Petroleum-contaminated soil deposited at the Mile 34 gravel pit two decades ago is slated for state cleanup, although the exact method and location of that work is still under consideration.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation is taking public comments through June 5 on a suite of remediation options for the 1,300-cubic-yard stockpile, including its preferred solution: hiring a contractor to build a “land farm” at the gravel pit, where the soil could be tilled and possibly treated to speed up the natural decomposition process until the contaminants are reduced.

According to DEC’s project site the soil was moved from Chilkoot Lumber Company’s Haines sawmill to the Mile 34 gravel pit in 2000 so that it could be incorporated into asphalt for the Haines Highway reconstruction project. 

But the dirt was deemed too dirty for road building because of sawdust and wood chips mixed in, and never used. 

Although the lumber company, which is no longer in operation, provided a new remediation plan to the state, it’s unclear to what extent that plan was followed before the company shut down, and testing showed the soil was still contaminated in 2023.

The soil test showed that the dirt still had levels of environmental contaminants called diesel-range organics and residual-range organics above the state’s threshold for cleanup, with higher levels lower in the pile.

Diesel and residual-range organics can be harmful to people, other organisms and ecosystems at high levels or with prolonged exposure.

DEC’s contaminated sites cleanup manager Bill O’Connell told the Haines Borough Planning

Commission at its May 15 meeting that the levels of contamination near the top of the pile were not high enough to pose an issue for people coming into contact with the dirt.

“The petroleum contamination… is not particularly high,” said O’Connell. “We have cleanup levels for the protection of groundwater and cleanup levels for the protection of human health just from physical contact with the soil, and I believe generally this soil all falls below those human health criteria.”

In 2024, the Haines Borough applied and was selected for a DEC program to have the state clean up the site — after Chilkat Indian Village brought the issue back up to the borough.

Now, DEC has put forth three remediation options for public consideration alongside the “no action” alternative. The state’s proposed remediation options are to keep the soil onsite and use a land-farm method until the contaminants are reduced to levels acceptable for use at a landfill, use the land-farm method onsite until contaminants are reduced to

levels acceptable for any use of the soil, or ship the soil to Juneau for cleanup at a commercial land farm. 

The “Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives” (or ABCA) for the project, DEC’s formal document describing the project and potential remediation methods, outlines the options and their costs. The state’s preferred option of land farming the soil until the borough could use it for any purpose, is the cheapest alternative and is estimated to cost $255,000, which does not include any transportation costs.

Shipping the soil to Juneau is the most expensive option, estimated at $622,500. Land farming for a shorter time and then trucking the soil to the landfill is estimated to cost $285,440. Land farming is a method DEC’s brownfields program has state, O’Connell said at the planning commission meeting.

In response to questions from the commission about how the onsite land farm could work, what signs or fencing would be required, and how long it would take to remediate the soil, O’Connell said the exact specifications of the land farm would be developed if that method was selected and the project would be put out for competitive bidding to select a contractor.

“DEC would issue a contract to a qualified firm and we would build in all the requirements for erosion control, whatever type of site controls are necessary, whether it’s signage or fencing or anything like that, that’s the standard part of land farming and is discussed in a little more detail in our guidance,” O’Connell said, referring to the agency’s internal guidelines for such projects.

In a May letter, Chilkat Indian Village proposed returning to the originally-approved cleanup method instead of the state’s new options. 

That would mean mixing the contaminated soil into asphalt for future projects in the region. Although that plan was scrapped previously because of the sawdust and other organic material mixed into the soil, a 2009 analysis showed that those materials had degraded and were no longer present in the stockpile, according to CIV’s letter.

The tribe also outlined several specific issues with the onsite land-farm options, including the location near neighborhoods, and noted that the soil wouldn’t meet the state’s quantity and use requirements for sending to a landfill.

Other concerns about the state’s options were raised at the planning commission meeting, including the gravel pit’s proximity to Big Boulder Creek.

Haines resident Eric Holle said he was worried about the potential for the barrier between the gravel pit and Big Boulder Creek to be breached. DEC’s documentation estimates the creek is 300 feet from the gravel pit.

“If you consider that in conjunction with climatic changes, particularly the number of atmospheric river and other heavy precipitation events that we’re getting, the possibility of not just groundwater contamination but direct contamination through a breach into Big Boulder Creek could wipe out years of attempted rehabilitation for king salmon,” Holle said. “I would like to see this pile moved elsewhere where it could be treated.”

Commission member Derek Poinsette shared that concern, and raised others, including about humans who recreate at the nearly 5-acre site.

“It is public land right next to a salmon stream and people do use it,” he said. “So I think maybe there’s some concern about picking an area that’s an unofficial recreation area and turning it into a toxic-waste treatment area.”

During the meeting, O’Connell said moving the soil could be a possibility if that was the borough’s preference. CIV’s letter also provided additional information about the soil’s history and CIV’s role in addressing the stockpile. The tribe’s letter asked for “meaningful inclusion” as the state agency finalizes a cleanup plan. CIV’s brownfield and contaminated sites coordinator Alan Jones wrote “CIV has no comments at this time but would refer you to the May 14 CIV 34-Mile ABCA Response letter which is now public record,” in response to emailed questions about the tribe’s concerns.

DEC’s Sarah Durand told the commission the agency was trying to schedule a meeting with CIV regarding the cleanup plan. The planning commission agreed unanimously May 15 to send a letter to DEC asking the agency to consider CIV a “key partner” and consider the tribe’s concerns and recommendations when finalizing the cleanup plan.

DEC’s contact for the project Henry Leasia did not answer emailed questions about the tribe’s proposed alternative and or other project information, and referred to the agency’s project- related websites for more information.

At the commission meeting, O’Connell said DEC would issue a written response to all the comments it received, including CIV’s letter, after the comment period ends, and would coordinate with the borough and CIV to finalize the cleanup plan.

Comments on the proposed cleanup methods are due June 5. Comments can be submitted to DEC online here; or by mail to DEC Contaminated Sites Program ATTN: Henry Leasia, PO Box 1535, Haines, AK 9982.