creek. I learned about this operation
from a concerned re~dent in Central. Other miners we talked to in the
area were aware of the problem and wanted to know what BLM was going to
do about it. Our answer was that we wanted to work with the miner to
restore the area and to seek an alternative access route up Boulder Creek.
Fig. L. (left) Water ditch--aerial viez..J. The ditch ?JaB constz.ucted
in June L974 by a miner to bring wter to his claims. It has not been
used. Located on d-L ~s near Eagle SUmmit on the Steese HighUJay~ it
is about 3 miles Long. Fig. 2. (right) Water ditch--ground viez..J. The
miner constructed the ditch by bulldozing surface vegetation and mineral
soil do!A1nhill to fom a bem. The disturbed area is about L50 feet wide.
Several breaks have occurred from nomal surface runoff.
110
Fig. 3. (1,9 ft J · Mining acaess Poad--aePia"L viezu. Th~ road was aon-
struated ~om H~ison ~eek Poad to Bou"Lde1' ~eek cLaims ove1' aLpine
tundra with psrmajrost soiLs. ·LQcated on d-7, Lands~ the Poad is about
2 miLes "Long. Fig. 4. (right) Mining access Poad--ae1'ia7, viezu. The
next summeP, the same Poad became impassabLe~ even with tracked vehicLes.
The mine!' had to detOU1' around the soft areas~ thus causing additional,
8U1'face damage.
Fig. 5. ('teft) Access road--gz>aund viezu. This Poad was constPUCted
with a doze1'. Su1'face vegetation and thatued soil, !Je1'e 1'91TIOVed so
.!Jhee"Led vehicLes cou"Ld be driven ove1' the frozen ground. It is about
3 feet deep at this p"Lace and about "L/4-mi"Le "Long. Fig. 6. (Pight)
Access roads--aerial, vie~J. These ATV tMi"Ls have been used foP years
. foP mining cLaim access in the Kantishna area. SeveM.l minePs use
these tl'ai"Ls with tPaoked vehicLes 01' othe1' types of ATV's. Some of
the trails have Pevegetated natu1'a7,7,y ove1' thB years. The traiLs
are on d-2 l.ands in the proposed Mount McKinLey National, Park ezpansion.
111
SLIDE #15 -The miner had used his dozer blade to remove thawed
material above the frozen soil so the road could be used by wheeled vehi-
cles, at least temporarily.
We contacted the miner by letter and over the phone, and he agreed
to contact us the following spring before going into his Boulder Creek
claims. He also said he was willing to do restoration work on the access
road.
SLIDE #16 -Our next contact with the miner was in August 1975, when
we learned that he was again operating and had done additional damage
along the access route because he had to detour around the existing road
in several areas. Some of the additional damage had occurred when he
had to use his cat to pull his 2-1/2 ton, 6X6, fuel truck through the soft
areas. How could this situation have been prevented? Communications
with the miner before the access road was constructed could have resulted
in the use of another route. An alternate access route could have been
used, with BLM participating in the road location and construction tech-
niques. A meeting with the miner will take place next spring, but after
the damage has been done. We hope to develop a restoration plan for the
existing route, and the operator has agreed to follow the plan. If the
miner does not wish to participate in restoration of the area, the last
resort would be court action. As Bob Price said earlier, there is little
court precedent in this area. But the mining law of 1872 states that
"the miner may be liable for damages if he unnecessarily causes loss or
injury to the property of the U. S. in the exercise of his right of
access."
SLIDES #17 and #18 -Kantishna mining roads--access for about six
operations, by track vehicle.
SLIDES #19 through #21 -Lost Chicken Mine. This placer operation
was discharging its effluent overburden into the Fortymile River in 1974.
(Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation were concerned.) The use of
sett1ing ponds was suggested by BLM to reduce the suspended particu1ate
in the water before discharge into the river. The miner, however, thought
if the silt-laden water could be discharged over a flood plain, the vege-
tation would filter out the silt, leaving a mud deposit on the surface
that would eventually dissipate through the surface vegetation.
112
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Commercial Logging on National Forests
Thomas J. Sheehy
ABSTRACT
Discussed in this paper are past and present logging systems used
on National Forest lands in Alaska, comparative surface disturb-
ance of each method, and mitigation and prevention of surface dis-
turbance by preplanning. The discussion applies only to Alaskan
maritime forested areas, which have high rainfall and cool climate.
LOGGING SYSTEMS
History
commercial logging in what are now Alaska's National Forest lands
began when a single tree was cut on a beach and removed with a boat or
steam winch. The surface suffered little damage, and no signs of dis-
turbance remain.
As early as 150 years ago, Russian settlers logged by clearcutting,
takihg all except the largest trees. They cut the logs into short sec-
tions and pulled them with hand tackle or steam winch to the beach for
shipping. Again, there was no lasting surface damage.
In the early 1900's, Alaskan forests were logged for railroad ties,
building construction, and mining needs. Logging camps were established.
Trees were cut, and the ties were hand-hewn in the woods. Then they were
113
skidded or hauled on horse-drawn wagons to the beach. Except where access
roads for this type of operation remain, only a small amount of surface
damage is evident.
A second method of log removal was used for larger scale logging.
Much as they do today, loggers rigged trees with cable and pulled logs
to the beach with a steam winch. The logged areas were clearcut. In some
places in the Chugach National Forest, same damage still is visible 700
to 800 yards back from shore where logs were dragged across muskeg. Deep
V-shaped cuts may be seen, some with deeply eroded sides and bottoms.
Present-Day Logging
Although there is some variation, currently used methods 6f'l99ging
may be grouped into four categories: heavy machinery, saltwater A-frame,
high-lead or cable, and advanced systems.
1. Heavy machinery system employs caterpillar tractors (cats) or
other conventional types of cleated or tired vehicles. They are used for
pulling logs from the felling site to the decking or loading areas. They
often cause extreme surface damage.
2. Saltwater A-frame system generally consists of a diesel-powered
winch on an A-frame that floats or sits on the beach. Generally, it floats
part of the time. Cables are run from the A-framE!! up the mountain, and
logs are winched down the mountain to the beach. Where this type of
logging is used on very steep slopes (steep slopes are a prerequisite),
a large amount of gouging and land slippage results.
3. High-lead or cable logging systems are familiar to many Alaskans,
especially in Southeast Alaska. Generally, either a portable tower, such
as a Skagit, is set up and logs are brought from the cutover area to the
landing, or trees are rigged with cables and a device called a donkey'is
used to drag logs to a central location. In a good high-lead system, most
surface disturbance results not from actual logging but from construction
of roads to the site and at the landing and decking areas.
4. Advanced systems are of several types but we'll limit our dis-
cussion to helicopter and balloon systems. Helicopters and balloons are
used to lift logs from the cutover areas to the landing site. Chances
of surface disturbance are slight, except where access roads must be
built to landings.
SURFACE DISTURBANCE HAZARD RATINGS
From field observations of these four systems, I have rated each
system according to the amount of surface disturbance it is likely to
cause. Fig. 1 shows these hazard ratings. In making the hazard ratings,
I have assumed that each system is used where slopes are fairly gentle
(less than 30 percent) and sites are relatively stable. Many other
114
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
I
I
•
I
•
•
•
lOGGING
METHOD
Cat
A-Frame
High-lead
Balloon and
Helicopter
0
1~'1, • 1&,_
"'"• t._'!/lo""'
•-Cat roads
X-No roads
• -With roads
Percent Total Surface Area Disturbed
(Assume slopes<30 percent and relatively stable site)
lO<>
Fig. l.. Ccmrparative. hazar-d mtings of four togging methods.
factors may affect the amount of surface disturbance caused by the diff~
ent systems, however. These will be discussed later.
Highest hazard ratings were assigned to the A-frame and the heavy
machinery systems (40 and 35 percent respectively). Two ratings, a high
and a low, were assigned to the high-lead and the balloon and helicopter
(advanced) systems. The lower rating does not include probable surface
damage from building access roads to the site; the higher rating does.
If roads are built to bring logs out to the mills, the hazard rating
for the high-lead system rises from 10 to 18 percent and for the balloon
or helicopter systems from 5 to 8 percent. Although both systems may
require some roads, the balloon and helicopter systems generally require
fewer than the high-lead. This explains the lower hazard rating.
FACTORS DETERMINING SURFACE DISTURBANCE
Four major factors determine the amount of surface disturbance likely
to result from logging. They are soil type, slope, climate, and access
road construction •
Soil type. Disturbance from logging is greatest where the soil tex-
ture is fine. A rule of thumb is: The finer the texture of the soil,
the more surface disturbance you can expect. Where soil texture is very
fine, it is almost impossible to use heavy equipment such as cats or con-
ventional cleated machines. Such soil types are common in the maritime
forests of Alaska where rainfall keeps soils saturated most of the time
us
-
and soils have been derived from fine-grained glacial materials. such
soils have a unique property called thixotropy. That is, they essen-
tially become liquid when the surface organic material is removed and
they are disturbed. They will not support more than one or two passes
by heavy machinery, sometimes not even that many.
Slope. The steeper the slope, the greater will be the surface dis-
turbance from logging. Machinery such as Caterpillar tractors or rubber-
tired skidders cuts.deeper on slopes than on level land. Steep slopes
also are less able to hold the soil mantle in place. On the steepest
slopes, therefore, logging systems that require heavy machinery should
not be used because the fine-textured soils having thixotropic properties
will tend to slide.
Climate. In the maritime forests, the major climatic factor affect-
ing choice of logging system is precipitation. Heavy precipitation and
moist soils contribute to thixotropy and slope instability. The types
of logging systems that may be used, therefore, are limited.
In maritime forests like the Chugach and those in Southeastern
Alaska, soils are moist all of the time and saturated a good part of the
time. In many places it is impossible to move heavy equipment directly
across the soil surface and high-lead or advanced systems must be used
for logging. Access roads have to be of the overlay type.
In winter, however, if the surface is frozen and protected by
enough snow, it may be safe to use any logging system. In the maritime
areas, even though soils freeze only a few inches deep, logging can
be done more efficiently and with less surface disturbance by heavy
machinery than by other systems for which roads must be built to get
the logs out. It is, however, necessary to limit heavy machinery use
to gentle slopes. Correct timing and close supervision are necessary.
Road building. Construction of access roads to logging sites con-
tributes heavily to surface disturbance. Even if surface-disturbance-
limiting systems, such as high lead, are used for logging at a site away
from saltwater, access roads must be constructed to move the logs to a
saltwater landing or an existing road. Disturbance occurs both from
actual construction of the road prism and from borrow material removal.
Steep slopes that are slide prone are found in many parts of Prince
William Sound and Southeastern Alaska. Roads cut around the hills there
can trigger mass failure that disturbs the surface over many acres.
Road building causes minor slips. and slumps as well as massive land-
slides. Problems with sedimentation, regeneration, and further instabil-
ity also arise when soil materials slide. Referring to Fig. 1, we see
that surface disturbance hazards of the least surface-disturbing systems
are increased when road building is added to the systems' use.
MITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF SURFACE DISTURBANCE FROM LOGGING
We can repair some surface damage by fertilizing and seeding wjth
116
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
grasses. If we can prevent surface disturbance, however, we're further
ahead.
Since use of balloons and helicopters causes less surface disturbance
than other logging systems, one might ask, "Why aren't they used more?"
The answer is that they cost too much. Generally, the most surface-
disturbing system is the least expensive. In many cases, it is not prac-
tical to use advanced systems because of the low quality and volume of
the timber involved. Wind also limits use of balloons. An attempt to
use a balloon for logging in a Southeastern forest failed because winds
made it impossible to keep the balloon stable long enough to bring out
the logs •
The two best ways to prevent surface disturbance during logging are
to preplan carefully and have good on-the-ground administration.
Preplanning should begin before the road and unit are laid out.
With a soils specialist, the forester should look over the site and deter-
mine the location of hazardous areas. If the timber is in an extremely
hazardous area, the best solution may be to leave it alone and not try
to log it. If the area must be logged, it may be possible to plan roads
where they will cause little surface damage.
Planning should be reflected in sales contracts, where specific
restrictive clauses can be written to protect the surface .
In order to enforce restrictive clauses, forest personnel in the
field must know the logging sale contract. As on-the-ground administra-
tors, foresters can learn to recognize hazardous areas and take steps
to prevent surface damage. They must be committed, however, to seeing
that the surface is protected. The logger also should be helped to
recognize potential problems and be made to feel that it's in his in-
terest to cut and remove timber with minimal surface damage.
To demonstrate the value of preplanning, we might look at a hypo-
thetical situation faced by soils scientists and planners. Fig. 2 shows
an extreme situation of a site where the slope is steep--more than 80
percent, but which has an excellent conifer cover and a logger wants to
harvest the trees. We go to the field and find that the soil is extremely
fine textured. It's volcanic ash and highly weathered. Looking at the
topography, we see that an alluvial valley is at the bottom of the slope.
Alluvial terraces are on both sides, and a stream with a large run of
salmon runs through the valley •
We want to prevent slides or slips during logging, and we want to
keep sediment out of the stream. We also want to harvest the timber.
Here are some choices we can consider:
1. Cut all the timber, using a high-lead system (a cable system
with a portable tower). This system requires a road halfway up the slope
117
-
Volcanic Ash
Pig. 2. Craoss section of Landscape bJith soiLs and sLope probLems
for Logging operations.
and downhill logging on the top half of the unit. Chances are about 100
percent that we'll lose a lot of the hillside from landslides and other
disturban~~s if we log in this manner.
2. Log only the lower half of the slope, building a road at the
bottom of the slope. Here, limiting the logging to the most stable area
where the slope is gentle reduces slide and slump hazards. Some surface
disturbance still may occur, especially if the road undercuts the toe
of the slope. Another problem is that we get less timber than w.i th the
first option, and the sale may not be economical.
3. Use an advanced logging system. Checking our hazard chart, we
see that we can keep surface disturbance to 5 or less percent of the
area if we use helicopters or balloons to lift out the logs. Instability
problems may develop later, however, when timber is removed from extremely
steep slopes with volcanic ash soils.
4. Do not log at all. This may be the best choice although it may
be difficult to convhxethe land manager because of the loss of economic
gain from sale of the timber.
118
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Surface Protection and Mining Activities
George R. Schmidt
ABSTRACT
Mineral development by its nature is surface disturbing. It is,
however, necessary. Underground mining produces the least waste
material, some of which can often be returned to mined-out areas.
Other tailings can often be stabilized by vegetation. Surface
mining is extremely varied, but calls for opening the surface and
removing the waste material. Disposing of waste in an acceptable
manner is often difficult due to terrain, lack of water, and ster-
ility and other qualities of the material. Land cannot be rehab-
ilitated during use. Rehabilitation should include acceptable
uses other than revegetation •
Mining activities, includi~g oil and gas extraction, by their nature
are surface disturbing. Yet, after potable water is provided and food
raised--other surface-disturbing activities--mining is the single most
important activity in which man has ever engaged. From pre-Neolithic
times through today, man has used the inanimate, or nonrenewable, resour-
ces found in the earth's crust to maintain himself and to make life better,
easier, and pleasanter for himself, his family, and his neighbors. Today,
the t&m "neighbors'' includes everyone on the face of the earth.
Although they are surface disturbing, mining activities cover only
a small part of the land, an estimated 16 hundredths of one percent of the
United States since 1930. There can be no argument that that small amount
of surface has been greatly changed by industry. Whether or not all of
119
that surface distUrbance has been necessary is open to question. cer-
tainly we must look at the technical feasibility and environmental
awareness that existed when the disturbance was made. Since more cubic
yards--tons, if you prefer--of rock are being mined and moved today than
ever before, however, we are primarily interested in what can be done at
this time to prevent further unnecessary damage. I must emphasize "un-
necessary" because, as I indicated, surface disturbance is an integral
part of any mining operation.
Mining methods have been classified and subclassified in many ways.
For our purposes, we'll refer to surface mining and underground mining.
The less disturbing, normally, is underground mining, although that depends
on many variables, such as amount mined, how close to the surface, the
quality of the bedrock, and what is on, or is placed on, the surface.
Underground mining is expensive, costing an average of three to four
times as much as surface mining. For that reason, a minimum amount of
waste is removed. But everything taken out must be placed somewhere else.
Waste rock is piled in some predetermined area, preferably where it won't
have to be moved a second time.
One of the major expenses in any mJ.m.ng operation is power. Where
underground mines are in hilly country, the waste rock is commonly allowed
to flow over the hillside just outside the portal, or mine entrance, thus
using gravity to provide the power needed to move the rock.
The ore is then concentrated, usually by grinding and collecting the
mineral. The remaining 99 percent or so of the ore is waste and must be
discarded. Normally, the waste tailings are very fine, almost a powder,
and will blow abOut in the wind if scattered and not protected. In recent
years, the Bureau of Mines has done extensive research in attempting to
stabilize these tailings, particularly those resulting from the concentrat-
ing stage. The method used is to encourage plant growth on tailing piles.
Because tailings are sterile and often acidic, special fertilizers and
conditioners must be applied. Generally, few plant varieties will grow,
and large quantities of water may be needed to sustain growth. Rehabili-
tation requires maintenance over a considerable period. Meanwhile, more
tailings are being deposited, so the problem is continuous.
In some mines, some tailings can be deposited as slurry in mined-out
sections. As the slurry settles, the water is pumped out and the solids
are left behind, filling the voids, supporting the open rock, and not blow-
ing around the countryside.
For several reasons, it is not always feasible to backfill. The shape
of the mine may prohibit it. More commonly, when mining is halted, the
mineral that is left behind is too low grade to mine, but projections in-
dicate it can be mined economically in the future. Mineral conservation
requires that the mine be left in condition to reenter for extracting that
lower grade material in the future.
120
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Surface m1n1ng takes many forms. Recently, the coal mine operations
in the western states have received considerable attention. Previously,
the Appalachian coal mines were a matter of national concern. Open pits,
such as the Bingham Canyon operation in Utah, are well known. Placer
operations of several types occur around the country. On smaller scales,
mineral material (sand, gravel, rock) sites are common throughout the
country, and quarries are part of the landscape in suitable areas. Each
i~ a different type of operation, but all have one thing in common; they
cause substantial surface disturbance.
There is no way to mine from the surface and at the same time pre-
serve it. The object, therefore, is to disrupt a minimum amount of sur-
face and to rehabilitate as much as possible. Both terms, "minimim" and
"as much as possible," are subjective, interpreted differently by different
people. But the day is past when the miner, particularly the surface
miner, can look at his operation as taking place in a vacuum. What he
does affects the land around him. The total cost of his business must be
computed and passed on to the customer. If the total cost is too high for
the market, it is obvious that the operation cannot be run profitably at
that time. The customer--that is, the consumer, you and !--must be made
to realize that the cost of mineral products will go up as extraction
costs rise. This, of course, contributes to the general inflationary
trend. But as long as increased costs must be paid in money, as opposed
to, for example, less pure air and water, we must accept them and the
problems associated with them.
Surface damage from surface m1n1ng occurs primarily from two actions,
mining operations and placement of waste material. When mining operations
are carefully planned, the maximum amount of ore is removed. In this
sense, I use the word "ore" to include all of the desired minerals, whether
metallic or otherwise, including mineral materials and fuels. Anything
less than maximum recovery is a poor utilization of the deposit. If the
mine development is carefully planned, there is little reason for unnec-
essary damage, such as from careless opening or careless road building.
Disposing of waste material is the most difficult problem, where good
planning and rehabilitation are the considerations. It is impossible to
generalize because the situations vary so widely among not only different
types of surface mining but also among various mines of the same type.
There are, however, a few actions that are necessary such as removing
surface material and disposing of it and other waste material .
Almost always, the overlying surface material must be moved to expose
the mineral sought. Almost always the surface material is composed of
topsoil and underlying sterile material. Because cost of moving the mater-
ial is considerable, the goal is to move it only once. Under today's
conditions, however, that is not always possible. Operators of coal mines,
quarries, and other surface mines now remove the topsoil and store it
separately from the sterile material. In situations such as the coal
fields of the northern plains, the coal is then mined in a long open cut.
121
-
The sterile material from the next cut is then put in the first cut and
the second slice of coal mined. Topsoil is replaced over the material
and replanted or reseeded. In that area, because of the aridity and the
poor quality topsoil, growth is slow. Growth is further hindered by
animals cropping new plants. But given time and effort, the land will
restore itself.
In some areas, such as Appalachia, where the terrain is steep,
placement of the waste material is a real problem. Normally, handy
valleys are used, but time has shown us that that is not always a good
practice. Waste material gets into the water, often changing the pH,
its acid or basic character. In other cases, in order to keep the waste
from flowing downstream, a dam is built to contain it. But dams have
broken with catastrophic results. In such areas, and this applies to
all mountainous lands with narrow valleys, no single particularly suc-
cessful plan has been devised.
In the southwestern desert, where tremendous quantities of material
must be moved, both waste and ore, new hills of waste material must be
built. At Twin Buttes, Arizona, conditions were favorable for a unique
waste disposal system. The sterile waste rock was piled in such a manner
as to form a pond for the slurry resulting from the concentrator. The
sides of the dump have been fertilized and seeded so the area now looks
like one of the mesas that characterize that country.
Not every mine operator can come up with such a plan. In some mines
the waste rock will not hold a slope or support other material or it may
decompose and blow away. In others, waste turns to a cement-like mass
that defies revegetation. In any case, the area cannot be rehabilitated
while in use, and it may be active for a long time. The Bingham Canyon
operation is more than a hundred years old.
We must look at rehabilitation from a broader perspective than just
revegetation. In the Midwest, gravel pits have become prime real estate
or parks. Quarries have become swinnning pools or fishing holes. Dredge
tailings have become sources of crushed rock and valuable real estate,
particularly in the Sacramento area. In Nome, dredge tailings support
the airport, the Beltz School, and the Department of Highways station.
In Fairbanks, tailings provide a firm base of thawed ground for a Golden
Valley Electric Association substation, paved highways, and the commun-
ity of Fox. We are all familiar with the mines that have become not only
tourist attractions, but recreation centers. With an increasing need
for land for intensive use, a little imagination will transform most
abandoned mines into a productive second life.
Not directly related to mining operations, but necessary adjuncts,
are activities related to the search for minerals. Concentrations of
minerals in usable amounts are scarce; so scarce that, in light of man's
need, their presence seems almost a miracle. We receive nothing for
nothing, however, and the greater the value of the prize, the more effort
122
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
•
•
•
•
•
we must exert to attain it. Ore deposits are no exception.
Because of the extremely rare occurrence of ore deposits, it is
necessary to conduct wide searches for them, using many different methods.
This phase of the work is not purely a science, it is still somewhat an
art. In order to find hidden deposits, the searchers--prospectors--must
cross and examine all types of land. If access is denied, some land
cannot be examined. This could result in the loss of a critical deposit.
In the past, because of the large amount of public land, land for
which there was no other apparent need or use, few people were concerned
about the condition in which the land was left. Today, because of. the
use of heavy equipment, involvement of more people and their use of the
land, the shrinking quantity of public land, and most of all, the devel~
opment of awareness of the need for maintaining a stable environment--of
which this seminar is evidence--careless cross-country travel is no longer
tolerable.
In most parts of the United States, cross-country travel may leave
traces, but otherwise does no serious damage. In many parts of Alaska,
however, it can result in serious ground destruction that may take many
years or even generations to restabilize. An example is where vehicles
crossing ice-rich permafrost break through the vegetative matting. This
permits heat to reach frozen material beneath, thawing it. commonly, the
thaw continues until a new point of stability is reached. If the cut is
on a slope, even a slight one, the material will flow, leaving a gully.
Where there is any scraping in such an area, the situation becomes a
disaster.
Although the land must remain open to exploration and access for
exploration if we are to continue to replace exhausted mineral deposits,
care must be taken in crossing land surface. Various solutions to the
·problem have been proposed. Most involve evaluating proposed plans,
reviewing affected resources, and issuing permits of one sort or another,
with attached stipulations. If such permits can be processed in an exped-
itious manner, prospectors might have no serious objection. Expeditious
treatment is necessary because unlike a corporation, the prospector must
plan his work in terms of short-term financing and brief time periods.
He must also make reasonable showing before he can interest a development
company in the property.
At present, expeditious processing probably is not possible since
the details of every area are not known. Presumably, if the application
describes a fragile route, a more acceptable one would b~ suggested or
permitted. This requires that the approving agency have some detailed
knowledge of all the land under its administration.
There can be no doubt that the most effective means of preventing
surface disturbance is to educate those who use the lands. This must be
done through all of the organizations that contribute to our educations--
123
-
homes, schools, newspapers, and all other information sources. A one-
shot pamphlet or a government threat will do little good. A permit
system is only as good as its surveillance system.
Before inviting questions, I want to apologize for treating this
very complex subject in a simplified manner. Each mine or exploration
program has unique problems. It would take far more time than could
possibly be made available here to go into the major specific problems.
In addition, I have committed the same sin of which we often accuse the
mineral industry. I have talked about the subject in a vacuum. I haven't
related it to the price of minerals which in most cases, is set in the
international market. I haven't related it to balance of payments, nor
to migration of industry abroad, nor to national security, nor to the
presence of possible contaminants, such as trace amounts of heavy miner-
als in waste water, nor to community needs and community desires, nor
to scarcity or abundance of minerals in terms of their present uses,
nor to long-range planning. The latter should, of course, be in terms
far beyond our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our grandchildren.
124
.. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
User View of Regulations and Permits
Frank A. Therrell
ABSTRACT
Operations and maintenance of the trans-Alaska pipeline system
under the stipulations governing the federal and state right-of-
way are reviewed. Also presented are technical permit require-
ments with other government agencies that might affect pipeline
operations and maintenance.
As many of you know, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company is responsible
for the design, construction, and operation of the 48-inch pipeline being
built from Prudhoe Bay to the terminal at Valdez. The project is a little
more than 50 percent compl.ete. We expect work on the pipeline proper to
be completed toward the end of the year. Construction on the punp stations
and terminal will continue into 1977, and the schedule calls for putting
oil on board tankers at Valdez about June or July 1977.
We had to obtain a number of permits, which we refer to as technical
permits. There's a fine line that we have to draw between permits and
permissions. Our legal department gets us permission to occupy the land •
They deal mainly with the State Division of Lands and the Bureau of Land
Management, the major land owners connected with the pipeline project.
Project Permissions, which I manage, then obtains the right to start work
and to continue working on the land under the stipulations of the right-
of-way agreements and other statutory agencies such as the Corps of Eng-
ineers, Coast Guard, Highway Department, etc. We have about 1,200 tech-
nical permits on this project, an average of about one and one-half permits
125
•
per mile for 800 miles of line.
About 65 percent of the property crossed by the line is federal
land, about 30 percent is state land, and the remaining 5 percent is
private property across which we have right-of-way easements. In some
cases we have purchased the property in fee. For example, Alyeska owns
land in fee for several pump station sites and the terminal site. You
may have visited the valve test site near Fairbanks; it is on fee pro-
perty.
I'll begin by discussing technical permits for rights-of-way. We
have two documents, basically, to deal with. First is the right-of-way
lease with the State of Alaska for property that belongs to the State.
Second, we have an agreement and grant of right-of-way from the Depart-
ment of the Interior for federal land that is administered by the Bureau
of Land Management. The State Pipeline Coordinator's Office under the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources works with Alyeska to review and
perform surveillance on pipeline activity on state lands. An Alaska
Pipeline Office performs the same functions for activities on federal
lands.
On private lands, we deal directly with the owner, and our right-
of-way agreements include certain stipulations that we have to abide by
in the construction and operation of the pipeline system.
The stipulations in the state right-of-way lease and the federal
agreement and grant of right-of-way have been condensed and printed in
a hip-pocket size book for easy field reference. All our supervisors
and government agency personnel thus have a ready reference to the stipu-
lations in the state and federal documents.
George {Schmidt] mentioned the need for government agencies to get
together a text on operations across the ground surface. Perhaps this
will be an outcome of this seminar. Before the Alyeska project started,
a great deal of research and study was done in Alaska. I was involved
in a study on arctic pipelining two years before the first well was
drilled at Prudhoe Bay. I made a complete study of all the arctic lit-
erature on ground effects and anything else connected with pipeline con-
struction that we felt might affect it. The study was in conjunction
with our Imperial Oil counterpart in Canada's Northwest Territories.
Even earlier, we had had experience with pipelining in the subarctic in
northern Alberta, and with seismic exploration in the Northwest Terri-
tories and in Yukon Territory.
In arctic construction, many decisions must be based on colllll\on sense.
I think there is a great need, however, to educate workers about problems
they face in crossing different terrain. For example, when I was a dis-
trict engineer in a Louisiana pipeline district bordering the Mississippi
River, we had loess deposits where banks were cut almost vertically.
These deposits had been standing for years. In building pipelines, we
126
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
had to be car~ful to cut through the deposits just right and maintain
the banks or they became a terrible mess during the cloudbursts that are
common there. We had erosion and maintenance problems that had to be
solved to keep the pipeline going.
In the Arctic, we have a combination of hydraulic and thermal ero-
sion to contend with. When you have both kinds of erosion in some fine-
grained soils, the problem is horrendous. We knew this when we began
building the road from Livengood to the Yukon in 1969, and we knew we
shouldn't cut some of the hills there. Some of the people hired to
build the road, however, were accustomed to building roads in temperate
zones and climates. They used the same methods they had been using
for years, although we argued against it. They soon learned and by the
time they got to Hess Creek, they decided we were right. They stopped
cutting and for the rest of the road built on thaw unstable soils, they
used the overlay technique •
On the road north to Prudhoe Bay, someone made a mistake and cut
a slope off the Sagavanirktok River. We ran into a massive amount of
ice and had a classic ice cut melting. I think the experience may have
been worthwhile because it educated a group of newcomers to the Arctic
that they must pay attention to principles of arctic engineering •
our experience on this pipeline has brought benefits that are cer-
tainly going to be used on future projects. If the owner companies move
on to new arctic projects and if engineers and other project designers
take the trouble to explore the literature and learn from the experiences
of others, they should be able to engage in additional industrial acti-
vities in Alaska and other arctic regions without damaging the surface
significantly.
I'd like to return to discussing the stipulations and some of the
constraints we live with. In both the state and federal documents, the
general and environmental stipulations are almost identical and include
a regulation concerned with public tmprovements. These are utilities,
existing roads and trails, fences, and ditches. Fortunately, in Alaska
we don't have many fences.
We have a common agreement with the utility companies for crossing
their easements and vice versa. Sooner or later, they're likely to
want to cross the pipeline, and we already have mutual agreements as to
how we will cross one another, what precautions will be taken, and other
considerations.
On the roads and trails, both stipulations and common sense provide
for maintenance of existing roads and trails that parallel or cross the
pipeline so traffic can be regulated. Because there are so few existing
roads. and trails in Alaska, we have tried to utilize them as much as
possible to provide long-term access for the operation and maintenance
of the pipeline. In planning road stipulations, we have had to take into
127
-
account the nature of the traffic on each road. For example, if the
pipeline is elevated across a road, it must be high enough to permit
normal traffic to pass under it.
For fences and ditches, we have similar considerations. On pas-
ture land we may have to build temporary fences to restrain livestock
or where we must cross fenced private property, we may have to maintain
the fence. At ditches and other drainages, we've got to provide for
essentially uninterrupted flow, so we don't create fish ponds in some-
one's front yard.
We'll move along to the regulation of public access. Regulations
require that we restrict access on the pipeline right-of-way. By build-
ing barricades, posting, or patrolling, we can try to restrict the gen-
eral public from coming into construction areas. At road crossings
where traffic must be temporarily bypassed, precautions such as lights,
signals, and barriers are needed to keep people from being injured. Our
legal and insurance staffs are very strict about these precautions.
Another stipulation concerning public access to the right-of-way
is that if the Authorized Officer or the State Pipeline Coordinator re-
quests, Alyeska would open a portion of right-of-way to the public for
access to recreation areas or campsites. Later, it might be advantageous
to the general public to open parts of the construction pad to allow
multiple use of the right-of-way. Safeguards would, of course, have to
be taken. We hope, however, to see most of the right-of-way restricted
from broad public use, to prevent erosion and the need for revegetation
and rehabilitation.
Stipulations require us to prohibit camping, hunting, and fishing
within the pipeline right-of-way. The pipeline right-of-way on federal
land is only 54 feet wide, so unless it crosses a choice fishing hole,
hardly anyone would want to fish there. The same is true of camping,
although in some areas, someone might want to camp overnight on the right-
of-way. For the public safety, this has been discouraged. Currently,
fishing is restricted for five miles on either,side of the line. This
is not an Alyeska restriction; it is a State Fish & 'Game restriction that
we must abide by, and we so instruct our people. The stipulations along
this line require that all new employees, including contract workers,
be given environmental briefings. With the turnover we've had and the
numbers of people involved, more students probably have been educated in
this one subject, the environment in Alaska, than any other in Alaska's
history.
Fire prevention and suppression are also regulated. If fire starts
on the right-of-way, we are responsible for controlling it and putting
it out, particularly if it is in the immediate area of a facility such
as a remote control gate valve or a pump station. By law also, we must
work with the Bureau of Land Management, which administers fire-fighting
activities throughout the State, to suppress fires on the right-of-way.
128
.. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Surveillance and maintenance activities include safeguards for
public health and safety. We have to see that the general public doesn't
fall into a ditch or otherwise become subject to injury from our oper-
ations •
Pipeline system integrity, I think, is a matter of common sense.
Everyone can appreciate that builders of a pipeline system the size of
·the trans-Alaska project or one even a tenth its size, could not afford
to have it break down every Tuesday at three o'clock. We must have a
pipeline system that operates 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, and keeps
the oil flowing. In ~trucking business, the trucking fleet has to be
maintained to operate at the manager's beck and call. The situation is
the same with the pipeline. All we're interested in and want here is
to transport crude oil. The pipeline doesn't even own the oil; we just
get paid for moving it. In that respect, we're just like a trucking firm
getting paid to move a barrel of oil from A to z .
Communications is also covered by stipulations. We probably have
as sophisticated a communications system on this project as anywhere out-
side of the space program. We have the most modern microwave system
imaginable, backed up with a satellite program. A double computer system
in the operating terminal at Valdez will feed out information for the
operators. People stationed at the pump stations will not normally oper-
ate the stations, but will provide, preventive maintenance. In case of
a communications system outage, they can operate the system manually
and shut it down •
129
..
session four
CHAIRMAN: Walter B. Parker
Commissioner of Highways*
State of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
SURFACE DISTURBANCE--continued
Construction of Public Facilities and Utilities
Surface protection as it relates to construction of
highways, airports, and railroads in Alaska
Walter B. Parker
Page
131
Pipeline construction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Surface
Morris T. Turner Authorized Officers' ,
Representative
Alaska Pipeline Office
u. s. Department of the Interior
[Paper not available]
protection aspects of dams and transmission lines. .136
J. G. Ebner, Environmental and Graphics Specialist+
Alaska Power Adm~nistration
United States Department of the Interior
Juneau, Alaska
Visual resource management.. • • • • • • • • •.•• 142
Stanley v. Specht, Landscape Architect
Bureau of Land Management
Alaska State Office
Anchorage, Alaska
Cultural resource protection • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 148
Gary Matlock, State Archeologist
Bureau of Land Management
Colorado State Office
Denver 1 COlOradO
*In March 1976, Mr. Parker resigned as Commissioner of Highways to
accept an appointment as State co-Chairman of the Federal-State Land
Use Planning Commission for Alaska •
.f. Mr. Ebner died in J~ly 1976 in a clinbing accident .on Mount McKinley.
130
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Surface Protection as it relates to Construction
of Highways, Airports, and Railroads in Alaska
Walter B. Parker
ABSTRACT
In populated areas, the construction of highways, airports, rail-
roads, and other transportation facilities is constrained by exist-
ing land-use patterns and population distribution. In constructing
such roads as the Yukon-Prudhoe Bay Road through relatively uninhab-
ited and unused terrain, it is possible to utilize techniques which
minimize effect upon the surface of the earth. The poor soil con-
ditions which prevail over much of the Arctic and Subarctic prevent
the use of balanced roadbed construction techniques that utilize
in situ materials in the right-of-way. Normally, it is necessary
to obtain roadbed material from scattered sources. Often, roads
are built solely for access to the material sites. Minimized use
of material and spoil disposal sites that require lengthy access
roads is probably one major goal that should be emphasized above
all others. A knowledge of soil conditions along the generally
proposed right-of-way makes it possible to stipulate the available
material sources to be used for construction. Similarly, if the
road can be constructed with minimum spoil disposal, it is possible
to minimize surface damage. The relationship of roads to side
slopes and their effect on drainage patterns is another vitally
important construction consideration. The same general techniques
should be utilized for all construction, varying only with differ-
ent requirements for roads, airports, railroads, pipelines, and
other transportation forms. Roads and pipelines have the fewest
constraints and, therefore, are the most easily adapted to varying
situations •
131
-
In populated areas, the construction of highways, airports, rail-
roads, and other transportation facilities is constrained by existing
land-use patterns and population distribution. The esthetics of surface
protection are often as important as the protection of structures, and
both objectives must be encompassed in surface protection techniques.
In constructing such roads as the Yukon-Prudhoe Bay Road through
relatively uninhabited and unused terrain, it is possible to more fully
utilize techniques which minimize the effects upon the surface of the
earth. Here again, however, some techniques are designed for surface
protection only and are aimed at the elimination of erosion and general
rehabilitation of the earth's surface. Other surface protection tech-
niques are designed primarily to enhance the integrity of the road prism
or other structures.
In any case, whether working in populated or unpopulated areas, the
builders of transportation facilities in Alaska must overcome the different
problems inherent in several major ecological provinces. The techniques
used in Southeastern Alaska and along the Gulf Coast are totally different
from those used in the higher mountains of the Alaska Range and the Brooks
Range. An entirely different set of requirements is present in building
roads in the great Interior valleys and the lower mountain ranges of the
Interior. In addition to widely varying soil conditions in each of these
provinces, different permafrost regimes must be accounted for. All of
these require some variation in surface protection techniques.
To the citizen, the esthetic values of surface protection are probably
paramount; but to those who must maintain and rebuild Alaska's transporta-
tion intrastructure, the engineering demands of surface protection must
assume at least equal value with esthetics. There is no real reason,
however, why these two problems cannot be combined. In building in the
populated areas, the actions of land managers outside of highway and rail-
road rights-of-way have great effect upon the surface protection techniques
which must be utilized. The coordinative techniques which are being
developed among those responsible for land management, fish and game
management, urban planning, utilities, and transportation improvements are
being fine-tuned. Through the advent of such structures as AMATS in
municipal areas and cooperative federal-state management systems in the
rural areas, we hope to be able to avoid the types of past mistakes which
have resulted in incompatibility of objectives among the various managers.
The controversy over herbicides may be used to illustrate the diffi-
culties inherent in the division between surface protection aimed at pre-
serving engineering structures and surface protection, such as revegetation,
aimed chiefly toward esthetic goals. In many cases, alder is the ideal
plant for revegetation because it recolonizes rapidly. For the builders
of roads, airports, and railroads, alder presents real problems because
it opens the roadbed to infiltration from surface runoff and a dry roadbed
is one of the first objectives of a design engineer. The Department of
Highways, the Alaska Railroad, and other organizations have worked out
132
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
complicated surface protection techniques involving utilization of gras-
ses, both exotic and domestic, to form mats to protect the surface as
well as the engineering structures' integrity. Often, alder and other
native types intrude upon these grasses and disrupt the objective of
maintaining roadbed integrity. The best means of maintaining one plant
community while eliminating another has thus far been to apply herbi-
cides. However, unfortunate past practices involving herbicides, such
as indiscriminate spraying, have resulted in great brown areas along
roads. The use of the wrong herbicides has resulted in pollution of
surface waters. A great public reaction against herbicides has grown--
a very justified public reaction •
Techniques now have been modified to apply herbicides and prevent
the growth of alder and other undesirable species, rather than to apply
them after the pest plants are grown and leave dead forests along the
roadbed. Techniques also have been developed for using herbicides which
are not dangerous to fisheries, microtines, and other members of the
biotic community. Neither is the public nor am I fully convinced, however,
that herbicides are desirable for use in surface protection. It is
going to take a massive educational effort to undo the errors of past
years.
The Department of Highways is working closely with the State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, EPA, and land management agencies to
develop common techniques that will be acceptable to the public and
protect the surface, both for esthetic reasons and to maintain our engin-
eering structures.
A prime consideration in establishing new roads is to select routes
where fewest possible material and spoil disposal sites are needed. Un-
fortunately, in most of the Arctic and Subarctic, poor soil conditions
prevent utilization of balanced construction techniques, using in situ
materials from scattered sources for the roadbed. To minimize both cost
and environmental damage, however, the road right-of-way, whether for
highway, railroad, or other surface transportation, should always be
selected so as to minimize the need for lengthy access roads to material
sites or spoil disposal sites. Use of arbitrary rights-of-way which are
fixed by inflexible rules of land managers interferes with overall envir-
onmental control and with surface protection in general. Only if we
maintain the flexibility to seek the best engineering solution will we
be able to make the best use of surface protection techniques •
The Department of Highways is continuing its long-term program of
collecting knowledge of soil conditions along the generally proposed
rights-of-way in the State of Alaska. Obtaining this information is ex-
pensive, but we feel that it is one of the most justified expenses of
road reconnaissance. We hope the great outpouring of information on
Alaskan soils that is resulting from the Alyeska project will be cata-
logued and made available to all agencies. It can form the nucleus for
a bank of soils information from which all can build better facilities.
133
..
The same situation exists in the revegetation programs. We are
gaining a great deal of information on restoration and revegetation in
a hurry, and it is vital that some monitoring system be established.
The Department of Highways is prepared to do its part in any cooperative
effort in this regard.
The relationship of roads, railroads, and pipelines to side slopes
and the effects this has on drainage patterns is another vitally impor-
tant consideration in surface protection. The same general techniques
should be utilized for all construction, and these vary only with
different requirements for roads, airports, railroads, pipelines, and
other transportation forms. Roads and pipelines have fewest constraints
and, therefore, are the most easily adapted to varying situations of
terrain materials.
Already, there are signs of severe headward erosion in spots along
the North Slope haul road because adequate surface protection measures
were not taken where drainage patterns were changed. Usually, this
occurs where sheet drainage flows have been channelized through culverts
and the surface protection has not been carried forward far enough down-
slope to reflect the change from sheet drainage to channelized drainage.
Especially critical are areas where the road parallels the lip of a stream
terrace or in similar situations where rapid erosion can occur.
In the more populated areas, it has been most disheartening for those
who build highways to watch the contempt with which that part of the
public that uses the highway rights-of-way for off-road vehicle recreation
has treated surface protection efforts. As everyone who has been in-
volved with surface protection has found, these efforts are very expen-
sive. Highway departments or other transportation agencies cannot be
expected to pour funds into bottomless pits where each year's effort is
wiped out because the public refuses to respect restoration efforts. All
land managers have faced this problem since off-road vehicles were first
designed for recreational uses. My only point in bringing up the problem
now is that it is a joint problem of the transportation agencies and the
land managers and must be treated as such. The Highway Department and
other transportation agencies are frequently expected to absorb the entire
brunt of off-road vehicle use along their rights-of-way when severe re-
strictions are imposed by land managers on adjacent lands. If we are to
provide for off-road vehicle use, we need sufficient time to plan and build
trail systems, rather than allow off-road vehicles indiscriminately to
roam over freshly seeded cut slopes and other restoration efforts in the
right-of-way.
As Governor Hammond said in his State of the State message last Wed-
nesday, we have a chance with the North Slope haul road to do a unique
job of interagency and intergovernmental planning in relating transporta-
tion, economic, and land management objectives. He has asked me to chair
a working group for the State which will coordinate state objectives and
budgets for the area affected by the North Slope haul road. We will be
134
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
working with" all affected agencies to insure that our efforts are mutu-
ally constructive and our objectives not at cross purposes.
We~have already taken preliminary steps in this regard and this
effort will be strengthened. I think that anyone who has taken an
objective look at the new construction on Alaska's highways and airports
in the last few years will agree that we have came a long way in our
surface protection techniques. With the great fund of knowledge that
all of us can gain from the Alyeska project, I would hope for a leap
forward in the near future on techniques which can be utilized in the
many varied situations with which we must deal. We hope to use native
species rather than exotics for a large part of our new effort, but we
have a long way to go in that area. I envision a system whereby exotics
that provide early protection wi~l be replaced by native species as the
best we can hope for in the immediate future.
In other areas of surface protection, I believe that we will be
able to justify matting and insulation to replace gravel on many of our
projects when true cost comparisons are made. This new trend will cer-
tainly have dramatic effect on any new major projects in the gravel-
poor areas of the State. Here again, for future reference we are moni-
toring closely the efforts along the pipeline workpad on the use of
insulation, but are relying upon Alyeska and the monitoring agencies
to keep valuable data in selected areas.
Among the things I have learned from the North Slope haul road ex-
perience thus far is that one cannot be too careful in making cuts in
the lips of stream terraces when transecting from the terrace to flood-
plain. If you are involved in the environmentally hazardous experience,
keep plenty of insulating material close at hand. Another lesson is
that sacrificing road alignment to maintain a cover on side hills and
other areas where cuts are necessary is often the cheapest and best
engineering solution. The problem of the designer is to adjust a safe
alignment and maintain as much cover as possible. It will never be
easy, but new techniques in using insulation and revegetation programs
will make substantially easier in the future the problems of those who
wish to construct roads in permafrost areas •
135
..
Surface Protection Aspects of Dams
and Transmission Lines
J. G. Ebner
ABSTRAcr
Dams and powerlines have common problems in terms of access man-
agement. In terms of surface disturbance resulting from construc-
tion, dams involve rather extensive surface change, including not
only sizeable localized construction activity, but also the inun-
dation of large areas of lands and streamflow regulation. By
contrast powerlines are usually highly visible and, to many people,
obtrusive; yet they involve a small degree of physical change of
the environment. The potential of new access created by both
types of projects is an important secondary effect, to be managed
in accordance with the planned land use.
Alaska Power Administration operates and markets power from two hydro-
plants: Eklutna, near Anchorage, has been in operation for 20 years; and
Snettisham, near Juneau, has been in operation only 2 years. In addition,
we do development studies on other potential power sites throughout the
State. Recently, we prepared the transmission study for the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers feasibility report on the Upper Susitna project.
Surface disturbances from a dam project and a transmission line pro-
ject are quite different. For a dam project, construction is localized.
It involves the excavation and transportation of massive amounts of mater-
ial and the preemption of a large area for the reservoir. A transmission
project,.although ordinarily involving much less land than a dam project,
136
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
is more visible to the general public. Its linear nature can involve
extensive surface transportation systems, with possible effects on public
use of lands crossed by the line.
Dams
The focus of a dam project is the project site itself. Drawing
material from surrounding borrow areas and importing vast amounts of
material, a dam project requires the minimum number of roads radiating
from the construction site to sources of materials. These roads must be
designed to endure constant heavy vehicle traffic for several years •
Some of these roads will be maintained as access roads after project
completion; others will be shut down and revegetated. Failure of a road
would entail not only environmental damage, but would result also in
economic loss. Initial road design must recognize the requirements of
soils and slopes in the project area to minimize road impacts.
Because of the major role of transported materials on dam,construc-
tion, efficiency of transportation is important. The burden of surface
protection is placed on road design rather than vehicle design so that
relatively high loadings can be used.
As far as the reservoir is concerned, surface protection requires
that the area be cleared before flooding and that unstable slopes along
the reservoir margins be identified or at least earmarked for nondevel-
opment. The high heat capacity of a reservoir causes a recession of
permafrost around the lake. Where applicable, this phenomenon, combined
with the undercutting of slopes by shoreline erosion, may cause instabil-
ity in presently stable slopes •
There is little or no wasting of slopes along the shorelines at our
Eklutna and Snettisham reservoirs. At Snettisham, however, the water
coming through the diversion tunnel used to temporarily lower the lake
level, caused erosion of materials at the tunnel outlet. Although short-
lived, this action produced a significant amount of deposition farther
down the drainage •
At Silvis Lake project in Ketchikan, the failure of an undersized
spillway during abnormally high lake levels caused the destruction of
the spillway and powerhouse, as well as the denudation of the entire
slope below the spillway.
The reservoir at Eklutna is relatively accessible to the Anchorage
public and receives a lot of recreational use. Problems with this have
been slight; some vandalism occurs, and the usual problem of litter is
slight. Reservoirs can be expected to have a high recreational potential;
long reservoirs extending up unnavigable rivers can create a water access
corridor with attendant secondary impacts. Such might be the case along
the Upper Susitna River .
137
-
Transmission Systems
A. Planning -To most people transmission systems are the most fre-
quently noticed elements of the much larger total system of the power
project. Much smaller in acreage and expense than dams and reservoirs,
they are unique in that they cross much longer distances and many differ-
ent ecosystems. Surface disturbance of these systems is relatively low
compared to that from most projects of similar scope. Most objections
to these lines stem from their visibility and additional access.
Since clearings and structures are involved, lines can be highly
visible. The Eklutna lines within a few miles of the powerhouse are
quite visible for some distance. Important factors affecting visibility
are distance, which is also related to scale of towers to environment,
and whether or not the clearing is on a slope. Clearings are much more
visible on slopes than on level ground. On the Snettisham project, use
of dulled conductors greatly reduced specular reflections; green anodized
aluminum was used for towers. The color was a poor choice, but it showed
that color can reduce visibility.
Continuous clearing and access road construction are the two phases
of transmission line construction affecting historical, particularly arche-
ological, sites. The best way to avoid disrupting these sites would be
to conduct a survey to locate them before the final line location pro-
cedure. Once sites are located, avoidance is relatively easy. With
aerial construction, the possibility of disturbing sites is much lower
than with construction from surface access.
B. Construction -Disturbances associated with constructing a trans-
mission line itself result from the placing of footings and from clearing.
Footings are located at the rate of four or five per mile for a 230
kilovolt (kv) line, and vary from excavated concrete footings to frost
screws, which are helical pilings such as those used on the Golden Valley
Electric Association 138 kv line in Fairbanks. Disturbance is localized
and the area could be rehabilitated by regrading and, if necessary, pro-
tecting it with mulch, and fertilizing and revegetating. Normally, the
affected area is small and revegetation is not necessary. In permafrost
soils and muskeg, to prevent possible future disturbance from settling
and heaving, heat-transfer devices can be used to keep the foundations
permanently frozen in place. These devices have been used successfully
in other installations; for transmission structures, they have been tested
successfully by the Golden Valley and Chugach Electric Associations.
Clearing can cause considerable soil disturbance. Fortunately, most
sensitive soils do not support forests heavy enough to require extensive
clearing; most clearing is done on soils that can tolerate the disturbance.
Clearing can be limited, reducing amount of damage and costing less
than heavy clearing. A minimal clearing computer program was devised by
Bonneville Power Administration and is now used extensively by them to
138
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
m1n1m1ze clearing on new lines. In this program, aerial photography, a
Kelsh plotter, and a digital computer terminal are used to identify the
exact cutting boundaries on either side of the centerline and individual
danger trees outside of the boundaries •
Fallen timber, if merchantable, can be removed for sale if an access
ro~d is used. Slash may be chipped to provide a ground cover for dis-
turbed soils. Quite often, it may be necessary to burn slash to prevent
fuel accumulation and outbreaks of forest-damaging insects which thrive
in downed timber and slash.
In forests of medium to light density in Alaska, a common practice
has been to clear areas by bulldozing trees. This is the most disturbing
method of clearing; topsoil is disturbed not only as root wads are pulled,
but also by the churning of treads or wheels. Bulldozing is acceptable
only for road clearing, for which stumps usually need to be removed
anyway. With this method of clearing, downed trees are pushed to the
edge of the clearing for disposal. On slopes, this practice is particu-
larly damaging, especially if the clearing takes a steep grade directly
over hills. Without the stabilizing effect of roots, the soil is highly
vulnerable to erosion.
For one method of construction, an access road would be used for all
or part of the transmission length. This is often the best method where
soils are suitable; access is easily maintained and reliable. Problems
arise, however, on permafrost zones, frost-heaving soils, poor foundations
such as muskeg, and on unstable slopes and at river crossings. Some of
our Eklutna line has low standard access roads, and we have had few pro-
blems with them. Many different schemes of continuous or partial access
road use are possible. Public use of access roads may cause problems in
areas not served by other easy methods of surface access. Conflicts may
arise with land-use policies of the land-managing agency.
All-terrain vehicle use is an alternative to the access road. ATV's
are not as efficient as conventional vehicles on roads, however, and they
are better suited for maintenance than for construction •
Winter construction along with summer use is an alternative where
soils are poor. Snow cover must be sufficient to prevent damage to
underlying vegetation. Vehicle track loadings are the pressure-on-soil
function of vehicle weight and surface area of track or tires. They must
be considered to avoid rutting and overcompaction of snow. Working
conditions in winter are not ideal, and work may be limited to delivery
of materials.
Helicopter construction often is used to avoid surface disruption.
Negative aspects of this method are the greater expense, weight limita-
tions, weather limitations, and potential safety hazards to persons working
underneath helicopter delivering towers. The positive aspects are the
minimization of ground contact, access to terrain that can't be reached
139
-
by other methods, and efficiency for tower erection and conductor string-
ing.
Helicopter construction was used on our Snettisham system for the
entire overhead length. The scarcity of suitable flying weather in South-
east made this method somewhat unreliable, but helicopters enabled
construction to continue over very rugged terrain.
c. Maintenance and Operation -For maintenance, a road is the most
reliable access, allowing heavy machinery to be moved in quickly for
repairs. Line patrols are easy and economical; vegetation maintenance
is also easy. A road needs upkeep, however, and in areas not well suited
for roads, maintenance problems may offset advantages. Roads are highly
visible in nonforested terrain, particularly on slopes.
ORV maintenance is usually coupled with aerial inspection. ORV's
allow modified maintenance vehicle access to many areas. ORV maintenance
is best suited to low density forest and treeless areas, and is difficult
in forested areas if brush has been allowed to grow back into clearings.
Impacts from ORV use vary with surface and vehicle characteristics.
Minimum use is recommended to minimize disturbance. Any transmission de-
sign that reduces the need for ORV maintenance is desirable, since relia-
bility reduces maintenance traffic.
Helicopter maintenance depends on weather, yet offers quick access
and fast surveillance; patrol and repair needs are usually within weight
limitations of the aircraft. Disturbance is minimal; only landing pads
in forested areas need maintenance. Manual brush cutting is not as suit-
able as aerial application of herbicides with helicopter use.
A road affects accessibility in several ways. If a transmission cor-
ridor pioneers a new corridor with access road, the access road will
attract use for recreation, hunting, prospecting, transportation, and
other purposes. Ability of roads to absorb new traffic is relatively
good. Ability of new terrain to absorb activity introduced by the road
may not be good at all. An access road may act as staging point for ATV
vehicles brought in by standard vehicles, greatly expanding their range
of action. The surface may not be durable enough to stand this use.
Access policy is the responsibility of land-managing agencies, trans-
mission designers, and the public. The land managing agency determines if
an access road is allowable, and, if it is, what public access policy
shall be. Engineers responsible for access road location and design
standards should design roads to handle expected traffic without neces-
sarily encouraging it. Public responsibility is to comply with the access
policy set out by the operating agency and the land managing agency.
D. Underground Transmission -Although seemingly less disruptive of
the environment, underground transmission actually is much more disruptive
140
.. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
than overhead; even if we disregard for the moment the additional costs
and inefficiency of burying high-voltage transmission. Undergrounding
requires a continuous disruption of the surface for its entire length,
unlike an overhead system, which requires excavation at four or five
locations per mile •
An ac underground system can have all three phases in one cable or
pipe, requiring only one trench. The right-of-way needed is basically
as wide as the trench, the construction road, and a buffer distance to
the other side of the trench. An access road is required, so it causes
impacts along with those from the trench excavation and backfill •
In operation, a transmission system generates heat in the conductors.
In an overhead system, this heat is easily dispersed to the air; in an
underground system, heat dispersal may cause problems, particularly in
permafrost. This heat can result in settling of ice-rich soils and pos-
sible rupture of the cable. Generated heat can be dissipated in several
ways. Normal installations are backfilled with "thermal sand" of higher
heat transmission. Through ice-rich permafrost, heat dispersion into the
soils would be discouraged. Heat-insulated cable could be used to retard
heat flow into the surrounding soils, although the high cable temperatures
would tax the capabilities of most cables. Oil-filled cables could use
a circulating oil design to transfer heat from the cable. Heat transfer
systems employing refrigerants could also be used. All would be consid-
erably more expensive than cables with no exceptional heat dispersion
requirements.
Several other environmental factors affecting underground trans-
mission are frost heave in poorly drained soils, earthquakes, and mass
wasting of soils. Although theoretically more reliable than overhead
systems, underground systems are subject to different potential faults
and practically, are more difficult to repair. A fault, once located,
would entail the re-excavation, repair, and reburial of the affected
section of cable. Soil disturbance will be equal to that from the ori-
ginal construction. Since machinery is required for these operations,
either an access road must be maintained or ORV's are used •
141
-
Visual Resource Management
Stanley v. Specht
ABSTRACT
The American people are concerned about the quality of their vis-
ual environment. Whether they are in Alaska or the lower 48,
their concerns and thoughts are readily apparent and often ex-
pressed. Because of this concern it has become appropriate to
establish the visual landscape as a basic resource. This resource
is one to be treated as an essential part of the land and receive
equal consideration with the other basic resources.
The presentation addresses the effects of modification of the
land's surface on the visual resource while the natural resource
base is managed. A brief description of BLM's technique for iden-
tifying and managing visual resource values is presented, as well
as how the system is used to predict potential impact from a pro-
posed activity. Examples are described where surface disturbance
affects the visual resource and how rehabilitation may lessen such
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
impacts. e
What is BLM's visual resource in Alaska? It is the land and water
surface, the vegetation, and the structures on every acre of land. In the
past, BLM and others have managed the forage, timber, wildlife, minerals,
and other resources, sometimes at the expense of the visual resource.
Why do we need to manage visual resources? What makes it important?
142
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
I
I
•
I
•
•
•
People.· Much of the land in Alaska is under the management of BLM.
These lands can be viewed by the public from the State's limited highway
and railroad systems or its extensive river network. The remainder can
be seen by "The Great Land's" flying public. More and more people are
beginning to use the public lands and more people are beginning to recog-
nize the values of open public lands. They're also beginning to recognize
~hen the management of these lands is less than what it could be.
What are the people that are using BLM lands doing out there? This
is easy to explain, and I am sure most of you are aware of the answer.
More people have more leisure time and are spending it on travel and
outdoor recreation. When they're traveling, they're looking. In fact,
sightseeing is a major part of almost all outdoor recreation activities.
What are people looking for? I think we might agree that most are
looking for a change of environment. They're trying to get away from the
hustle and bustle and the traffic and other people; they're looking for
interest, variety, and beauty. They want a pleasant environment.
Can BLM provide that environment? The environment already exists.
Our responsibility is to maintain its quality. We have the quality, the
interest, variety, and beauty that people are seeking. But, how do we,
as land managers, define beauty and relate it to land management?
The word beauty calls up all sorts of images--it means many things
to many people. This statement pops up every time we try to relate beauty
to land management: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." This may be
a good time to try to explain why beauty is in the eye of the beholder
and why it is important to us as land managers. The statement would be
more accurate if it were changed to: "How beauty is perceived is in the
eye of the beholder."
What one man sees from any one viewpoint is the same as what any other
man sees. How he interprets what he sees is where the difference lies.
Because past experience affects how a man perceives his environment, fam-
iliarity becomes a major factor in a person's interpretation of what he
sees. People are more comfortable in familiar surroundings and may also
be somewhat oblivious to them. once they leave these surroundings, they
become more acutely aware of what is happening around them. Something that
may just fade into the background in a familiar area becomes a point of
interest in a strange place.
When we try to define beauty, we get into some confusing terms. In-
terest, utility, and beauty are interrelated but not the same at all. A
place may be interesting without being beautiful. Some may confuse util-
ity or eventual utility with beauty. This is why the designer may see a
pipeline under construction as a thing of beauty, or the engineer may see
beauty in a well-constructed road even though it may virtually destroy the
scenic value of an area. Special features like the largest, the most, and
the unique take on a scenic value that some may relate to beauty. As you
143
-
see, defining beauty can be very difficult. Most people agree, however,
that a natural environment contains a certain degree of beauty, some
environments more than others. Nevertheless, nature has a way of provid-
ing a pleasant experience for the eye.
Most people are aware of this, and, in fact, have a preconceived
impression of what they expect to see in a natural environment. They
may d~elop a resentment toward any intrusions or abrupt changes in that
environment.
The lands we in BLM manage are primarily in a natural or near-natural
condition. This narrows the scope of what we are trying to define when we
talk about beauty as it applies to land management or use. We are con-
cerned with a primarily natural environment and we are trying to maintain
a degree of that natural beauty and character.
Many of our land management practices have the capability to make
significant intrusions on the character of the natural landscape.
The challenge, then, of visual resource management, is to recognize
these potential impacts and design our land management practices to com-
plement the natural character of the landscape rather than intrude upon
it. Manmade changes do not necessarily need to be considered intrusions.
It is only when these changes do not fit into the characteristic landscape
that they become intrusions.
How can we make the necessary changes in the landscape without creating
adverse visual impacts? To do this, we should understand a little more
about how man perceives his environment.
Some researchers in perception estimate that man perceives his impres-
sion of the world around him as 1 percent by taste, 1-1/2 percent by touch,
3-1/2 percent by smell, 7 percent by hearing, and 87 percent by sight.
Eighty-seven percent of man's perception is based on sight. Human
beings rely on sight more than on all their other senses combined. It is
apparent that a good deal of concern should be placed on the visual qual-
ities of our environment and how our management practices affect that
quality.
How many effects of our management
How many touched? Smelled? Or heard?
nificant, doesn't it? People recognize
management practices almost 100 percent
practices are tasted by our public?
That 87 percent becomes very sig-
and react to the results of our
by sight.
Whether or not you agree that the visual aspect of what we do is an
additional resource, it's quite obvious that how we handle the resource is
an extremely important part of the public acceptance of our programs.
Since enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act, public
144
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
acceptance can determine whether or not we even have a program. Many BLM
managers have already begun to recognize the visual impacts of some of
our practices and have made efforts to improve on them •
If we are to continue to manage the visual quality of the National
Resource Lands, it is important that we all know more about what we call
the visual resource.
What do people see on National Resource Lands? What types of what
we might define as features do we see in .typical scenes? The features we
can identify are trees, shrubs, grass, rocks, soil, mountains, clouds,
sky, snow, and buildings. If we place all of these features into cate-
gories, we find we have vegetation, land and water, structures, and cli-
matic factors.
Since we are talking about management of the visual resource, we can
limit discussion to the first three categories. Land and water surface,
vegetation, and structures are the manageable visual resources. There is
not much we can do about the climate.
Now we have answered the question, "What do people see?" The next
question that arises is, "How do they see it?"
You've seen a log cabin. It's a part of your past experience; we
talked about that earlier. But what is it that tells you that the image
in your mind is a log cabin?
The form, color, texture, and outline or lines of the individual logs
are the elements that define a particular building as a log cabin.
Form, line, color, and texture are the major elements that are per-
ceived in any visual composition. These are the basic elements that define
landscape character, and they are the major tools we can work with in man-
agement of visual resources •
Let's look at how we perceive the basic elements in a natural landscape.
1. Form is most strongly expressed in the shape of the land surface,
usually the result of some type of weathering, glaciation, or earth move-
ment. It may also be reflected in the shape of the openings or changes in
vegetation •
2. Lines found in the natural landscape are the result of an abrupt
contrast in form, color, or texture. Lines may be found as ridges, sky-
lines, changes in vegetation types, and in individual trees and branches.
3. Color, as perceived in the landscape, is most prominent in the
vegetation but may be noted in the soil, rocks, water, and may vary with
the time of day, time of year, and with the weather •
145
-
4. Texture is the result of the size, shape, and placement of parts,
their uniformity, and the distance from which they are being observed.
Texture, as it is perceived in the landscape, is usually the result of
the vegetation or vegetative patterns on the landscape. It may also be
the result of the erosive patterns in rocks and soil, or as a combination.
Now we have defined what we see (features) and how we see (elements).
How well we see is determined by the amount of contrast displayed in the
basic elements. The amount of contrast we see in the basic elements is
determined by a number of variables. Some of the most critical variables
are distance, angle of observation, time of viewing, size or scale, light,
and season of the year. Possibly the most important variable is distance.
The closer you are to an object, the more distinct the contrast becomes.
Those are some of the tools we can use in defining the character of
the landscape and how we can relate our management to it. We need a few
more tools, however, to add to our kit. A scene may have form, line,
texture, color, and contrast, but it may not be pleasant to look at.
Something else is needed--variety.
Another scene may have variety but may be missing something else--
harmony. We must have harmony, therefore, in a contrasting variety of
basic elements in order to have a high-quality visual experience.
Let's review that just a bit. Form, line, color, and texture are the
basic elements that define landscape character. The more variety. and the
stronger the contrast displayed in these basic elements, the more interest
there is and the stronger the character is said to be. The degree of
harmony among the basic elements determines whether or not a given land-
scape is pleasant'to view. There are two points that we can make here:
1. A landscape that has a relatively weak character can provide a
pleasant viewing experience if all of the basic elements are in harmony.
2. If the basic elements are not in harmony, the view will not be
pleasant regardless of the strength of the character. A mining operation
may be very interesting, but certainly not beautiful!
Many of our management practices make an impact on the visual resource •.
Reducing the visual impact with satisfactory results may cost more, but
not necessarily so if we are equipped to apply a few design principles in
the early planning stages.
Keep in mind that there are only three types of features in the vis-
ual resource--land and water surface, vegetation, and structures. The only
way we can change landscape character, therefore, is to change one or more
of those features. That simplifies the task somewhat, but almost every-
thing we do changes one or more features. The methods we can use are to
select location carefully, minimize the disturbance, and repeat the natural
elements.
146
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
careful Iocation is probably the single most effective method of
reducing visual impact. In many cases, proper location includes con-
cealment. If no one can see a project, there is no need for other meas-
ures to be taken. All public lands are subject to view by some people
at one time or another, however, so we do have to use some measures
other than concealment to reduce impact.
When choosing the location for any type of project, we should take
full advantage of any natural change in topography or vegetation. If a
change must be made, it is less noticeable if it is made where a natural
change already exists. For example, if we were to build a road down a
valley, where would the best location be--at the toe of the slope or
where the vegetation changes? We have two options. An alignment placed
where there is a natural change in the vegetation reduces the visual
impact.
The next method is to minimize the disturbance of the natural char-
acter as much as possible. As an example, at one time it was conmon
practice to clear a straight, even line with a caterpillar tractor when
conducting seismic investigations. Today, however, technology allows
moving equipment by hand or helicopter around obstacles,such as trees
and lake~ with a minimum of disturbance.
The final method we can use to reduce impact is to repeat the basic
elements that are displayed in the characteristic landscape (form, line,
color, and texture) in a manner that will reduce the contrast created by
the project. Manmade projects tend to contrast with the natural elements,
and this contrast creates a focal po·int that draws the eye. Reducing the
contrast is the key to remember when we are trying to reduce visual impact.
If we can reduce the contrast in form, line, color, and texture, we can
effectively reduce the visual impact of any land management activity •
147
-
Cultural Resource Protection
Gary Matlock
ABSTRACT
Legislation to protect historical and archeological resources in
the United States is older than surface-protecting legislation.
Since the 1906 Antiquities Act, stronger legislation has been
passed that requires survey, inventory, evaluation, and mitigation
procedures for cultural resource sites that may suffer impacts
from earth-disturbing projects. Federal cultural resource spec-
ialists, State Historic Preservation Officers, and Native corp-
oration staff members are familiar with programs for cultural
resource protection. Project planners should contact their
State Historic Preservation Officers early to include cultural
resource identification and preservation in their planning.
Strong public and legal concern over the impact of surface-dis-
turbing projects on both federal and other lands in the United States
is largely a post-World War II phenomenon. Massive federal assessments
in the form of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) and other docu-
ments may reasonably be dated to the passage of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), less than 10 years ago. While public
concern· for protection of "cultural resources" and the passage of the
fundamental legislation for protection of those resources date from
the late 1890's and early 1900's, it was not until the economic boom of
the 1950's and 1960's that the public began to demand stronger legis-
lation for the preservation of the Nation's cultural resources.
148
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
t
The first legislation to protect cultural resources in this country--
the Antiquities Act--was passed in 1906. In nearly every decade since then,
stronger legislation has been passed by Congress. The effect today is that
all federal agencies must inventory, evaluate, and protect all significant
historical and archeological resources that may be affected by any federal
or federally funded, assisted, or licensed action. Most of you in this room
have experienced the impact--both frustrating and satisfying--of this
legislation.
The management of cultural resources is complex, and it is impossible
for me today to discuss many parts of it in detail. I would like to discuss
several aspects that pertain to this seminar topic. They include the follow-
ing: 1. The direct and related legislation concerning protection and man-
agement of cultural resources at the federal level. It should be noted
that most states, including Alaska, have similar legislation and the states
are directly involved in the execution of some federal legislation; 2. The
nature and some definitions of cultural resources; 3. Procedures for im-
plementing legislation at the federal level; 4. Management of cultural
resources on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management; and 5. The
role of the State in the protection of the resource.
The discussion is designed to help industry to anticipate the legal
requirements and complete them with no interference with their work. We
recommend that in any project planning, contact be made early with the
Historic Preservation Officer for the State of Alaska and the cultural re-
source specialist for the agency concerned. The Bureau of Land Management,
u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service, the u. S. Forest Service, and the National
Park Service all have permanent archeologists and/or historians on their
staffs in Alaska. Most of the Native corporations have individuals fami-
liar with cultural resource programs •
"Cultural resources" is a term used almost universally by federal,
state, and academic institutions to identify archeological ~nd historical
resources. While cultural resource programs include the disciplines of both
history and archeology, differences remain between the needs of the two and
the procedures for inventory, evaluation, and protection. The programs
have in common management of the remains from man's past uses of the land,
whether by European, aboriginal, or other peoples. Normally, the concern
is directed to the physical remains left by earlier generations and those
that-have significance to us today or that will have significance in the
future.
In some cases, however, events or people important to our past can
be involved, although no physical remains are evident. An example is
physical features that had religious significance or places where an im-
portant event occurred, such as the signing of a treaty.
While determining the significance of the site is the prime object-
tive, all cultural resource activities must begin with survey and inventory,
to identify archeological and historical sites for evaluation.
149
•
The sites are then evaluated in accordance with the 1966 Historic Pre-
servation Act and appropriate mitigation determined before earth-dis-
turbing projects begin.
Paramount to the consideration of the resource is its nature.
Man's use ~f the land in the past has been extensive; in Alaska it has
been more extensive than present land use would indicate. In other cases,
selected areas have been used intensively. Quite often, in fact, intensive
land use today for Native villages coincides with similar use in the past.
Man tends to use similar reasons, whatever time period or whatever his
cultural group, in the selection of areas for habitation and subsistence.
In Alaska, the sites for modern Eskimo villages have been used for as
long as 2,000 years.
Cultural resources, especially archeological sites, are highly
sensitve to earth disturbance. If the past use of an archeological site
is to be reconstructed, the site must remain undisturbed. Only on an
undisturbed site can archeological workers separate the different levels
of occupation and the tools and other artifacts associated with each
succeeding use. The resource is irreplaceable, nonrenewable, and in
many cases, quite fragile. It is also finite in quantity. Thus, most
legislation for the protection of the resource is oriented toward identi-
fication so that the site may be evaluated for importance before it is
destroyed.
Clearly inherent in this legislation is the fact that not all
archeological and historical sites and structures have importance.
Historical sites are sometimes easier than archeological sites to evalu-
ate because of the methods used by the historian and the nature of the
resources. It is not necessary, for instance, to save every gold miner's
cabin in Alaska, but it must be determined which have importance as
representative examples of an event, time period, or people.
Archeological sites are often difficult to evaluate in terms of the
information they yield on the basis of surface indications alone. It often
is necessary to excavate a site to determine its significance. ·Excavation
is expensive, and it generally is preferable to leave a site untouched
until excavation or testing are warranted.
The Cultural Resource Legislation
A list of the major cultural resource legislation at the federal level
follows:
THE ANTIQUITIES ACT OF 1906 (34 Stat. 225)provided for the protection
of historic or prehistoric remains, "or any antiquity," on federal lands;
established criminal sanctions for unauthorized destruction or appropriation
of antiquities; authorized the President to declare by proclamation National
Monuments; and authorized the scientific investigation of antiquities on
federal lands, subject to permit and regulations.
150
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
THE ACT OF AUGUST 25, 1916, establishing the National Park SerVice, pro-
vided for the conservation of "the scenery and the natural and historic
objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the
same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for
the enjoyment of future generations." This indicated continued concern
with the cultural environment.
THE HISTORIC SITES ACT OF 1935 (49 Stat. 666) authorized the programs
that are known as the Historic American Buildings Survey, the Historic
American Engineering Record, and the National Survey of Historic Sites
and Buildings; authorized the establishment of national historic sites
and otherwise authorized the preservation of properties of "national
historical or archeological significance"; authorized the designation
of national historic landmarks; established criminal sanctions for viola-
tion of regulations pursuant to the Act; authorized interagency, inter-
governmental, and interdisciplinary efforts for the preservation of
cultural resources; and other provisions. The first efforts to salvage
data that would otherwise be lost were accomplished under the authorities
of this Act beginning the RBS in 1946.
THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966(80 Stat. 915; U.S.C. 470)
directed a national pol:i.cy of historic preservation, including the en-
couragement of preservation on the state and private levels; directed the
expansion of the National Register of Historic Places to include cultural
resources of state,and local as well as national significance; authorized
matching federal grants to the states and the National Trust for Historic
Preservation for the acquisition and rehabilitation of National Register
properties; established tb.e.Advisory Council on Historic Preservation;
provided certain procedures to be followed by federal agencies in the event
of a proposal that might have an effect on National Register properties;
defined the term "historic preservation" as the "protection, rehabilita-
tion, restoration, and reconstruction of districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture,
archeology, or culture. "
THE NATIONAL ENVIRON~NTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 (83 Stat. 852), among its
numerous provisions, declared in Sec. 101-B(4) that it is the policy of
the federal government to "preserve important historic, cultural, and
natural aspects of our national heritage." In order to carry out this
policy, the Act demands an interdisciplinary study of the impacts asso-
ciated with federal programs.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11593, "PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE CULTURAL ENVI-
RONMENT," May 13, 1971 (36 F. R. 8921). In reference to some of the
above legislation, instructed all federal agencies to provide national
leadership in historic preservation, to assure the preservation of cul-
tural properties in federal ownership, and to "institute procedures to
assure that federal plans and programs contribute to the preservation
and enhancement of nonfederally owned sites, structures and objects of
histor;i,cal, architectural, or archeological significance."
151
-
THE ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL DATA CONSERVATION ACT OF 1974 (74 Stat.
220), the amended 1960 Reservoir Salvage Act, provided for the preservation
of significant scientific, prehistorical, historical, or archeological
data (including relics and specimens) that might be lost or destroyed as a
result of 1.) the construction of dams, reservoirs, and attendant facilities
and activities, or 2.) any alteration of the terrain caused as a result of
any federal construction project or federally licensed project, activity,
or program; provided that the Secretary will be notified of impending loss
of such resources, and that the agency or the Secretary may· survey and recover
the data and publish the resultsj provides for agreement on time limits for
initiation ed completion of survey and recovery efforts; provides that
the Secretary will cOQrdinate, report on, consult with experts about, and
distribute funds appropriated for, those survey and recovery efforts;
provides that up to one percent of the total amount authorized to be appro-
priated for the federal activities may be transferred to the Secretary for
implementation of the Act, and provides funds for certain other costs.
The legislation listed varies from simple to complex. The 1906
Antiquities Act states that sites of "antiquity" will b~ protected. Other
congressional directives such as the 1966 Act, involve somewhat complicated
and often lengthy procedures to be followed by federal agencies. Other
Acts such as the Highway Act and the Reservoir Salvage Act are directed at
specific earth-disturbing projects that will affect the work of only a por-
tion of the members of the audience and with which they are undoubtedly
familiar.
The most recent Act, the 1974 Archeological and Historical Preserva-
tion Act, defines clearly under what circumstances protection of the re-
source must take place. The Act states that any federally initiated, funded,
or licensed prQjectwhich'causes "any alteration of the terrain" must contain
measures for the inventory, recovery, preservation, or protection of affected
cultural resources.
Muchof the legislation is oriented to federal agency management of
cultural resources. The purpose of the seminar is specifically oriented to
surface-disturbing projects and in the interest of time, I will not discuss
other than the following aspects.
Procedures for Protection of the Resource
In the case of virtually every surface-disturbing project, two basic
measures are necessary for compliance with federal.legislation for protection
of cultural resources.
;
First, a6omplete survey must be made of the area to be disturbed to
identify the existence of historic or archeological sites, if a survey has
not already been made.
Second, measures must be taken to protect or mitigate the effect of the
project on the resource. Measures may take a number of forms, depending on
152
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
I
•
I
I
the resource. This normally involves an evaluation of the importance of
the individual sites. Proper mitigation is then either avoidance of the
site, relocation of the project, or excavation of the site to salvage
material and information contained in it •
Let me discuss these two basic actions in detail. A cultural resource
survey must be conducted by a professionally competent individual, normally
working under a valid Antiquity Act permit issued to him or her from the
Department of the Interior as specified in the 1906 Act. ~ere earth dis-
turbance is anticipated, the survey must be a class III (100 percent) survey,
designed to locate and record the sites. It is important that this survey
be undertaken as early as possible in the planning of the project to enable
compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below.
Alaska has a number of special problems in undertaking an archeolo-
gical survey. Access is difficult in most parts of the state. Much of the
state is covered with snow in winter and heavy mats of vegetation and is
filled with vicious mosquitoes in the summer. In addition, fewer cultural
surveys have been made here than in other parts of the United States.
Following the survey and its inventory, sites located must be evaluated
for their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, their
importance for scientific inquiry, or other characteristics. If the site
is eligible for the National Register under the criteria identified in the
1966 ijistoric Preservation Act, impacts must not only be mitigated but
certain review procedures must be instituted. These review procedures, or
the document resulting for review, is called a Section 106 Statement. This
statement, which is similar to a NEPA review document, must be prepared for
any project which may have impacts on sites potentially eligible or already
entered in the National Register of Histori Places. Preparation of the
document assumes the existence of a detailed inventory of cultural resources
in the proposed area of impact.
The 106(2b) Statement is submitted to the State Historic Preservation
Officer. His staff usually includes an archeologist and an historian. They
review the document for adequacy of inventory and proposed mitigation of impacts.
After this review, the documents, with the State Historic Preservation Offi-
cer's comments, are forwarded to the President's Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. If all parties agree about mitigations, compliance with
36 CFR BOO is relatively simple. If not, the review can be time consuming
and complicated.
It is well to begin these procedures early in any project. The inven-
tory should be conducted as soon as the project area is clearly known. Then
steps for compliance with 36 CFR BOO should be taken soon after. Early con-
tact with the State Historic Preservation Officer for your state or with
the agency involved is highly recommended. Consideration of the cultural
resources is often overlooked in the planning process, only to cause delay
and problems later.
153
..
Preservation and management of the historical and archeological
resources has become a "given" by the American public. Much has been
done by federal agencies in this area of cultural resources. Neverthe-
less, it is clear that much remains to be done before large portions of our
Nation's history are forever lost. Fortunately, industry and government are
of one mind on the pressing need to inventory, evaluate, and protect all
significant historical and archeological resources. We can, therefore,
hope that our Nation's past will be preserved, to instruct this generation
and future generations as to where the Nation has been in the past and
will be going in the future.
154
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
session five
CHAIRMAN: William H. Adams, Fire Management Officer
Division of Fire Control
Bureau of Land Management
Alaska State Office
Anchorage, Alaska
SURFACE DISTURBANCE--continued
Fire Control and Disturbance of the Surface
OVerview--BLM responsibilities
· William H. Adams
overview--State responsibilities • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
George K. Hollett, State Forester
Alaska Division of Lands
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
Page
156
166
Fire access in the Alaskan Interior • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 169
Austin E. Helmers, Principal Watershed Scientist
Institute of Northern Forestry
u. s. Forest service
Fairbanks, Alaska
All-terrain vehicle (ATV) program in the Anchorage District •• 176
Les Rosenkrance, Area Fire Control Officer
Bureau of Land Management
Anchorage District Office
Anchorage, Alaska
(Abstract only]
Fireline construction
Larry Knapman, Soil Conservationist
Bureau of Land Management
Fairbanks District Office
Fairbanks, Alaska
.155
• • • • • • • • • • 177
-
Fire Control and Surface Disturbance
Overview--BLM Responsibilities
William H. Adams
ABSTRACT
There is general consensus that wildfire has a natural role in the
environment, but there is no agreement on the effect of fire on
the natural resources. More research is needed. The Bureau of
Land Management developed a classification system designed to as-
sess the gross impact of wildfire on all the natural resources.
The system was applied over Alaska to other agency administered
lands, including National Resource lands. Wildfire causes direct
resource loss as well as indirect impacts on the ecosystems. These
impacts may be beneficial or detrimental, depending on the land
manager's objectives. Several factors, most of them related to
burn intensity, modify the impact of fire on resources. Good in-
formation on fire behavior and successional trends of vegetation
is needed for the circumpolar region. Some work has been done in
Canada and more is planned there and in Alaska. Heavy equipment,
particularly bulldozers, does lasting damage to the environment.
The damage is accelerated if the area is underlain by permafrost.
Guidelines have been issued to minimize this damage. The Depart-
ment of the Interior recently revised its wildland fire policies,
and the BLM has developed guides to implement these policies on the
ground. Two years' experience with these new policies has resulted
in substantial savings with no appreciable increase in resource
losses.
156
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Impact of·Wildfire on the Environment
There is general consensus that wildfire has been important in
shaping the vegetative mosaic of the taiga. Harold Lutz (1956) had this
to say about forest fires in interior Alaska, "Their extensive and re-
peated occurrence in prehistoric, historic, and modern time is well
sl,lbstantiated."
While there is agreement that fire has had a natural role in the
environment, there is not agreement as to the effect of fire on the
natural resources.
Considerable research has been done on the effects of fire in the
circumpolar regions of the world, but much of it has been narrow in
scope. The thrust has been toward the effects of fire on a single re-
source rather than on ecosystems •
This deficiency has been recognized but has not been resolved. A
fire-effects research study aimed at determining the net effect of wild-
fire on all the resources has been proposed. BLM and the u. s. Forest
Service have agreed that such a study would reduce this knowledge gap.
The results of the study (if it is implemented) will be useful in the
long range, rather than immediately.
In the interim the Bureau of Land Management developed a classifi-
cation system aimed toward determining the gross impact of wildfire on
all of the natural resources. This system was applied over the State
to other agency administered lands as well as to the National Resource
lands. On a point system ranging from negative values to over 480, about
one-half of the State was in Class I. Fire does relatively little dam-
age to resources in Class I. A little less than half of the State fell
into Class II, where fire does more damage to the resources. Less than
5 percent of the State fell into higher classes.
Here is a summary of the Bureau's fire-impact classification system:
1. An array of values was established for each natural resource
to allow for flexibility when the system was applied to a specific site.
2. Local resource specialists then applied the system to .all of
Alaska. The point values assigned were arrived at subjectively and were
based on available knowledge.
3. These point values may be altered as more or better fire effects
data are forthcoming.
Wildfire causes some direct resource loss .
1. Wildfire nearly always kills black and white spruce because of
l57
-
the thin layer of bark protecting the living tissue and because normal
wildfire temperatures exceed the tolerance level of living vegetation.
2. Wildfire tends to increase heart rot in hardwoods which are
not killed.
3. There is an immediate loss of wildlife browse and habitat.
4. Some forms of wildlife are destroyed.
5. Recreation values are generally decreased, as most of the gen-
eral public does not find a black forest pleasing.
Wildfires cause indirect impacts on the ecosystem which may be bene-
ficial or detrimental. For instance, the fire that kills spruce may
accelerate browse reproduction which would make the land more valuable
for some wildlife.
Several factors modify the impact of fire on the resources. Most
of these are related to the intensity of the burn. They include:
1. Time of year.
2. Time of day.
3. Fuel moisture.
4. Days since precipitation.
5. Relative humidity.
6. Wind direction and speed.
7. Slope and aspect.
8. Size and distribution of fuel.
A forest fire may be a subsurface fire smoldering in the tundra; it
may be flames a few inches high, creeping slowly along the surface; or
it may be a forest fire (in the same forest) racing through the tree
tops, creating its own winds, and destroying everything in its path.
A controlled burn in a black spruce stand similar to a black spruce
ecosystem in Alaska was carried out by a Canadian researcher, A. D. Kiil
(1972), in northcentral Alberta in July 1972. The purpose of the burn
was twofold:.
1. To determine fire behavior in that ecosystem.
2. To assess successional trends of vegetation on old burns in the
158
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
black spruce forest type.
The following were the immediate effects of the fire:
1. All of the aboveground plants and the top layer of the forest
floor, including spruce trees, conifer reproduction, and Labrador tea,
were killed.
2. The average scorch height was 9. 5 feet and the maximum was
16.4 feet •
3. Fifty-four percent of the black spruce crowns were burned.
4.
donia •
Depth of the burn was 3.2 inches and included all of the Cla-
(Forest floor was 17.7 inches above the pe;mafrost.)
5. The ground fire killed all trees, but none of the stems were
consumed and the blackened stems will remain standing for many years.
6. Because the fire reduced the amount of available fuel, a dis-
aster-type fire probably could not occur in the burn area within 25
years •
Some fire behavior data from the prescribed burn follow:
1. The forward rate of spread of the fire was about 21.6 feet per
minute or 1/4 mph.
2. The forward rate of spread from spotting ahead because of a 12
mph wind was 196 feet or 2.2 mph.
3. Flame temperatures ranged from 1300 to 1800°F.
4. Head-fire flame length was 16.4 feet, and the depth of the flame
front was 9.8 feet •
An indication of vegetative succession following wildfire on similar
sites with deep accumulations of organic matter was obtained by on-site
inspection of old burns and aerial reconnaissance in the study area. The
following table is based on data from this inspection.
No living vegetation
Labrador tea
Cladonia
Black spruce
Projected Vegetative Cover
Percent of Burn Area Covered by Four Categories
Pre-Burn 1972 1982 1992
2
90
50
20
159
100
0
0
0
40
75
5
2
5
85
35
10
-
While most fires in black spruce kill the aboveground vegetation,
the reproductive characteristics of black spruce, Labrador tea, and
other lesser vegetation favor a relatively rapid invasion and develop-
ment of post-fire vegetation.
Impact of Suppression Actions on the Environment
Machines --Generally heavy equipment, particularly bulldozers,
does long-lasting damage to the environment. The damage by bulldozers
is greatly accelerated when the area is underlain by permafrost.
Land managers are acutely aware of the potential for long-term
damage through suppression actions. Generally, heavy equipment use is
not authorized unless people and improvements are threatened.
Some other equipment, such as all-terrain vehicles, is used in sup-
pression actions. The Bureau requires that these vehicles have an aver-
age footprint of less than 3.5 psi to minimize damage to the surface
organic mat.
Fire Line Location --Improper location of fire control lines has
resulted in erosion and long-term environmental damage. The Bureau has
developed guidelines on fire line construction and location to minimize
these impacts. The use of natural barriers as control lines can help
reduce damage.
Chemical Retardants --It is recognized that most fire retardants
used in Alaska are toxic to aquatic life if sufficiently concentrated.
Guidelines direct how and when retardants may or may not be applied. The
retardants commonly used in Alaska are fertilizers, and damage to the
vegetation has not been observed.
Action Modification and Its Impact on the Environment
During periods of multiple-fire occurrence, action cannot be taken
to suppress all fires because initial attack resources are committed.
During these periods, priorities must be developed for which fires are
to be actioned. The fire impact map is used to determine attack prior-
ities. Fires on lands with high point values or high impact ratings re-
ceive action first.
Below are some conditions under which exceptions are made in the use
of the fire impact classification system to set priorities.
1. Land use planning and management objectives exist for the land.
2. Agency land use objectives conflict. BLM protects other Interior
agency lands to the same standards as for national resource lands. These
other agencies are involved in assigning attack priorities when fires occur
on their lands in multiple-occurrence periods.
160
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3. Pressures occur from public op~n~on and awareness. The public
often urges us to take action on a fire where attack was delayed because
of low fire impact priority. A column of smoke visible from a community
is often enough to trigger demands for suppression action.
4. Political considerations develop. A new potential administrator
®f lands may have single use objectives which call for alternative sup-
pression actions.
5. Economic interests are affected. Smoke from forest fires often
triggers requests for increased suppression actions from tourist-related
industry or agencies. Another economic aspect is that trained Native
crews comprise the bulk of our emergency firefighter force. These crews
may ask for increased actions because of potential lost wages.
Most of these types of pressures were identified by an action modi-
fication system. Generally, it provides for the highest level of protec-
tion to areas with people and improvements. A corridor five miles wide
on each side of public roads, communication lines, and energy related
corridors has been established. A protective zone 10 miles in radius
encircles each community. Larger cities have a protective circle 20
miles in radius •
BLM's Fire Control Policy
The Department of the Interior revised its wildland fire policy about
a year ago. Here are some significant portions from it.
"590.1.3A. Wildland fires whether on lands administered by the
Department or adjacent thereto which threaten human life, man-made
structures, or are determined to be a threat to the natural re-
sources or facilities under the jurisdiction of the Department,
shall be considered emergencies and their suppression given pri-
ority over normal Departmental programs. Bureaus will give the
highest priority to preventing the disaster fire--the situation
in which a wildfire causes damage of such magnitude as to impact
management objectives and/or socio-economic conditions of an area.
"590.1.3B. Within the framework of management objectives and
plans, overall wildland fire damage shall be held to the minimum
possible, giving full consideration to: (1) an aggressive fire
prevention program; (2) the least expenditure of public funds for
effective suppression; (3) the methods of suppression least dam-
aging to resources and the environment; and (4) the integration of
cooperative suppression actions by agencies of the department
among themselves or with other qualified suppression organizations.
"590.1.3C. Prescribed fires, which may include ignitions by nat-
ural causes, may be used to achieve agency land or resource man-
agement objectives under approved and coordinated plans."
161
...
The Bureau of Land Management gave additional direction, as shown
in these excerpts from a BLM Manual Release 9210 dated 8/29/75:
.. 9210.1C. Managers must take action with adequate forces to
contain all fires during the first burning period which occur on
or are threatening the national resource lands. Fires occur-
ring on lands identified for alternate suppression objectives,
under paragraphs D and E below, must be attacked in accordance
with alternate action plans. When multiple fires create a con-
dition of insufficient forces, priority for action must be given
the fires threatening the areas of highest value.
"9210.10. Resource managers may use fire to meet specific re-
source management objectives in accordance with the terms of an
approved prescribed fire plan. The plan may be implemented when
(1) resource managers develop a specific resource management
objective for burning; (2) the subactivity funds are available
for carrying out the prescribed fire plan; (3) the burning con-
ditions exist which are identified in the prescribed fire plan;
and (4) the planned forces are available.
"Prescribed fire plans must contain the following minimal require-
ments: the objectives for burning; the fire behavioral and meteor-
ological conditions which will accomplish the burning objectives;
the pre-ignition action plan identifying fuels, preparation, burn-
ing sequence, fire breaks, and control force requirements for the
planned action and for emergency fire suppression. An environ-
mental analysis review is also required for each project. Pre-
scribed fire pl~s must be approved by the State Director.
"92l.0.1E. In areas where the difficul.ty of control.l.ing fires is
extremel.y high and where the val.ues threatened do not warrant the
expenses associated with the usual initial attack procedures,
managers may alter the suppression objectives contained in para-
graph c by preparing special suppression plans. Areas having spe-
cial suppression plans must be clearly defined on all initial
attack maps. These plans shall include: Justification for the
alternate initial attack method, fire behavioral and meteorological
conditions under which the alternate action plans will be used,
suppression action plans, an environmental analysis review, and
an emergency suppression contingency plan. Such action plans must
be coordinated with the resource managers and with all land owners
adjacent to the area. Rehabilitation, if any, will be cOIIDI\ensur-
ate with the values and will be analyzed as part of the alternate
fire suppression action plan. The State Director must approve all
special fire suppression action plans."
BLM Alaska implemented these policies and made some interpretations
which resulted in the following policies for Alaska:
162
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1. Initially attack all fires limited only by available suppres-
sion capability and logistics problems.
2. Give first priority and adequate suppression capability to
accomplish minimum loss on all fires which threaten life, property, and/
or have high fire impact on the resource base.
3. Use the action modification and fire impact classifications,
considering weather, to establish attack priorities when suppression
capability becomes limited. Order additional capability •
4. On fires which escape initial attack and do not threaten life-
property and/or have low fire impact the following policy applies:
a. Where control is feasible with modest suppression commit-
ment, increase and sustain attack •
b. Where control is feasible only with massive suppression
commitment, delay attack and develop an action plan commensurate with
resource values at risk and fire impact.
constraints to optimizing fire attack decisions include:
a. Incomplete land use plans and lack of land management ob-
jectives; or
b. Insufficient research information on fire impact relative
to resources.
What do we use on interim basis for fire attack decisions?
a. Experience.
b. Existing studies.
c. Multi-disciplinary analysis of attack problems •
Present Status
1. Fire has played an important role in shaping the vegetative
mosaic of the Alaska taiga.
2. There are not enough base data available as to the effect of fire
on the natural resources. Short-and long-term fire effects research is
needed.
3. Land managers cannot wait for these base data since they are
faced with decision points every summer regarding wildfire. They must
make fire attack decisions based on experience and the available know-
ledge of fire effects using a multi-disciplinary approach.
163
4. The fire impact overlay and the action modification overlay
are the best available systems for helping management develop fire attack
priorities.
5. The new Departmental wildland fire policies direct us to take
action on all fires but also recognize that fire can be either destruc-
tive or beneficial. They also provide for the use of fire as a tool to
achieve management objectives.
Summary of Wildfire and Surface Disturbance in Alaska
Wildfire does relatively little damage to soil and water of the
Alaska taiga when compared to the effect of fire on the surface of lands
in the Western United States. Our land does not suffer the massive
mudslides, for instance, which often result from the removal of vegeta-
tion by fire in California.
Foresters in Alaska (Adams 1974) have speculated about the cause of
the Great Kobuk Sand Dunes in the Kobuk River drainage and the Nogahagana
Sand Dunes west of Huslia. Rowe and Scotter (1973) note there is evi-
dence to indicate that similar dune-forming activity near Lake Athabasca
in northwest Saskatchewan was caused by fire. Further research is needed
to determine if fire is the cause of the dune activity in the Interior
of Alaska. Fairly large areas of the Interior have fine sandy soil
underlying the moss. It appears probable that repeated burns during
abnormally dry years could destroy the moss cover and initiate the dune
activity. If research can confirm this, a higher level of protection
may be needed for these fragile areas. In addition, stabilization
methods for these areas need to be worked out if dunes are encroaching
on surrounding vegetation.
Occasionally, a severe fire in black spruce stands underlain by
permafrost will result in slumping.
Studies (Viereck 1973) have been made on the effect of fire on per-
mafrost. Viereck summarizes this work:
"Fire in forest types underlain by permafrost results in a tem-
porary thickening of the active layer. Although thawing in the
burned stands the year of the fire may not be significantly more
than in the unburned stands, by the end of the second summer it
may be as much as 160 percent of that in the unburned stands.
For the first 15 years after fire, thaw is more than 1 m; return
to preburn thaw levels takes about 50 years.
"One effect of the lowering of the permafrost table after fire is
the formation of thermokarsts. In areas heavily underlain by ice
wedges, thawing results in a subsidence of areas over the ice
wedges, creating a polygonal mound and ditch pattern. The ditches
or pits may be 2-3 m deep and often remain filled with water most
1~
.. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
of the sUmmer. Active thermokarst, with trees tipping into
ditches and fresh cracks in the mounds, occurs in successional
stands of birch at least 40-50 years after fire. Eventually,
with the return of black spruce, these sites may become stabil-
ized, or small thaw ponds may develop and continue in an active
cycle of pond and black spruce as has been described by Druru."
Fire suppression activities in many cases have resulted in more
surface disturbance than the wildfire itself. Management restricts the
use of off-road vehicles for fire suppression and use of equipment is
rarely authorized unless life and property are endangered. The impact
of firefighters on the surface has also been recognized and all garbage
and other materials brought into fire areas are removed •
The fragile characteristic of soils underlain by permafrost is re-
cognized and guidelines have been written to reduce surface damage by
fire suppression activity. There are also standard procedures to rehab-
ilitate areas disturbed by fire suppression activities. Often, the
rehab work is started while suppression activities are still under way
to minimize surface disturbances which may result in accelerated erosion •
Finally, recent changes in our fire policies have resulted in input
to fire decisions by resource managers. This, in turn, provides an
opportunity to use fire as a management tool and to consider the natural
role of fire in the Alaskan environment •
Literature Cited
Adams, Wm. H.
problem.
Control.
1974. The role of fire in the Alaska taiga--An unsolved
Dec. u. s. Bureau of Land Management, Division of Fire
Alaska State Office, Anchorage, Alaska. 18 pp. Mimeo.
Kiil, A. D. 1975.
Research Notes.
Fire spread in a black spruce stand.
Can. For. Serv. Vol. 31, No. 1.
Bi-monthly
Lutz, H. J. 1956. Ecological effects of forest fires in the Interior
of Alaska. Tech. Bull. 1133. Alaska Forest Research Center. For-
est Service. u. S. Dept. Agr. u. s. Government Printing Office •
Washington, D. c. 121 pp.
Rowe, J. S.,and G. W. Scotter. 1973.
444-464 in Quaternary Research.
Washington, seattle, wn •
Fire in the boreal forest. Pages
Vol. 3, No. 3. University of
Viereck, Leslie A. 1973. Ecological effects of river flooding and for-
est fires on permafrost in the taiga of Alaska. Pages 60-67 in
Permafrost: The North American contribution to the second interna-
tional conference. Yakutsk, U.S.S.R. National Academy of Sciences.
Washington, D. c .
165
-
Fire Control and Surface Disturbance
Overview --State Responsibilities
George K. Hollett
ABSTRACT
State Fire Law AS 41.15 defines responsibilities of the State, and
in Section 41.65.020 is stated the role of the Commissioner of
Natural Resources to protect forest lands by regulation. Formerly
contracting with Bureau of Land Management for protection, the
State now intends to provide fire protection on state and private
lands along road systems. The terms fire control and fire manage-
ment must be understood before sound decisions can be made. Fire
and its role in the State must be placed in perspective with the
economy, the ecosystem, and the mana9ement objectives of the State.
Statutes and Regulations
If one looks at the State Fire Law AS 41.15, there is not much ques-
tion about what the State of Alaska responsibilities are. In Section
41.15.010, we find, "It is the intent of this chapter to provide protec-
tion to the timber resources and watersheds of all land in the State."
Here then we have a pretty well laid out responsibility, but how we go
about providing the protection is left up to regulation. This is found
in Section 41.65.020, "The Commissioner shall, by regulation, make provi-
sion for the protection of forested lands in the State from fire and other
destructive agents." To date, we have not put any regulations into effect.
The State's effort to meet its responsibilities has been done by en-
tering into a contract with the Bureau of Land Management to provide the
166
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
necessary protection. The summer of 1976 will see the first change in
our past direction as we put a state wildfire suppression force on the
Kenai Peninsula. It is the intent of the State to move into fire pro-
tection of the state and private lands along the road systems within the
next few years •
As we get into this new field, we will be looking to BLM, the u. S.
Forest Service, and sessions like this to help us come up with workable
regulations. The symposium held in Fairbanks in 1971, "Fire in the North-
ern Enviromnent," and papers like that by Leslie A. Vierech, "Wildfire
in the Taiga of Alaska," will also play a part •
Bill Adams has just given us an overview of BLM responsibilities in
which he has covered BLM's fire control policy and its fire impact clas-
sification system. I am sure we in the state fire control organization
will have to come up with something along these lines. One thing that
must be kept in mind when we talk policy, is that we are dealing with
private lands over many of which we do not have any direct control. A
let-burn policy on state lands may not be acceptable to a private land-
owner. This type of situation, and economics as it relates to the cost
of suppression, will play a big part in development of a state fire con-
trol policy •
Fire Control Versus Fire Management
Let's think about fire for a moment. I have used the term fire
control as did Bill, but today we are hearing a new term--fire management.
Anyone who has warmed his hands or enjoyed fire's friendly light knows
that all fire is not bad. Fire, along with air, water, and earth, is a
basic part of the enviromnent. We do not judge air to be "bad" because
of periodic, destructive hurricanes. We are drawn to water rather than
avoiding it, despite its potential to cause devastating floods. We do
not fear· the earth, though we know that forces beyond our control can
cause it to quake and slide.
-Fire, no less than air and water, has been a natural directing force
in the evolution of man and the earth he.inhabits. Early in his history,
man learned to use and control fire. It was, perhaps, his first tool.
Yet, the acceptance of fire in the forest seems basically contrary to
the beliefs of "modern" man. Perhaps we have progressed beyond the need
for direct dependence on this natural force. Or maybe we simply do not
know and understand it any longer •
Fire control consists primarily of firefighting techniques, fire~
fighting equipment, and the necessity to get to the fire quickly so as
to suppress it. Fire management is much more than fire control. It
includes fire prevention--measures to be taken to lessen fire risk--as
well as an understanding of fire ecology .
Russell Lebarron (1957) expressed the attitude that I believe is
167
-
shared among people working in fire management today, "We must find ways
to prevent the wastefulness of wildfires, yet utilize the forces for
good which fire possesses."
The notions that forest fires should be prevented and that those
started should be suppressed as quickly as possible is being challenged
today. The thrust of many current popular and some scientific articles
is that fire is natural and, therefore, fire prevention and control are
unnatural and, by implication, harmful to the "ecology."
The problem for forest land managers is that the public isn't able
to discriminate between the selected situations when professionals may
need to use fire for specific purposes and the general situation where
wildfires are costly and harmful to people. This lack of distinction
offers a real threat to the future effectiveness of forest fire preven-
tion. To suggest that care with fire is unnecessary is, I believe, irre-
sponsible and destructive. As I mentioned before, fire prevention is
a part of fire management.
When deciding whether to attempt fire control in wild lands, managers
must consider several factors. Not only must the economic value of the
resources come under scrutiny, but also the probable effects and costs
of suppression. S~me of these effects were covered by Bill and others
and will be covered by other speakers to follow, so I am not going to
give you a long list. I do feel there is an urgent need to describe and
quantify impact and effects of fire. The years ahead promise to be dedi-
cated to halting and reversing the long decline in the quality of the
American environment. Wildfire prevention and control as part of fire
management will play an important part in this effort.
Fire and its role in Alaska must be placed in the proper perspective
in terms of the economy, the ecosystem, and the management objectives of
the State.
Literatu.re Cited
LeBarron, Russell. 1957. Silvicultural possibilities of fire in north-
eastern Washington. J. Forestry 55:627-630.
Viereck, Leslie A. 1973. Wildfire in the taiga of Alaska. Quaternary
Research. Vol. 3, No. 3. University of Washington, Seattle, Wn.
168
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fire Access in the Alaskan Interior
Austin E. Helmers
ABSTRACT
Fire access usually should be via ridges, where soil tends to be
shallow, erosion hazards minimal, and timber cover most open. Dry
slopes with deep permafrost or none are useable, but any slope is
a potential erosion hazard. Permafrost areas, muskegs, and poorly
drained sites should be crossed only as a last resort, to avoid
trafficability problems and long-lasting environmental damage.
Access trails should be rehabilitated as needed. Pre-attack plan-
ning in zones accessible to ground vehicles will develop all fac-
ets of access so that information is available to dispatchers when
needed. Cat bosses should air-check routes before taking off with
equipment. An urgent need is for the development of low ground-
pressure vehicles and aerial alternatives to dozers for fire sup-
pression.
Whatever might be one's views on fire suppression, a higher quality
land management is gaining momentum in Alaska. As resource management
becomes more complex, environmental factors have to be defined more accur-
ately in justifying management investments. Since fire is a major envir-
onmental factor, it follows that the management of fire must be an integral
part of resource management. A recreation area, timber stand, or wildlife
habitat cannot be managed effectively without effective fire management.
Fire management affords an opportunity to reduce the cost and improve the
quality of resource management.
l69
-
The fire management aspect assigned to this paper is ground access,
specifically by heavy crawler tractors, and in a zone of about 20 miles
on each side of main roads.
The discussion also concerns what might be called secondary attack,
the action taken when a fire esca~es initial attack. Initial attack is
often a combination of aerial retardant drops and jumpers. In the second-
ary attack, and under the present fire control methods, dozer use is a
tactical possibility when resource or other values warrant.
What are some considerations in fire access involving dozers? Mostly
I can only repeat well-known guides and offer a couple of possibilities
for attack planning and methods that will reduce adverse impacts on the
land. A good condensation of some guides is the report of a special com-
mittee assigned by the BLM State Director, Influence of Man-Caused Surface
Disturbance in Permafrost Areas of Alaska (Martinet al. 1973).
There probably is good agreement that the basic critical factor in
Interior fire access is that most of the area is characterized by contin-
uous to discontinuous permafrost, with sporadic permafrost along the
southern fringes. Consequently, the cat boss walking dozers to a fire
should be familiar with appropriate guidelines:
1. Keep dozer routes to ridge tops and south-facing slopes. On
ridges the soils tend to be thinner than elsewhere, and they are more
stable due to increased amounts of rock in the profile or shallower depths
to rock. South-facing slopes tend to be free from permafrost, or at least
have only shallow permafrost tables. Even a dry south-facing slope, how-
ever, is an erosion hazard when the protective vegetation is disturbed.
Many of the Interior soils contain a high fraction of silt-sized material.
These soils are quite highly erodible. Thus, on steep slopes the route
should dog-leg, or meander, to avoid long reaches where water tends to
concentrate during intense rains or rapid snowmelt. The route should be
cross-drained and stabilized as needed after use.
2. A corollary to the foregoing is to avoid permafrost areas. These
tend to be, but are not restricted to, north-facing slopes and poorly
drained lowlands. To cross such areas sometimes may be unavoidable. If
so, it may be preferable to route dozers en echelon by two's or even
singly, to avoid vegetation disturbance likely to result from a number
in single file. The ~ echelon pattern will walk down more trees, but it
could reduce mechanical damage to the insulating organic mat. The decision
is up to a knowledgeable and watchful cat boss. Corrective follow-up
action may be needed.
3. Use existing ORV routes where possible. Many ridges in the Inter-
ior have been traveled by various sorts of vehicles. These occasionally
have sections of low trafficability, which, however, are seldom limiting
factors to dozer access. But the cat boss should know about them and plan
to avoid further site deterioration.
170
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
T.hese are a few simple guides applicable to fire access in the Inter-
ior that are well-known to anyone familiar· with cross-country travel there.
An overriding guide is to know the environmental consequences of what
we do, and to convey this understanding to equipment operators. For exam-
ple, on the trail to a fire there should be few occasions justifying a D-8
spinning around on a locked track!
There are a couple of reason~ why there should be diminishing needs
for dozer trail guidelines. First is that there should be developed fire
line construction techniques that avoid, or reduce, the use of dozers.
There could be a virtual crash program to develop an effective low-ground-
pressure-vehicle technology. Much could be applied from the mobility
techniques of geophysical exploration. Such a program can be implemented
through cooperative administrative studies involving fire control and
resource management specialists, federal, state, and private.
A second development should be pre-attack planning. Like terrain
guidelines, it is not something new. It is in use in some of the other
states (USFS 1972). Early stages in pre-attack planning are in use by
the BLM in Alaska; for example, fire impact rating.
Pre-attack planning should not be limited to fire access. But it is
so limited in the present paper, and includes preplanning dozer routes
and support factors on map and aerial photos, describing the factors, and
storing the information for retrieval by fire dispatchers and tactical
planners.
An attempt to illustrate pre~attack planning was done on a USGS IS-
minute quadrangle (Fig. 1). This was a desk exercise only, and does not
necessarily represent actual field conditions. Figure 1 shows a major
road, the Elliott Highway. The legend shows that the highway and access
roads to the pipe pad are trafficable for lowboys with dozers. It also
shows places where lowboys can be unloaded. These are numbered T-1, T-2,
etc. Roads that will support light trucks, typical of what would be used
to haul fire suppression supplies, are shown, including sections of the
pipeline work pad and older trails. Other sections of the pad and o~her
older trails are mainly navigable by all-wheel drive and soft-tracked
vehicles. The dashed single lines are the main point of the exercise,
being the proposed routes for walking dozers to fires. Note that they
generally are ridge routes. A special type of dozer access is the string
of "plus" symbols, which are dozer-constructed firelines on previous fires.
The rectangtilar boxes, numbered X-1, X-2, etc., are areas of probable
trafficability problems on dozer access routes. Helispots are numbered
H-1, H-2, etc. Special use or high value areas are hachured and numbered
S-1 and S-2.
All of the features shown on the map would be put there only after
being checked out in the field. There may be other helispots, lowboy
unloading areas, or various kinds of trails, but they haven't been field
checked. According to this proposal, the map would be accompanied by
171
-
PREATTACK PLAN
-----Llsht Tr11eJI
;: L•wbot
••••••• D•••r .F'Ira LlftU
Ofh•rFnhr•• ·-" ~.,i .. t•
.,., Ouar U"IHdi"f
... ~ • , .. ,. TNffiallllilitll :® Spo~l U.. A,.•;.•
· Fig . l . Pre-attack plan on a USGS l5-minute quadrangle .
172
•
i~
...,) w
•
LO
•lE
LS
.lA
1• ~· LO
!lE
LS
OA
1i ...
LO
JF
LS
DA
10 "'A
LO
flE
LS
a a
11 filA
LO
·lE
LS
ilA
lll ·~A
1.)
t)f:
LS
tlA
• • • • • • •
01/Zit/00
Bill ~2" Silll<tN.,llit\= lJ It S lS FBKS f'ER
SMAll ~OCK QUA~RY ~r ~ E~D OF C~ATAhiKA RIVER BRIOGE. MEDIUM-ROCK BULKHEAD. HAZARD DUE TO C8STRUCTIQN OF
ONE LAI'fE OF TR•ICK IUI'FIC DUlliNG UNLOADING. RAMP 12 l'otEFUA8LE.
STATE lEPT HIGHWAY~. FF USE APPROVED. TROOPERS RE~Uf~T NOTIFICATION PH it72-1116.
8115175
TRACIOR RAMP -15
T3N 1\lW CE>'tTER OF ·• :h FBKS MER
LARG~ J'UYEl PITo I >«•MPSo IIOTH WITH lARGE-ROCK RULKH::AOS IN FUR CONOITICJIIi. FAIR ENTRANCE AND EXIT FOR UP
TO 5 LJW80YS AT Olr fiME.
STATE JEPT HIGtiWoiYio. FF USE APPROYEOo NO CONTACT REO.HRED.
6115114 J. SMIT ...
TRAFFICABILITY PRilti..F14 X-llt
TlN ~lE 5112SEl/4MOII• S 9 FBKS MER
OLD CHUANIKA JUl GoU.tlF. DENSE WILLOW AND ALDER. RUBY C~EEK C'lCJSSING NON-TRAFFICABLE FOR 5001 • USEABLE ROUTE
1.000' UPSTREAM Flt14 wiUCEo URCUGH DENSE BRUSH. THEN CROSS FIRM NARROW ROCKY FORD. NO GOOC CROSSING
OOW"'S TR E AM •
F. E. CO. FF ~SE •PPcOYEOo NC CONTACT REQUIRED. AilYI~c QF USE SUBSfQUE"'TLY. JOE MINER PH ltSl-1999
7118/H PHILIP ~Ill OW
TRAFFICA81LITY PAC~fM X-15
T3N RlE SWllltSEl/it~Fl/lt S 8 FBKS MER
OLD C1,TANIKA RR ~'~r. DENSE WILLOw AND ALDER. 8RI~F GO"'E OYER DRAIN DITCH AND ADJACENT STREAM CHANNEL,
TUFF ICABIL lTV oOU-Hf•IL • NO BETTER CROSS lNG UP OR 00.,.. STREAM. APPRO X 30 MINUTES OCZER WORK TC CCNSTRUCT A
IIROS1 UMP.
8U4 ,..ECESS&R'f TO i;Li'UI UP CACSSING AFTER USE. SEE I'~»KS AREA MGR.
111811j PHILIP 4l1LCW
TRAFFICABILITY PaOtt.of.4 X -16
HN ~1 .. Nfl/<tlll .. l/lt.>i'lllt S 18 FI!KS MER
OLO Cti4TANIKA ~~ ~A)P .T LITTLE ELOORAOO CREEK. ~N-f~AFF1C4~LE REACH ABOUT 100•. OLD DRAGLINE PROSPECT
GRAYFL PILE 1.2lJ• W> ... TRf:AM Cll S SIDE OF STREAM PR.JVUtS E"'OUGH GRAVEL FOR TEMP CROSSING "HEN APPPOACHEC FROM w. F~JM E NECcSSIKt 10 CONSTRUCT A &RUSH AND TIMBER ~AMP.
8LM CLEAN UP -'fTH use. SH AREA MGR.
71l!JI7S PHILIP ~~ ll OW
SPECIAL IJSE AREA S -I
ORAI~AlES .JF CARI8ll •NO POKER CREEKS
CARiiJU-POKER CREE~~ 4ESEARCH w•TERSHEO. HIGH VALUE LJNG-TERM MODERATELY INTENSIVE MULTI-AGE~CY AESEARC"
PROGH'f IN PIIOGRES'>. NCTIFY OR. JOSEPH KLOTZ. INST 0: NORTHERN FORESTRYo it79-73U OR 1\7'9-6165, OR DR. C. w.
SLAU~~TER, COL~ REolu~S RESEaRCH ANC ENGINEERING LA80KATCJ~Y 353-9102, OR 456-2259.
THEY C.\•>1 PROYI•lE PL•III••ING HELP IN AREA.
BLM Uil STAT£
8/2)175 LH .AfFK ~
Fig. 2. ~intout of paPt of the pre-attack planning information entered in the storage system.
• •
3
•
~. ~F.LISPlT -17 T~ •&W •fi/4Sili~El/4 SIS FIKS
MER 4PP11Jir fi1Urtiolli HO• 0111 EACI< SIOEo FOtllll£11
G~&V:L STOCKPILE. -·~ LfVfLo IAII£ Fl~ GIIAVELo
CJIIII'UATIVELY FotEii tF DUIT A111D SIMD.
OIIU<tdl;f.IOI'tS • l11° 'liii•VfL ITOCKPILE TO E. LaltGI
HCL t:o:II'TEAS, 4CCinlotLI TO HEAVY TACKS.
P JSSULE AcUUIIO••L IOAT TUILEIIS Ill AilE A.
Sf&TE ·-OEPT .Jil .. i .. otAYSe FF USf AP .. OVI!O
''""" "· <)CJ!
I. ~ELISII'lT -Jl r.-~lW •ti/4Nil/4SI114 S IS FIKS
~Ell CLfAIIf~ PIILI lo,OO• SOUAAie COWEll LIGHT
G'&Sio FALL~ f~ll ' t•S• OISTIIUCTIONS • ~M!o
SI.<IP~ 1 Of.O TO \Eo """IOACH FIICII DOWIW WAtLEY.
ACC~iSI8Lf TO LI~HI ••UC&S, CCCUPIED CAll~ AT
Si ClR~EA OF FIEL~ •LIW "0'• NAAVIN
S!TTLE~o ~ II'~E. ~~•TitT VIA IIDIOPMONf CALL
.. 1114-l31Jo ASK F.lA UU IIJle tiUIJS Je
S>IIH
•• HFLISPJT -ll r.-~~~ ~ei/4NW114Sfll4 S )l FI&S
ltE~ ltAYSUCK U!l. t~II'IN SUIALPIIII! fUIIIOIIAe
CJYE~ .JP TO 2* ottO. "•USH 1111 OIPIIfSSIOII$, SLOII'I!
l.lit Tl lO DtG U 4o """" IICOI!AATELY AOUGM, CUM
APPRl&CH no~ ... S. 4o LIGHT A~D NfOIUM
HCL I(;JIIOTfiiS, cUV , .. oo• • ALM 7124171.
H'IWA~•) ICtt.ES
llo TII&CTO~ R\iP -11 TjN ••• Nii/4SIII..Wll4 S I
FJICS "U A S. .. DUif "ILl! 011 .MHICTit• Of' 1'liO
SI~~~-TRAC& .. J,OS. ~CN$10£11 IIA_. FEASIILI FOil
0., LOIIISOY ONI.te AU Uol!~ ONU' IF II'ILOY YfHICll!
MAK~i SUA! ROUtE I• ~~1&1, FOI IIORI TN._ ONE
LOII81Yo UHP -U h •tTTIIo IOo\0 PlliVATELY
IJILf 1'1 S!VI!IAL IU4hTUOIIS CN IOUTI• FF USE
411'11'!1 Wi I) IUT S-t.NU ~·TACT NAIVIII lfTTLIAo N:J
P·fll'f!e Ct:IIIUCT VIA U•IICMIHONE. CALL .... -uu.
ASK ·~ UNIT 1117. •llSITI J. SNITH
Uo TUCT04 IU,. -U fJN >U<I Mll/4-114111114 S 14
F to($ "U Gil A-IL ofU lAW USED ............. Y Ill
ttiCUT YI!AilSe LH , .. &tlfAO Ill GOOD COIIOITIDN•
T~-44'1 ENrUIC!! AU UIT TO AilE .. SUITABLE FOR
l'JIIIJY CQIWO'IS. U U I DIPT MIGHIIAYS. FF USE
APII'IIIl¥i Do CH!C!l II U 't "• A. IHOAOIS II'H 4 H-12& 9 •
611Sfl4 .1. SNif4
Lt. raaero• 111411' -·~· ,,, ~~~~ swal.-wt/41et'• s as
F•S .. u SMALL U::.01. QUAIIIIY AT II £110 Of'
Cio\T.\MIU UVI!Il 81111...... ..OIUN-tlOCK IULAHUO.
MAlA~~ DU£ YO J•ST•J,IIOII OF ONI LANr OF TIUCa
Yll4PIIIC DIMIIC IM.J4)1•• AMIP U PllfPIIAkl.
STUI DePT HtGIWAY-. fP USI APNOVID. tltGOPPS
Fig. 3. Printout of part of pre-attaak planning information retrieved from storage system.
• • • • • • • •
'''"'"' I
• • I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
vertical and· oblique aerial photos on which these same access features
are marked.
In this exercise, the descriptions of helispots, dozer unloading
spots, trafficability problems, and special-use areas were stored in a
computer. Figure 2 is a copy of part of the stored information as
printed out at the time it was entered into the storage system .
Let's suppose a fire in the area of Glacier creek headwaters south
of Haystack Mountain escaped initial attack and the decision is to walk
in three dozers via Haystack Mountain and three via the old railroad grade
out of Olnes. The dispatcher used his computer terminal to ask data
storage "What have you got on helispots 37, 38, 39, tractor ramps 11,
12, 12A, and 15, trafficability problems X-15 and X-16, and special use
area S-2?" Figure 3 is part of the printout that carne back in real time.
On the basis of pre-attack planning, a decision might be to offload dozers
at tractor-unloading ramp T-12. As the lowboys are en route from base,
the cat bosses check out the cat trails via helicopter and join the convoy
at helispot 37, near ramp T-12 .
Obviously, pre-attack planning should be much more comprehensive than
for dozer access alone. For example, the plan should include hand line
locations, barriers to surface travel, such as bluffs, fire and spike
camp locations, water sources for pumpers and helicopter hoverfill, stag-
ing areas, boat landings, airstrips, etc. Locations of manpower and equip-
ment such as for highway, pipeline, and other construction camps could be
shown and kept updated in computer storage. A good plan should also show
where various additional facilities are needed. Then, as opportunities
arise there could be constructed additional lowboy ramps, new helispots,
fuel breaks, etc. Perhaps some drainage or restoration would improve
trafficability problems on access routes .
Literature Cited
Martin, Robert D., J. M. Rosa, D. Hovland, S. DeLeonardis, and R. Bolstad.
1973. Influence of man-caused surface disturbance in permafrost areas
of Alaska. Report of Special Committee assigned by State Director
of Alaska. Bureau of Land Management. U. S. Dept. of the Interior.
22 pp.
u. s. Forest Service.
opment for forest
u. s. Dep. Agri.
1972. R-6 pre-attack
fire protection in the
Forest Service. R-6 .
1 ., c-.
guide--area planning deve1-
Pacific Northwest Region.
Portland, Ore. 67 pp.
-
Fire Control and Surface Disturbance
ABSTRACT
All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Program
in the Anchorage District
Les Rosenkrance
BLM Fire Control has been using ATV's in fire-suppression opera-
tions for several years. Several different types of machines were
tested and used on a trial basis.
In the Anchorage District, ATV's are used as initial attack units.
Mounted on flatbed trucks, they can be used as roadside tankers or
be offloaded to pursue a wildland fire into dense brush or swamps.
On occasion, they have been taken into interior Alaska and used on
large fires. ATV's can be utilized in the control of wildland
fires with a minimum of negative environmental impacts.
176
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fire Control and Surface Disturbance
Fireline Construction
Larry Knapman
ABSTRACI'
Firelines, especially those constructed with heavy equipment, have
been identified as one of the most destructive elements of fire in
Alaska. Frequently, the effects of line construction are more dam-
aging to the ecosystems than the fire itself. Using slidesl and
narration, this presentation covers fireline location, hand and
mechanical line construction, damage prevention, and stabilization
This is a subject everyone is an expert on, but unfortunately the ex-
perts don't always agree •
As mentioned previously, wildfire does relatively little damage to
soil and water in the Alaskan taiga when compared to the effects of fire
on lands in the western states of the lower 48. Usually, the greatest
damage comes from man's suppression efforts. This can be minimized with
proper control line planning and construction and by controlling the use
of heavy equipment {bulldozers and skidders) and other ATV's .
Keep in mind that what I'm about to tell you is not possible to do in
laecause of printing limitations, color slides used by l'1r. Knapman in his
seminar presentation are not reproduced here .
177
every case, and there are exceptions to every rule. Also remember while
viewing the slides that these are not ideal situations but are used to
illustrate a specific point.
Fireline Planning
There are some basic factors to consider in fireline planning.
1. Type of line constructed depends on the type of fire and values
involved.
2. When possible, avoid obvious or suspected permafrost areas and
other delicate earth materials. These may be detected by presence of some
vegetation types, such as stunted spruce, or by cutting through the in-
sulating mat with shovel or pulaski to see what is under it. Neither
method is foolproof, since the frost surface may be a foot or two below
the soil surface. You may also find frost in areas where vegetation does
not indicate it.
3. Avoid north slopes. These are more likely than other sites to
have permafrost, and even if they don't, disturbances take longer to heal
because colder soil temperatures result in slower vegetative growth.
4. The line planner should fly the proposed lines 1 preferably with
a helicopter so he can spot potential trouble spots and fully utilize
natural barriers such as rivers, lakes, and bare ridgetops.
5. Use ridgetops for lines when possible. Ridgetop soils usually
are better drained. Ridgetops may be devoid of vegetation or at least
have such a small amount that very little clearing is required. If you
build a line across the slope, do it on the contour.
6. Plan in water control. This helps in case you have melting frost
or rainfall. Water control can be accomplished by cutting water dips with
an angled blade, and by putting a small dogleg or offset to the high side
of the mineral strip.
7. Avoid right angles in the line. The right angle turn will get
rid of the water but creates problems with holding the fire because of
concentrated heat.
Keeping in mind that the firelines may last much longer than the
effects of the fire, plan lines to be simple and let your major concern
be minimizing damage rather than reducing acres burned. In planning,
allow yourself enough time to finish the line before the fire gets there.
Line Construction
A general rule of thumb is to disturb no more vegetation mat than
necessary.
DB
.. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Handlines --Assuming you're not taking direct attack, build hand-
lines according to previously mentioned factors. A 2-foot wide trench
through the vegetation mat to mineral soil is usually adequate. This
should be backed up by a strip cleared of brush and trees, at least as
wide as the tallest; trees which might fall across it. Material from the
cleared strip should be thrown on the side of the line away from the
fire. This reduces the amount of fuel burning against the line and puts
the fire on the ground. Be aware that this material can also restrict
the escape route and hamper hotspotting, so be careful how it is placed •
If you are burning out, you may pile cleared materic;tl on the fire side
to have additional fuel for getting a start.
catlines --As previously mentioned, catlines are frequently the
most destructive element of fire suppression in Alaska, both esthetic-
ally and because they damage soil and water resources. For these reasons,
we seldom use them. Fires that burned many years ago have pretty well
healed, except for the catlines, which in a number of cases have formed
gullies.
Generally, one blade width to mineral soil and several of wa1kdown
are sufficient. Wa1kdown, by the way, is a strip over which the cats
have been walked with the blades about 1 to 2 fee~ above ground level,
knocking the vegetation over, but not plowing up a continuous strip of
vegetation mat.
When approaching a stream crossing, it is best to lift the dozer
blades 100 to 300 feet befqre reaching the stream. Studies have indi-
cated that approximately 300 feet of undisturbed vegetative mat will
usually filter out most of the waterborne sediments from the line. The
distance left undisturbed depends upon the slope and density and type of
vegetation. Wa1kdown may be continued almost to the creek. Hand clear-
ing may be required to !~prove the line. Equipment crossings should be
upstream and angled so water fran the ·line will not be channeled off the
line in the vehicle tracks, thence into the stream.
Sloping stretches of line more than 100 yards long should have water
control such as water bars or ditches angled to divert water off the
line into undisturbed vegetation. This varies with slope, exposure, and
soil type. Bars should not be constructed with burnable material such
as vegetative mat unless the fire is out in that area and chances of a
reburn ate minimal.
Another possible form of water control is putting a dogleg in the
"mineral soil" strip so that runoff water will be turned on to undisturbed
vegetation •
Keep ATV's off the mineral strip; run them in the wa1kdown.
Helispots --I would like to deviate a moment from firelines and
mention something which frequently may be built during fireline construe-
179
-
tion, helispots! These can be easily and rapidly cleared with bull-
dozers, taking only a few minutes from line construction. Unfortunately,
not enough thought is given to the damage which could occur.
With frost melting and a little rain, the helispot can become a
sticky, unusable mess. On dry soils, very dusty, dangerous conditions
can result. Construction of helispots like these also creates a prob-
lem during fireline reclamation.
Helicopter managers generally prefer a vegetated spot cleared by
hand of brush and trees to a diameter at least twice the main rotor
length. A log pad may be built if necessary. Avoid scraping off all
vegetation. Dozer-built helispots are frequently made larger than neces-
sary.
Other Methods of Line Construction --There is a need for alterna-
tive methods of line construction, particularly those which minimize
surface disturbance. Aerial application of fire retardant chemicals
has been used with considerable success, and the retardant can be applied
accurately and rapidly. The major drawbacks are the high cost of appli-
cation and the round-trip time between loads.
Another possibility involves the use of large all-terrain vehicles,
equipped with tank and spray booms which could lay retardant lines on a
one-pass basis without being preceded by cats. The machine should be
large enough to walk down big trees (4 to 6 inches diameter and 30 feet
tall), yet have a light ground pressure when loaded .. High cost is a
drawback. For example, the Draggin-:wagon costs $300,000 equipped.
Fireline Reclamation
I have stressed water control during line construction to reduce
the efforts required to reclaim firelines. Having built your fireline
on a good stable route, free from permafrost and on a ridge or on the
contour with built-in water control, you must consider several more
items to avoid serious disruption of the ecosystem.
As soon as a section of line is sufficiently under control or to the
point where there is no danger of losing the line, reclamation of the
"mineral soil" strip should begin. In some circumstances, there may be
enough seasonal frost to cause mudflows or slumps in fine-particle earth
materials, especially if you were fortunate enough to have rain help you
stop the fire.
The first job is to apply more water control. Water bars may be
built with berm material, the vegetative material originally taken off
the lines. These should be built at an angle to turn the water off the
line.
Another possibility is to push the berm material back on the line.
180
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Spread it over the mineral strip if conditions are dry enough. Other-
wise, you may have to settle for pushing it back in clumps and making
frequent bars.
If needed, seed and fertilize for visual resource management or
erosion control. Don't do it just because you have.heard it's the thing
to do. In many cases, fertilizing alone will do the job.
A couple of little tips: If you use supercharged D-8's and D-9's
to build lines, tell the operators before they start that yoti intend to
push the material back on the lines. The way they push it off makes a
difference. If you use D-8's and D-9's to build lines, don't keep D-S's
and D-6's to do the reclamation work. They are less expensive, but they
can't easily tear apart berm piles that the big cats built. They may do
additional damage to the vegetation mat next to the line while trying.
on steep, very muddy lines with mud flows, possibly on melting
permafrost, a good method is to place berm material by hand. This re-
sults in very good ground coverage on an area that would have been more
severely damaged by heavy equipment.
181
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• • session six
CHAIRMAN: John L. Hall,
Dire9tor of Technical Services
Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
SURFACE PROTECTION
Agency Policy and Procedures; Corporation Policy and Procedures
Page
Bureau of Land Management • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • 184
Richard W. Tindall, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management ·
Anchorage District Office
Anchorage, Alaska
u. s. Forest Service •••••••• (See Session 2, page 60)
Clay G. Beal, Forest Supervisor Chugach National
Forest
u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service •••••••
David L. Spencer, Alaska Refuge Supervisor
Division of Refuges
u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service
Anchorage, Alaska
188
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Bryan Harry, Area Director
Area Office
National Park Service
Anchorage, Alaska
u. S. Geological Survey • • • • • • • • • • • • • 194
Rodney A. Smith, oil and Gas Supervisor
u. s. Geological Survey
Anchorage, Alaska
--continued on next page.
1,82
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
U. S. Bureau of Mines
D'arcy P. Banister, Chief
Alaska Field Operation center
Bureau of Mines
Juneau, Alaska
[The Washington Office of the U. S. Bureau of Mines denied
permission to publish Mr. Banister's talk.]
Agency Policy and Procedures; Corporation Policy and Procedures-
continued
State of Alaska
Dr. Michael C. T. Smith, Director
Division of Lands
Department of Natural Resources
State ~•f Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
The role of the North Slope Borough in the regulation of
surface-disturbing activity on the Arctic Slope . . . .
The Honorable Eben Hopson, Mayor
North Slope Borough
Barrow, Alaska
Regional corporations
Bob Jenks, Vice-president for lands
Doyon, Ltd .
Fairbanks, Alaska
[Paper not available]
183
199
203
Policy and Procedures on Surface Protection
Bureau of Land Management
Richard W. Tindall
ABSTRACT
Bureau of Land Management surface protection policy has dual-pur-
pose goals: (1) to protect the land and (2) to manage its resour-
ces. Federal laws under which BLM must operate are inadequate,
antiquated, and often ambiguous. BLM procedures for preventing
surface disturbance include field examination, development of sti-
pulations, and compliance checks. Enforcement authority is found
in three laws, each specifying a type of area. ORV regulations
now are being revised. A strong Organic Act is needed, however,
if BLM is to provide the best protection and management of the
nation's public land and resources.
Bureau of Land Management policy for surface protection has two goals:
First, to protect the lands and environment from avoidable deterior-
ation and correct past abuses;
Second, to manage, develop, and dispose of public lands while main-
taining the quality of the environment, meeting people's need for land
and resources, and contributing to the stability and growth of dependent
users, industries, communities, and regions.
To do our job, we must contend with many inadequate, antiquated, and
often ambiguous federal land laws.
184
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For example, there are no surface protection restrictions in the
mining laws, and on the other hand there are surface protection stipula-
tions which we prepare on a case-by-case basis for permits, leases, and
sales.
In addition, actions under the Mining Law of 1872 are nondiscretionary
and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not apply •
In one of Jack Turner's slides yesterday, we saw an area where the
pipeline company was restrained from further use of vehicles in an area,
but mining vehicles, utilizing the miners' right of passage, plowed on.
Obviously, ther~ is a double standard, a situation almost impossible to
explain to company stockholders •
Procedures for Preventing Surface Disturbance
Public land-use actions originate from two sources--first, the uses
desired by individuals and industry and second, BLM's own needs for
construction, management, and other responsibilities. Basically, BLM
procedures for both types of uses are the same:
1. A field examination is made of the area to be affected by the
action. Normally, the examination is made by resource personnel.
2. An Environmental Assessment Record is prepared by an interdiscip-
linacy team •
3. Surface protection stipulations are developed.
4. The action is either approved or denied.
5. Except for public agencies, a performance bond is required •
6. Inspection or compliance checks are made.
BLM was taken to court on its ORV regulations in 1974 by the National
Wildlife Federation. The contention basically was that the regulations
did not meet the intent of Executive Order 11644, which established cri-
teria for designating restricted and closed areas, but the regulations
provided that all public lands not so designated remain open to off-road
vehicle use.
The court held that the regulations were invalid, and proposed amended
ORV regulations came out to the field in 1975 for review. District recom-
mendations were completed on November 5, 1975. Among other things, we at
the District recommended that regulations be cited under the 2000 series of
the Code of Federal Regulations (Land Resource Management, General) rather
than under the 6000 series (Outdoor Recreation and Wildlife Management) •
At present, BLM has the authority under 43 CFR 6010.3-6010.5 to close land
temporarily and establish rules for surface protection •
185
-
Campbell Tract and Tangle Lakes Archeol£9ical District
Now I'd like to discuss some specific areas managed by ELM-Anchorage
District. The first is the Campbell Tract, which consists of 5,000 acres
within the municipal limits of Anchorage. It was withdrawn during World
War II by the military, returned to BLM in 1971, and is still under BLM
jurisdiction. Because it is witRin the city, it is a popular recreation
area for Anchorage residents. Along with a tremendous amount of public
interest in the land, a great many conflicting uses have become evident,
in both summer and winter. BLM has prepared rules of use for both sea-
sons. These rules limit ORV use to designated roads and trails in order
to resolve conflicts inherent among dog mushers, cross-country skiers,
motor mushers, and others who use the tract.
Another area under BLM management is the Tangle Lakes Archeological
District. This includes 460,000 acres that extend from Paxson Lake on
the east along the Denali Highway to the Maclaren River. It is a desig-
nated archeological area because of archeological finds there. ORV use
in the area has been increasing every year. The most preferred ORV routes
are along ridges, and that is also where the archeological sites are
located. So a conflict has arisen. In order to protect these archeolog-
ical resources, a Surface Protection Plan has been developed for the
District. The district manager has adopted almost all of the recommenda-
tions of the resource area manager. Here are the recommendations and a
timetable for their use:
As soon as possible
Establish an advisory group of archeologists.
May 1976
Develop an ORV management plan, based if possible on new ORV regu-
lations.
June 1976
Construct necessary ORV trail signs.
Summer 1976
Inventory archeological sites to determine size of archeological
district necessary to protect them.
Fall 1976
Reduce size of archeological district if site inventory indicates
need. (Man months necessary for satisfactory inventory can best
be estimated by an archeologist.)
Winter 1976
Hold hearings on proposed ORV regulations for this area.
June 1977
Implement ORV regulations for this area. Need two seasonal recrea-
186
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
tion technicians or archeological aides to implement regulations
and interpret the value of regulations to land users--June
through October, 10 man months.
BLM Enforcement
Turning now to BLM enforcement, we find that authority is under the
following laws:
1. PL 92-145--The Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971. (You can
imagine how much application this act has in Alaska.)
2. PL 93-303--Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. This
act applies to a specific type of area--the Golden Eagle passport area--
and only to lands within that type of recreation area.
3. PL 93-452--The Sykes Act of 1968. Under Title II of this act,
designated BLM personnel would have law enforcement authority to deal
directly with protection, but only in a project area developed by Sykes
Act funds. Our BLM Director, Curt Berklund, feels that this is "BLM's
Organic Act for Wildlife."
The longer I work for the Bureau, the more confused I get, but one
thing I know for sure: To best protect and manage our nation's public
land and resources, BLM needs a stronger Organic Act •
187
Policy and Procedures on Surface Protection
Fish and .Wildlife Service
David L. Spencer
ABSTRACT
The u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibilities for sur-
face protection on National Wildlife Refuges and other federal
lands. Refuge management responsibility is derived from several
congressional directives, and its primary objectives are the pro-
tection of wildlife habitat and restoration and enhancement of the
natural scene. The National Environmental Policy Act prescribes
some considerations for management operations and proposed uses.
Much of the u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service work related to sur-
face protection on other federal lands is advisory and consists of
reviewing proposed uses and making recommendations. This respon-
sibility also is in response to congressional directives.
The united States Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibilities for
surface protection of public lands in two general areas: lands under the
jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service, i.e., National Wildlife
Refuges; and other federal lands. I will discuss both of these.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is composed of more than 350
units distributed throughout the united States and comprising some 30
million acres. The mission of this system is to provide, manage, and
protect a national network of lands and waters sufficient to meet people's
needs for areas where wildlife is protected and made available to the
public for observation and limited use.
188
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.•. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The system is represented in Alaska by 18 units, compr1s1ng about
20 million acres. These range in size from the 65-acre St. Lazaria
Refuge to the Arctic National Wildlife Range of 9 million acres and are
located from Southeast Alaska to the Arctic Coast and the end of the
Aleutian Island Chain.
Our National Refuges are multiple value areas that provide a wide
spectrum of public .benefits, ranging from such things as watershed pro-
tection and public recreation areas to salmon spawning grounds that
support the commercial fishing industry.
National Refuges are not multiple use areas, however, in the popular
sense of accommodating all conceivable uses on a piece of public land.
All management is directed primarily to the welfare of wildlife and its
habitat. All other uses, although frequently compatible with wildlife
objectives, occupy a secondary position in formation of management de-
cision.
As are other federal lands, National Wildlife Refuges are managed
under a number of congressional directives. Those specifically aimed at
protection of habitat and surface resources include the following: The
Antiquities Act, the Refuge Recreation Act, the Wilderness Act, the De-
partment of Transportation Act, the National Historic Preservation Act,
the Mineral Leasing Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the Refuge Rights-of-Way Act, and the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, which is the present
Organic Act for the system .
Although we may wish for more specific guidance, we find that these
directives say such things as:
"Stresses preservation of the ecosystem upon which endangered
species depend."
"Special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of
wildlife and waterfowl refuges."
"Agency head shall issue stipulations to prevent damage to wild-
life habitat."
"No person shall knowingly disturb ... any natural growth."
"Permit the use of any area whenever he (the Secretary) deter-
mines that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for
which such areas were established."
"Requires the exploration of all possible alternatives to habitat
disturbance."
"Require an examination of environmental impact."
189
-
"Authorizes acquisition of land adjacent to refuges for recrea-
tional development to protect natural resources of refuges."
Refuge management policy derives from these directives and essentially
stresses as primary objectives the protection of wildlife habitat and the
restoration and enhancement of the natural scene.
All management operations and proposed uses are viewed within this
framework and considered in ways now prescribed by the National Environ-
mental Policy Act. Those uses or purposes that conflict with the primary
objectives of wildlife and habitat protection may not be approved. This
is the policy that basically guides our operations.
The policy rests on a series of regulations in Title 50 of the Code
of Federal Regulations. The regulations generally prohibit many activities
on National Refuges unless the activities are specifically authorized
after full consideration of their impact on refuge objectives. Any per-
mit or plan that survives this screening process is then fully armed with
stipulations to protect the refuge habitat from damage. The authority to
monitor uses, to enforce regulation, and otherwise to control all opera-
tions is delegated to the man in the field--the refuge manager.
We know that the best-laid plans of mice and men do not always work
out. So it is with plans for the surface protection of National Wildlife
Refuges. Other things intervene, and one need not go far to observe sur-
face damage.
At one extreme we may note that Japanese military forces occupied the
Aleutian Island National Wildlife Refuge in 1942 and set about massive
surface disturbance. Although Refuge Manager Frank Beals had the aid of
our National military establishment in correcting this problem, the whole
thing shortly got entirely out of hand. Among other things, widespread
surface damage resulted and has not been corrected to this day.
Other national interests sometimes override refuge interests. Exam-
ples are the development of oil resources on the Kenai National Moose
Range and the testing of atomic devices on the Aleutian Island National
Wildlife Refuge. When these events are authorized at.higher levels of
government, we take all available means to monitor the use closely and
to prevent damage and repair surface disturbance as much as possible.
The Atomic Energy sites on Amchitka are a good recent example. Although
effort was made to minimize surface damage, extensive areas were physi-
cally altered and reduced to barren waste. After the testing, a large-
scale and costly rehabilitation program was begun. Much of the damaged
surface has been restored to some semblance of its original condition or
at least further deterioration was arrested.
To turn to the u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's role in surface
protection of other federal lands, a substantial part of our work con-
cerns review of proposed uses and recommendations concerning developments
190
.. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
on other federal lands.
This activity is in response to a number of congressional directives,
principally the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, but also others such
as the Endangered Species Act, the Bald Eagle Act, the Mineral Leasing
Act •
While our role varies with the situation, in general Fish and Wild-
life Service responsibility is designated to evaluate the impact of pro-
posed developments or uses on wildlife resources and to recommend mitigat-
ing measures to the action. In some cases, there is mandatory review
(water development programs) and the requirement that wildlife and habitat
be given equal consideration with other resources in any development
permit. In other cases, arrangements are provided for agreements whereby
two or more agencies cooperatively can meet the requirements of particular
legislation such as the protection of bald eagle nesting sites or the
protection of the habitat of rare or endangered species of wildlife.
In summary, we thus have a mandate and the operational mechanism for
quite rigid protection of the habitat and surface resources of National
Wildlife Refuges. The Fish and Wildlife Service has also a delegated
responsibility and interest in the protection of wildlife habitat on other
federal lands, a responsibility exercised generally in an advisory ca~a
city .
191
..
Policy and Procedures on Surface Protection
National Park Service
Bryan Harry
ABSTRACT
The National Park Service administers parks, monuments, and re-
serves with a purpose, as defined by Congress, " ••. to conserve the
scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein
and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and
by such a means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of
future generations." Master Planning and the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act provide regulations and constraints of activities
that might damage park natural or historic values or alter re-
sources. Such surface-damaging activities as bulldozing fire lanes
are done within the law but outside planning, but attempts are
being made to fight fire with less surface-damaging means and to
rehabilitate damaged areas. Fires are also being used to naturally
perpetuate plant communities such as sequoia.
The National Park Service administers parks, monuments, and reserves
with a purpose, as defined by Congress, " ••• to conserve the scenery and
the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein and to provide for
the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
Within this mandate, we plan, develop, and encourage those types of
visitor uses which relate to enjoyment of a particular park's values--
as long as these activities leave the park undamaged over the long haul.
192
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Park Service relies on Master Planning with interdisciplinary
specialists, usually with public involvement, to preplan actions which may
have effects upon the natural or historic values of a park area. Court
cases generally have held that most matters that alter a park's resources,
even modestly, or are controversial, must comply with the National Envir-
onmental Policy Act {NEPA) •
Park usesthat affect land surfaces obviously fit within the over-
view; surface land use or development in parks may be carried out only
to the extent that law and regulation allow--rather than conversely. For
example, snowmobile use must be planned for each area and defined before
machines are used in parks. Mining is allowed in those places specifi-
cally defined by law and regulation--not broadly. Roads and trails are
constructed only under the constraints of the Master Planning and NEPA
process.
Park developments may be quite extensive. On one extreme, Yosemite
Valley--7 square miles in extent--has facilities that easily accommodate
its one and a half million visitors per year. A summer night's popula-
tion there is about 10 thousand and sewer, water, campsites, hotel rooms,
visitor center, stores,and jail are located within the Valley. Still,
through the National Park Service planning process (along with NEPA
guidelines), the resources of that park are being handed along to heirs
in rather good shape. Past problems in Yosemite have dealt more with
people vs. people conflicts than with damage to resources •
In some areas, we are seriously applying optimal capacities to the
numbers of people and activities that can be handled at a given place at
a given time. Yosemite Valley, the High Sierra, and river trips on the
Grand Canyon now all have optimal capacity limits to protect park resources •
some surface-damaging activities are still done within the law but
outside the planning process. For example, bulldozed fire lanes don't
follow a NEPA planning process. But we are beginning to fight forest
fires with an ecological feel for the long-term impact of a D-9, and we
are spending dollars to attempt partial restoration of fire lanes. De-
liberate and natural fires are beginning to be used to keep natural
processes involved in perpetuating plant communities such as sequoia.
We've had a century of experience in managing parks. A few years
ago in much-visited Yellowstone, I took a 10-day hiking trip along a
route that a fur trapper named Osburn Russel described in the 1830's.
I crossed the same creeks, saw the same kind of vegetation, probably
was run up the same tree by a grizzly that he was in the 1830's. In the
1950's Yellowstone annual visitation reached 3 million. But the only
marks on the land that I saw as I hiked were foot and grizzly tracks •
193
-
Policy and Procedures on Surface Protection
U.S. Geological Survey
Rodney A. Smith
1
ABSTRACT
Surface protection responsibilities of the u. s. Geological Survey
span all federal lands. The Conservation Division, one of four
USGS operating divisions, is concerned with leasable minerals on
federal lands; the Oil and Gas Supervisor has authority and respon-
sibilities for oil and gas activities in his area and his office
provides BLM and other federal agencies with advice, evaluation,
and inspection services. The USGS staff also works with state
agencies. Surface protection stipulations are incorporated in
drilling permits and are derived from application plans and drill
site inspections. Stipulations for production and abandonment are
similarly derived.
Surface protection responsibility of the u. s. Geological Survey is
somewhat different from the same responsibility of the other agencies and
groups represented here. For the most part, their responsibilities are
directed at a specific area that has been placed under their jurisdiction,
whereas the survey's responsibilities span all federal lands, whether
they're unappropriated or acquired public lands or a national forest,
wildlife ranges, refuges, or other designated lands.
I'd like to describe briefly the responsibilities of the Conservation
Division and the Oil and Gas Supervisor and coordination procedures with
other agencies before describing some of the specific responsibilities
and procedures relating to surface management. Since the subject is the
! 94
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
protection of surface, I'm going to restrict my comments to those respon-
sibilities pertaining to or related to surface protection. I'll also
restrict them to oil and gas operations since that's the subject I know
most about.
The Conservation Division is one of four operating divisions of the
u. S. Geological Survey. The duties of the Conservation Division are
largely connected with leasable minerals on federal government lands.
The responsibilities include classification of the lands as to their
mineral value and their water power and water storage values and the
supervision of operations of private industry on mining, oil and gas,
and geothermal leases on federal lands, on Indian lands, on the Outer
Continental Shelf, and on certain :~aval petroleum reserve lands .
The Oil and Gas Supervisor is in charge of the activities within
his area. He has the authority and responsibility to require compliance
with the lease terms, the oil and gas operating regulations, and other
applicable regulations to the end that all operations conform to the best
practice and are conducted in such a manner as to protect the environ-
ment, protect the deposits of the leased lands, and insure the maximum
ultimate recovery of oil and gas or other products. The supervisor's
jurisdiction extends to drilling and producing operations, handling and
measurement of oil and gas and other products, and the determination and
collection of royalty. He has the authority to shut down any operation
and place under seal any property or equipment for failure to comply with
the oil and gas operating regulations, or to recommend cancellation of
the lease and forfeiture under the bond for noncompliance.
The Oil and Gas Supervisor also provides the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment and other federal agencies with geologic and engineering advice or
evaluation and inspection services in connection with management and
disposition of the public domain. We must work closely with other surface
managing agencies on any proposed oil and gas operations, especially in
their area. We also work with other federal and state agencies which have
jurisdiction or may be responsible in a specific area of the proposal.
We especially work with the Bureau of Land Management, since it is the
basic leasing agency and surface manager on the majority of the public
lands in Alaska where there are oil and gas leases. Secretary of the
Interior order number 2948 sets out specific procedures for close coor-
dination between the Geological Survey and BLM with regard to oil and gas
and geothermal operations on those leases where BLM is the responsible
surface managing agency .
We also work closely and coordinate with other federal agencies which
have surface management responsibility, such as the u .. S. Fish and Wild-
life Service with operations in the Kenai Moose Range. Periodically, we
work with the Forest Service, where there are operations on forest lands,
and with the Environmental Protection Agency, with its responsibilities
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act •
195
-
We work closely with several state agencies, particularly with the
State Division of Lands and the State Division of Oil and Gas. In some
instances, the operations are on state-selected lands or in others,
there's a mix of federal, state, and private lands which may be in a
unit calling for cooperation with the Department of Natural Resources.
We also consult with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, and other state agencies with
regard to environmental considerations.
Now I'd like to move to some actual surface protection procedures
and talk specifically about drilling permits. An application for a permit
to drill an exploratory oil or gas well must be filed with the Oil and
Gas Supervisor and approval received before any work is done. The appli-
cation must include a detailed well plan, accompanied by a separate devel-
opment plan for surface use. Since the processing of an exploratory well
application involves a detailed review of the drilling plan, environmental
analysis, and an initial visit to the location, it takes considerable
time to handle. Anyone who wants a permit should file well in advance.
A drilling permit must include a complete casing and cementing plan,
a description of the blowout prevention equipment, and specifications
including testing and testing frequency, a complete program on the drill-
ing fluids that will be used, the testing, coring, sampling, and logging
plans, and geological information. The development plan for surface use
must include information on the area natural setting, including details
of existing facilities, the topography, vegetation, and wildlife, etc.,
and the applicant's construction and operating plans, including access
plans. This is important in Alaska because of scarcity of roads. Also
required in the plan are the details for handling and disposing of waste
material, including drilling fluid, combustibles, and noncombustibles,
plans for handling and storage of fuel, and plans for restoration of the
surface when work is finished.
The development plan must also include a contingency plan, including
equipment available to handle uncontrolled spills of oil or other pollut-
ing substances, and a discussion of production, transportation, and mar-
keting plans if a discovery is made.
When we receive complete drilling application and development plan,
we send a copy of the development plan to the federal surface management
agency and any other federal or state agency which has jurisdiction or
responsibility in the area of operations. We request that they furnish
us their comments on environmental disturbances and their recommendations.
At the same time, we arrange a preliminary visit to the location with
representatives of interested agencies and the operator to discuss the
proposed plans at the well site.
After looking at the site and receiving comments from responsible
agencies, the supervisor's office completes an environmental analysis.
In most cases, the proposals are not determined to be major federal
l96
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Problems
detected at the preliminary inspection, however, and canments and recom-
mendations from the other agencies are often incorporated as stipulations
to mitigate or reduce the environmental impact or disturbances. Exam-
ples of these are, a stipulation for nonoccupancy of a site near a
historic peregrine falcon nesting area during the period that the falcons
might be there, the relocation of proposed site from a hillside to a level
site to avoid erosion and soil instability, relocation of proposed well
sites out of suspected flood plains or out of streambeds in the event
there's a flooding problem. In cooperation with the BLM, we've specified
periods of operation to avoid surface damage during breakup or prior to
freezing.
I'm not going to discuss the specifics of permits for production and
abandonment except to say that permitting procedures pretty 'much follow
the procedure for application for permit to drill. But I will discuss
unit operations. Unitization allows the pooling of leases in a field
or an area, the sharing of production from all lands in a unit, and devel-
opment of separate tracts or separate leases by a single operator. Uniti-
zation provides maximum efficiency of production facilities so that it
not only promotes orderly development, but it reduces surface disturbance
by reducing the amount of land used for tank batteries, well sites, gather-
ing lines, and other facilities. Much more land would be used and dis-
turbed if the field were developed by a group of separate lessees, each
trying to develop his lease independently to obtain maximum production.
Most eXploratory drilling in Alaska is under unitized operations •
Field inspection is ~ important phase of effective supervision and
enforcement activities, especially for surface protection. For exploratory
wells, field inspections must be made prior to operations, when the oper-
ator is starting construction and rigging up. Field inspectors also
witness and inspect~lowout prevention equipment and te~ting of equipment
during other critical phases of operation such as running casing, blowout
prevention tests, or plugging a well.
At least one inspection is made after abandonment. The final in-
spection often involves representatives from other agencies, particularly
the agency that has surface management responsibility. For producing
operations, the field inspection must be made in the initial phases to
assure that proper equipment is being installed and used properly, that
it is tested, and that adequate surface protection measures are being
practiced. In addition, periodic field inspections are ~ade to witness
testing and calibration of measuring equipment and for pollution inspec-
tions. Inspectors also see that the operations are being conducted in
workmanlike manner ~nd do not cause undue damage to the environment.
Before closing, I have some additional comments; one concerns the
status of federal oil and gas leases in Alaska. The surface disturbance
due to oil and gas activities on federally leased land in Alaska is very
small and should be declining. This is because few federal oil and gas
197
•
leases remain in effect in Alaska. The number of oil and gas leases
has declined from more than 15,000 in 1960 to fewer than 1,900 leases at
present. The remaining leases will expire in the next two years, except
for a few leases that are producing. I don't know of any leasing pro-
posal at present for federal lands in Alaska. There should be very
little impact, therefore·, from lease operations. considering the progress
in the Alaska Native Claims Settl~ent Act and the increasing need to
find new energy sources, however, I think that we should move forward
with renewed leasing on federal lands as soon as possible on those lands
where there is petroleum potential and the petroleum activities are com-
patible with the other uses.
I'd also like to point out that one of the primary producing fields
on public lands in Alaska is the Swanson River Oilfield, located on the
Kenai National Moose Range. Production was started there in 1957 and
through the end of November more than 150 million barrels of oil had
been produced. These had production value of more than 560 million dol-
lars, and the royalty value of that is approximately 66 million dollars.
Much credit is due to the efforts of the u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the operator of the Swanson River Unit; I believe that the oilfield
is an example of how a major oilfield can be developed in an area of high
wildlife and recreation values with minimum disturbance. This oilfield
is based upon a nonrenewable resource which will be depleted and abandoned
in a few years, and appropriate restoration can be accomplished after that.
l98
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy and Procedures on Surface Protection
State of Alaska
Dr. Michael c. T. Smith
ABSTRACT
Under the Statehood Act, the State has selected about 32 million
acres of land that have been tentatively approved or patented to
the State and over which the State maintains jurisdiction as of
November 1975. Regulation of uses on these lands is achieved by
legislative or administrative designations which set aside lands
for special uses such as parks· and recreation, or which recog-
nize those which have special resource values. Remaining lands
are protected by existing land regulations which specify types
of equipment use. The State has no equivalent of the federal
executive order under which ORV use on federal lands is regu-
lated. use of heavy equipment on state lands is regulated by
either an operating plan permit or a miscellaneous use permit.
Permit applications to the Division of Lands are reviewed by the
appropriate district office or by the particular resource sec-
tion concerned in cooperation with other interested state agen-
cies, usually the Departments of Fish and Game and Environmental
Conservation. Problems remain in the regulation of ORV's on
state lands and on the management of lands which the State has
selected but which are still managed by the BLM until tenta-
tively approved or patented to the State. An interim arrange-
ment for joint management has been discussed with the BLM.
In talking about state lands, I think I should define that "universe"
first before discussing surface protection policy. Under the Alaska State-
hood Act, the State is entitled to select more than 100 million acres of
199
land. There are three steps in the selection process. First, the State
selects i1:s lands. Second, the selections are tentatively approved to
the State1
•1 1 'At· this time the State obtains effective management j urisdic-
tion over the lands it has selected. The third step is the formal pat-
enting of the lands to the State.
Since Statehood, the State has selected approximately 32 million
acres that have been either tentatively approved or patented to it as of
November 1975. A huge amount of lands remains to be selected, and I will
discuss this later.
Of the lands now under state jurisdiction, certain land designa-
tions and the regulation of surface activities depend upon actions by
both the state Legislature and the executive. Legislatively, we have
lands which the Legislature has set aside as parks, recreation areas,
and other such areas. The legislation includes specific guidelines as
to how these areas are regulated.
By administrative action, some areas are designated as "special
use" lands areas. These are places that have special scientific, his-
toric, archeological, biological, recreational, or other resource values
that might be harmed if they are not protected. We can promulgate regu-
lations under these designations as tight as we feel is necessary in each
situation.
As a percentage of all state lands, protective legislative and
administrative designations are small. The majority of state lands are
in a category which we manage under existing land regulations. These
remaining lands are open to virtually all equipment uses found on an
official "equipment list." At the time the regulations were drawn, these
were particular pieces and uses of equipment which were thought to have
relatively minor impact upon the land. The list includes portable field
equipment, such as picks, shovel, augers, backpack drills, and similar
tools. It also includes snow machines, jeeps, pickup trucks, and Weasels.
In recent years, use of vehicles in the category that might be
called small ORV's has increased tremendously. As I will mention later,
the State is probably behind federal agencies in regulating use of these
vehicles because we have not had the prodding of an equivalent of the
federal executive order.
Another equipment category for which no permit is needed for use
is airborne equipment. For example, state biologists on control opera-
tions in helicopters can land to pick up wolf carcasses without permits.
The equipment list is flexible. We can change it to regulate
equipment developed by new technology as soon as it comes along, making
regulations stricter or more lenient as necessary.
For use of heavier equipment on state lands a permit is required.
Basically, permits fall into two categories: operating plan permits and
20'0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
•
miscellaneous land use permits. Suppose an operator wishes to use
equipment that is not on the equipment list, that is, big machines like
cats, major trucks, or trailers, and he has some type of contract with
the State--either a permit or lease, such as a coal prospecting permit
or lease, an oil and gas lease, timber sale, mining lease, or specific
right-of-way. When he has such a relationship with the State, his land
use and movement across the surface is determined by an operating plan
permit. This is basically a permit that covers his whole operation, not
only movement but also his on-site operations. In this regard, we say
that we have a special contractual relationship.
For the other category, whiqh we call miscellaneous land use
permits, operators do not have a contractual relationship with the State.
For instance, when an oil and gas company is conducting seismic opera-
tions to get information which may lead to its ultimately getting a lease
sale, any action across state lands is regulated by a miscellaneous land
use permit. Seismic exploration for oil and gas is probably the dominant
land use under these permits. Locatable mining operations also would
take a sizeable portion of the miscellaneous land use permits. These
again are op~rations where prospectors locating minerials on state lands
need to use heavY equipment.
Another land use requiring regulation is the simple movement of
equipment from point A to point B across state lands. A recent example
would be the movement of drilling rigs and other equipment across North
Slope lands into Petroleum Reserve No. 4 •
Basically, the procedure would begin with an application to the
State Division of Lands. Under an operating plan permit relationship,
the section of the Division of Lands which administers that particular
contract or lease would have the permit-issuing function. For instance,
our mineral section would handle operations on oil and gas leases, coal
leases, coal prospecting permits, and other mineral leases and permits.
Except for the North Slope oil and gas operation, miscellaneous
land use permits generally are issued by the district offices. These,
again, are usually not a contractural relationship with the Division and
are handled on a local district basis •
For both the operating plan permits and the miscellaneous land use
permits we have good liaison with other state agencies--mainly the
Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion. They review virtually all of our permits. Their comments, after
consultations between agencies, are included in our permits which are
then issued to the operator. Field checks and inspections usually are
handled by the district office staffs of the Division of Lands, cooperat-
ing with district office staffs of the Departments of Fish and Game and
Environmental conservation.
All operations under either of these types of permits which could
threaten damage to the surface are bonded. We have specific bonding
201
..
schedules which require many of the large operators to have statewide
bonds, similar to those discussed earlier for operators on federal lands.
The permits generally have certain standard stipulations and are changed
or augmented according to each specific situation. This allows flexibil-
ity to meet the special needs of the wide array of situations we encounter.
In conclusion, I should like to discuss two problems that the State
faces in protecting surface land values. Federal agency representatives
have indicated that the State has a stronger position in regulation of
the heavy,, large equipment, particularly that used for mining. But when
we talk about the small operations, especially those using small ORV's
that have resulted from the recreation boom, the State seems not to have
addressed the problem to the extent that federal agencies have. Federal
agencies, of course, have been under the direction of an executive order.
Finally, a problem I alluded to earlier is the never-never area of
state-selected lands that are awaiting tentative approval and patenting
to the State. Once the State has selected lands, they essentially go in-
to a form of limbo; the State does not really have control over them as
the BLM still manages the selected lands. Yet, the BLM serves somewhat
as trustee for the State, since it is assumed that those lands eventually
will come to the State. We have approached the BLM concerning the pos-
sibility of setting up some interim management or joint jurisdiction so
that the State can take part in land use decisions concerning these lands.
The BLM has responded favorably, and I think the ball is now in our court
to pick up and move.
Because of the large amount of land under state selection now--probably
35 million acres with an equal amount to be selected, the large amount of
time it takes after selection until tentative approval is given, and the
press of the Claims Act [Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act] and the BLM's
need to address the Natives' 40 million acres, some joint juristiction
arrangement is urgently necessary as we are going to have lands in this
limbo status for a long time into the future.
202
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
The Role of the North Slope Borough
in the Regulation of Surface-Disturbing Activity
on the Arctic Slope
Eben Hopson
ABSTRACI'
The North Slope Borough, rural Alaska's only regional home-rule
first-class borough, is pioneering home-rule development for all
Native people in rural Alaska and Canada. Home rule must include
power to protect traditional values of land against new industrial
values. While specific ordinances to regulate surface-disturbing
activities have not been made, the Borough Planning Department is
working on many land use issues and the Borough's Traditional Na-
tive Land use Policy is being developed. The Borough supports
transfer of NPR-4 to the Department of the Interior. The Borough
plans to monitor and regulate surface-disturbing activities in the
Borough and is anxious to work closely with agencies represented
at the surface protection seminar.
The North Slope Borough is rural Alaska's only regional home-rule
first-class borough, and we are aware that we are pioneering the develop-
ment of home-rule for all our Native people throughout rural Alaska and
canada. I feel our developing traditions of home-rule will have little
lasting meaning for our people unless "home-rule" means that we can pro-
tect our land and game from environmental disturbance and degradation.
Home-rule in the Arctic must mean that we ourselves have the power to
protect the traditional values of our land against the new industrial
values symbolized by the Prudhoe Bay oilfield.
The North Slope Borough is less than four years old. We have had
203
-
many difficult organization tasks to accomplish. As a result, we have
not been able to enact Borough ordinances necessary to regulate surface-
disturbing activity within our Borough. However, we have been able to
build a good Planning Department, and our Planning staff is hard at work
with the issues that face us and which are demanding Borough attention.
These issues include:
1. Classification of d-1 and d-2 lands.
2. Classification of Regional corporation lands withdrawn but not
selected.
3. Classification of village lands withdrawn but not selected.
4. Conveyances of village selections to municipalities for commun-
ity expansion.
5. The use of the Alyeska pipeline corridor and associated haul
road.
6. Routing and development of the proposed trans-Alaska and trans-
Canada gas pipelines.
7. Outer Continental Shelf and nearshore oil and gas development.
8. The exploration and development of NPR-4 for oil, gas, and coal.
9. cataloging traditional Inupiat land usage, and the development
of the Borough's Traditional Native Land Use Policy.
The North Slope Borough's Traditional Native L~nd Use Policy will
enable us to have a single set of criteria from which all our Borough's
land use regulatory decisions will proceed. Our Traditional Land Use
Policy statement will be used in the identification and assessment of
our traditional land use patterns and will include consideration of:
1. Historic use
2. Archeological value
3. Areas of cultural significance
4. Areas of important subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering
5. Access to energy fuels.
The accelerated exploration of NPR-4 has caused us to speed up our
land use regulatory planning and organization. After meeting with Con-
gressman Melchor in Barrow, we have had our people in Washington, D. c.
work with the Conference Committee on H.R. 49.
204
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In the course of our work in Washington, we decided to actively
support the transfer of NPR-4 to the Department of the Interior. An
example of the reasons that led me to abandon my previous neutrality
regarding the transfer of NPR-4 jurisdiction was Nathaniel Reed's leb:'er
of October 24, 1975, to the Secretary of Defense. I'd like to quote
from a paragraph in that letter:
"When this Department reviewed the Navy's Draft Environmental
Statement (DES) on PET 4, the cursory treatment given impacts
of petroleum development on wildlife, particularly migratory
birds, in this near-pristine area was disturbing. The explora-
tory program was well underway even as the DES was distributed
for comment. The DES asserts, however, that annual operations
were to be confined to the winter months .•. 'until ••. designated
tasks have been completed or until signs of an approaching spring
thaw occur, whichever comes first.' We regret that this state-
ment has not been borne out. In fact, extensive damage is occur-
ring to the tundra in the vicinity of Cape Halkett and Teshekput
Lake because rolligons--large, wheeled freight vehicles--continued
working as late as July, as evidenced by the accompanying photo-
graphs taken by members of au. S. Fish and Wildlife Service water-
fowl banding crew. This happened long after the summer thaw had
softened the tundra well beyond the point where it could sustain
overland traffic without severe degradation. This development
and evidence of other incidences which have come to our atten-
tion, moved us to contact you concerning the seriousness of this
matter, with its implications for the deleterious manner in which
future PET 4 activities may be carried out.
"Aside from the problems caused by trails and ditches created by
rolligons, additional problems are apparent in the condition of
the test well site and camp south of Cape Halkett. As shown by
the attached color photographs, the camp, apparently located when
the landscape was obscured by snow, presently stands in a shallow
lake. The rolligon scars between the Lonely DEW-line site and
Cape Halkett are apparently the result of an effort to salvage
remaining fuel and other stores at the flooded Cape Halkett site
before freeze-up locked materials into the ice."
After pointing to several laws and treaties respecting the preserva-
tion of Arctic Slope animal and bird species, Assistant Secretary Reed
said that:
"Equally important are the needs of local Natives to use the area
and its resources for subsistence purposes. These people are in-
creasingly conscious of the need to conserve waterfowl in order to
preserve their culture or lifestyle and have no qualms about flex-
ing political muscle if the situation dictates."
We intend to use our political muscle to monitor and regulate surface-
205
-
disturbing activity within our Borough. Our new home-rule government
is an important part of this muscle.
I was happy to be asked to speak at this conference, to discuss
the developing role of the North Slope Borough. Many of you here are
able to help us organize to meet our responsibilities. We need all
the help we can get, and I am anxious for the agencies you represent
to work closely with our Borough as you carry out your missions within
the Borough.
. I
20~
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• sesston seven
CHAIRMAN: Dr. Jerry Brown, Research Soil Scientist
U. s. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory
Hanover, New Hampshire
SURFACE PROTECTION--continued
Resource Data Needs
Soils research needs • . • • • • . • • •
Dr. Byron R. Thomas, Soils Scientist
Bureau of Land Management
Oregon State Office
Portland, Oregon
Page
20.3
Research needs in descriptive vegetation science in Alaska
with special regard for land-use planning and management • 214
Dr. James H. Anderson, Assistant Professor
Plant Ecology
.Institute pf Arctic Biology
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
Resource data needs and water quality • • • • • • • • • • 232
Stanley Brust, Land~Use Coordinator
Alaska Operations Office
u. s. Environmental Protection Agency
Anchorage, Alaska
207
-
Soils Research Needs
Byron R. Thanas
ABSTRACT
Soils behavior in different actions or management situations must
be known before the soil is disturbed if sound soils management
is to be achieved. This is true for mineral and organic soils as
well as areas underlain by permafrost. Soils scientists can
provide the behavioral characteristics of each type of soil with
various uses as well as construct soils maps showing locations of
different soils.
In deciding mapping scale or intensity, the scientist must con-
sider the objectives as well as technology, money, manpower, and
time constraints. There is a possibility that a remote sensing
technique now being developed can be used to locate permafrost in
areas where it is discontinuous.
I have been impressed this week by the scope of the problems identi-
fied and the magnitude of the area involved. I have also heard of a
great diversity of unsolved problems. A common theme that has run through-
out most of the seminar is that more basic inventories are needed. This
is the subject as it relates to soils that I intend tb address this
afternoon.
Soil behavior in different actions or management situations needs
to be known before the soil is disturbed if sound soils management is to
be achieved. The land management agencies' operations must continue with
208
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
or without the proper data base. Often, this predicament forces us to
apply remedial measures to the land instead of enlightened management
decisions.
First, let's look at this relative newcomer to BLM known as a soil
scientist. Do we need him? My answer is yes. It takes a trained soil
scientist to understand soil classification, soil mapping, and soil
behavior. This understanding also includes the idea that contrasting
soil bodies may occur in very short distances--some as short as a few
feet. Each soil has its own suitabilities, limitations, and capabili-
ties.
Each of these factors is based upon the soil's chemical and physical
properties as well as items such as slope gradient and aspect. It is
the soil scientist's job to integrate the technical soils data and make
interpretations for proper soils use. He can also predict how .soils
will respond to specific treatments. These interpretations and predic-
tions may be used by the land manager to assure conservation of the soils
resource. It also allows him to make knowledgeable trade-offs, as far
as the soils are concerned, in his management decisions •
Before I came here, I reviewed all the soil survey reports that have
been published by the Soil Conservation Service for Alaska. These reports
revealed that in the surveyed areas in Alaska (whether at Fairbanks,
Anchorage, or Juneau) soils were contrasting and occurred in diverse
patterns, just as soils do anywhere else. Some examples are shown in
Tables 1, 2, and 3.
Soil inventory processes are determined by time, money, and manpower
constraints. I would like to tell you about the soil inventory proced-
ures we use in Oregon to work within these constraints. They can be
modified or adapted and used in Alaska .
We map to the 3rd order intensity. This allows one to cover large
tracts of land at a relatively low cost. To make the information more
useful, we obtain soils data for suitabilities and limitations at a 2nd
order level. In other words, we have a broad type of map but detailed
information about every soil within the area. One of the most important
factors, in my opinion, is having a soil scientist assigned to the dis-
trict. The scientist is then able to provide training, detailed infor-
mation, and project (on-site) services. The district soils man is also
invaluable in providing intimate soils knowledge for the planning system.
Table 4 shows a range of soil mapping intensities by broad purpose
and size of delineations. Constraints and objectives are the two factors
which determine the order of soil survey to be used in a defined area.
Solutions to Alaska's soils inventory problems could lie in the same
procedures with the orders of magnitude changed to suit conditions. Here
are some examples of how these procedures could be adapted:
209
..
Tabte. Z. Pe.zrmafr'oat aoUs in the FaiPbanka aPe.a.
SOIL HORIZONATION
SERIES
Bradway 4"mat of moss
and roots
0-2" mucky silt
loam
2-36" very fine
sandy loam
Tanana 5" mat of moss
and roots
0-4" silt loam
4-20" silt loam
DEPTH OF PERMA-
FROST TABLE
~-4 feet
2-4 feet
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT
Poorly drained Short season
crops with
drainage
Imperfectly
drained
Grow all crops
in area without
artificial drain-
age
TabZe. 2. Mine.mZ soita in the Suaitna Vaztey.
SOIL HORIZONATION
SERIES
ROOT
PENETRATION
Moose 3" organic material 15 inches
River Al o-3" silt loam
Cl 3-6" silt loam
C2 6-42" sand & silt
Nancy 2" organic material
A2 0-2" silt loam
B 2-9" silt loam
A2 9-10-1/2" silt
loam
B 10-1/2-16" silt
loam
Cl 16-24" silt loam
30 inches
C2 24-40" gravelly sand
210
WATER
TABLE
SUITABILITIES FOR
GENERAL USE
Near Severe (high water
surface table)
Not a Slight to moderate
factor (slippery)
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Table 3. Oraganie soils in the Susitna Valley.
SOIL
SERIES
Clunie
HORIZONATION
0-18" sphagnum moss
18-37" peat
37-50" silty clay loam
SOIL
SERIES
Salamtof
Organic soils are separated from one another by:
Stages of composition
Depth
Temperature regimes
Presence or absence of sphagnum
Chemical properties (sulfate)
HORIZONATION
0-9" sphagnum moss
9-60" peat
Ratio of materials in different stages of decomposition
Table 4 • Intensity of soil mapping.
ORDER PURPOSE MINIMUM SIZE OF
DELINATIONS
acres
lst Intensive planning 1.5
2nd Operational planning that requires 1.5 to 10
each soil's suitabilities and
limitations
3rd General planning or extensive 6 to 640
uses
4th Broad planning (statewide) 100 to 1,000
5th Very broad planning (regional 640 to 10,000
211
First, it is essential that a soils scientist be stationed at the
district level to accomplish or coordinate the work. Inventories could
be made with supplemental help from highly qualified summer workers.
The work might proceed in three stages as follows:
1. Start with 5th order soil survey. This gives an overview and
defines areas with potential problems. This order would not be used
where there are known problems.
2. Follow with a 3rd order soil survey in selected areas of acti-
vity, corridors, or potential problems. This order would be appropriate
to use in large (100,000 to 1,000,000 acres) known problem areas.
3. Conduct on-site investigations at the project level (order 1 or
2). Order 1 is used for items such as campgrounds or subdivisions.
Another approach might be to use two stages:
1. Start with a 4th order survey. This gives better detail at a
state level. It is not appropriate for project work nor detailed plan-
ning.
2. Conduct on-site project survey to the proposed use of the site
or area.
Examples would be a 1st order on campgrounds and 3rd order on cor-
ridors.
In addition to on-site investigations, plans and actions must be
under way to incorporate the soils data into the BLM's Unit Resource
Analysis and the Management Framework Plan.
Organized soils data must enter the BLM planning system in order to
reduce the time the soil scientist spends on individual trouble spots.
A person can spend so much of his time on individual trouble spots that
he doesn't have time to analyze the total picture.
I now want to make you aware of the possibilities of a new remote
sensing feasibility study being worked on by Stanford Research Institute.
The system they are studying may allow us to map permafrost areas where
it is discontinuous or allow us to determine the stratigraphy of other
"near" surface features.
Before coming to Alaska, I called the Scientific Systems Development
Branch in the Denver Service Center and asked if the system has possibil-
ities in Alaska. After consulting with specialists in radar and induc-
tion systems and discussing this question, they concluded that it was a
good possibility.
The first phase of the study shows that there is a good chance that
212
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a radar system can be constructed that could delineate areas of permafrost.
I would urge that those persons in Alaska interested in this technique
contact Ralph Morrill in the Denver Service Center. The Scientific
Systems Development Group would approach the problem in an orderly manner
by defining the problem, collecting and reviewing available literature,
making a short feasibility study, and conducting field trials with
existing or modified equipment.
To summarize my discussion, I should like to·emphasize that soils
managers should have three activities operating concurrently:
1. Continue hot-spotting as needed.
2. Initiate research agreements to find answers to pressing ques-
tions.
3. Start incorporating the soils information in some way into the
BLM planning system. This requires some inventory process, but we will
never reach a planning level unless inventories are initiated .
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking about "standard procedures."
Adapt, change, and modify. Don't overlook any practical alternatives.
Then make your decisions with long-range goals uppermost in your minds •
213
-
Research Needs in
Descriptive Vegetation Science in Alaska
with Special Regard for
Land-Use Planning and Management
James H. Anderson
ABSTRACT
Vegetation is a primary environmental component and natural re-
source structurally and functionally, and it is a fairly reliable
and useful indicator of other components and resources. A wider
acceptance of the central importance of vegetation in environ-
mental affairs could promote some integration and focus in the
current confusing hodgepodge of ecological concerns and actions~
Alaskan landscapes feature vegetations of remarkable diversity and
complexity in association with many comb~nations of climatic, phy-
siographic, zoological, human, and historical variables.
The present descriptive knowledge of Alaska's vegetation and vege-
tation-environment relationships is inadequate for current and
foreseeable land-use planning and management purposes. The results
of earlier studies cover only a small portion of the state and in
general are so individualistic as to preclude comparison, synthe-
sis, and extrapolation. An appropriate body of knowledge would
contain formal, standardized typological descriptions of all the
kinds of Alaskan vegetation;·a geographically, floristically, and
ecologically comprehensive agglomerative classification based on
these descriptions; and intermediate and large-scale general pur-
pose vegetation maps incorporating this classification.
Vegetation maps are the most comprehensive and comprehendible form
'l •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
of information on vegetation and its environment, and they are,
therefore, useful in making scientific and applied decisions •
Properly interpreted, they can serve to some extent as maps of
climates, soils, permafrost, wildlife habitat, agricultural
potential, and recreational a~eas. An accompanying encycloped-
ic text to facilitate map interpretation can make a vegetation
map more than a colorful wall decoration •
Alaska is far behind leading countries in the inventory of its
vegetation through methodical description, ·classification,
mapping, and related research. Furthermore, there seems to be
a lack of concern here for such fundamental work.
Alaskan vegetation knowledge should and could be significantly
improved and expanded during the next few years. Four ·recom-
mendations for this would require (1) better acquaintance and
communication among people concerned with the vegetation of
Alaska; (2) trying to use, test, and expand the 1975 Fosberg-
Viereck physiognomic-floristic vegetation classification; (3)
mapping the state on the 1:250,000 topographic sheets using
satellite imagery, to show greater spatial and classificatory
detail than on existing maps, all within the fairly near fu-
ture; and (4) establishing a group of vegetation scientists and
technicians in the University of Alaska whose express tasks
would be (a) the methodical description, classification, and
mapping of Alaska's vegetation at intermediate and large scales;
(b) the pursuit of related vegetation-environment research
oriented toward increasing the indicator value of vegetation;
and (c) the study of the origin and development of vegetation
and soils.
This group would fill a vacancy which seems to exist between the
more purely scientific enterprise on the one hand and land-use
planning and management activities on the other.
Description of kinds of Alaskan vegetation~ study of their
eaology, and aorrelation with similar types elsewhere in North
AmePiaa and Eu:Pasia is a fasainating job for the futu:Pe~ and it
will provide a powerful tool for rational management of Alaska's
resou:Paes.
J. Major (1973)
Introduction
Most of the land in Alaska and the rest of the world is conspicuously
covered with vegetation. Vegetation is a primary environmental component
and natural resource, and it is a fairly reliable and useful indicator of
other environmental components and resources. It is of central importance
structurally and functionally through primary production and its leading
role in biogeochemical cycling. Vegetation is, therefore, basic in eco-
-
system definition and delineation. It follows that land-use planners
and managers and ecologists of various sorts must take vegetation into
account at the outset.
The landscapes of Alaska feature diverse and complex, mostly nat-
ural vegetations of foremost scientific and applied interest. The number
of principal lifeforms and species is modest, but these occur in many
combinations. Whereas single kinds of vegetation prevail in same areas,
such as the kind characterized by black spruce, dwarfshrubs, and feather-
mosses on extensive tracts in the Interior, commonly there are numerous
smaller and more or less distinct communities of several kinds, together
constituting a landscape mosaic. The pieces in the landscape mosaics
of Alaska will increase in number and variety with human disruptions
and the spread of cultural vegetation. The latter includes all agricul-
tural, horticultural, and disturbance-site, or man-influenced, vegeta-
tions.
Underlying all this diversity and complexity is an extraordinary
array of combinations of climatic, physiographic, zoological, human,
and historical variables and reciprocal ecophysiological responses.
Combinations of major environmental variables constitute sites. A few
variables, such as permafrost occurrence and thaw layer thickness, are
of key importance in vegetation development and land use. In general,
the extent of vegetation variation associated with a site type or indi-
vidual key variable is fairly limited. There may be a tendency toward
a 1:1 relationship between a vegetation and certain variables, as between
sphagnum-dwarfshrub bog and shallow continuous permafrost, sedge marsh
and no permafrost but high water table, and white spruce-dwarf birch-
feathermoss woodland and deep permafrost table and coarse soil texture.
Vegetation, therefore, is more than a resource in its own right as
timber, forage, or scenic object. It is also an environmental indicator,
where the value and reliability of the full species assemblage are greater
than of any single species. " •.• vegetation may be regarded as a tang-
ible, integrated expression of the biogeocenose." (Kuchler 1973: 512)
This is why vegetation is important in nearly all ecological and land-use
activities. Soil mapping, hydrologic studies, and wildlife management,
for example, all lean heavily on vegetation information for determining
the variables or conditions of interest.
Thesis
The planning and management of land use and natural resource ex-
ploitation in Alaska have become of special importance and widespread
concern. The thesis of this paper is that descriptive knowledge of
Alaska's vegetation is inadequate for the planning and management deci-
sions which will have to be made. Secondly, efforts should and could be
made during the next few years to improve and expand this knowledge. It
is proposed that a wider recognition of the central importance of vegeta-
tion in environmental affairs could promote some integration and focus
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
in the current confusing hodgepodge of ecological concerns and actions.
It sometimes seems that vegetation is so prevalent and obvious that it
is taken for granted and passed over. Vegetation scientists, with a
formal and thorough botanical education, should be involved in most
environmentally oriented programs.
A more adequate body of descriptive knowledge would contain (1)
fozmal, standardized typological descriptions at the association level
of all the kinds of vegetation in· Alaska, (2) a geographically, floris-
tically, and ecologically comprehensive and consistent agglomerative
classification of the vegetation types based on these descriptions,
(3) intermediate-scale, general-purpose vegetation maps for the whole
state depicting the higher or broader vegetations in this classifica-
tion, and (4) large-scale maps of actual and potential heavy land use
areas depicting plant communities defined at the association level •
There are a few detailed descriptive vegetation studies in the
literature and the files of various agencies, together covering a small
portion of the state. In general, the individualism or !inti ted scope
of these precludes ready ca:nparison and synthesis. An unpublished
attempt to show equivalencies or partial equivalencies among described
tundra and wetland vegetation units in the literature was made recently
by D. F. Murray and A. R. Batten in the University of Alaska. Current
studies also are individualistic, and they tend to be hastily organized
and conducted, to ignore the primary importance of vegetation, to deal
with only the more obvious environmental features, or to be single-purpose
oriented, as toward the hurried writing of environmental impact state-
ments. It may be granted that these studies serve their. respective and
supposed purposes. If they are not floristically, quantitatively, or
otherwise weak, howev,,-, they lack comparability in the absence of at-
t~to identify purposes in more common terms and to standardize methods.
Comparability, especially in stand and type descriptions, is more
important now than in the earlier, formative phases of vegetation science
in Alaska. It is desirable for synthesis, generalization, and extrapola-
tion to unstudied areas; for ecological regionalization (Kuchler 1973);
for evaluating one area against another with respect to potential or
intended use; and for vegetation classification and mapping •
vegetation Classification
A classification is a logical and useful outcome of vegetation
research. It can represent a synthesis of results, and it can express
in succinct fashion the nature of intercommunity and community-environment
relationships, depending on the scope and rank of its units. Beyond this,
a vegetation map cannot be made without at least a provisional classifi-
cation of the pieces in the landscape mosaic. The meaning and usefulness
of a vegetation map depends largely on the classification it features.
Classification is perhaps the oldest area of concern in vegetation sci-
ence, and problems with it are as intractable now as ever •
217
This attention is not given to classification in ignorance of the
individuality of species distributions and the continuity in vegetation.
Vegetation transitional between more nearly uniform stands can be seen
by almost anyone to occupy significant portions of Alaskan landscapes,
and the widespread and frequent intergrading of vegetations along
environmental gradients and complex-gradients could be demonstrated in
almost any respectable set of data (see Whittaker 1973; Orloci 1975).
The drawing of meaningful plant community boundaries is a longstanding
problem. Some will say this is impossible and that classification is,
therefore, unrealistic.
The typological classification of vegetation is indeed unrealistic
inasmuch as it is an abstraction of reality. Nonetheless, there are
acceptable criteria and methods for describing type variation, for arbi-
trarily but meaningfully delineating vegetation units representing types,
and for identifying units in abbreviated fashion according to diagnostic
species and variable states. These criteria and methods are presented
in modern books and papers, and by learning and applying them, those
concerned with Alaskan vegetation could increase their knowledge and
make it more orderly and usable. Vegetation mapping could then proceed
(Kuchler 1967; Shimwell 1972; Whittaker 1973; Mueller-Dombois and Ellen-
berg 1974; Orloci 1975).
An effort in vegetation classification in interior Alaska is being
made by Viereck {1975). His two-level physiognomic-floristic classifica-
tion includes 11 formation classes and 33 vegetation units (types), based
on literature descriptions and firsthand field experience. The validity
and usefulness. of this classification will be tested and possibly in-
creased as its descriptive base is improved, partly through an ongoing
program of the u. s. Forest Service Institute of Northern Forestry at
the University in Fairbanks and as it is broadened in scope to comprise
additional classificatory ranks and to accommodate vegetation in the rest
of the state. A virtue of Viereck's classification is that it is an
extension of the well-known Fosberg classification of world vegetation
based largely on physiognomic criteria (Fosberg 1967; see also UNESCO
1973 and Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974; 466-488). Thus Viereck•s
classification features relatively good internal order, and its higher
classes should be comparable wherever the Fosberg classification is ap~
plied. Viereck's is one of the first published attempts to apply an
authoritative, comprehensive classification developed elsewhere which
should accommodate Alaskan vegetation. A tentative application of the
related UNESCO classification to some subarctic alpine tundra vegetation
in Alaska was made by Anderson (1974c: III-11). Viereck's classification
and improvements of it should be useful for some time as an organizational
aid or a working hypothesis for various projects, and in small-and inter-
mediate-scale vegetation mapping in Alaska.
By the natural course of things, we would no doubt begin eventually
to describe and classify vegetation in greater detail and according to more
refined concepts than is now being done, and we would aim for a regional
218
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
or statewide extension of such treatment. This would involve describing
vegetation units according to complete floristic inventories and spe~
cies importance evaluations as well as analyzing plant community distri-
bution and function with respect to a more complete set of environmental
variables. To a considerable extent, the results of these studies would
be brought together on large-scale vegetation maps. This kind of work
would lead to studies of exact responses to various human impacts of
narrowly and realistically defined and comparable vegetation units.
The objective of thorough floristic treatment is important for at
least two reasons. One is that the full floristic composition of commun-
ities is the best single expression of intercommunity and community-
environment relationships and the significance of certain historical
events, such as fires·. Secondly, thorough floristic treatment could
enable a more nearly realistic classification than now can be done, one
somewhat less an abstraction of the landscape mosaic and more appropriate
to large-scale, higher-probability vegetation mapping (see below). An
a posteriori agglomerative classification is recommended, in contrast to
exist~ng regional classific?tions which are more or less a priori and
subdivisive •
The following is suggested as a practical application of the full
floristic composition. The purpose in this example is to evaluate quan-
titatively the susceptibility of a community to a given kind of disrup-
tion. Rate each species individually in terms of its response to the
disruption as determined through observation or experimentation in the
field or laboratory. A several-step scale could be devised as seemed
appropriate. Multiply each rating by a standard species importance
estimate, such as cover-abundance value. The product would be the response
index for the species in the particular community. Total the species
response indices to obtain a community susceptibility rating or index.
Use such indices to compare communi ties, even wher.e some species were of
common occurrence. Use them also in conjunction with the vegetation map,
to prescribe land-use patterns appropriate to the landscape involved.
In an a posteriori classification, preconceived notions about the
nature of the vegetation are deemphasized, and subjectivity is of little
importance beyond the standardization of sampling procedure and, perhaps,
the selection of sample stands. A set of thorough, ''standard descriptions
of stands selected to sample the range of variation in species assemblage
and environmental interaction is an initial goal. In an a posteriori
agglomerative classification, floristically similar stands are grouped
(agglomerated) manually or automatically by logical or statistically
verifiable techniques. The groupings are the basis for descriptions of
plant community types or associations. Stands representing these asso-
ciations would be the entities to depict on large-scale, general-purpose
vegetation maps. Soil types or specific variables highly correlated with
associations could also be identified on the maps. The standard field
procedure would include describing soils and measuring key environmental
variables •
219
Associations may be grouped in syntaxonomic categories of several
higher ranks according to criteria of broader value. Association
complex-units could be used for a new generation of small-and intermed-
iate-scale vegetation maps. These maps would represent syntheses of
detailed vegetation information, rather than the provisional general-
izations and extrapolations from a limited data base represented on
existing small-scale maps.
Associations also may be subdivided according to finer species
importance variations and accompanying subtle environmental differences.
Vegetations representing infra-association categories would be appro-
priate for very large-scale vegetation maps, which are desirable for
planning intensive uses of specific small areas.
Vegetation Mapping
The vegetation map is a comprehensive, readily comprehendible, and
usable form of vegetation and related environmental information. It
is, therefore, a basic tool in planning and management, and it can sug-
gest hypotheses and show areas needing further research. The general
purpose vegetation map is of chief concern. This portrays the distri-
bution of well-defined vegetation units and perhaps a principal associated
environmental variable, usually soil type, but does not depict any special
botanical or environmental feature. General purpose vegetation maps at
small and intermediate scales are those of the JFSLUPCA (1973) and Ander-
son (1976). Special purpose vegetation maps would emphasize, for example,
the distribution of potentially commercial timber (e.g. Anderson 1974b),
the areal extent of natural forage or "rangelands," or permafrost distri-
bution and thaw layer thickness as determined through vegetation.
The vegetation map is a map of plant resources per se, and properly
interpreted, it can serve more or less as a map of climatic conditions,
parent materials, soils, permafrost, wildlife habitat, agricultural
potential, and recreational areas. It constitutes primary information
for the actual mapping of these items. Vegetation map interpretation
should be facilitated with an accompanying encyclopedic text treating
each map unit class botanically and environmentally. Available infor-
mation pertaining to vegetation dynamics and function should be included
in the text. The possible course of succession and primary production
are of chief concern. The use of such a text can make the vegetation
map more than a colorful wall decoration.
Some kinds of interpretation which can be made with the vegetation
map are of immediate importance to land-use planners and managers. For
example, associations or other vegetation types could be rated with re-
spect to susceptibility to different kinds of disruption, such as off-
road vehicle travel, oil pollution, and fire. One possible rating scheme
was suggested above. Thus the map would show areas where off-road vehi-
cle use should be prohibited because of the scenic or other damage it would
2ZO
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
do, as well as areas where such use would be tolerable, at least from a
nonesthetic standpoint. Persons involved in petroleum exploitation would
be in a better position to predict the consequences of an oil spill of
given magnitude at any point in the landscape. Whereas the proper vege-
tation map would present topographic and other physiographic information
(topographic maps should be used as base maps), it could be seen where
the spilled oil would flow and just which plant stands would be affected.
The designing of an oil-spill cleanup program could, therefore, be facil-
itated by the vegetation map used in conjunction with research-derived
knowledge of cleanup procedures appropriate to the different kinds of
vegetation represented on the map. This knowledge would ideally be con-
tained in the text accompanying the map or later revisions of the text.
Enlightened fire management decisions may be made through use of
the general purpose vegetation map. The fire susceptibility, or flamma-
bilit~of different vegetations and the ecological consequences of
their being burned are known and becoming better known through basic
research (Viereck 1973, 1975). Thus the map, used in conjunction with
current weather information, could help in predicting the broader conse-
quences in the landscape of allowing a fire to burn and spread, or it
could indicate that a fire ought to be extinguished.
For additional examples, it is noted that vegetations can be re-
garded in terms of their forage or animal shelter merits, especially when
their productivities are known. The vegetation map, therefore, can depict
the areal extent of possible caribou range or ptarmigan or moose habitat,
etc.
The general purpose vegetation map is a fundamental kind of resource
map and ought to be one of the first made. It is not a panacea, however.
It cannot be expected to serve a specific purpose as well as an actual
map of the variable of immediate concern. Nevertheless, it can nearly
always serve to some extent in the absence of other kinds of maps because
of the indicator value of vegetation. It would be of interest to a larger
and more diverse user community than any other single kind of resource map.
These considerations are important in Alaska, where special interest agen-
cies, such as the u. S. Forest Service (concerned with commercial timber,
among other things) and the u. s. Soil Conservation Service (concerned
with soil capabilities and rangeland characterization, among other things)
have so far been able to inventory and map only small parts of the state
in desirable (for them) fashion.
Vegetation mapping is done at various scales, from small, through
intermediate and large, to very large scales. These are defined, respec-
tively, as smaller than 1:106, 1:105 to 1:106, 1:10 4 to 1:105, and smaller
than 1:104. The meaning and usefulness of the vegetation map depends on
its scale as well as its classification. The scale, in fact, governs to
some extent the nature of the classification which can be used. In gen-
eral, small-scale maps can depict only broadly defined vegetations, whereas
larger scale maps can portray vegetations of narrower and more meaningful
•
definition.
In Alaska the extent of vegetation mapping is modest, as is the
description, conceptual delineation, and classification of vegetation
types prerequisite to the spatial delineation of vegetation units in
mapping. Existing maps for the state are of small scales and depict
only broadly defined vegetations (e.g. JFSLUPCA 1973). On these maps,
even the smallest units represent large land areas, and it is uncertain
that an indicated vegetation actually occurs at a random point in the
landscape. Unfortunately, estimates of the probability of such occur-
rences are not provided, although this might be possible through exten-
sive field or air photo sampling.
Reference is here made to the concept of vegetation map probability.
Estimates for each map unit class are desirable. These could be aver-
aged, with weighting according to the total area of each class, for an
overall vegetation map probability estimate.
Even our superficial acquaintance with the diversity and spatial
complexity of Alaskan vegetation suggests that at small scales, vegeta-
tion map probabilities are too low for modern needs. The raising of
vegetation map probabilities through mapping at larger scales is an
important goal. On larger scale maps, probabilities are increased, if
not quantified, because the smaller map units represent smaller land
areas. In general, vegetation diversity decreases as area decreases.
The most interesting and useful products will be large-scale maps of
narrowly defined vegetations, or plant communities in the strict sense.
A few large-scale but individualistic vegetation maps have been made
(e.g. Johnson et al. 19667 Anderson 1974a; Racine, in prep.). A pub-
lished example of a very large-scale vegetation map is that of Webber
and Walker (1975) in the Prudhoe Bay area. Other very large-scale maps
of the Prudhoe Bay and Barrow areas are in preparation by these persons
and their colleagues.
Further Considerations
We seem now to be entering a time when vegetation knowledge at the
association level and a comprehensive a posteriori agglomerative classi-
fication will be necessary for the increasingly numerous local and spe-
cific kinds of problems. (See, for example, discussions of right-of-way
vegetation management problems by Egler and Foote 1975.) It is of topical
interest that a large-scale map at 1:63,360 for the proposed trans-Alaska
pipeline corridor, incorporating an a posteriori classification, could
have facilitated early decisions pertaining to parent materials, soils,
ground water, permafrost, and wildlife habitat. Furthermore, as a com-
prehensive portrayal of the primeval landscape, the map would have been
of everlasting value. It might have been made in two years by two vege-
tation scientists and several technical assistants, with concentrated
summer field programs, the good aerial photos which were available early
on, and the considerable logistical support potentially available from
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
the oil industry. The cost in 1970 could have been less than $100,000.
Such a map would be of value if made now, perhaps with satellite imagery
for economy, for its environmental indicator uses. In addition, it
could, as was discussed earlier, enable prediction of the impact in the
landscape of an oil leak or spill, for organizing cleanup procedures.
Furthermore, it would probably become indispensable in revegetation
and surface restoration and the managing or predicting of plant succes-
sion in disturbed places. The Canadians appear to appreciate the value
and timely pursuit of such work, for their Environmental-Social Program
contains a number of monographic studies and maps of vegetation and
soils (e.g. Forest Management Institute, canadian Forestry Service 1974).
The United States is behind the west European countries, the Soviet
Union, and some other countries in the organized and methodical descrip-
tion and classification of its vegetation, and it has comparatively little
to show in intermediate and large-scale vegetation maps. FUrthermore,
there seems to be little interest in pushing ahead in descriptive vege-
tation science. Alaska is well behind the rest of the United States in
these matters, and the situation here could become severe as Alaska's
importance increases. Instead, the United States is emphasizing research
on vegetation and ecosystem function and theoretical aspects of structure
and function. Perhaps this tends to overlook the fact that the results
of such research will be of highest value only if they can be extrapolated
regionally on a sound descriptive base. This especially concerns extra-
polation of primary productivity and factors influencing it. Descriptive
research as advocated in this paper on the one hand and functional and
more theoretical research on the other hand both need to be pursued
vigorously and on broad fronts.
France, with less than two fifths the land area of Alaska, and with
mostly cultural vegetation, has two vegetation mapping agencies supported
by the federal government. One of these aims to map the entire country
at the large scale of 1:20,000 (Kuchler 1967: 8). Germany, Switzerland,
and others also have institutes more or less devoted to geobotanical re-
search, including vegetation mapping. This emphasis in these countries
surely results from dense populations, widespread and intensive economic
land use, and extensive, though more civilized (i.e. mostly nonmotorized),
outdoor recreation. It seems, however, that some people in influential
positions desire or expect the same high degree of land use and resource
exploitation for Alaska. Be this as it may, it is prudent to prepare for
some population growth and accompanying development and degradation be-
cause of the state's appealing and abundant esthetic and potentially com-
mercial resources. Alaskans are in the unique position of having a chance
to inventory their natural vegetation through methodical description,
classification, and mapping. This could still be done before very much
man-caused change occurs. In fact, the inventory would serve, in addition
to the purposes discussed elsewhere, as a basis against which to evaluate
man-caused change.
In the Soviet Union, vegetation research and mapping for scientific
223
and applied purposes has been under way for many years (Shetler 1~67; :
Aleksandrova 1973; Gribova et al. 1975; Karamysheva and Rachkovskay;a-.,
1975). This was impressively evident through displays and pape:r;s.p~e,
sented at the XII International Botanical Congress in Leningrad iri .1975.
Soviet vegetation maps are abundant, of small and large scales, of high
information content, and they are beautiful. Soviet geobotanists are
serious and assiduous. A consiaerable proportion of them are women.
There may be a trend toward mapping the entire country, with 14 times
the land area of Alaska. The Soviet Union contains extensive landscapes
and ecosystems similar to Alaska's, and Alaskan vegetation scientists
might learn a great deal from their Soviet colleagues.
A country-wide vegetation description, classification, and mapping
program is under way in Western Australia, a state 1.7 times the area
of Alaska, with extensive low-productivity lands and with a similar low
population density. Several maps at 1:106 have already been published
(Beard 1975) •
Vegetation description, classification, mapping, and studies of vege-
tation-environment relationships and the origin and development of vege-
tation (together constituting much of the field of geobotany) is one of
the least costly areas of modern scientific inquiry. The concreteness
and direct value of the products in scientific and applied affairs empha-
size the favorable benefit/cost ratio. Only the simplest and least expen-
sive equipment and supplies are needed, with the exception of computers
for data handling and aerial photography or other remote sensing imagery.
Computers are widely accessible, however, and aerial photography of poten-
tial usefulness and availability to the vegetation scientist is increas-
ingly abundant in the files of various agencies in Alaska. Of special
importance now is the thorough spatial and temporal coverage of Alaska
by satellite imagery which could be used for economical regional vegetation
work at small and intermediate scales (Anderson and Belen 1973; Anderson
l974b, 1976) and perhaps at large scales (Anderson 1974a).
Descriptive vegetation science is labor intensive, for much time
must be spent in the field and even more in the laboratory working up
the data and creating vegetation maps. The approximately 1:3 ratio of
summer field time to nonsummer lab time in Alaska is favorable. The
laboriousness should not hinder progress, however, because much of the
work can be done by modest-salaried technical people with an undergraduate
knowledge of ecological principles and a good knowledge of the flora
or an ability to learn it efficiently. It is likely that technical vege-
tation workers could be employed who would enjoy camping and working for
extended periods in more or less remote field locations, thus obviating
the costs of frequent travel from home. A few professionals could work
with a team of such personnel. This kind of labor intensive activity
seems particularly worthy of consideration now vis-a-vis high unemploy-
ment and environmental concern.
To summarize, descriptive vegetation science is a complicated matter
224
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
because of the practically unlimited possible combinations of the life-
forms and species and historical, environmental,and human variables
involved in landscape development. This paper has presented only a
few general remarks regarding (1) the inadequacy of the present descrip-
tive knowledge of Alaskan vegetation, (2) the need for more complete
and better organized knowledge for scientific and applied purposes,
(3) the kind of knowledge about the vegetation which should be gained,
and (4) the small amount of emphasis and work here compared with that
in leading countries.
Work in descriptive vegetation science could now enjoy a new feas-
ibility in the increasingly affluent and possibly more intellectually
oriented Alaskan society •
Recommendations
In the rest of this paper are presented four recommendations by
which descriptive knowledge of Alaskan vegetation could be significantly
increased in the next several years. The implementation of these recom-
mendations would require, beyond formal proposals from the scientific
community, only a modicum of financial interest by the various land-and
resource-responsible agencies at industry, state, and federal levels.
Costs would be small alongside the generally anticipated revenues from
petroleum and other resource exploitation enterprises.
1. There should be increased and regular acquaintance and commun-
ication among people concerned with Alaska's vegetation, for discussing
and comparing goals, methods, and results. This especially concerns those
whose responsibilities include description, classification, mapping, and
the analysis of vegetation-environment relationships.
This communication could be promoted through spring and fall
workshops and an occasional informal newsletter featuring summary reports
and discussions of ideas and problems. Various other tactics also seem
possible.
The benefits of better communication would be several. The fol-
lowing are suggested .
(a) There would be some chance for different and unrelated
future projects to be conducted according to similar methods. Thus, each
project could contribute beyond its primary purpose to broader goals in
synthesis and analysis .
(b) Broader goals could be defined and discussed. Suggested
projects for early attention are (i) preparation of an encyclopedia of
vegetation-environment relationships, to be supplemented or revised on
occasion to accommodate new information and (ii) organization in similar
published reference form of the increasingly abundant but scattered in-
formation on vegetation responses to disruptions and on revegetation of
disturbed sites.
225
..
(c) Whereas most considerations would depend on the recogni-
tion of vegetation units, needs and goals in classification and mapping
could be treated in a more enlightened manner through the pooling of
ideas and information.
(d) Deficiencies in background, knowledge, or skill of indi-
vidual workers could be identifted and thereby be reduced.
(e) Philosophies and methodologies well established elsewhere
could be critically examined.
With regard to (e) it is especially recommended that there be
an informed and no-nonsense consideration of the merits of the Braun-
Blanquet approach to descriptive and analytical vegetation science, and
that there be a serious attempt to design and conduct a program to test
and evaluate its applicability in Alaska for methodical, regional vege-
tation inventory. (See van Groenewoud 1965 for an example of a methods
comparison study in similar vegetation; Anderson 1970, p. 63-126, for an
example of the application of Braun-Blanquet approach methods in the
boreal forest in adjacent Canada; van der Maarel 1975 for a recent
appraisal; and Westhoff and van der Maarel 1973 and Mueller-Dombois and
Ellenberg 1974 for thorough explanations and instruction in the approach.)
In non-North American countries, the Braun-Blanquet approach has been
particularly important for its role in applied vegetation science.
2. Secondly, it is recommended that we become familiar with the
Fosberg (1967) and Viereck (1975) vegetation classifications and try to
use them. Whenever possible, new stand descriptions should be made
according to the format, now under development, for formal type descrip-
tions in the Viereck classification. In this way stands could be com-
pared with the established vegetation units as well as with one another
within and between projects and areas. Thus, new stands could be iden-
tified, as one might identify an organism or other entity according to an
established taxonomy; or new stand descriptions could be the basis of
new type descriptions and the expansion of the classification.
3. The vegetation of Alaska should be mapped at the intermediate
scale of 1:250,000 using satellite imagery and the Viereck (1975) or a
similar classification. Work in the University of Alaska has shown that
Landsat imagery, even in photographic format, can be used in conjunction
with topographic maps and available ecological information for economic-
ally mapping large areas at this scale (Anderson 1974a, b, 1976; McKen-
drick et al. 1974; Racine, in press). Maps with greater spatial and finer
classificatory detail than is depicted on existing maps at this scale
are possible. Mapping accuracies of about 90 percent are obtainable
(Anderson 1976), and vegetation map probabilities are raised by the greater
spatial resolution. Mapping should be on the standard topographic sheets,
starting with map-areas of high population or of other heavy land use.
This mapping could be done by a small team working in the Univer-
.. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
sity. Another paper (Anderson 1976) demonstrates the method which could
be applied. One possible plan would involve three full-time people; a
professional Alaskan vegetation scientist, a technician specializing in
vegetation cartography (a few students are receiving such training, parti-
cularly in 'Europe and the U.S.S.R.), and an ecologically trained assistant
t9 help in both vegetation and mapping activities. In addition, the
occasional services of a person specializing in remote sensing technology
and of photographic personnel would be employed. This team could make
ready for publication one map-area per month, on the average. The esti-
mated cost is about $125,000 per year, or approximately $10,000 per map-
area, or less than $2 per square mile. The production of 1:250,000 scale
general purpose.vegetation maps of 12 of the state's most important map-
areas in the first year would be a timely and widely useful service •
It is noted that these maps would be a major step beyond the
existing, unpublished maps of L. A. Spetzman (overlays of which are avail-
able at the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska,
in Anchorage) by virtue of their higher information content. They
would be of greater spatial and finer classificatory detail. Nonethe-
less, the recommended satellite image-based maps are viewed as an interim
product to serve until the best maps at this scale can be produced
through the kind of descriptive vegetation work discussed throughout this
paper.
The recommended.program should be funded mostly by the state be-
cause of its potential statewide value, with contributions by industry
and the several federal land-and resource-responsible agencies here.
4. Within the University of Alaska system, a working group or labor-
atory should be established whose express purpose would be the method-
ical description, classification, and mapping of the vegetation of Alaska.
This group would coordinate, influence, and draw from the work of others
wherever possible, but its primary efforts would be in the many areas
not otherwise covered or not covered according to the necessary and
standardized procedures which it would define and adopt. It would con-
duct research as required by the primary descriptive work to close gaps
in knowledge of vegetation-environment relationships, thereby to increase
the indicator value of vegetation. It would also investigate questions
concerning the origins and evolution of vegetations, for vegetation his-
tory is an area much in need of scientific attention in Alaska, and it
bears directly on the understanding of modern vegetation-environment
relationships. The group would see to the communication improvements and
the projects recommended in 1, above. It would try to be responsive to
special needs in descriptive vegetation science, as in providing advice
on specific practical problems.
The recommended group or laboratory should comprise three or
four full-time professional vegetation scientists and perhaps six tech-
nical people and graduate students. It should be intellectually and
227
..
physically intermixed with the various University departments and insti-
tutes having some concern for vegetation and soils, geomorphology,
glacial geology, and climatology. It would, thereby, incorporate several
affiliated scientific personnel with separate funding sources. It should
be administered by an established and capable institute, and its main
work could be done in existing space. Its individual identity should
be the Geobotanical Laboratory, for its concerns would include most of
those of the broad discipline of geobotany.
A major early goal of the group should be the satellite image-
based mapping proposed in 3, above. With this included, the overall
cost would be about $500,000 per year.
It is believed that this group of description-oriented scien-
tists and associated technicians would fill a vacancy that seems to
exist between the more purely scientific enterprise on the one hand and,
on the other, the dispersed and heterogeneous array of people responsible
for land use planning and management.
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of the manuscript were read and heard by several
people. All critical remarks are appreciated. The most important intel-
lectual and editorial contributions were made by L. A. Johnson and D. F.
Murray.
.. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
Literature Cited
Aleksandrova, V. D. 1973. Russian approaches to classification of
vegetation. Pages 493-527 in R. H. Whittaker, ed. Ordination and
classification of communities. Dr. W. Junk B. V. Publishers.
The Hague, Netherlands. 737 pp .
Anderson, J. H. 1970. A geobotanical study in the Atlin region in
northwestern British Columbia and south-central Yukon Territory.
Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State University. 380 pp. University Micro-
films, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Anderson, J. H. 1974a. Identification, definition and mapping of ter-
restrial ecosystems in interior Alaska. No. E74-10137. National
Technical Information Service. Springfield, Va. 16 pp. incl. maps.
Anderson, J. H. 1974b. Land use maps of the Tanana and Purcell Moun-
tain areas, Alaska, based on Earth Resources Technology Satellite
imagery. No. E75-10383. 23 pp. + maps. See above.
Anderson, J. H. 1974c. Plants, soils, phytocenology and primary pro-
duction of the Eagle Summit Tundra Biome site. U. S. Tundra Biome
Data Report 74-42. Northern Ecosystems Research Center. University
of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 152 pp •
Anderson, J. H. 1976. Vegetation mapping at 1:250,000 in interior
Alaska using Landsat imagery in photographic format. Xerox. Insti-
tute of Arctic Biology. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Approx. 60 pp. incl. maps and imagery. (Abstract: page 135 in
Abstracts of the XII International Botanical Congress, Leningrad.)
(Full paper to be submitted for publication.)
Anderson, J. H., and A. E. Belon. 1973. A new vegetation map of the
western Seward Peninsula, Alaska, based on ERTS-1 imagery. No. E73-
10305. 20 pp. See Anderson 1974a.
Beard, J. s. 1975. The vegetation survey of Western Australia. Vege-
tatio 30:179-187.
Egler, F. E., and S. R. Foote. 1975. The plight of the rightofway
domain, victim of vandalism. Futura Media Services, Inc., Mt. Kisco,
New York. 454 pp. in 2 parts •
Forest Management Institute, Canadian Forestry Service. 1974. Vegeta-
tion types of the Macke11zie corridor. Canadian Government Printing
Bureau, Sacred Heart Boulevard, Hull, Quebec, Canada. 86 pp. +
appendices and maps.
Fosberg, F. R. 1967. A classification of vegetation for general pur-
-
poses. Pages 73-120 ill G. F. Peterken, ed. Guide to the Check Sheet
for IBP areas. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Osney Mead, Oxford,
Great Britain. 133 pp.
Gribova, S. A., T. I. Isachenko, A. S. Karpenko, V. v. Lipatova, and T.
K. Yurkovskaja. 1975. Exhibition guide to Geobotanical Mapping in
the USSR. I. Vegetation maps. v. I. Komarov Botanical Institute.
Leningrad, USSR. 21 pp.
van Groenewoud, H. 1965. Ordination and classification of Swiss and
Canadian coniferous forests by various biometric and other methods.
Berichte des Geobotanischen Institutes 36:28-102. Eidgenossiche
Techniche Hochschule, Geobotanisches Institut. Stiftung Rubel.
Zurich, Switzerland.
Johnson, A. W., L. A. Viereck, R. E. Johnson, and H. Melchior. 1966.
Vegetation and flora. Pages 277-354 +map in N. J. Wilimovsky and
J. N. Wolfe, eds. Environment of the Cape Thompson region, Alaska.
1250 pp. No. PNE-481. Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and
Technical Information, Springfield, Virginia.
JFSLUPCA (Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska).
1973. Major ecosystems of Alaska. Map (1:2,500,000). U.s. Geolog-
ical Survey, Resources Bldg., University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Karamysheva, z. V., and E. I. Rachkovskaya.
Geobotanical Mapping in the U.S.S.R. II.
15 pp. (See Gribova et al.)
1975. Exhibition guide to
Maps of subdivisions.
Kuchler, A. W. 1967. Vegetation mapping. Ronald Press, New York, N. Y.
472 pp.
Kuchler, A. w. 1973. Problems in classifying and mapping vegetation for
ecological regionalization. Ecology 54:512-523.
van der Maarel, E. 1975. The Braun-Blanquet approach in perspective.
Vegetation 30:213-219.
Major, J. 1973. Book review of A handbook of Alaskan trees and shrubs,
by L. A. Viereck and E. L. Little, Jr., 1972. Ecology 54:223-224.
McKendrick, J. D., P. c. Scorup, w. M. Mitchell, and I. C. Branton. 1974.
Identification of phenological stages and vegetative types for land
use classification. Final Report, Contract NAS5-21833, Project 2.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Greenbelt, Maryland.
93 pp.
Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974.
tation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
230
Aims and methods of vege-
New York, N. Y. 547 pp.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Orloci, L. 1975. Multivariate analysis in vegetation research. Dr.
W. Junk B. v., Publishers. The Hague, The Netherlands. 276 pp .
Racine, c. H. In press. Vegetation and flora of the Chukchi-Imuruk
National Reserve. In H. R. Melchior and J. Morrow, eds. Chukchi-
Imuruk Biological Survey. Alaska Cooperative Park Studies Unit,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Shetler, S. G. 1967 .
Russian research.
240 pp.
The Komarov Botanical Institute: 250 years of
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. c.
Shimwell, D. W. 1972. The description and classification of vegetation.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 322 pp .
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) .
1972. International classification and mapping of vegetation. Uni-
pub. Inc., New York. 37 pp.
Viereck, L. A. 1973. Wildfire in the taiga of Alaska. Quaternary
Research 3:465-495 •
Viereck, L. A. 1975. Forest ecology of the Alaska taiga. Xerox. In-
stitute of Northern Forestry, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.
20 pp. (To be published in Proceedings of the Circumpolar Conference
on Northern Ecology, Ottawa, September 15-18, 1975.)
Webber, P. J., and D. A. Walker. 1975. Vegetation and landscape analysis
at Prudhqe Bay, Alaska: A vegetation map of the Tundra Biome study
area. P~ges 81-92 +map in J. Brown, ed. Ecological Investigations
of the Tundra Biome in the Prudhoe Bay Region, Alaska. Biological
Papers of the University of Alaska, Special Report No. 2. University of
Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 215 pp .
Westhoff, V., and E. van der Maarel. 1973. The Braun-Blanquet approach.
Pages 617-726 in R. H. Whittaker, ed. Ibid.
Whittaker, R. H., ed. 1973. Ordination and classification of communities .
Dr. W. Junk B. v., Publishers. The Hague, The Netherlands. 737 pp .
231
-
Resource Data Needs and Water Quality
Stanley Brust
ABSTRACT
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 197~ provide
for control of water pollution, whatever its source. The EPA per-
mit system for controlling point source pollution now is operating
effectively, but the mechanism for controlling nonpoint source
pollution still is being developed. The EPA defines effluent
limits in issuing discharge permits, but from a technical stand-
point, many other criteria affect water quality. These criteria
are incorporated into the State Water Quality Standards. Non-
point source pollution control is best accomplished at the local
level, and the best single control is through land-use planning.
In 1972 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with
administering a very comprehensive law, called the Federal Water Pollution
control Act Amendments of 1972. The act provided for controlling water
pollution from any source.
EPA's first task was to set up a permit system to provide for efflu-
ent limitation for all point sources of discharge. These include sewage
treatment plants, industrial waste plants, and other similar sources.
The system has been implemented and is now working effectively.
Another portion of the law deals with nonpoint pollution sources.
Nonpoint sources are those where the pollution does not originate dir-
ectly from a pipe but is a result of some activity such as construction,
2?2
.. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
cxcuvution, or forestry practices. Nonpoint sources also can include
insidious types of pollution, such as leachate from garbage dumps and
underground travel of pesticides and nutrients. We're dealing, there-
fore, with a fairly complex mechanism and one that isn't easy to define.
EPA was in somewhat of a quandary as to what to do about these,
because issuing permits to nonpoint sources of pollution just wasn't
practical at the time the Amendments were passed •
The National Resources Defense Council sued EPA and got a court
judgment stating that EPA will implement ways to abate nonpoint sources.
EPA personnel in Washington, D. c. are now trying to plan ways to do
this .
I should describe the EPA responsibility concerning water quality.
EPA is really a multiheaded agency. Several of our functions are
regulatory. We also have technical and educational functions. We have
the largest public works budget of any federal agency, for the construc-
tion of sewage treatment plants. EPA has a very large research function.
In Alaska, about 20 persons work in the Arctic Environmental Research
Laboratory at College and another 10 are here in Anchorage, so we're
pretty well staffed in Alaska.
Water quality may be defined in two ways. In its regulatory role,
EPA defines water quality very legalistically. When issuing a permit to
a particular discharger, we define water quality in a permit, saying that
he will not discharge sewage i~ for instance, it contains a concentra-
tion of more than 30 parts per million of suspended solids.
From a technical standpoint, however, what does water quality mean?
It means different things to different people. The person who drinks
water has one perspective of water quality. Fish might like to live
in a certain quality of water that is unpalatable to people. Esthetics--
the visual appearance of water--is important to some people; the quality
for industrial or agricultural purposes is quite different.
Each of these is defined in the Alaska State i'later Quality Stand-
ards. For example, dissolved oxygen is very important to fish. It might
be less important to people who drink that water. These criteria are
legally defined, and the State, through its water quality standards,
has a strong regulatory function.
In its treatment of nonpoint source pollution that may result from
surface disturbance, EPA does not now have regulatory functions. While
the question of whether or not we can issue permits for nonpoint sources
is decided back in Washington, EPA's chief emphasis at controlling this
pollution source is through planning grants to state agencies.
The Amendments provide that basin plans will be prepared by each
state. In Alaska, the State expects to have 11 plans prepared by June
233
•
30. Through these plans, they hope to obtain much-needed data which
will enable the state and local jurisdictions to control nonpoint source
pollution. Section 208 of the 1972 Amendments specifically addresses
itself to nonpoint sources; that is, those areas that cannot be issued
permits as point sources.
As part of the planning process, after the state plans have been
submitted to EPA, they will go out for public review. The mechanisms
for defining, data gathering, and controlling nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion will be open to public inspection and comment. Anyone w~o is
interested in a specific aspect of water quality can express his interests
and get them into the state planning process.
Some of the nonpoint sources of pollution that can be permitted by
EPA include placer mining permits here in Alaska. In other states, we
have issued permits for feedlots and irrigation return flows. These
could be defined as nonpoint pollution sources, but they can be controlled
through the permit process.
Another aspect of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
is that they require each state to revise its water quality standards
every three years. Water quality standards have many local criteria and
can be controlled much more effectively at the state level than at the
federal. Alaska is getting close to the time when it must review its
standards. I expect that some nonpoint source aspects will be addressed
during this review.
Although the title of my talk is "water quality," I should mention
that surface protection involves EPA in another matter, air pollution.
One of the worst air pollution problems in the State is right here in
Anchorage. This is from particulates caused mainly by disturbance of the
surface. Paving more roads, minimizing disturbance in vegetated areas,
and similar remedies will probably have to be administered at the local
level, either through ordinance or by land-use policies.
Although land-use legislation is not popular in Washington, D. C.,
EPA is working with state and local jurisdictions to emphasize that land-
use planning is really the best way to control nonpoint source pollution.
Proper land use is probably the most important single factor in pollution
control.
234
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
•
•
•
I
I
I
session eight
CHAIRMAN: James V. Coan, General Engineer
Division of Resources
Bureau of Land Management
Alaska State Office
Anchorage, Alaska
SURFACE PROTECTION--continueo
Regulation of Type and Use of Equipment Page
Proposed ORV regulations • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -, ,
Helen Nienhueser, Coordinator
Alaska Center for the Environment
Anchorage, Alaska
A recreation user's view of the need for
fe_~ft~1ra: ~!f.!=:;rr~;~t:!!ia~n~~ 12~rm_i_t_s·
Upper Cook Inlet Chapter
Alaska Conservation Society
Anchorage, Alaska
Equipment Development
State of the art for industry
• • • • • • • • 2·:±"""
The Moccasin Track . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ORV's: Environmental effects ••••••
Robin T. Harrison, Mechanical Engineer
Equipment Development Center
USDA Forest Service
San Dimas, California
--continued on next page.
Equipment Development--continued
Page
Special equipment for l'ldned land reclamations. • • • • • • • 268
Don Calhoun, Surface Protection Specialist
Division of Standards and Technology
Bureau of Land Manaqement
Denver Service Center
Lakewood 1 Colorade
Vehicle for the Future
R8searcll . • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • •
Dr. Charles W. Slaughter 1 Research Hydrologist
(Watershed Management)
Alaskan Projects Office
u. s. Army Cold Regions Research and Enqineering
Laboratoey
Fairbanks, Alaska
Industey
Gene Brush 1 Project Superintendent
Bechtel Incorporated
Anchoraqe , Alaska
[Paper not available)
236
. . . 272
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Proposed ORV Regulations
Helen Nienhueser
ABSTRACT
Although it brings some benefits, especially in rural Alaska, off-
road vehicle use on public lands managed by BLM and the State
Division of Lands must be regulated to reduce damage to the sur-
face and such natural resources as wildlife and vegetation, to
prevent vandalism to remote cabins, and to keep o~ use from con-
flicting with nonmotorized uses. Regulations should begin with
closure to all ORV use on public lands until trails and suitable
areas can be identified and a permanent zoning plan for all uses
developed. Simultaneously with the closure, certain lands should
be opened on an interim basis where ORV use for transportation and
subsistence hunting is important. Permits could be given for ORV
use on prohibited lands if conditions warranted. Two areas that
could be zoned for ORV use are highway rights-of-way and airport
property. While it is difficult to enforce regulations, including
those requiring driver licensing and vehicle marking, the problem
is not insurmountable .
Although I am a board member of the Alaska Center for the Environ-
ment, I am not specifically representing the Center today. I think that
what I will say does generally represent the views of the nonmotorized
recreational user of public lands, and I have discussed this subject in
depth with a number of people. My remarks, however, have not gone through
a formal review by the Center board •
237
-
I am very aware of the positive benefits of off-road vehicles and
of their perhaps somewhat unique position in Alaska's transportation
picture. I asked Mr. Coan to mention my background as a homesteader and
owner of a remote cabin built with the help of an ORV to emphasize
that I am not just a city idealist whose only experience with Alaskan
backcountry is an occasional cross-country ski trip. I've lived there.
I've owned and driven four-wheel drives, and I know the need for use of
ORV's for transportation in a country with few roads. I also believe
that to be happy in Alaska, it is important to enjoy some outdoor winter
sport, and I know that snowmobiling has gotten a lot of people outdoors
in the winter who would otherwise never get out. I'm sure it is just
·as effective an antidote to cabin fever as skiing. ORV's are also a
vital part of the subsistence lifestyle of many rural Alaskans.
I do believe, however, that the use of ORV's on public lands needs
to be regulated. I hope that BLM and the State can work together to come
up with a consistent approach. I know this will be difficult because
BLM takes its orders from Washington, but I would urge that Alaskan BLM
officials make an extra effort to try.
It is important that any regulations devised apply equally to all
users. It would be wrong to restrict the hunters' use of a Weasel but
allow a miner free rein. The State has the authority to regulate all
users equally on state lands, but I am not sure that BLM does. Executive
Order 11644, which directs federal land-managing agencies to develop ORV
regulations, does give BLM authority over ORV's used for recreation pur-
poses, but whether this authority extends to those used for mining is
unclear to me. The proposed BLM regulations, developed under Executive
Order 11644, specifically exempt vehicles used to explore or develop
public lands for minerals. This exemption is a serious flaw. It poses
a legal question which perhaps can only be resolved by Congress through
passage of the BLM Organic Act or revision of the 1872 mining laws. At
any rate, within their respective legal frameworks, I would urge BLM
and the State to be as consistent as possible.
The need for regulation of ORV's has been amply demonstrated by
some of the slides shown during this seminar. Without doubt, unregulated
summertime ORV use is unnecessarily damaging the land. I'm sorry that
BLM's excellent slides of the mining road being built in the Strelna
area between Chitna and McCarthy were not also shown. Other examples
of damage caused by recreational vehicles can be found in the Lake Louise
and Nabesna areas.
Closer to home there is the motorcycle trail in the north fork of
Campbell creek, just outside Chugach State Park, on military land. A
trail, originally cut by a homesteader, leads from the Campbell tract
up above timberline onto the flanks of Knoya. From there, motorcycles
have cut scars across ~~e alpine tundra in all directions. This is
strictly recreational use, and in my opinion, it is a level of damage
which is totally unnecessary and completely unacceptable. I would like
238
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
to know why the Department of Defense is not controlling this kind of
use .
Resource damage by snowmachines in the winter is less obvious.
The slides shown earlier of the lemming grazing do document the claim
that snowmachines have an effect on small animals. There may also be
negative effects on large animals; a BLM study in 1971 in Idaho concluded
that deer and elk struggle to keep a 1/2 mile buffer zone between them-
selves and unseen snowmachines. They run, often uphill, as far as four
miles to escape the roar of machines. This undue exertion and stress
drains limited winter energy reserves. Without the stored fat needed
to survive until spring, animals are left to die of starvation, expos-
ure, or disease. Undue stress may also cause a pregnant female to abort
or resorb her fetus, and make animals unable to respond to other stress-
ful situations including attack by predators.
Other studies show damage to vegetation. When air spaces in snow
are compacted, the insulating capacity is reduced and vegetation which
usually weathers the winter cold under a blanket of snow is subjected
to abnormal extremes of temperature. In a test done in Minnesota in
'71-'72, the coldest air temperature was -43.3 degrees c. Under undis-
turbed snow, the temperature one inch above ground was -6.2 degrees C;
under snowmobile-compacted snow, the temperature at the same point was
-19.8 degrees C; two inches below the ground the temperature under un-
disturbed snow was -1.9 degrees C; under snowmobile-compacted snow it
was -10.7 degrees c. This study compared alfalfa growth in an undisturbed
plot with growth in plots crossed by snowmobiles various numbers of times.
The alfalfa growth was definitely less in the snowmobile-compacted snow;
however, weeds and undesirable plants increased their growth.
Since we are talking about regulating uses on public lands which are
in natural condition, the effect on alfalfa is not of particular signi-
ficance to us. The test does indicate, however, that there is an effect
on vegetation, and I wonder if we know enough about the effect on Alaska's
various forms of natural plants to say that there is no damage to vege-
tation from snowmobiles.
Another reason for the need to regulate ORV use is the increase in
vandalism to remote cabins. ORV's, especially snowmachines, make cabins
that used to be left open to use by anyone very vulnerable to theft and
damage. The movie, "Sourdough" made this point rather dramatically. We
need a mechanism to identify the machines and the drivers and to control
who uses the machines.
I value my individual freedom as much as anyone. I don't want to be
told where I can hike or ski or camp or build a fire. I can sympathize
with the ORV user's desire to continue to be able to operate his machine
wherever he wishes. But I have two comments on the freedom argument.
First, there are times when two freedoms conflict and then a collective
choice has to be made as to which freedom must be curtailed. In all
239
-
aspects of our lives in Alaska today, we are now experiencing such a
conflict between freedoms because of the increase in our population.
When there are very few people, their impact on the land is minimal.
For example, the first and second Pug traveling cross-country leave
no mark. The tenth Pug across the same route is traveling on a trail.
The 50th Pug is going to have to make a new trail in some places because
the original trail is too soft. ·And a Pug is one of the least damaging
summer ORV's.
The freedoms that are conflicting here are the freedom to have as
many children as we wish and the freedom to move wherever we wish in
the United States versus the freedom to do whatever we wish on the
public lands. We can't have both; either Alaska's population has to be
limited or we will have to accept some regulation on our use of public
lands. I don't like the situation, but I do not see any alternative
to accepting the regulation. Because of Alaska's increase in population,
the level of damage and of conflict between uses are both now at a
point where regulation is required. The old Alaska we all liked so much
is gone. Our task now is devising the best possible approach to pre-
serving what is left in terms of both scenic and wilderness values and
lifestyles, while at the same time remembering that some kind of contin-
uing economic base is necessary and that development of at least most
of our mineral resources is at some point inevitable. Reasonable regu-
lation of ORV's is one part of preserving what is left of what we like
about Alaska.
The second point I'd like to make about the freedom argument is that
it is impossible to compare a motorized activity such as snowmobiling
with a nonmotorized activity such as cross-country skiing. Snowmobiling
and ORV use generally are intrusive activities. Because of the motor
noise, they intrude upon anyone within a quarter of a mile or so. In a
quiet winter mountain valley, the effect has a much broader range--
perhaps on others within three to five miles.
cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are quiet and affect no one but
the individual pursuing the activity. so we cannot put skiing on one side
of the scale and snowmobiling on the other and expect them to balance out.
They simply cannot be compared. Those who use snowmobiles have chosen
a sport which is different from other winter sports because it is noisy.
They should not expect equal freedom for their sport with quiet sports
which bother no one. True freedom carries with it a recognition of the
rights of others and responsibility for those rights. All of us should
have a right to quiet.
There is an important distinction to be made here, one that has not
been made by all the seminar participants. I am not advocating regulating
people; I am advocating regulating the activity. Jack Helms and Paul
Berry have every right to go anywhere the cross-country skier or hiker
goes, but they should not be able to take their ORV's all those places.
240
...
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What form then should the regulation of ORV's take? The first and
most important recommendation is that all public lands should be con-
s·idered closed to off-road vehicle use. Trails and areas which are
determined to be suitable for ORV use can then be opened for such use.
Before the roof falls in on me, let me hasten to explain some
thoughts on implementation of this and also some reasons. First, imple-
mentation: because of the important use of ORV's for basic trapsporta-
tion and subsistence hunting purposes, any such closure would have to
be simultaneously accompanied by an interim reopening of substantial
areas where ORV's are used for these purposes. This would be primarily
in areas around roadless villages. To a large extent, any closure of
public lands to ORV use would not affect lands around villages since most
such villages are largely Native and lands around the villages will be
under private ownership. There are some exceptions to this, however,
and other cases where public lands are close enough to villages to be
within ORV range, particularly snowmobile range, and where hunting on
these public lands with ORV transportation would be important to subsis-
tence users. Some interim provision for recreational uses could perhaps
also be made •
When I speak of public lands, I am specifically referring, at the
moment, to lands under the management of BLM and the State Division of
Lands. A closure of public lands to ORV use by BLM and ADL would not
affect recreational ORV users in such places as the Chugach National
Forest and Chugach State Park. I'm told by several people who are very
familiar with the State, including rural areas, and with ORV use state-
wide, that areas could be chosen for interim reopening with about a day's
map work.
A permanent zoning plan for motorized and nonmotorized uses cou!d
then be developed. A mandatory completion date for such a plan is pro-
bably desirable to assure that such decisions are not indefinitely post-
poned.
This zoning should be done on the basis of location, time of year,
and type of vehicle. The capability of the land to withstand ORV use
should be a major criterion. In some areas there would probably need
to be little restriction on the use of lightweight, low-pressure recrea-
tional vehicles such as the Pug, Coot, or cushman's tractor. Such vehi-
cles as the Penguin, four-wheel drives with conventional tires, Weasels,
and swamp buggies are more damaging, however, and would be subjected to
greater restrictions, i.e. there would be fewer areas open to them. In
many cases, summer ORV use would probably be confined to existing trails,
after determination of their adequacy, or to trails established for ORV
use rather than being permitted to travsl cross country randomly.
Another criterion for zoning should be separation of conflicting
uses. Time of year would be a factor--some trails are okay in hunting
season but not in breakup. Disturbance of wildlife would be a factor--
241
-
areas that Alaska State Department of Fish and Game wants to limit to
walkin hunting should be closed to all ORV use.
If an area is closed to ORV use and someone needs to cross it for
a particular purpose, he should be able to get a permit to do so from
the land managing agency. Obtaining such a permit should not be guar-
anteed, but it should be possib~e unless there are very good reasons
against it. Most terrain can sustain one or two passes of a low-pressure
vehicle at the right time of year. It is the repeated passes that are
the problem.
Two areas that I'd like to see open for snowmobile use, at least
selectively, are highway rights-of-way and airport property. I am aware
of the safety problems, but they don't exist in all cases. These are
areas where there is already a high noise level and in that sense, snow-
mobile and motorcycle use is compatible. Where highway rights-of-way and
residential use are adjacent, snowmobiling is inappropriate. But where
they are not, and the safety problems can be eliminated, why not have
ORV use there? Perhaps it could be handled by the ORV groups petitioning
for use of particular rights-of-way and pieces of airport property, and
of the State Highways Department and Division of Aviation granting such
use after inspection of the specific site. The burden of proof regarding
lack of conflict and safety hazards could be on the ORV groups.
Another question to be considered is how we should determine when to
open areas to winter snowmobile use. On the Kenai Moose Range and in
Chugach State Park it's done by announcement when the land manager deter-
mines that there is sufficient snow. This doesn't seem practical for
such a large, far-flung area as that under combined BLM and ADL jurisdic-
tion. The only alternative would be to specify snow depth and make it
the responsibility of the snowmobile operator to be sure that the snow
was the proper depth. The problem with this is that in some places four
inches is adequate and in others three feet is necessary to cover young
trees. There isn't an easy answer, but I don't think it is an insur-
mountable problem.
A major argument against the "closed-until-open" approach is diffi-
culty of enforcement. Admittedly, it would be difficult, but not so
difficult as to cause us to throw out this approach. Four or five years
ago the City of Anchorage made the same protests about unenforceability.
They banned snowmobiles in response to public pressure and today, winter
life in the city has improved immeasurably. I never see a snowmobile.
This has happened because most people, now that they know what the law
is, obey it. Others obey it because there has been some enforcement.
While the City is, of course, a more confined area where enforcement is
easier, much the same can happen on public lands.
Our two basic goals, to prevent resource damage and separate con-
flicting uses, will be a long way toward accomplishment if the law-abiding
90 percent of the ORV users obey the regulations. The other 10 percent
242
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
will have to be dealt with, at least initially, on a spot-enforcement
basis •
Stiff enough penalties, widely publicized, even though administered
only occasionally, will serve as an effective deterrent. Confiscation
or sale of illegally operated machines is probably the most effective
penalty. Perhaps a warning and fine for the first time and confiscation
and sale the second time would qe reasonable. Fish and Game personnel,
Department of Natural Resources and BLM field staff, as well as State
Troopers, could be used to enforce the regulations. One of the biggest
arguments is that if you have the regulations you can use them when
violations become flagrant. The occasional car doing 80 on a lonely
stretch of the Seward Highway isn't likely to be bothered by the police.
The car that does 80 in the middle of Anchorage isn't going to go far •
What is the argument for adopting the closed-until-open approach?
It is basically a moral one. The ORV user, by operating a noisy machine
that conflicts with other uses and that has or can have damaging effects
on the public resource, land, is creating the problem. Therefore, the
burden of proof to show why and where he should operate his machines
should be on him. A closed-until-open approach to the public lands
requires that a case be made for each area or trail open, placing the
burden of making a case where it belongs, on the user.
There are a few other regulations that I would propose. Some of them
would make the enforcement job easier. First of all, all ORV's, not just
snowmobiles, should be registered annually. The registration number should
be prominently displayed and should be four or five inches high. The
larger vehicles should have numbers twelve to eighteen inches high that
can be read from the air. This provision for registration and marking
should be enforced. The registration number should also be attached to
the tread of snowmachines in such a manner as to leave an imprint in the
snow. The amount of the registration fee should vary depending on the
size of the machine and its potential for damage; large machines such as
the Penguin, Weasel, and swampbuggy should pay perhaps as much as $50 to
discourage their use. These funds should be earmarked. They should not
go into the general fund. In part, they could be used for administrative
costs, in part to restore areas torn up by ORV's, in part to develop ORV
trails--perhaps covering soft spots or bridging streams at problem points
on existing trails.
Operators of ORV's, including snowmobiles, should be required to
have a license or be operating under the direct supervision of a licensed
adult. The minimum age for a license should be 16 years. A condition of
the license should be passing a test that demonstrates knowledge of the
ORV regulations and good operating practices. I know this is restrictive,
but my goal is to insure a reasonable level of responsibility in ORV
operators. We own a cabin in the Matanuska Valley with some friends. It
is alone on a lake so it is an attractive destination. We have had re-
peated acts of vandalism and I suspect it is mostly by kids on motorcycles
-
and snowmobile~. This may be an urban problem and licensing at the age
of 16 may be an undue hardship in the Bush. Perhaps operating an ORV
on private property, i.e. Native-owned lands, should not require a
license. Perhaps another way to achieve responsibility in ORV operators
would be to make the registered owner of the machine responsible for
anything done by anyone operating the machine,''but I don't think this
would be as effective.
I concur with Sam that vehicles operating on public lands should
be required to meet a noise standard not greater than 72 decibels at
50 feet.
ORV regulations should include a prov~s~on to discourage abandoning
machines on public lands. Once a vehicle has been registered, an annual
fee should be required until the owner certifies in writing that it has
been disposed of in a satisfactory manner. If a vehicle cannot be re-
moved from public lands without unreasonable difficulty, a fee could be
paid for the privilege of disposal on the public domain and disposal
certification then completed.
In conclusion, I'd like to re-emphasize that I recognize the benefits
of off-road vehicles, especially to Alaskans. In many cases, I think an
ORV trail and an ORV is preferable to a road. I hope that responsible
ORV owners will join with nonmotorized recreationists to support a reason-
able program of regulation. An ability to identify the vehicle positively
and therefore place the blame for misuse on the specific offender will
protect the responsible owners. It is very important that any kind of
zoning recognize and provide for legitimate nonrecreational users, and also
provide substantial areas for recreational use where such use can take
place without damaging the surface.
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A Recreation User's View of the need
for Federal and State Regulations and Permits
Virginia dal Piaz
ABSTRACT
The conflict between conservationists and ORV recreational use is
basically one of conflicting values. Regulations on public lands
should recognize man's need for noise-free solitude. Production
capability and affluence have accelerated ORV recreational use,
however, and excessive noise, harassed wildlife, injured and de-
stroyed vegetation, trail and streambank erosion, and litter have
accompanied this use. Noise is an environmental pollutant that
can also create human health'problems. Snow compaction and exhaust
elements from ORV's have been shown to damage vegetation. While
nonmotorized recreationists can enjoy wilderness experiences with-
out intruding on others, motorized users cannot venture into the
wilderness without bringing the mood of the city with them and de-
stroying peace and quiet.
The main conflict between conservationists and recreational users of
ORV's arises basically from different sets of values pertaining to re-
source use and recreational experience. A value can be defined as "a
principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirab1e--some-
thing prized or esteemed." I think it would be safe to assume ORV's are
not highly valued by environmentalists.
If our public lands, held in trust by the Forest Service, Bureau of
Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service are
245
to be managed for the benefit of all, then it would be a very limited
recreation policy that neglects man's need for places to refresh his life
and sense his identity with other life and the earth. Most of these
types of places, to have the greatest value, must be free from the shat-
tering influence of incompatible machines.
We are familiar with environmental effects of the car in its tradi-
tional setting--traffic congestion, highway construction, noise, air
pollution, junkyards. Add to this vehicles that can go off the roads--
and a host of new environmental problems evolves. All of these are diffi-
cult to solve.
What is the long-term value of ORV use to a person's health and out-
look as compared to that from self-propelled recreation such as hiking or
skiing? This would be very hard to quantify because a conservationist
would approach the subject by comparing his preference for quiet to motor
noise, for clean air to motor exhaust, and for a natural panorama to one
filled with machines.
On the whole, ORV's were not too popular until about 15 years ago
when production capability and affluence converged and ORV's became the
"thing to do." Their use has, even in such a short time, impaired natural
values and traditional recreational pursuits. Their use is associated
with excessive noise, harassed wildlife, injured and destroyed vegetation,
trail and streambank erosion, and litter.
Although ORV's are used some.for law enforcement, research, survey-
ing, utility work, lumbering, and ranching, a 1970 survey by the Upper
Great Lakes Regional Commission of snowmobile users revealed that trail
riding accounted for 47 percent of all use and "other pleasure" for an
additional 40 percent--the nearest other figures were hunting and fishing
8 percent, required transportation 3 percent, and racing 2 percent."
Some brief comments about several things that concern conservation-
ists--noise and vegetation effects.
Noise is an environmental pollutant. It used to be confined to the
city--but no longer. Its intrusion into formerly nonmotorized country
creates new annoyances for anyone who seeks privacy and rural quiet.
Acceptable noise limits range from 73 decibels at 50 feet (equival-
ent to vacuum cleaner at 10 feet) to 50 decibels at 50 feet, according
to Dr. L. Glascow, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, speaking in 1969
at a seminar, "Snowmobile Today."
Paradoxically, while an off-road vehicle operator may want the free-
dom to enjoy a quiet scene, he also enjoys making noise. Whether running
a tractor, lawn mower, motorcycle, or snowmobile, many operators enjoy
the sense of power that noise signifies.
246
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
This phenomenon may explain why ORV 's are not quieter. One industry
representative put it this way: "These machines could be half as noisy
with a little extra cost, but they wouldn't sell--the American male just
does not want a quiet snowmobile." But to be fair, the American male
has not yet had much choice in the matter.
Complaints about off-road vehicle noise are frequent. The impact
of noise is by no means limited to mere nuisance, however. Noise plays
a part in creating the stress conditions that contribute to such ailments
as ulcers, hypertension, and coronary disease. It should be noted, how-
ever, that individual reactions to noise vary widely. Other studies
show reactions of vasoconstriction, high blood pressure, effects on adren-
als, ovaries, and kidneys, and stress reactions (Geber and Anderson 1967) •
By the same token, an off-road vehicle noise which would pass unno-
ticed in a city becomes a tension-producing irritant of the highest order
to someone who has made a deliberate attempt to get away from the urban
din.
Erosion, devegetation, and trail littering are typical effects of
the use of ORV's, especially in the summer when there is no snow to protect
the ground cover.
Probably the most comprehensive study made of snowmobile damage was
conducted by Dr. Wallace Wanek of Bemidji State College in Minnesota. He
studied the effect of snow compaction from snowmobiles on temperature,
microbe content, and vegetation of the underlying soil, as well as the
effects of the vehicle on larger flora and wildlife.
Specific study conclusions suggest that unrestricted snowmobile use
carries the potential for significant environmental damage. For example,
temperature data strongly indicate that snowmobiles drastically alter the
physical environment under the snow wherever they travel. Under natural
snow cover, soil temperatures rarely fall much below the freezing point,
whereas temperatures under snow compacted by snowmobiles were as much as
11.5 degrees colder. Soil microbe data, though scanty, suggest that bac-
teria and fungi may be adversely affected by snowmobiling. Under compacted
soil of a snowmobile trail, the number of bacteria were reduced at least
a hundred-fold and the fungi two-to ten-fold, when cOmpared with corres-
ponding microbial counts under natural snow cover. The potential damage
by snowmobiles to young coniferous trees and other woody species is high.
In u. s. Forest Service booklet, Air Pollution and Trees·,: it is
pointed out that many of the constituents of internal-combustion-engine
exhaust may damage trees. Classes of exhaust pollutants that may, in
significant concentrations, cause injuries are ozone, peroxyacetylnitrate
(PAN), ethylene, oxides of nitrogen, ammonia, and particulates. These
elements are usually dispersed. When an inversion layer or topographic
features restrict dispersion, pollutants may remain trapped in localized
247
-
pockets with potentially serious results. Effects of the various pollu-
tants on trees differ, but in general they involve defoliation, flower
injury, yellow leaves, and abnormal growth. Air pollution may retard
growth and at the same time make trees more vulnerable to attack by var-
ious insects and diseases.
Conflicts are inevitable between off-road vehicle proponents and
more traditional outdoorsmen. Consider: ORV operation can spoil the
pleasures of hiking but the reverse is rarely true. ORV's make nature
"easy." In order to save the beauty of wild places and intact landscapes,
it ought to be difficult to get there. Machines make it too easy. In
addition, machines transfer the mood of the city (speed, noise, light,
traffic, air pollution) to the country. "One of the most valuable aspects
of outdoor recreation is the peace of mind and restoration of spirit that
comes from the separation of man from his normal noisy environment"
{Harrison 1971).
The impact of ORV's on recreation involves the physical presence as
well as noise and effects on fish, wildlife, and vegetation. A recreation
policy must weigh the various cultural, historic, esthetic, and wilderness
values that provide an increasingly rare form of recreation against intru-
sion by motor vehicles.
Literature Cited
Geber and Anderson. 1967. Cardiac hypertrophy due to chronic audiogenic
stress in the rat and rabbit. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology.
Vol. XXI.
Glascow, T. 1969. Unpublished speech for the seminar, Snowmobile Today.
Harrison, Robin. 1971. Testimony for the Sierra Club. Environmental
Protection Agency hearing on recreational noise. Denver, Colorado.
Oct. 1, 1971.
U. s. Forest Service. 1971. Air pollution and trees.
Wanek, Wallace. 1971. A study of the impact of snowmobiling on northern
Minnesota ecology. The Center for Environmental Studies. Bemidji
State College, Bemidji, Minn.
248
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Moccasin Track
w. Victor Lancaster
ABSTRACT
canadair Flextrac Ltd., since 1972, has designed, developed, and
tested a low ground pressure, smooth-track system to reduce sur-
face damage by tracked vehicles. This system, named the "Moccasin"
track, is covered by United States and Canadian patents. This
paper deals with the prototype design, development, and testing;
prototype test results and field service reports; surface damage
effects of the Moccasin track relative to the standard tundra flat
track; response of the use operator and environmental agencies;
and description of the latest preproduction track shortly to under-
go testing in the Inuvik area. This preproduction design incorpor-
ates wider belts, rubber folded belt edge protectors, and a grouser
and sprocket configuration developed specifically for the Moccasin
track. These design improvements have improved the already worth-
while surface protection characteristics of the tundra flat tracks
and the prototype Moccasin track by lowering ground pressure. Use
of folded belt edge protectors reduces the possibility of track
edges slicing beneath or through vegetation.
Perhaps I should expand a little on the canadair Flextrac name. A
lot of you don't recognize it until you hear the name Nodwell added to it.
Apparently, our vehicles are still known as Nodwells, no matter what name
appears on the front of the cab.
The vehicles I am discussing in this session are in the medium range,
249
the CF, that is Canadair Flextrac, 110 and 160. The 110 is a sprung
vehicle; the 160 has a walking beam suspension. Gross vehicle weights
are in the area of 30 to 40,000 pounds. A couple of other words you
will hear me use, particularly in reference to tracks, are D-Dent.
That is a grouser or track bar that looks like the drawing on the board
with a deep dent in the middle of it. You will hear me talk about flat
tundra tracks. In the order of evolution, they followed the D-Dent.
The flat tundra track is a reasonably aggressive track, although devel-
oped for tundra use, in that the grouser bar is still a formed channel.
You can see the tundra track on the comparison diagram (Fig. 1).
TUNDRA
TRACK
MOCCASIN
TRACK
Fig. Z. Comparison of the Tundra and the Moaaasin Traaks.
Since this is a Surface Protection Seminar and this session is the
"Current State of the Art for Industry," it is obvious that we are inter-
ested in that part of the vehicle that touches the ground. Over the years,
Canadair Flextrac has undertaken several quite significant track studies,
not only as routine research and development but also special studies,
some funded by the Canadian Government. The growing concern for the sur-
face damage caused by what was the general purpose D-Dent type of track
and our own continuing studies have resulted in the development of a
smooth track system which reduces surface damage by our tracked vehicles
to a reasonable minimum and yet retains low ground pressures. The most
recent design improves upon ground pressure and also maintains reasonable
traction. This new system has been christened the Moccasin track for
fairly obvious reasons and is now covered by both Canadian and American
patents.
We have built two sets of these tracks. The first one was the proto-
type and is still in service. After preliminary testing at Calgary in
the summer of 1972, the track was shipped to a Gulf Oil seismic camp near
Inuvik, where it was tested on a CF160 vehicle with a drill mounted and
250
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
operated by Kenaston Drilling.
The first production set of tracks is currently here in Anchorage
and belongs to the canadair Flextrac distributor, Karl Holfeld & Asso-
ciates, Inc. If anybody wants to see the system, he should make
arrangements with Karl Holfeld, who is attending the seminar this morn-
ing. We hope to continue tests with these tracks this spring and summer,
unless Karl sells them, in which happy event we will build another set •.
The subject of this paper is a very brief outline of the test
program conducted around Inuvik in 1972-73. The results of this program
encouraged us to pursue development of the track.
The prototype looked very much like the diagram titled "First Gen-
eration Moccasin Track" (Fig. 2).
e
SECTION
Fig. 2. Moccasin Track concept--first generation.
It incorporates a flat grouser bar and a formed wheel guide, very similar
in concept to our regular flat tundra track except that the track belt
is on the bottom of the grouser: therefore, it contacts the ground dir-
ectly. For the prototype build, we used existing stock guides and bars
with spacers added so that the desired configuration could be achieved.
The aim was to retain the tundra sprocket for use with the new tracks.
One Moccasin prototype track and one flat tundra track were mounted on
a CF 110, and the vehicle was run on our test ground in Calgary. At the
conclusion of the test, we fitted two prototype tracks to this vehicle.
We got better than expected draw bar pull results, with a draw bar pull
to gross vehicle weight ratio of 67.5 percent. This is only 10 percent
less than the tundra track system with its fairly aggressive grousers.
The vehicle with these first generation Moccasin tracks was a little
difficult to steer on hard surfaces and on side hills. In later tests,
steering was found to be no problem on the softer terrain of the tundra
or in snow.
251
During the draw bar pull tests it was noted that the buckling ob-
served with regular tracks under tension loads on the ground was not
evident. Two factors contribute to this: 1. A more even distribution
of tractive forces over the track surface occurs as opposed to point
loading of grousers in the D-Dent configuration; and 2. The twisting
moment or couple from the ground thrust line to belt centre is very
small.
The prototype track did not appear to uproot vegetation as much
as a tundra track, especially in the centre of the grouser. Also, the
grouser pressure imprint in soft soil is barely discernible compared to
the imprint of a tundra track grouser. After the tests it was observed
that more rapid revival of the vegetation occurred where the experimental
track had traveled than where the tundra track ·had traveled. These
differences, of course, would have been even more dramatic if the com-
parison were between the Moccasin track and the D-Dent track. It is
also significant to note here that where the prototype track slipped
on the turf during draw bar pull test, it did not tear up the vegetation
as would the D-Dent or flat tundra track where the grousers are in dir-
ect contact with the ground. The smooth belt and backing plates simply
slipped on the surface. It was felt from these preliminary observations
that the prototype track would perform well on tundra where the surface
was soft and resilient.
Obviously, the next step was to get the tracks out and into service.
We tried to locate a CF 110 on a tundra site but were unsuccessful.
Finally, however, we found a CF 160 owned by Kenaston Drilling and they
were willing to install the tracks for us and put them to use.
The vehicle was not the best vehicle to demonstrate the new track
system, since the ground clearance was very low and the vehicle was fit-
ted with a drill rig which caused the vehicle to be loaded heavily to the
rear and to travel somewhat rear end down.
The tracks were transported in August of 1972 to the site, adjacent
to Peter Lake, north of Inuvik [Northwest Territories], where the terrain
is generally dry and hilly. The active layer varies from 10 to 20 inches
and is very soft, with some outcroppings of rock on top of hills. The
weather during the three days of these tests was alternately sunny and
overcast, with rain and fog each day.
The CF 160 had a Cummins 478 Diesel engine with a Fuller 5-speed
manual transmission. A Holemaster drill was mounted. The estimated
weight was 36,000 pounds, with a nominal ground pressure of 3.3 psi.
The tracks were installed with no problem.
Tests indicated that very little impression was left on the tundra.
Sinkage was about 3 to 4 inches when the vehicle was traveling. Cutting
occurred when the edge of the track rose over the edge of a hummock, but
in general, only compression took place. There was very little breakage
.. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
of small plants, and the trail remaining was difficult to pick out because
of the limited damage. On hills or side slopes the trail became more
evident, but this was due partially to therear-heavy configuration of
the vehicle and the power required to climb. Occasionally on a climb,
the front road wheels were clear of the ground, and there was excessive
sinkage in the rear. It was noted, however, that after the vehicle
passed up any sort of slope, the surface mat was not chopped up. In some
areas, however, pieces of mat were displaced rearward.
One significant deficiency occurred, however, during the tests. On
sharp turns and occasionally on some side hills, the track cut sideways
into the tundra mat and turned over quite large chunks of soil and vege-
tation •
Subsequently, the operators of the CF160 reported that no operational
difficulties that could be attributed to the track were encountered during
the summer tests. The vehicle was returned to Inuvik, and examination
showed that the tracks had suffered no ill effects from having run dir-
ectly on the belts and backing plates. The traction and performance ex-
ceeded what Kenaston personnel had expected~ they had been skeptical at
the beginning. The vehicle continued to operate through the winter of
1972-73 in the Inuvik area.
In 1973-74 the unit was used at Parsons Lake and actually extended
the season in tundra operation. The Moccasin track was proving to be
definitely superior to the flat tundra track with regard to surface pro-
tection. During the winter of 1974-75 the vehicle was operated in the
Fort McPherson and Arctic Red River region in the foothills of the Rich-
ardson Mountains. The track had been reported as good in level snow and
ice, probably as good as the D-Dent track. Also, under certain conditions,
the vehicle with the Moccasin track outperformed a CFllO equipped with
D-Dent tracks •
Let's now take a look at the next set of tracks to be built. Pri-
marily, we eliminated some of the prototype hardware, spacers and so on,
and eliminated about 1400 pounds of weight. Next, we incorporated a
feature which we had been looking at for awhilei we made the track asym-
metric. This means that we had an uneven width of track on each side of
the wheel in order to narrow the overall width of the vehicle so that it
could be loaded into a Hercules aircraft without removing the tracks.
Another important consideration that became evident was that this
track was going to need its own sprocket. This was considered unfortunate
because it made the kit for the conversion of old models a little more
expensive than had been anticipated originally.
Another problem was how to eliminate the damage to the terrain dur-
ing sharp turns, that is from the track edge digging into the surface.
To resolve this problem we incorporated a curled edge belt that presents
a radiused contour to the terrain. Belts about 5 inches wide are curled
25]
....
to a "C" shape and bolted to the track by the outer edge track bolts.
Figure 3 shows these edge belts in position.
Fig. 3. AsymmetPia Moaaasin Tpaak aonaept--seaond genePation.
This production track also incorporated a change in the belt width.
To decrease ground pressure, the belts were made wider, narrowing the
gap in the centre of the track where the wheel and the sprocket run.
As a result of this change, the belts now cover approximately 90 percent
of undersurface of the track, virtually eliminating any grouser contact
with the ground.
A vehicle set of these production tracks was built and installed on
a CFllO. This set, as I mentioned earlier, is in Anchorage and may be
examined at Mr. Holfeld's place of business. Unfortunately, the tracks
are not installed on a vehicle.
The general reaction to the Moccasin type has been very favourable.
Problems experienced with the prototype included broken wheel guides and
cracked grousers, generally the type of thing that can be expected be-
cause the track is a "cobbled-up" prototype. The belt has stood up very
well.
In conclusion, I may say that the Moccasin track is superior to any
other track that has been put into use, from the aspect of minimizing
surface tundra damage. Further testing is necessary to establish the
merits · of the curled edge belt. It adds a fair expense to the original
cost, and under certain terrain conditions may prove to be unnecessary.
The year-around operator needs only a few hours to add to the Moc-
casin track an ice-pick system which enables him to use his vehicle on
ice and improve its performance on hard surfaces. These ice picks have
actually been installed and have been proven in use, so the Moccasin
with ice picks brings us full circle to yet another general-purpose track
system.
Sufficient testing has been completed to indicate that the Moccasin
track can be used year around in tundra, snow , and ice with only marginal
254
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
loss of traction characteristics that does not significantly reduce
vehicle mobility. The system becomes available for virtually any of the
vehicles produced by CF or its corporate forebears -Robin Nodwell,
Nodwell, Flextrac Nodwell -any of these vehicles which carries a 40-
inch track. The proviso is that in installing the new Moccasin track
on an older vehicle, the user must also purchase the sprocket to suit
the new track configuration.
I would like to thank you very much for inviting CF to participate
in your seminar, and I will now be happy to answer your questions .
255
0 RV's · Environmental Effects
Robin T. Harrison
ABSTRACT
Off-road recreational vehicles (ORV's) have been the subject of
considerable controversy because of their effects on the environ-
ment. These effects may be broadly classified into four areas--
noise, air pollution, water pollution, and ground disturbance.
This paper deals briefly with the effects on the environment of
the three most popular classes of ORV's--motorcycles, snowmobiles,
and all-terrain vehicles--in these four areas, with emphasis on
the fourth, ground disturbance.
No research has been done that shows that noise from any of the
classes of off-road vehicles studied and reported on in the liter-
ature is harmful to any aspect of the environment. Noise, however,
causes considerable annoyance to nonmotorized users of the environ-
mertt, particularly recreationists.
Although air generally is affected very little by off-road vehicle
exhaust, it has been hypothesized that local toxic effects occur.
Although the author is not aware of controlled research in this
area, a theoretical investigation of this hypothesis is presented.
Water pollution presents a somewhat different story. Outboard
boat motors of a two-stroke design are known contributors to water
pollution, and some jurisdictions are considering requiring the
use of biodegradable oils. The environmental effects of the use
256
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
of such oils in ATV's is discussed.
Probably the severest adverse environmental impact from use of
ORV's, particularly in Alaska, is that of ground .disturbance. A
brief review of basic ground disturbance theory is presented.
The fundamental assumption that energy input is proportional to
damage is discussed,. and the two main mechanisms of soil damage,
compaction and shear, are briefly alluded to. New theoretical
work that relates the traction coefficient-slip curve and the
concept of. squirm energy to soil disturbance is also briefly
touched upon.
Studies done with snowmobiles yield conflicting results; some
conclude that compaction under the snow is damaging to emergent
plant life: others hold that little shear-type soil damage is seen
from snowmobile use.
Motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles, however, present a different
story. Compaction damage can be controlled through .operator
training, as can shear damag.e to a certain extent, but currently
designed power trains for both motorcycles and all-terrain v~i
cles can lead to significant shear energy input to the soil, with
resulting damage. Optimum design of tires for motorcycles and
all-terrain vehicles to be ·used on Alaskan soils is discussed.
Finally, examples of sane novel all-terrain vehicles, both dis-
astroUs and innocuous from an environmental point of view, are
iven.
off~road recreational vehicles are a subject seldom approached withou~
preconceived biases. Those of us who don't like 'em, don't· like 'em. We
know that they're noisy, smelly, unJ:.ealthy, antisocial, and environmentally
destructive. On the other hand, those of us who do like them like them
just fine; spend most of our extra money buying them and our extra time
working on them, selling them, and polishing them, and on an occasional
rare, good day, actually riding them around in the great outdoors.
Off-road vehicles (ORV's} that I will discuss today are of the three
most popular classes of this relatively recent and uninvestigated pheno-
menon--motorcycles, snowmobiles, and all-terrain vehicles, or ATV's. As
a visiting expert who must maintain at least an appearance of scientific
impartiality, I will withhold comments on the sociological·a~d policy
aspects of off-road vehicles and constrain my talk to the measurable, re-
searchable effects of these three classes of vehicles on the four areas
we most generally think of when we think of "environmehtal pollution"--
noise, air pollution, water pollution, and ground disturbance.
Noise
No research exists which shows that the noise from any of the classes
257
of off-road vehicles under discussion is harmful to any aspect of the
environment. The noise does, however, cause considerable annoyance,
particularly to nonmotorized users of our lands. In the slides, we see
an off-road motorcycle and a snowmobile undergoing noise tests.l
Rather extensive research by the Forest Service has indicated that
the noise generated by all three tlasses of ORV's can cause permanent
hearing damage to the operator. How, you ask, can a noise source loud
enough to cause permanent hearing damage to the operator not be a serious
environmental problem? Distance from noise source to listener's ear is
the answer. At 75 or 100 feet, current snowmobiles are measured at no
more than 80 dBA, not much louder than normal conversation.
To my knowledge only snowmobile noise has been systematically in-
vestigated. Research concludes that snowmobile noise does not signif-
icantly disturb the two species investigated, deer and rabbits. In short,
they acclimate rapidly to the noise. When they are disturbed by snow-
mobiles, it is probably the physical presence of the snowmobile and its
operator rather than the noise that causes the disturbance. I personally
have seen deer come running to the noise of a chain saw, which probabl¥
sounds to them much as a dinner bell does to you. I have also seen rab-
bits carry on, as rabbits do, with truly remarkable consistency and
fertility in the large grass areas between the runways at Los Angeles
International Airport, surely one of the noisiest locations in the world.
In summary, noise from off-road vehicles seems to be a problem for
only one species of animal--Homo sapiens. I certainly do not mean to
minimize the ORV noise problem in regard to this animal, but merely to
indicate that the rest of the natural world seems largely indifferent to
how rackety we are.
Air Pollution
Air generally is affected very little by off-road vehicle exhaust.
Compared to other sources, man-made and natural, ORV's are miniscule
contributors. No evidence exists that ORV exhaust c~ntains poisons toxic
to any phase of the biosphere in the minute concentrations that they are
found.
It has been hypothesized that local concentrations may be increased
dangerously by concentrated ORV use. The most often mentioned possible
problem in this area is the introduction into the biosphere of heavy
hydrocarbons from two-stroke engines which use an oil/gasoline mixture
as fuel. Assuming a very rich fuel-oil mixture of 24:1, a ridiculously
low economy of 7 miles per gallon, and an oil droplet fallout over a
lsecause of printing limitations, color slides used by Mr. Harrison in
his seminar presentation are not reproduced here.
2SP
-••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
strip only 20 feet wide behind the ORV, a single off-road vehicle would
deposit one quart of oil over roughly 4 million square feet of the ter-
rain. In reality, concentrations are probably two or three ord.ers of
magnitude less than this. So we see tha~ air pollution from off-road
vehicles is really trivial.
Water Pollution
Water pollution can present a somewhat different story, at least
with reference to boats, because most of the oil effluent is deposited
on a very finite stratum, the surface of the lake upon which the boats
are operated. Outboard boat motors of the two-stroke design are known
contributors to water pollution, and some jurisdictions are considering
requiring the use of biodegradable oils. Of the vehicles we are discussing
today, this would seem to be a problem only with ATV's, and then only
if they are used extensively in still, inland waters. In any event,
several companies are working on commercially available biodegradable
oils to answer this problem. My own feelings with regard to ATV's is
that this type of water pollution is negligible. Water pollution due to
accelerated erosion caused by off-road vehicles is also a possibility,
but this phenomenon is best considered as part of surface disturbance
impact to be discussed next.
Ground Disturbance
The severest adverse environmental impact caused by the use of off-
road vehicles, particularly here in Alaska, is that of ground disturbance.
In order to discuss ground disturbance of ORV's intelligently, we must
look to research conducted on other types of vehicles. As far as I know,
very little research has been done on recreational ORV's. A good deal
of excellent literature has been written, however, on the terrain mech-
anics of industrial vehicles, automobiles, and trucks •
In order to apply these data to the ORV, however, an understanding
of some basic grotind-disturbance theory is necessary. I see you shifting
nervously in your seats. As one who has difficulty balancing his check-
bOok, I can share your disquiet, and I assure you that I will present you
with absolutely no mathematics •
The fundamental assumption that we must make is that soil damage
is proportional to energy input into the soil. This is not hard to vis-
ualize if you think about it for a moment. The soil is a structure-
oriented community. By this I mean that arrangement of the soil particles
is as important to the plants and animals who live there as such gross
descriptors of the soil as average pH, nominal class, and sieve analysis.
This is a basic truth late coming to the scientific community. Engineers
have a habit of thinking that rolling the soil is great: this compacts it,
makes it harder; you can drive a truck on it without hurting it. Agron-
omists, on the other hand, throw up their hands and say that when you roll
the soil, you squash and shear our tender little roots. This controversy
259
-
is one that is not likely to abate in the foreseeable future.
Energy input to the soil can take two forms--shear and compaction.
Compaction is just what it sounds, the squashing down of the soil sur-
face. Think of the soil as a layer of soft, fluffy snow. You will see
that its structure is irreparably altered by making it into a snowball,
even though the chemical composition and grain size are not altered.
This is compaction damage. Compaction is generally thought of as being
in the direction normal to the soil surface plane.
,Shear, on the other hand, is slippage between strata or particles
in a borizontal plane. It's easy to see how excessive shear in the
soil can also do irreparable damage, particularly when you consider the
fragility of many of the root structures and microflora and fauna living
in the soil.
There is one other basic theoretical consideration that I have to
bother you with if you are to understand soil damage; that is, whenever
a tire rolls over a surface there is some slip. That's right, no matter
how gently you start from a stop sign, you are slipping your tires. When-
ever you turn a corner, no matter how sedately, slip is increased. With-
out this slip, or "differential velocity" as we call it here, no force
would be generated.
Fig. 1 shows the coefficient of friction between the tire and the
ground surface as a function of the differential velocity between the two
for blacktop, gravel aggregate, and sand. As you can see, the coefficient
of friction is zero if the differential velocity is zero; thus, no force
can be generated. Note that for up to a coefficient of friction of about
.3, the curves for sand and blacktop are identical. Although the gravel
and sand curves show increased slips and develop low peak Mu values, the
sand curve shows an interesting natural lockup of the sand particles. If
we compare these three curves, we see that the sarid curve rises initially
almost as deeply as the blacktop curve until higher shear stresses loosen
the sand and induce the characteristically higher slip throughout the
remainder of the sand curve. Now let's turn to specifics.
Shear damage caused by snowmobiles traversing snow-covered terrain
is negligible. Compaction of the snow itself can be a problem, however,
as can compaction of the soil beneath it. The insulating properties of
snow and vegetative debris produce subsurface soil temperatures which are
progressively warmer and which fluctuate less with depth. Soil temper-
atures under the compacted snow are colder, however, and change more
quickly.
Careful observations during some rather extensive studies indicate
that the growth of most early spring plants was retarded under snowmobile
trails. On one alfalfa patch, four snowmobile trips over the same path,
however, did the same damage as 11 snowmobile trips. The control areas--
no snowmobile travel--had better alfalfa and fewer weeds, while the snow-
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
1\.)
~
• • • • • • •
.8
.6
::::::
C> -1-u -0:: ......
......
C> .4
1-z
LLI -u
~~ -
./
/ v
SAND
/ ~ --. -.. ~-------,., ~ ..... ----~--...-
~ ---:::: ,.
~ .,. .... ...... ......
LLI
C> u .2
/,. ,~~
/ ~~~ " , ~~ ~ /~~\,
"" ~
0 I[~
0 .2 .4 • .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
SLIP VELOCITY, fps
WEAR, IN 3 LOSS/1000 MI.
Fig. l. Coefficient of friction bet:tueen the tire and the g:pou.nd surface as a function of the
differential veZ.ocity between the t:tuo for b'tacktop~ gro:veZ. agg:pegate~ and sand.
• •
I
mobile-compacted areas were about 25 percent less productive.
Similar difficulties have been observed in pine tree plantations.
Snowmobile travel in a bog community was observed to cause frost to
penetrate more deeply. This delayed spring thaws as much as two weeks
at 6 inches below the surface. While the impact of snowmobile traffic
on sphagnum moss was negligible,·other herbs and shrubs exhibited popu-
lation declines directly correlated with the intensity of snowmobile
traffic. The growth of early spring flowers was retarded and reproductive
success was reduced where snowmobiles traveled, according to another
study. The study conclusions were that woody plants are particularly
vulnerable to physical damage by snowmobiles.
It's well accepted that colder soil temperatures retard soil microbe
activity; however, some experts feel this is not biologically significant
because this microbe activity increases rapidly once the soil warms.
While some researchers point to the conclusion that soil compaction
is not caused by snowmobiles traversing snow, other researchers disagree.
Snowmobiles exert a ground pressure of only about 1/2 psi. Snowmobile
proponents are quick to point out that a man's foot applies about 2-3/4
psi. In your speaker's opinion, a man's foot certainly causes significant
soil disturbance in certain soil types, and I use this figure not to
exonerate snowmobiles as compactors but merely for comparison.
As you have probably gathered, the literature is somewhat confused.
There is no clear-cut indication that snowmobiles cause significant soil
compaction under most conditions. Where the ground is frozen good and
hard, snowmobile travel over snow obviously has minimal surface disturb-
ance characteristics.
Motorcycles present a considerably different picture. You are pro-
bably aware of the tremendous conflict regarding motorcycle racing in the
California desert. Claims and counter-claims, fu~by emotion rather
than by objective statements based on independent research, support this
controversy and the controversy that surrounds motorcycle use on almost
all of our public lands. There is some factual basis for statements that
motorcycles cause severe soil damage, particularly when their use is not
confined to trails. Motorcycle tires used off road are extremely aggres-
sive, and it is difficult to avoid spinning the wheel under adverse con-
ditions. Indeed, it has even been suggested that motorcyclists enjoy
spinning their wheels, usually by the same people who suggest that motor-
cyclists enjoy loud motorcycles.
soil damage caused by motorcycle tires is of both the compaction and
shear varieties. The footprint pressure of a trail bike is probably about
6 pounds per square inch, or roughly twice that of a walking man. Whereas
a strong hiker might be able to exert about 1/4 hp through his feet, a
good running trail bike will generate as much as 100 times this figure.
I am not suggesting that soil damage is proportional to power available,
262
.. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
but if we accept the basic premise that energy input to the soil is pro-
portional to soil damage, the potential for great soil damage is easily
seen.
I would like to be able to report to you extensive research as to
what soil types are amenable to off-road motorcycle use and where such
vehicles should be prohibited. I am sure that such research does not
exist. As a guideline, however, I would say that wherever a man walking
would cause significant soil disturbance, motorcycle travel should defin-
itely be restricted, unless it has been determined that local soil damage
will not permanently impair the ecosystem in question. This is a deter-
mination to be made by soil scientists and agronomists, not engineers,
but I'd like to point out that to my observation, at least, there is no
such thing as permanent soil damage and the healing period must be con-
sidered in any such decisions.
Now we come to the main thrust of my presentation; a look at possible
surface disturbance by recreational all-terrain vehicles or ATV's. The
title of this talk, as you may recall, is "State-of-the-Art ORV's: Envir-
onmental Effects." I'm afraid I have to report to you that state-of-the-
art is less a consideration than state-of-the-industry. There are currently
only three recreational all-terrain vehicles being produced, one in Canada
and two in the United States. By far the largest seller of these is the
Max made by Recreatives, Inc., of Buffalo, New York, shown in Fig. 2.
The other two companies still in the business are Hustler of Jonesboro,
Arkansas, and Ontario Drive & Gear of New Hamburg, Ontario, which builds
the Argo. All three of these vehicles are six-wheelers. All are powered
by snowmobile engines. These are generally of a two-stroke single or twin
cylinder design, ranging in size from 290 to 440 cc's. The heart of the
ATV is the transmission. Since all the six-wheel ATV's are of skid steer
design, the transmission must be capable of splitting torque between the
two sides. A detailed discussion of ATV mechanics is beyond the scope of
this paper, but I would be happy to answer any specific questions that you
might have after the presentation.
Fig. 3 shows a Max traversing· old snow. From the tracks you get some
idea of the amount of compaction this kind of vehicle causes. This ATV
exerts a ground pressure of between 1 and 1-1/2 psi .
As mentiohed before, all these six-wheeled ATV's are skid steer; that
is, one side is speeded up relative to the other to turn the vehicle in
a direction away from the faster wheels. This type of steering necessarily
causes more ground disturbance than almost any other steering methodology.
Why so? You will recall that terrain damage is proportional to energy
input. As the wheel is skidded over the terrain, a great deal of energy
is wasted. on highways, with rubber tires on asphalt, this energy shows
up as tire wear. In an off-road situation, it shows up as shear energy
input to the ground surface.
Fig. 4 shows typical six-wheel ATV tire sitting on a level, flat
263
Fig. 2. (Zeft) The Max, a large-seZZing recreational aZZ-terrain
vehicle. Fig. 3. (right) The same vehicle traversing old snow.
This ATV exerts a ground pressure of bet;ween l and Z and Z/2
pounds per square inch (psi).
Fig. 4 .
surface.
Fig. 5.
(left) A typical six-wheel ATV tire on a flat , Zevel
Note its similarity t o the heavy treaded tire in
(right)
264
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
surface. Notice its ominous similarity to the one shown in Fig. 5.
Protagonists of the large balloon ATV tire will tell us that the low
pressures minimize ground compaction. This is, of course, true. But
what is often ignored is the fact that shear, which may be much more
damaging than compaction, is increased as tire pressure is decreased.
Why is this? Because of the mechanism of squirm shear. As the tire
greets the earth's surface, it deforms from a toroidal shape. To do
this it must move laterally as well as longitudinally, and the various
elements of the tread, as they contact the surface, must move relative
to each other in both of these directions. Thus, energy is wasted, and
this waste energy shows up again, as shear damage to the soil.
The concept that an ATV tire must look like a trenching tool is
probably one engendered more by advertising copy than by sound engin-
eering thought. Let me quote from Henry Hodges of the Nevada Automotive
Test Center in conments regarding winter tires: "So called winter tires
are a relatively recent nomenclature for tires that app~ar to be more
aggressive than winter is slippery. In the past, this emphasis on aggres-
sion produced tires that were uniquely noisy, unstable, rough riding,
and unsuitable for any mode of motion except excavation." The same
thought is applicable to all-terrain vehicle tires.
Look at the ATV balloon tire in Fig. 4 again. The lugs that you
see there are not effective for anything except swimming, where they are
necessary. You will note the rest of the carcass is completely smooth
without any trace of siping. Sipes, or small slots, to allow water to
escape, are quite necessary to prevent hydroplaning, which can occur at
very low speeds with such a fat, lightly loaded carcass as we have here.
Indeed, hydroplaning can occur even w~en the vehicle is stationary if the
tire is spinning.
Look at Fig. 6. The advertising sign that you see on the seat of the
Thunderchief says 35 hp, 45 mph. Anyone who has ridden such a vehicle
at 45 mph can attest to the fact that the longitudinal stability is poor.
_For any off-highway vehicle of a given ground contact area, the length
of the footprint is more important than the width. Longer, more slender
vehicles waste less energy than wide ones, especially in soft terrain.
This means that more of the engine's horsepower goes into driving the
vehicle forward and less shows up as soil damage. Therefore, we would
like to make ATV's as narrow as possible. But, a skid steer vehicle must
be fairly stubby for the skid steer system to work, and the narrower ~
skid steer vehicle is, the more of its tractive effort is wasted during
turning maneuvers. These two conflicting basic needs, that of narrowness
for efficient terrain ability and width for efficient turning, would seem
to mitigate against skid steer all-terrain vehicles.
I would like to leave you with some thoughts as to how surface dis-
turbance might be minimized with current and future ORV's.
With current vehicles, it seems that snowmobiles don't cause much
265
-
Fig. 7. A FZorida Everglades half-
track which has a very low-pressure
footprint. It is owned by the
Florida Department of Fish and
Game.
Fig. 6. While this ATV can travel
at 45 mph, longitudinal stability
of such vehicles at that speed is
usually poor.
Fig. 8. A novel approach to re-
ducing environmental impacts--
an inflatable surface-effeat
vehic le powered by an 8-horse
power garden tractor engine .
266
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
yround disturbance as long as they are operated on snow. Motorcycles
should probably be limited to nonfragile soils. Current all-terrain
vehicles present an interesting challenge to the land manager. These
vehicl8s are capable of excellent payloads and excellent maneuverability
over soft soil types. The soil damage potential is considerably less
than that of conventional .four"'-wheel drive vehicles. Nonetheless, in
certain soils these vehicles can cause significant dam~ge. For current
generation vehicles, one way to avoid damage is to train operators.
Wheel spin should always be avoided. Operators should be instructed
not to run back and forth in the same track, to prevent compaction dam-
age. Large radius turns, which, of course, involve less wheel skid
than tight turns, should be encouraged. Tire pressures should be main-
tained at manufacturer's recommended figures, and if the vehicles are
to be used on dry fragile soils, tire pressures should be increased
somewhat.
Finally, what about the future designs? In my op1n1on, the limita-
tion of the skid steer system, described above, will limit the amount
of reduction in soil damage potential that current concept ATV's might
achieve. An articulated steer system, such as that used on some of the
larger industrial vehicles, would both improve maneuverability and de-
crease soil damage potential.
Beyond this, differential velocity sensors which would limit wheel
spin would certainly have a salutary effect on the ground damage picture.
Looking beyond six-wheeled vehicles, I'd like to explore very briefly
some alternate ORV concepts. Fig. 7 shows a Florida Everglades half-
track. I believe it was developed by the Goldberg Engineering Corporation,
but if you can believe it, this monster is owned by a governmental agency,
the State of Florida Department of Fish and Game. Despite its ungainly
appearance, the vehicle has a very low pressure footprint. I introduced
this to bring to you once more the thought that the ecosystems upon which
we drive these vehicles are different. Rather extensive research in the
Florida Everglades has shown that some well-used half-track trails van-
ished within 6 or 8 months from the time use was discontinued upon them,
while others have lasted as long as 25 years since closure. Here we have
at least a 50:1 healing time ratio. The unraveling of this mystery, I am
happy to say, is in the hands of biologists and not us. engineers.
Fig. 8 shows a novel approach--this is called Fantastic. It's an
inflatable surface-effect vehicle powered by an 8-horsepower garden tractor
engine. It's quite as equally at home over not too rough terrain and
water. Barry Palmer of Palmer Aerosystems in Renton, Washington, devel-
oped this vehicle. It has been engineered to minimize all environmental
impacts including noise. I am quite impressed with this design. It is
inexpensive, efficient, quiet, carries a good payload, and should have
wide application once put into production, particularly here in Alaska •
267
------------------------
-
Speciaf Equipment for Mined Land Reclamation
Don Calhoun
ABSTRACT
The Surface Protection Specialist in the Bureau of Land Management
Denver Service Center is concerned mainly with mined land recla-
mation. He works with various other groups that are developing
equipment for reclamation. The Kentucky Reclamation Association,
a nonprofit, private association of mining companies, pools spe-
cialist staffs, equipment, and has a purchasing program to work
with reclamation efficiently and economically. A similar associa-
tion for surface protection might help solve surface disturbance
problems in Alaska. A handbook on surface protection for Alaskan
field workers also might be useful.
After a five-year absence from Alaska, I have noticed several changes
in just the small area I have visited. Some of these are disturbing, not
only to the surface I might add. I recall a conversation, during an ear-
lier visit, with one of the Alaskan old-timers. He was asked, "Have you
lived all your life in Alaska?" His answer was, "Not yet." Then, as he
rocked in his chair, he added that he'd lived in Alaska a long time and
had seen a lot of changes, probably a thousand of them, and, he grumbled,
"I've been against every damn one of them."
I want to compliment the BLM Alaska State Office for this program
and seminar. I think it's really good, the best I have seen. It is very
comprehensive and in my view, it is right on target as to surface protec-
tion and the program as I see it. I wish, however, that there were more
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
participation from our Washington staff.
Earlier in the program, Bill Gabriel said that when they first
talked about this program, they intended it to be a small gathering of
people working with surface protection. When they considered all the
problems involved in all the different surface activities, they found
that a much larger meeting was necessary. In this connection, I want
to mention that I have attended two annual National Coal Association
meetings in Louisville, Kentucky. I was amazed, frankly, that more than
2,500 people registered for these meetings each year. I would guess that
about 75 percent of them are concerned primarily about reclamation.
These·conventions have been held only three years, and I am encouraged
that there is so much interest •
My work at the BLM's Denver Service Center deals primarily with
mined land reclamation, although I am very much interested in other types
of surface protection problems that have been brought out here.
My observations are that mined land reclamation requirements and
accomplishments are quite variable. These variations often are related
directly to the quality and enforcement of the state laws and regula-
tions. An Alaska reclamation law may be needed to deal with these types
of problems, regardless of the land ownership. It might be an effective
way to deal with some surface problems.
Today I want to acquaint you with some of the things that are going
on down in the Lower 48 and work I do. Perhaps some of these ideas may
relate to work you are doing or with modification, may be useful to you.
One group of people I have worked with is the Vegetative Rehabjlita-
tion and Equipment Workshop. The Workshop has been rather directly con-
nected with the Range Society and the work the Society does with range
rehabilitation equipment. The Workshop is going to meet in Omaha, Nebraska,
February 14, 15, and 16 (1976].
One development of the Workshop that has impressed me is the range-
land drill and similar innovative equipment. The group has operated
continuously since 1943 and seems to me to be a rare example of excellent
cooperation among agencies.
Another group we have dealt with recently is Rob's (Harrison] counter-
part in Missoula, Montana--the Forest Service Equipment Development Center.
One device they are working on in cooperation with the BLM is a tree
and shrub transplanter. Landscape workers have used this type of machine
for a long time, but we are examining aBd evaluating it for possible use
in mined land reclamation.
Another machine being developed at the Center is called a mulcher
and rotovator. This is used to apply a mulch to mined land soil or spoil
material, and a rotovator incorporates the mulch into the upper layer of
269
soil material.
A machine that I am especially excited about is called a gouger
and was developed by a professor at the Montana State University at Boze-
man. It creates depressions in the soil that are about 2 feet long,
a foot wide, and 6 to 8 inches deep. The purpose is to accumulate and
concentrate the available moisture for plant growth.
Another idea from the Forest Service is the possible use of contain-
erized transplanting stock--trees, shrubs, grasses, almost every kind
of plant. Workers are experimenting with various types of containers.
This is a new field and they don't know many of the questions, to say
nothing of the answers. They are starting, however, and I think this
is exciting.
We have also discussed with the Forest Service the development of
a machine that plants containerized plants automatically. The containers
used are about 2 inches in diameter and 10 to 12 inches long so the
plants can establish a root system before being taken from the nursery
or greenhouse to the mined land site. The Service also has been con-
ducting a systematic continuing search of literature and of equipment
company developments.
Last week, we visited two of the four Bureau of Mines Research Cen-
ters; one in Spokane, Washington, and the other in Salt Lake City, utah.
In contrast to the Workshop and the Equipment Development Center, where
operations are small, the Bureau of Mines seems to have millions of
dollars to work with and is putting it to good use. I will describe some
of it, but some ideas haven't yet been developed into prototype machines
and are just concepts. So you'll have to use your imaginations as I
tell you about them.
One machine has back-to-back dozer blades that are hooked with cables
to tractors like D-9's. The blades are moved back and forth across rows
of mine spoil material to level it more quickly and efficiently than with
conventional dozers.
Another machine is called a balanced boom and bucket. It is an
arrangement of a big drag line, 40 to 50 yard bucket, with a boom going
out each way and a little offset. A cable and bucket operate between
the booms.
For dirt moving, a new contrivance uses two D-9 Caterpillars that
are locked so that one pushes and one pulls a dozer blade about 40 feet
wide. Those of you who are acquainted with dirt moving would find the
production of this device really amazing. It can move up to 11,000 cubic
yards of spoil material an hour. For a sustained period, it can move
6,000 cubic yards per hour. These are precisely determined figures. They
are now developing a machine that will have a 60-foot dozer blade moved
by two tractors.
270
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Still another contrivance is a Ray-Go, which is two D-9 dozers
side by side, with a 24-foot blade and only one operator .
They are also experimenting with self-propelled scrapers whereby
an auger arrangement inside the bucket operates vertically and picks
up the dirt from the bottom of this can. It speeds loading, reduces
friction, and also increases the yardage that can be moved .
'·-t ... ·; ' 1 .' •• ' ::; -~ • '' -' ' ~---,
A set of gauges has beeri developed arid installed on the panel in
front of the bulldozer operator. The gauges show him the relative effi-
ciency with which he's operating the machine. As you know, if the blade
is put in too deep, it stops the tractor; if it's too high, it moves
fast but doesn't push much dirt. Use of these gauges increases the
production of the conventional dozer from 11 to 22 percent •
Another concept involves a iarge dragline type machine, 50 to 80
cubic yards, that is used to remove overburden in mined areas. It lifts
the dirt and dumps it in a hopper, which feeds a conveyor belt. With • this contraption, the operators can distribute material evenly at al-
most any combination of distance and elevation. I think it has good
application potential in our mine areas.
A concept that I want to mention may not be applicable in Alaska
now, but may be in the future. Last June in Kentucky, I saw an innova-
tive approach to mined land reclamation. It's the Kentucky Reclamation
Association, a nonprofit, private association of about 175 mining com-
panies in Kentucky. It is not connected with the state or feder~l govern-
ments or any other agency. A similar association was formed in Ohio.
A real advantage of'this type of organization is that it concentrates
reclamation expertise. The association staff is small but it does the
planning, supervision, and the actual reclamation work. The association
also c~ncentrates reclamation'equipment. This saves !llembe~ companies
the cost of buying i;h~ir own equipment and hiring operators and mainten-
ance personnel. Tbe aspociation also has a centralized purchasing program
for equipment and.supplies .and maintains a nursery to grow planting stock.
An additional advantage of the association is that member companies as
a group can deal with. state regulatory agencies •
I ~uggest that an Ala&kan off-road vehicle council or association
might help solve sorne.of'the problems I've heard about during this sem-
inar. Another suggestion for the BLM is that a surface protection hand-
book be published to get some of these ideas in writing· and distributed
to the people who are·doing the work on the ground .
. ·'
[Editor's note: The remainder ot.~r. Call;loun's presentation con-
sist'e'd: of color slides·~· 'aecau~e ,o(printing limitations, they· are not
reproouced here. ]
' •• ' \ ; ~--~ 1'
Vehicle for the F._.
AIIS'I'IIAC!'
ftl o. s. Amy Colcl JteCJione ....... cb and Bn9inMI'int ........ tMI'
C1JIICUBL) bM evalutecl effect. of air-culaion WIIU.cl• CACY'•)
on .vfac• on Al.uka'• Al'ctic Slape. llollt Jl!'l Rl'face illplct-
f~ allcadon by tbe ftbicle llkil'ta rat:IIK tbaa air flow • .....,..
....,ely r...,.. loo.e litter. Velaicle llpeld and .-face llicn-
relief both affectecl •urface cl=ap. 'l'he N:!"'1 ...., .. t:be .....,._
1 ... tban other Yebicl• t•tecl and cau•.a leu acoeleratell IIOil
tbw• trait. ewer 'tllbic:ll tbe III:V .,... ... r~ fMter.
liH. payl0114, e011t, t:erraia cbaracteri.Uc., and •ailabili~ an
....... tbe CIOIII&Iitioae tbat cletezlliae tile ld.al of ftbicle •••• .. foe
a particular jCib. •o •iagle velaicle. now or in the fa••• caa
fill all t:be aec•AZY and ciMirllble r....u-u u4 c-little
.urface ct..ge. Otber &IIPtiCb of off•rolld tl'..,.l, ••h • nw:.e ••lectioa. trail illpro,_llftt and protection, .-atar •.U.tiYl~.
aDil accM• prior:iti• aliJo affect ••face ....... 11oft~
thin ftbicle cte.ip ani Hlection an tile ....., .... t deci•i-to
be M4e conCitl'lli!!!l reelation of off•rolld t:l'•el.
Introcluction
oro •tart tbi• ditlcu•ion, • UUODIIble ...-uon llitbt a.e. ...., u •
•wat:enhed MM9-.nt '·type for"ter talkint abcMit. Yebic!M foe tile ,_..,.
I have tile .-. caa-tion. '1'be 110et pla•tl:tle -.pt..ation ..,. M that I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
have had a bit of experience in off-road vehicles, from jeeps and Ski-
doos1 to Bombardiers, Sno-Cats, and Nodwells. I also have had experience
in watershed rehabilitation management and research. This makes me an
expert in neither mobility nor rehabilitation, but perhaps a few comments
from this combined perspective will be useful.
Another aspect of this presentation stems from the fact that my
laboratory, The U. S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Labor-
atory (USACRREL) has been involved for a number of years with evaluation
of the surface effects of ACV's--air-cushion vehicles or hovercraft--
on Alaska's Arctic Slope.
The ACV is a special class of off-road vehicle. It is expensive,
mechanically complicated, noisy, and has high operating costs. But, it
is also fast, unimpeded by water or floating ice, and apparently has
little direct impact on the land surface. The ACV would seem to have a
place, albeit specialized, in northern off-road transport. Thus, as one
example of a "vehicle for the future," we will see some film footage of
ACV operation in the vicinity of Barrow,2 followed by a quick recitation
of initial results from tundra effects tests. That will be followed by
a few comments on off-road transportation for the North.
Air-Cushion Vehicle
In his Monday presentation, Jerry Brown mentioned the results of our
ACV trials. In brief, Abele (1975) reported:
1. Most impact came from physical abrasion by the vehicle skirt~ dis-
turbance by air flow from beneath the skirt was limited to removal of loose
litter. After 50 passes, virtually all loose, dead vegetal material had
been removed by blowing air, but there was no apparent damage to live
vegetation from air movement. Since most impact resulted from skirt drag,
increasing the air gap between skirt and ground surface obviously should
result in reduced impact. Similarly, vehicle speed was a consideration--
at higher speed (50-65 km/hr) degradation of surface vegetation was more
evident than at 16 km/hr. Microrelief was important~ the skirt dragged
on high points, such as the .raised centers of polygons •
2. Abele (1975) also noted that the Rolligon tested (which, it should
be noted, had cleated rather than smooth bags) produced heavier immediate
impact or damage, for the same number of passes, than did the ACV.
3. As Dr. Brown mentioned Monday, depth of accelerated thaw is an
!commercial or trade names are used for identification only~ no criticism
or endorsement is intended or implied.
2oeleted from the planned presentation during the 22 January session due
to the overrun of schedule~ shown during the evening of 20 January •
273
-
indication of impact and recovery on permafrost terrain. In the Barrow
·wet coastal tundra setting, a light Weasel caused twice as much or more
thaw increase as did the ACV that made the same number of passes. In
terms of restoration of thaw depth to near the initial value, recovery
took three to five years after Weasel traffic. Comparable data from the
1974 Rolligon trials are not yet available.
4. The visibility of vehicle trails--the "signature"--is another
criterion of impact. Abele (1975) found that four years after travel,
lanes over which ACV's had made one and five passes were "not visible,"
while lanes where they had made 25 and 50 passes were "barely visible."
Adjacent lanes where Weasels had made 25 and 50 passes were clearly
visible after four years.
Vehicle Considerations 3
Now, let me pass to more general comments about future vehicles.
We seem to be stuck with a few principal ground mobility modes--
rolling (wheel and track) , sliding (ski and skid) , or gliding (air cush-
ion), in addition to walking. All except the air cushion depend on direct
ground contact. Wheels and tracks rely upon traction developed by dir-
ect friction between the ground surface and the wheel or track and on
shear strength of the surface--soil, moss, snow, etc.--with cleats or
treads penetrating the surface. Skis and air cushions can be towed or
propelled by thrust.
Surface impact can be reduced by the following methods:
1. decreasing ground contact pressure by increasing ground contact
area (bigger wheels, longer or wider tracks) or decreasing total weight;
2. decreasing traction dependence on shear and increasing depend-
ence on friction. Examples of this method are the use of smooth, uncleated
bags on Rolligons and the "flat track" design tried several years ago on
a Nodwell FN-400 at Prudhoe (Burt 1970). (This "flat track," incidentally,
is similar to the track design of a 10-year-old, articulated Swedish ve-
hicle which we use in central Alaska.);
3. decreasing traction dependence on friction, by use of aerodynamic
thrust or reducing drag of towed loads; or
4. virtually eliminating mechanical contact with the ground, by
using air cushions for the total vehicle or components of the vehicle.
These considerations lead us to think about: 1. wheeled vehicles
3Parts of this discussion are based on material supplied by G. Abele,
USACRREL, Hanover, N. H. 03755.
274
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
with low-pressure tires, i.e., Terra-Tires as used by'Canadair-Flextrac
and a number of other companies, and the wider, lower-pressure Rolligon
concept; 2. tracked vehicles with low ground-pressure and nonaggressive
treads, and incidentally, preferably articulated; and 3. air-cushion
vehicles or vehicle components.
I. A. Thomas (1975), of Canadair-Flextrac, has summarized several
good concepts for off-road vehicles, which relate to some of the above •
Thomas emphasized the advantages of wheels over tracks in many situations,
though tracks provide the greatest total mobility. He pointed out the
potential for increased use of articulated vehicles, both wheeled and
tracked. I would suggest that in new vehicle design, articulation may
be as important as low ground pressure in reducing vehicle impact and in
achieving increased mobility. For six years we have operated with 1964-
66 vintage articulated BV-202A tracked vehicles, in central Alaska. The
extremely low-level impact I have observed with this vehicle stems both
from its flat track and from the articulated steering which keeps power
to all tracks during turns (as opposed to skid steering) , and thus markedly
reduces tearing of the ground surface during turns. More recent exper-
ience with lighter, eight-wheeled articulated vehicles has reinforced
my impression that both overall mobility--the ability to get there from
here--and reduction of surface impact can benefit from articulation. The
exceptional performance on snow of the Tucker Sno-cat, which we also use
near Fairbanks, is partly due to its articulated steering between front
and rear pontoons .
At this point, rather than get immersed in details of vehicle engin-
eering and ground mobility theory beyond my competence, please allow a
.bit of wishful thinking about a "vehicle for the future." First, there
is no single vehicle, of the present or the future. Size, payload, cost,
terrain atiility, and availability are among the many factors which call
for a vehicle "mix" from which one can pick for a given job. We can
list a few attributes which we would like to see in available vehicles:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
No or negligible ground pressure or signature
60% ±grade ability, 40% ± sidehill ability
High axle clearance, but low center of gravity for stability
Small size for maneuverability (more important in central and
western Alaska than on 'the open tundra) but with large load
capacity
Quiet operation
Low emission level
Low fuel consumption
Reliability--low maintenance, good serviceability, and parts
availability
Reasonable cross-country speed--S to 20+ mph
Operator comfort--adequate leg room, visibility, ride comfort,
little cab noise, and cab heat and defrost
Low acquisition cost
275
I know of no ideal vehicle that meets all these requirements. We
could add to this list without straining our thinking and still, we are
not likely to get one or more rigs that satisfy all our wants. A further
complication is that many operators cannot or will not buy and maintain
a complete range of vehicles, as from Skidoo and Trackster to Canadair-
Flextrac. Rather, they continually compromise reliability vs. speed,
load capacity vs. ground pressure·, acquisition cost vs. availability and
operating cost, and so on. We will all continue, therefore, to be faced
with compromises and choices of vehicle based on mission, funding, avail-
ability, and a host of related factors as well as on the managerial and
regulatory constraints which have been considered in other phases of this
seminar.
Related Aspects of Off-Road Travel
It is appropriate to touch on a few other aspects of off-road travel
that have not been mentioned or that need re-emphasis:
1. Route selection. Austin Helmers, Larry Knapman, John Stephenson,
and others have already discussed route selection in connection with fire
control. Traffic for any reason can attempt to avoid the most vulnerable
terrain, which in central Alaska can mean streambanks, drainageways, and
ice-rich permafrost sites such as alpine tundra, valley bottoms, and north
slopes. On the Arctic Slope, this might mean traveling raised beach lines
or dry ridges where possible.
2. Trail improvement and protection. Where traffic repeatedly tra-
verses sensitive terrain, such as ice-rich permafrost, even minimal meas-
ures taken to protect the organic mat against tearing and to provide surface
insulation can mean the difference between erosion and a stable trail.
We have successfully used corduroy with native materials, puncheon trail
sections of rough timbers, and mats of wood chips to protect and stabilize
heavily used trails over permafrost. One problem has been confining traffic
to the improved trail sectors--a rough corduroy trail is slower and less
comfortable to traverse than the adjacent moss-and-brush-covered frozen
silt! Snow roads or work pads can provide seasonal protection to the
ground surface.
3. Operator sensitivity. This involves both training and attitude.
It applies to recreation, industry, military, and government alike. A
heavy foot and disregard for microrelief, vegetation, drainage, and general
terrain fragility indicators can result in heavy damage where a sensitive
operator might take the same vehicle over the same route with little
environmental impact--and with less wear and tear on the vehicle itself.
We have all seen or known (or perhaps been) "hotrodders" in jeeps, snow
machines, or tracked vehicles. I know of no way to get across this point
except through seminars such as this or through individual education and
discipline.
4. Access priorities. Regulators or managers must set priorities
276
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
for access needs and defend their actions. Is fire control sufficient
cause to walk cats across terrain ruled "no vehicles" to the general pub-
lic? Do military maneuvers justify any and all vehicular movements on
military reservations or public domain? Is energy resource exploration
important enough to allow cross-country travel in sensitive areas?
Should recreational pursuits be allowed motorized ground access, in lieu
of expensive aircraft charter, to remote areas? This is probably a
familiar refrain to BLM and Forest Service personnel, but a public pol-
icy will be increasingly necessary for the populated areas of the state.
Policy Questions
Before closing, allow me to raise a few questions on other concerns
which relate to the surface protection theme of this seminar, some of
which have been dealt with or alluded to by other speakers. I won't
attempt to answer these questions; perhaps some of you have or will.
1. How do the regulations, policies, and management which have been
so often mentioned over the past few days mesh with the "real world"--
with the landscape, terrain, vegetation, and season? This is really ask-
ing how, realistically, do resource managers apply policy to specific
real estate--blindly or with cognizance of landscapes and ecosystems,
with Aldo Leopold's "land ethic"?
2. How do these same regulations, policies, and management strate-
gies accommodate (a) the available range of vehicle type and impact, both
personal (recreational) and industrial, and (b) changing technology
(vehicle improvement) and societal demands, such as, hypothetically, a
burgeoning availability of low-cost, low ground-pressure ATV's or ACV's
on the scale of the snow machine, or of self-powered hang-gliders. (We
have in my office right now a proposal to try out motorized touring skis!)
3. Under the rapidly changing, increasingly fragmented land owner-
ship and management pattern in Alaska, what interaction and coordination
is there or should there be between managing and owning entities? The
ownership boundaries still look like straight lines, not catchment or
ecosystem divisions, and rational regulation would call for coordination
of policies within and between discrete landscape units.
4. What scale of vehicle and scale of impact is relevant or of major
concern? Personal or recreational off-road use seldom entails vehicles
of the RN-110 Nodwell class, but may involve literally hundreds of snow
machines or motorcycles, as well as dozens of 4x4's or Weasels. Even
concentrated horse or foot traffic can be detrimental to land stability
and watershed values. Will there be concentration on regulation of
recreation, or, conversely, of industry, simply because industry has the
big machines that are easy to find and follow and that may have the great-
est potential impact from single-pass trips? In similar vein, will single·
pass traffic fall under the same policies as repeated trips or "group
travel"? Here I'm thinking of the one-or two-vehicle hunting or fishing
277
party as opposed to the motorcycle or jeep club rally or repeated trips
to a mining, exploration, or communications site.
5. Harking back to my initial question, how will the managers, be
they federal or state, Native corporation or private landowner, acquire
and implement adequate knowledge of the differing physical, hydrologic,
and biologic capabilities, vulnerabilities, and responses of the discrete
units which comprise the lands of Alaska? Research, in the broadest
sense, is and has been providing the basis for this understanding. It
is the resource managers, including shareholders, citizens, and advisory
boards, who must provide rational implementation of that understanding.
Six years ago, Bob Weeden (1970) wistfully proposed that we retain
an Alaska some might still recognize---" ••• a place where wolves stalk
the strand lines in the dark, because a land that can produce a wolf is
a healthy, robust and perfect land ••• a place to stand under a bright
auroral curtain on a winter's evening, in awe of the cosmic cold and
silence. • • a place where men live amidst a balanced interplay of the
goods of technology and the fruits of Nature." success in retaining even
some elements of this Alaska must be based on rational answers to the
questions just raised, much more than on any technologically improved
"vehicle for the future."
Acknowledgements
The suggestions of Dr. Jerry Brown and Larry Johnson, USACRREL, were
most useful in preparation of this discussion. Material on vehicle con-
cepts was provided by Gunars Abele, USACRREL, who also supplied informa-
tion on his ACV trials. This work has been partially supported by the
Civil Works Directorate, U. s. Army Corps of Engineers, under Work Unit
CWIS 31003, Watershed Studies in Cold Regions.
Literature Cited
Abele, G. 1975. Effects of hovercraft, wheeled and tracked vehicle traf-
fic in tundra. Paper presented at Muskeg Conference, Montreal, Canada,
October 7, 1975. (In press)
Brown, J. 1976. Ecological and environmental consequences of off-road
traffic in northern regions. Surface Protection Seminar Proc. Bureau
of Land Management, Alaska State Office. USDI. January 19-22, 1976.
Anchorage, Alaska.
Burt, G. R. 1970. Travel on thawed tundra. Report N7005. Institute of
Arctic Environmental Engineering. University of Alaska, College,
Alaska. 23 pp.
Thomas, I. A. 1975. Northern off-road transportation in the
Pages 635-646 in J. of the Construction Div., Proceedings.
Civil Eng. 10(C03).
278
'70's.
Am. Soc.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
Weeden, R. B. 1970. Man in nature: A strategy for Alaskan living.
Pages 251-256 in Productivity and conservation in northern circumpolar
lands. W. A. Fuller and P. G. Kevan, eds. IUCN Publication New Ser-
ies No. 16. International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources. Merges, Switzerland •
27!J
• •• session nine
CHAIRMAN: Ted Freeman, State Resource Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Anchorage, Alaska
SURFACE PROTECTION--continued
c;t-."!bil ization and :.1aint(:mance of Disturhcc Surfaces
Soil stabilization • • . . . • • . . • . . •
Burton L. Clifford, Resource Conservationist
Soil conservation Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Anchorage, Alaska
[Abstract Only]
Fertili.zer requirements . . . . . . . •
Dr. Dwight Hovland Staff Soil Scientist
Alaska Pipeline Office
U. S. Department of the Interior
Anchorage, Alaska
[Abstract Only]
Plant materials and seeding . . . . • . . •
Dr. William w. Mitchell, Head Agronomist
Institute of Agricultural and Land Resources
University of Alaska
Palmer, Alaska
[Abstract Only]
Use of woody plant material in soil and site
stabilization and rehabilitation
Dr. John c. Zasada, Silviculturist
Institute of Northern Forestry
U. S. Forest Service
Fairbanks, Alaska
and
Management
Page
281
282
283
Alan c. Epps, Natural Resource and Land Use Planning Specialist
Cooperative Extension Servi e
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
280
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stabilization and Maintenance of Disturbed Surfaces
Soil Stabilization
Burton L. Clifford
ABSTRACT
To stabilize soils, their characteristics must be identified. The
vegetative Guide for Alaska presents a special section on soil
characteristics. This is designed so an individual can examine a
site, dete~ine the soil site group, and.custom design a seeding
recommendation anywhere in the state of Alaska. The presentation
of slides included charts and site examples •
281
-
Stabilization and Maintenance of Disturbed Surfaces
Fertilizer. Requirements
Dwight Hovland
ABSTRACT
Revegetation helps in stabilization and maintenance of· dis·turbed
surfaces.
A combination of·conditions yields poor fertility in disturbed
soils of the northern environment. Low soil temperatures result
in slow chemical reactions and biological decomposition. Under
natural conditions, the inorganic pool of plant~available nutrient
elements is rapidly depleted through exploitation by vegetation,
and the nutrients become stored in the vegetation and organic
residues. When this material is removed during surface disturb-
ances, a large reservoir of nutrients is lost. To quickly rees-
tablish a vegetative cover supplemental fertilizer is needed.
Some fertilizer elements are required in large amounts because of
inorganic "fixation," competition, and other losses.
There are only a limited number of reports from studies that help
in choosing the optimum rate of fertilizer for various revegeta-
tion purposes.
A convenient reference is A Vegetative Guide for Alaska prepared
by the Soil Conservation Service and the University of Alaska,
September 1972.
282.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stabilization and Maintenance of Disturbed Surfaces
Plant Materials and Seeding
William W. Mitchell
ABSTAA.CT
This presentation treats results of revegetation planting trials
conducted along portions of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline route
and in the Prudhoe Bay oilfield. It deals briefly with plant ma-
terials that can be used in various regions of Alaska on the basis
of current knowledge. Further discussion concerns some revegeta-
tion-related work conducted with plant materials at the University
of Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, Palmer, and projections
on the possible course of future work. Same aspects of natural
revegetation also are discussed •
283
-
Use of Woody Plant Material
in Soil and Site Stabilization and Rehabilitation
John c. Zasada and Alan c. Epps
ABSTRACT
Although woody plants are a dominant part of the Alaskan landscape,
there has been almost no attempt to use them for revegetation and
rehabilitation projects. This presentation will discuss two as-
pects of the use of woody plants. First, we will discuss some of
the practical and bio-logical considerations necessary to evaluate
fully the potential of woody plants in revegetation work. Second,
the latest revision of A Vegetative Guide for Alaska, which is now
being prepared, contains recommendations_ on use of woody plants.
These recommendations are made by region and soil type. In this
discussion, we will present these recommendations and briefly con-
sider their use in planning revegetation projects.
Woody plants are a dominant part of the Alaskan landscape and the var-
ious plant communities in the State. Use of woody plant materials for
reclamation or restoration purposes, however, has not been the object of
intensive research. Rather, it is usually passively accepted that woody
plants will eventually return to a site, and little thought is given to
encouraging their development. We would like to discuss several aspects
of the artificial and natural regeneration of woody plants and attempt to
summarize considerations necessary if woody plants are to be used success-
fully.
Several points concerning woody plants must be made clear. First,
they will not replace grasses, either now or in the future. Both types of
28;
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
plant material are currently or potentially important for revegetation
projects. In our opinion, however, restricting revegetation consider-
ations to grasses severely limits the options available to the land
manager. In some instances, heavy applications of seed and fertilizer
may be detrimental to the attainment of long-term objectives of.some
revegetation projects (e.g., restoration of native plant communities).
To meet a broad range of revegetation objectives, we should consider
a continuum of options, ranging from leaving the site in the best con-
dition for natural regeneration to relatively sophisticated systems
which incorporate fertilization, combinations of woody plants with
grasses and herbaceous plants,and site preparation.
Second, if demand for woody plants were to materialize overnight
it would be virtually impossible to begin large-scale use of any but a
few of them because of the lack of adequate quantities of seed and trans-
plant material. This should not be interpreted to mean that the knowledge
and technology are not available for successful use of woody plants.
Information is available from experience in other areas with the same or
similar species and, in some cases, similar site conditions. Although
transfer of all this information may not be possible, much of it could
be used with relatively little modification.
Finally, we must define what we mean by the term "woody plants."
Woody plants are those plants which continue to thrive from their above-
ground portions from one growing season through the next and longer •
In addition, we mean the native plants and to a lesser degree non-native
species which appear to be adapted to Alaska .
. Why woody plants? Many of the reasons for using native woody plants
are obvious and will be mentioned only briefly. Some of the more tradi-
tional reasons are that they are adapted to our climatic and soil condi-
tions, they provide a wide variety of shapes, sizes, and colors which
blend with adjacent plant communities, they are important browse and habi-
tat for various wildlife species, and they provide year-round esthetic
qualities.
A nontraditional reason is that large quantities of energy are neces-
sary to establish and maintain herbaceous exotics (plants not native to
the area) (Sutton 1975) . Fertilizers are needed to produce agricultural
crops, and we feel that use of large fertilizer applications for revege-
tation must be questioned in light of the need for these materials for
food-producing agriculture. In other words, does the use of tons of
fertilizer to make a green strip of grass down the middle of Alaska have
a higher priority than the use of this material for agricultural purposes?
Although we do not know the exact fertilizer requirements for native woody
species, we feel confident that they are able to survive and grow under
less fertile conditions than exotics, as woody plants do in other areas.
Before one can select materials for revegetation, one must recognize
that decisions regarding revegetation and choice of plant materials are
285
-
determined by the site conditions and the goals and objectives of the
project. The range of sites on which revegetation projects are under-
taken is wide and has been discussed by Mr. Clifford and Dr. Mitchell.
The point to be made is that native woody plants exist that are adapted
to almost every site in Alaska.
The following goals are mos~ commonly given for revegetation pro-
grams:
1. Reclamation of the site and prevention of soil erosion.
To meet this objective, a maximum amount of plant cover and root
biomass is required in as short a time as possible. Dr. Mitchell has
provided us with a great deal of excellent information for grasses. We
do not have similar quantitative data for woody plants: however, results
of natural regeneration studies indicate that total plant cover can be
achieved on the best interior Alaska sites within two to three growing
seasons. Woody plant roots may also penetrate more deeply into the soil
and be structurally stronger than grass roots.
2. Site restoration or return of the disturbed site to the condition
which existed before disturbance.
It is obvious that woody plants are excellent plant materials
for this purpose and, in reality, are the only plants which fulfill this
requirement over much of the state.
3. Establishment of esthetic and visual requirements on restored
site.
Woody plants offer a wide array of color, sizes, shapes, and
other qualities for meeting this objective. EVergreen species can provide
year-round shielding, and evergreens and other species can provide year-
round color contrasts. In fact, woody plants are the only means of pro-
viding vegetative screens.
State of the Art in Alaska
The state of the art with regard to the use of woody plants can be
considered relative to (l) the availability of plant materials, (2) what
is being done to provide more information, and (3) recommended practices.
With regard to availability, a giant step was taken with the estab-
lishment of a containerized seedling nursery at the Alaska Plant Materials
Center near Palmer. This facility is a cooperative effort between the
Alaska Division of Lands and the Division of Agriculture. Production is
currently small, but as experience is gained and demand increases, there
is every reason to believe that increased production will follow. Growers
at the Center are currently producing native tree species, such as white
spruce, Sitka spruce, and cottonwood, and exotic trees, such as lodgepole
...
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • • • • • --
COMPARTMENT 1 COMPARTMENT 2 COMPARTMENT 3 COMPARTMENT 4
Predisposed ability of Quantity or density of
the plant to produce ... Seed formation and .. reproductive material ~ Ability of reproduc-
reproductive structures develollllf!nt on site prior to grow-tive material to
as a result of previous ing season or landing initiate growth
growing conditions on site during the
growing season .. • •
Seed collection,
handling, and storage .. Artificial seeding Planting
• COMPARTMENT 5 ,
... Seedling production First growing season ...... and nursery practice
Cutting, collection,
and handling
COMPARTMENT 8 COMPARTMENT 7 COMPARTMENT 6 ,
Second dormant season Second growing season
Established plant .. until seedling .. un t 11 seedl i ng .. es tab 1 1 shment establishment First dormant season
Fig. Z.. Schematic zaep:resentati.on of the zaevegetati.on pzaocess foza b)Oody plants.
pine, Siberian larch, and Scots pine. These particular exotics are being
grown from seed collected from other northern areas. For example, the
lodgepole pine seed is from Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, and the Siberian
larch and Scots pine are from Finland. The methods being used can be
adapted to production of other trees and most shrubs.
The current scarcity of seed and vegetatively reproduced woody plant
materials (e.g., seedlings and cuttings) adapted for Alaska raises the
question of large-scale introduction of readily available materials from
southern sources. A large body of scientific evidence indicates the
undesirability of this practice. At this point, the best that can be
recommended is that only those introduced plants known to do well in
Alaska (i.e., they have been planted and have survived here) should be
used. And these plants should be used cautiously; perhaps be intermixed
with natives where possible. This is particularly true with evergreens.
The other way to obtain plant materials is to transplant whole plants
or dormant cuttings from adjacent undisturbed plant communities. This
practice is highly recommended and techniques for using it are described
in the revised edition of A Vegetative Guide for Alaska. This publication
was discussed earlier by Mr. Clifford and will be examined later in this
paper.
The woody plant regeneration research with which we are the most fam-
iliar is that being conducted at the Institute of Northern Forestry. Two
current projects seem to be particularly pertinent to this seminar; we
would like to mention them briefly. First, however, let us examine a
schematic diagram of the regeneration process as it relates to woody plants
(Fig. 1).
Revegetation of woody plants is a complex process involving many dis-
crete but related steps. Although complex, it is not necessarily difficult.
Fig. 1 is an attempt to show our interpretation of this process, and the
following discussion briefly explains the various compartments.
Compartment 1. Predisposed ability of the plant to produce reproduc-
tive structures as a result of previous growing conditions. This is a form
of preconditioning. It refers to the fact that the formation of repro-
ductive structures in both the Arctic and Subarctic depends upon the grow-
ing conditions of the previous years. In other words, site and climatic
conditions of the current year may be adequate for growth of reproductive
structures, but because the previous year's conditions were not conducive
to the differentiation of these structures, none are available for seed
production.
Compartment 2. Seed formation and development. Weather conditions
can reduce or totally prohibit the development of mature seeds. For example,
late (e.g., May or June) frosts can destroy entire flower crops. More
288
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
subtle but perhaps more important is the effect of cool summers on matura-
tion of the seed crop. Maturation is slowed and the result is seed of low
quality because it is anatomically or physiologically immature. This is
very common in the Arctic and Subarctic where examples are known for both
woody and herbaceous plants.
Artificial regeneration procedures which start with seed as the
basic ingredient also depend on conditions in compartments 1 and 2. It is
in compartment 2 that these artificial processes branch from the natural
events. Artificial regeneration via seed, whether by seeding or planting,
makes efficient use of seed resources either by delivering them to suit-
able sites or by producing seedlings which bypass many of the rigors
natural seedlings must withstand •
Compartment 3. Quantity or density of reproductive material on site
before the start of growth or delivered to the site and capable of growth
during the same growing season. This refers to the number of seeds deliv-
ered by natural or artificial means, either before growth or during the
growing season. In terms of vegeta,ti ve reproduction, it means the density
of above-and below-ground structures which are capable of producing new
plants.
Compartment 4. Ability of reproductive material to initiate growth.
This will be determined by many factors, among which are seed, seedling
or cutting quality, soil and climatic conditions, and species-site inter-
actions. In relation to this compartment, it should be emphasized that
placement of reproductive material on the site does not mean that the
project is a success.
Compartment 5. First growing season survival. The first growing
season is often the most critical in the life of a plant. At this time,
the seedling is susceptible to a number of environmental factors that are
of less importance in subsequent years (e.g., high surface temperatures,
grazing by small mammals and birds, surface soil desiccation).
Compartment 6. First dormant season. As during the first growing
season, plants appear to be susceptible to factors which are of relatively
little importance later in development (e.g., frost heaving) •
Compartment 7. Second growing season through establishment. Plant
performance during this period becomes more a question of the organism's
adaptation to the environment th?n to the relatively ephemeral factors
affecting first growing season survival •
The concept of establishment is nebulous, but in woody plants it
generally means the point at which the seedling or transplant is thriving
and, in the absence of natural or man-caused disasters, at which it will
continue to develop and eventually mature. In herbaceous plants, estab-
lishment may be linked more closely to the ability simply to maintain
itself each year .
289
-
Compartment 8. Second dormant season through establishment. The
reasoning here is similar to that for the second growing season.
Use of Willows for Revegetation
The first research project which we would like to summarize deals
with the use of early successional species to revegetate sites disturbed
during construction activities; in other words, those sites where all
vegetati~e cover and organic matter is removed from the site and where
the soil .frequently is an unweathered subsurface material that has not
sustained plant growth. The early successional species such as willow,
aspen, balsam poplar, paper birch, alder, and others frequently occur
on these sites that are created by man or natural disturbances. These
species exhibit rapid initial growth, apparently grow relatively well
although soil nutrition is low, provide excellent browse for small and
large game, and are difficult to destroy by natural causes once estab-
lished. In the case of alder, ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen can
increase soil fertility (Van Cleve et al. 1971). These features are
frequently looked for in plants for reclamation and revegetation projects.
Using the willows as an example, we would like to examine briefly
several aspects of their use in revegetation. Willows are commonly regen-
erated by unrooted, dormant stem cuttings. This method has been used
successfully in northern Canada (Dabbs et al. 1974). Although there is
little doubt that use of cuttings on a large scale will work in Alaska,
it has not been done. One precaution that must be considered is the
relative ability of the various species of willows to produce roots on
stem cuttings. Exploratory field and laboratory studies indicate that
differences exist between species in the ability to produce roots on
dormant, untreated cuttings. For example, our experience to date indi-
cates that alaxensis roots more readily than either~· scouleriana or
~· bebbiana. In addition, we do not know if cuttings will stabilize very
unstable areas as rapidly as grasses.
Another means of willow regeneration which has been considered of
little importance to ~te is artificial seeding. The primary reason for
this has been the inability to maintain viability of willow seed during
storage (Brinkman 1974). Recent research with Alaskan willows has shown,
however, that willow seed can be stored for periods of more than one year
with little loss of viability (Zasada and Densmore, in press). As with
use of cuttings, artificial seeding needs to be tested on an operational
scale.
This brief discUssion illustrates the potential versatility available
with· the use of woody plants. That is, different methods of plant estab-
lishment are potentially available for individual species as well as a
broad range of species. For willow, we know that cuttings and seeding can
be used. In addition, planting of rooted seedlings, either collected from
natural sites or raised in nurseries, has been successful.
290
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Natural Regeneration
Natural regeneration can be considered for both the highly modified
site as described above or for those sites where soil disturbance is
minimal and only the existing vegetation is destroyed (e.g., burning,
forest harvesting, wildlife rehabilitation). The major type of disturb-
ance which we would like to discuss is that due to harvesting in upland
white spruce stands. The main point to be made with regard to regener-
ation under these conditions is that species composition of the recover-
ing vegetation can be drastically different, depending on the degree of
surface disturbance.
Little or no surface disturbance has resulted in regrowth of herbs
and shrubs from vegetative parts in the organic layers and surface soil,
with almost no invasion of plants via seedling regeneration. In other
words, invasion of plants from surrounding unharvested areas is of minimal
importance. The processes primarily involved are sprouting and suckering
of material on the site before disturbance.
At the other extreme is surface disturbance which is designed to
create a mineral soil seedbed. With these surface conditions, regenera-
tion from seed is very important. Removal of the organic layer has elim-
inated certain species but sprouting of species whose roots and rhizomes
are below the disturbed area can be important. In other words, surface
disturbance has significantly altered the course of secondary succession
on parts of the area, and depending on the land managers' objectives this
can have both favorable and unfavorable impacts. Care must be taken in
this process as removal of the surface soil layers may reduce nutrient
availability.
Revision of "A Vegetative Guide for Alaska"
In an attempt to assemble the knowledge available concerning use of
woody plants in Alaska we have been involved in a revision of the publi-
cation A Vegetative Guide for Alaska." Information on the woody plants
is changed drastically in the revised edition. The format follows that
used for grasses and provides general instructions regarding establishment
of woody plants (e.g., fertilization, methods of establishment for differ-
ent types of plant material, site preparation, and cultural treatment to
enhance growth). Figures 2, 3, and 4 present examples of the plant mater-
ial recommendations for the Interior Area. The other five areas of the
state are treated similarly.
In these tables are recommendations for different soil groups and
different methods by which these species can be propagated. In addition,
the species have been broken into three height classes. This classifica-
tion recognizes that the various height classes are potentially important,
depending on the goals of the revegetation project.
The woody plant information in this publication makes it easy to
291
IIHERIOR AREA
Trees and tall Shrtma
[ I5 feet or more ]
SPECIES FOR REVEGETATION
COIH!H NAME Sai.entifio Name
TAIIAIIACK Lariz 1-aJoioina
SIBERIAN LARCH* Lari.z sibel"ica
NORIIAY SPRUCE* Pioea abies
WHITE SPRUCE Picea glauca
BlACK SPRUCE Pioea rmriana
LODGEPOLE PINE* Pinws oontorta var. latifoUa
SOOT'S PINE* Pinws sy l.vest:ris
n!INLEAP ALDER Alnws tsnuifoUa
AlASKA PAPER B IBCH Betula papyl'ifera var. humiUa
BAI.SAM POPLAB Popul"" bale ami fera
QUAKniG ASPEN Popul"" tN,..laides
EUROPEAN BIRD CHERRY* Prunws padus
li!LTLEAF WILLOW Sa liz alazsnsis
BEBB WILLOW SaU:x: bebbiana
SCOUIAR WILLOW Sal.iz soouZ.a:riana
EUROPEAN tllUNTAIII ASH Sozobus aUCLJlCD""ia
* Ezotic *'* Reco1111118nded He thod
...
TYPE OF PROPAGATION
Adapted Seedling
to & trans-St.em Root
Soil Groups Seed planta Cuttings Cuttings
1,4,5,6 X X
1,2 X X
1,2,4 X X
1,2,4 X X
1,4,5,6 X X
1,2,4
1,2 X X
1,2,4,5 X** X X
1,2,4,5 X X
1,2,4 X X X** X
1,2,3,4 X X X
1,2 X X X
1,2,4,5 X X X**
1,2,4,5 X X X**
1,2,4,5,6 X X x••
1,2 X X
Fig. 2. TPees and tall shrubs Peaommended foP the Alaska
IntePioP. (FPom A Vegetative Guide for Alaska, Pevised
edition in pPess.)
292
•
••
•
•
Spacing
Maximum
(feet)
10 X 10
10 X 10 •
10 X 10
10 X 10
10 X 10
10 X 10
10 X 10
5 X 5 •
8 X 8
5 X 5
5 X 5
8 X 8
5 X 5 • 5 X 5
5 X 5
8 X 8
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I tiTER! OR AREA
Interwediate Shruba
[ 3-lS feet l
SPI!ClBS FOil llBVl!GI!:TATIOII A clap ted
to lloot
<:0111111 IWII StrL.mtifi.o """"' Soil Groupe Cuttillp
AI!I!BICAII GBE!!I ALDEll. Alnus ariepa 1,2,4,5 x• X
llBD-OSIEB. DOQ/OOD Com,.. stoZcni.fm:oa 1,4,5 X X X* ·x
SILVl!li.I\Blll!Y nasagn ... oo~W~~Ut<>ta 1.2.3 X X X
,s X
PBICILY BOSE llt»Ja aDiaula:ri.s llt2,4._.5 X X X X
AI!I!RICAII IIBD USPlll!liii.Y RubUB i.&zsw """' stl'i-goew 1,2,4 X X X X
Llm.ETREE WIU.OW Sali:t: arbusauZoi.dss 1,4,5 X X x•
GBA.YLEAF WlLI.Ool SaU.:t: gZawxr 1,4,5 X X X*
BIQlAJQlSOII WlLI.Ool SaU:t: Zmata ssp. 1,.4,5 X X X*
DlA!Il!IDLE.U' WILl.OII SaU.11: pZa11i.foU.a osp. puZaluv 4,5,6 X X X*
BU'F'PAlOBElll!Y Shsrphsrdia canadsnsi.s 1,2 X X
GBB!!Ill Ml!JITAIII ASII Serbus B"'!'llZina 1.2,4 X X
liEidlVEIIO SPIIIII4 Spi."""" """""":tdi<tna 1,..4 .. 5,6 X X X
lllGt BUSH CIWiliEIIItll' l'ib..,...,. ed .. Zo 1.2.,4 X X X
• Jeco~aded Method
Fig. 3. IntePmediate shPUbs reeommended for the Alaska
Interior. (From A Vegetative Guide for Alaska, revis~d
edition in press.)
291
-
Specillg -·-(feet)
S X S
4 X 4
6 X 6
S X S
3 X 3
10 X 10
S X S
4 X 4
6 X 6
S X S
8 X 8
4 X 4
4X4
' \
IIHERIOR AREA .
r .,. __ ~~ IOlroUDdcown
( 3 feet or lue I
Tn'l OF PIIOFAGATION
SPIIClES 1'011 III!WGETATlON "Meptad Seedliq
to • Tr--st .. lloot
(l)IH)II liiAII! Sai.lmt;i.fic -Soil Gl"oupa Seed plante Cutt1""' Cutt:lap
(l)MIIlll JUllllPEil .Timiptlf'UII <>OIII/Illll:{. Mila 1,2,3 X X
CIII!El'IIIG JUllllPEil .:tuni:peftlll hort-tatla 1,2,3 X X
WAIUIWI JlllllPEil* ifllli,'L',!r;!,./"'rliWI'ItaUs 1,2,3 X
AIIDOilllA JUllllPEil* iflllip#ll'UB Ml'UontaZu 1,2,3 X
pz.-.oa
PLAT Clll!El'lliiG JUllllPIIl* ifllliPfll'W! hol'i.-taU.s 1,2,3 X
p~
DWAIIP IIIJGO PlliiE* Pi.nw 1f1111P mughw pu,uo 1,2,3 X
BOG-IIOSIIWII An~da poUfoZia 4,5,6 X X
ALPIIIE BEABBIIIIII AJ-ot:oataplqjtoa aZp£1101 1,2,3 X X
lll!I)-I'JUil r BEABBBilllY Al'..t:oatq>lqjtoa .l'llbm 1,2,3,4 X X
BIAilBEIUII A.Nt:oa fq>lqj t0B Ul.tt-Wl'lli 1,2,3 X X
ALAliU SAGI!IliWSB Al't.mlri.a ataakana 1,2,3 X X X
PlllliiGID SAGI!IliiDSH Al't.m.ta fl'i.¢-da 1,2,3 X X X
DWAIIP AICTIC BIIICH BetttZa"""" 1,2,4,5 X X
LllA'J:BIIIlLEAF Ch.:rlt:!Bdaplms aatyovtata 4,5,6 X
BllllalliDI.Y ComUB <l<lll4dmata 1,2,4 X X** X
CROiiBEilY B'llpetl'uo nig><am 1,2,4,5 X X X***
IIAUDW-Ll!AF LABIWIOil-'I.'IA LedMm&ao-...... 4,5,6 X X
LABIWlOil-'I.'IA LedMmgl'Ofln~ 4,5 X X
SWIIl!'t!:ALE liiJl'i.ca gat. 4,5,6 X X
LAPLABD IIOSIBAY Rhoaotimd:ron z..,~ 1,2,4,5 lt X X
AllERliWI llED CUUAIIT Rtbea tl'i.su 1,2,4 X X lt
IIAGOOII-BEilllY Rllbue al"'t;i.ova 1,4,5,6 X X lt
CLOtiDBBilllY Rli>us """""""""'"'"" 1.~ • .5.6 lt X
ALASICA BOG WILLOW Sati:: /IIBOfi.B-4,5,6 X lt X**"
!IIITLI!Al' WILLOW Sa.Zi:: Nt;i.ouZata 1.2.4,.5 lt X X***
lllllLAII SIIOIIIIEilllY* .s'fM>horl~ ol'bi~tattte 1,2,3,4 X X lt
BOG BLUIBEillii v.....,.:,,:..., utiginctt1111 1,2,4,5 X X X
LllllnlliEilllY Va<>a'tni""' !Jit;i.a-id:wa 1,2,4,5 X X**
* E:rotic ** Sod Motbo4 *** a.e-.ted Motbod
Fig. 4. Ground eovers recommended for the Alaska Interior.
(From A Vegetative Guide for Alaska, revised edition in press.)
294
Spac:laa
lluialla
(feet)
6X6
5 X 15
5 X 5
5 X 5
S X S
3 X 3
2 X 2
1 X l
1 X l
3 X 3
2 X 2
2 X 2
5 X 5
3 X 3
1 X 1
2 X 2
3 X 3
4X4
6 X 6
2 X 2
2 lt 2
l lt 1
1 X 1
1 X l
1 lt l
1 X 1
2 X 2
1 X 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
compare them with nonwoody plants, which are currently used almost exclu-
sively in revegetation in Alaska.
Literature Cited
Brinkman, K. A. 1974. Salix L.-willow. Pages 746-750 in Seeds of woody
plants in the United States. USDA Forest Service. Agric. Handbook
450.
Dabbs, D. L., W. Frieson, and S. Mitchell. 1974 . Pipeline' reve'geta:t.fon:
67 PP· Arctic Gas Biological Rept. Series. Vol. 2.
Soil Conservation Service. 1972. A vegetative guide for Alaska. Pre-
pared in cooperation with the University of Alaska Institute of Agri-
cultural Sciences, Plant Science Research, Division of the Agricultural
Research Services, USDA, University of Alaska Cooperative Extension
Service, and the Alaska Association of Soil Conservation Subdistricts.
50 pp. (Revised edition in press.)
Sutton, R. K. 1975. Why native plants aren't used more. J. Soil Water
Conserv. 30(5) :240-242.
Van Cleve, K., L.A. Viereck, R. L. Schlentner. 1971. Accumulation of
nitrogen in alder (Alnus) ecosystems near Fairbanks, Alaska. Arctic
and Alpine Res. 3(2):101-114.
Zasada, J. c., and R. A. Densmore. In press.
viability in selected Alaskan Salicaceae.
Effect of storage on seed
Seed Sci. Technol.
-
summary
This was a successful effort at getting people together to
talk about problems of preventing surface destruction on public
lands in Alaska, but if you will pardon the pun, we have hardly
scratched the surface of the subject. This week we have had an
overview of many aspects of the problem; and I think that we can
see the need to treat specific types of uses and disturbances in
future seminars.
Curt McVee spoke of the need to develop standards and proce-
dures to prevent excessive surface disturbances by vehicles traveling
away from roads, and he said that among those results we hoped to
come from this seminar were:
1. a comprehensive set of "guide specifications" which could
be used to cover the spectrum of situations arising in
Alaska1
2. eventual agreement and continuity among agencies in
issuing permits for travel and transportation across
public lands;
3. suggested research needs for development of methods,
practices, and equipment to prevent surface damages in
the future.
We heard that there are double standards, maybe even triple
standards, for users of National Resource Lands administered by
BLM because of the application of diverse laws, and the lack of a
unifying Organic Act for the agency. In many cases BLM can do
little to prevent damage, and must take action after the fact.
On the other hand, we were told how the Forest Service has a
firm body of laws and regulations which control access, use, and
damage on National Forests. Similarly, the Fish and Wildlife
Service.has enforceable regulations controlling use of the National
Wildlife Refuges. The oilfield on the Kenai Moose Range may well
be a model for the rest of us to emulate.
296
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jerry Brown told us that he thinks we in Alaska have gone
through the period of conquering nature in the Arctic, and that
now we should design with nature. My personal feeling is that his
statement may well be"'"tiie keynote statement, or theme, for another
seminar.
Stan Specht and several other speakers showed us examples of
how we could design with nature and cause the hand of man to rest
lightly upon the landscape, but many speakers showed examples of
the too many insensitive and ignorant acts which will leave scars
long after their perpetrators are dead.
We certainly do not have a meeting of the minds on the subject
of this seminar. Speakers from the. Bureau of Mines , the mining
industry, and the oil and gas industry do not admit to seeing any
surface disturbance problems or any need for further regulations
or permits. They told us that there are now too many regulations
governing their activities, used the specious argmnents about
minute percentages of the earth's surface being affected by those
activities, and proceeded to wrap themselves in the cloak of free
enterprise. Heaven preserve us from any more of the.old unre-
strained enterprise! With a rising population and a dwindling
supply of land, we can no longer afford private actions which are
contrary to the long-term public good.
One of the reasons for this seminar was that the public
concern has been vigorously expressed to BLM about certain unre-
strained activities associated with mineral development. John
Stephenson characterized many of those damages as being caused by
"gypo-miners" and that may be an apt description.
Several speakers have pointed out the need for educating
users to potential damages and possible preventive measures they
could take. That will require more time and manpower on BLM's
part, and so will the obvious need for more supervision and sur-
veillance in the field, not just of the major projects, but of all
potentially hazardous activities. Joe Ebner mentioned that "gen-
tleman's agreements" do not work to prevent damage or assure
repair once the damage is done •
Examples from developments on National Forests and National
Wildlife Refuges show clearly that when a management agency has
clear enforcement authority, uses proper permit stipulations, and
practices good field surveillance, industry can do a good job of
which everyone can be proud •
The notable characteristic of the panel discussion Wednesday
afternoon was the way half a dozen government administrators
passed around the hot potatoes I John Hall did an excellent job ~
moderator, but even with more time, we would not have gotten def1n-
297
-
itive answers to some of the questions asked of the panel members.
With two or three agencies either claiming overlapping authority
or denying all responsibility, it is no wonder that John Q. Public
is confused.
It seems that we are going to have to agree on same basic
definitions. various speaker~ preferred rehabilitation, restora-
tion, revegetation, or some other term when speaking of repairing
damages.
And there still remain two big questions to answer:
1. How do we measure impact so that we can agree that there
is impact?
2. How do we measure restoration or rehabilitation so that
we can agree that it has been accomplished?
In the past, patching up after the fact was an acceptable way
of doing business, and the present state of the art still gives
us more ability to repair damage than to prevent it. Philosophies
and laws have changed since 1970 with the implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act and other legislation aimed at
preserving the quality of the human environment. Now it is neces-
sary that we be assured that a proposed action will not have an
adverse impact, and that all possible alternatives are considered
to prevent a deterioration of the quality of life for man and
beast.
It is also the goal of those of us within BLM to manage and
protect the National Resource Lands in Alaska in order to provide
for continuing public benefits into the future. We will appreci-
ate your continued interest and comments on the topics covered in
this seminar.
--or. H. William Gabriel
298