Appendices_A_through_S.pdf

APPENDIX A: THULE AIR BASE LANDFILL MAP

Thule Air Base Available Active Waste Landfills

FY16 Consolidation 1 Site tgreen tgreen

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ENGINEER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY

ALASKA PROJECTS OFFICE, PO BOX 35170

FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA 99703-0170

November 5, 2015

MEMORANDUM TO:

Rafal Turek Civil Engineer

CENAN-EN-MM

New York, NY 10278

SUBJECT: New Material Pit Thule AB, Greenland.

Dear Sir:

This report primarily describes an analysis conducted by the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) for CENAN to describe potential locations of fill material for the ongoing construction projects at Thule. This request was received 6 October 2015 while CRREL was at Thule on TDY for other project work. The field conditions were not conducive for examining sediment quality as the ground was frozen with some amount of snow cover.

Some information in this memo was pulled from the March 17th 2015 memo generated for the same purpose.

Information in this report (Figure 1 and Table 1) was provided to us, and is believed to have been created by the contractor (Aarsleff) who is excavating, processing, and hauling the material to the 1412 Consolidated Facilities Vehicle Maintenance building currently under construction.

That document described the alternative pit locations at that time, the known properties of the materials, and the driving distances with return rate calculations to estimate the impacts on loads per day delivered. Nine sites were identified (Figure 1) on the provided map of the Base area.

Not all sites were visited. The sites are colored coded to coincide with information provided in Table 1, but may not be applicable for the assessment for other projects, and therefore the color coding should be disregarded for this memo.

Additionally, based on soil particle analysis conducted in 2012 by CRREL for GC, where ten samples from adjacent to the river (Figure 2) were processed in our laboratory to determine suitability for fill material, nine of the ten samples contained greater than 5% fines (% passing #200 sieve). However, this is river or near river material which may not suitable due to environmental concerns. The report for this analysis is attached as a separate file. Sizable cobbles (>10cm) may exist requiring screening or crushing, and/or excess fines may be present requiring screening.

Sites 1, 8, and 9, are located near the bay at the South River Delta and North River Delta. With the exception of Site 1, these sites were utilized during the initial construction of the Base in the early 1950’s. The Permafrost Investigation report (Appendix A) created by Metcalf and Eddy in 1953, lists these sites (Sites 8 and 9) under different names. Figure 3 is a photo of a very large pile or embankment at Site 8 which may be suitable for fill material. The quantities of material are unknown. Sizable cobbles (>10cm) may exist requiring screening or crushing, and/or excess fines may be present requiring screening. These sites require travel through the main Base area.

Site 2, is located where current quarrying is occurring. The rock is diorite, an intrusive igneous crystalline rock, which requires extensive processing (blasting and crushing) to produce the required material.

Site 3, located along the river just east of the project site for 1412 an 1413, is the closest and most desirable location. However, the amount of material to be removed from this site was deemed environmentally and hydraulically unacceptable and this site was previously removed from consideration. Further up river between Shelters 5 and 6 a large quantity of suitable material was located and utilized for the spring, summer, and fall 2015 fill operations at 1412. A screening unit is actively being used at the site. Sizable cobbles (>10cm) may exist requiring screening or crushing, and/or excess fines may be present requiring screening. It is unknown how much more material exists at this location and the exact nature of processing required. It is also unknown if when moving upstream the material will become more river bound and if environmental concerns will be raised.

Site 4 near Vortac, is a great distance and the material is probably of no different quality than the other sites, but this is unknown. This is based on knowledge that in the Thule area, the proximity to the glacier often determines the sediment size allocations, and Site 4 is equal distance to the glacier as is Site 5 and 6. The quantities of material are unknown. Sizable cobbles (>10cm) may exist requiring screening or crushing, and/or excess fines may be present requiring screening.

Sites 5, this area has been heavily disturbed by dozer traffic and scraping of material into large piles 40m to 50m apart and up to 4m in height. In the early spring of 2015 we utilized heavy equipment to excavate some amount into the piles (Figures 4 thru 6). It was not clear the purpose of these old piles, but there are two hypothesis; 1) they are the result of surface scraping operations to remove undesirable material (organics or under-size/over-size) leaving the more desirable material to be excavated later which never occurred, or 2) the piles are the result of surface scraping in preparation for further screening and placement, and they were never used.

Sizable cobbles (>10cm) may exist requiring screening or crushing. This area specifically is mentioned in the Permafrost Investigation report (Appendix A) created by Metcalf and Eddy in 1953. This site is labeled ‘H’ Terrace. Types “A” and “B” materials are specified as non-frost susceptible (NFS), 3% or less finer than 0.02mm, and with a maximum size of 2/3 the depth of the lift. Type “B” material must be well graded. The report states this material is NFS from 0.0m to 1.0m depth, below 1.0m the fines content increases.

Site 6, which is located near to Camp Tuto is also pushed into random piles like site 5, and the material visually looks similar to Site 5. A detailed research investigation was conducted adjacent to this area in 1962 by Corte, which among other tasks, they performed particle size analysis on each of the four terrain sites of interest, the gradations are attached as an additional file from RR-88 pgs 70 to 77. Based on these results, it appears the fines content is very near 5% passing #200. Sizable cobbles (>10cm) may exist requiring screening or crushing, and/or excess fines may be present requiring screening.

Site 7 was pushed up into piles, but not nearly as extensively as Site 5 and 6. This site may contain slightly different proportions of fines vs. coarse grained sediments than Site 5 and 6 due to the increased distance from the glacier, but this was not determinable at this time. Sizable cobbles (>10cm) may exist requiring screening or crushing, and/or excess fines may be present requiring screening. Overall this site, in comparison to Site 5 and 6, was deemed very distant especially due to the closer proximity of Site 5 and Site 6. See the photos in Figures 5 and 6.

Kame Terrace. This site is located on the map provided in Appendix A, and is located north of the river at approximately Larsen’s Square and in the vicinity of the 69kv transmission line, just below North Mountain Road. The Metcalf and Eddy report states from 0.0m to 1.0m the material is NFS, and is unknown below 1.0m. Some road construction may be needed for this site and attention required to not disturb the 69kv transmission line. Sizable cobbles (>10cm) may exist requiring screening or crushing, and/or excess fines may be present requiring screening. Some limited dozing has occurred here possibly suggesting the quantity or particle size is inadequate.

CONCLUSION

We recommend Site 3 by Shelter 5 and 6, be further scrutinized for remaining quantities and particle size determination. This site offers the best accessibility, and very possibly the largest easily processed quantity.

Secondary we recommend that Site 5, Site 8, Site 9, and ‘Kame Terrace’ be further scrutinized for particle size determination and possible quantity. For Site 5 if the roadway is improved the return rate of the haul trucks can be increased from 30 km/hr and the distance will be less of an issue. Some roadway work will be needed for ‘Kame Terrace’.

Additionally, it is our recommendation provisions be made in the RFP’s so the bidding parties understand the implications of the lack of full knowledge of adequacy of any of these sites mentioned in this memo, or any sites that may come to attention in the future. The bids must include the ability to insure the required quantities can be processed and moved at the rate required to insure meeting project timelines. The bids should also include costs for improvements to the accessibility.

Please contact me if you have questions or comments.

Thank you Kevin Bjella

Kevin.bjella@usace.army.mil CRREL-Ft. Wainwright, Alaska 907-361-5171

Figure 1. Locations of proposed material locations.

Table 1

Figure 2. Locations of the ten river material samples with particle size analysis conducted in 2012.

Figure 3. Site 8 of unknown quality and quantity.

Figure 4. Site 5 Example of existing piles.

Figure 5. Site 5 excavated pile. Figure 6. Site 5 excavated pile close up.

Appendix A

Sample Water Content (%) Cu Cc % Passing No. 200 Notes 1 3.02 12.96 1.34 7.13 conglomerate-like rocks 2 4.09 14.81 0.93 6.98 conglomerate-like rocks 3 14.56 13.57 0.66 11.28 conglomerate-like rocks 4 5.42 14.29 0.82 12.07 conglomerate-like rocks 5 4.47 24.66 0.64 10.31 porous-like rocks 6 7.01 10.14 0.73 11.63 Twigs 7 3.66 3.27 0.78 1.95 8 10.19 24.05 0.52 9.45 9 8.08 28.42 0.24 7.67

10 1.90 26.82 0.35 3.37

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

0.010.1110100

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 5

Sample 6

Sample 7

Sample 8

Sample 9

Sample 10

Grain size

F in er b y

W ei gh t

Sample Tray Tray Wt (g) Wet Wt (Tray + Soil) Dry Wt (Tray +Soil) Wet Wt Dry Wt %Water (Water/Dry Soil) 1 4 14.3 1684.1 1635.1 1669.8 1620.8 3.02 2 8 14.1 1493.7 1435.6 1479.6 1421.5 4.09 3 9 14.2 1428.9 1249.1 1414.7 1234.9 14.56 4 11 14.2 1536.1 1457.8 1521.9 1443.6 5.42 5 2 14.2 1416 1356 1401.8 1341.8 4.47 6 13 14.4 1297.8 1213.7 1283.4 1199.3 7.01 7 7 14.3 1332.6 1286.1 1318.3 1271.8 3.66 8 14 14.3 1546.1 1404.5 1531.8 1390.2 10.19 9 15 14.3 1729.5 1601.3 1715.2 1587 8.08

10 17 14.1 1883.1 1848.3 1869 1834.2 1.90

Sample 1 Tray 4 Notes Contains rocks that look conglomerate-like (see photo) where it’s a gray/tan with black, sparkly pieces. Can snap it but not crumble it.

Sieve Opening (Inches) Opening (mm) Seive Wt (g) Soil + Pan Wt (g) Soil Wt (g) % Retained Cumulative % Retained % Passing 1 1/2" 1.5 38.1 594.5 594.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 1" 1 25.4 579.3 661.9 82.6 5.12 5.12 94.88 3/4" 0.75 19 677.5 720.8 43.3 2.68 7.80 92.20 1/2" 0.5 12.7 621.8 671.4 49.6 3.07 10.87 89.13 3/8" 0.375 9.51 631.6 660.7 29.1 1.80 12.67 87.33 0.265" 0.265 6.73 580.1 594 13.9 0.86 13.53 86.47 No 4 0.187 4.76 591.4 615.8 24.4 1.51 15.04 84.96 No 10 0.0787 2 503.6 701.3 197.7 12.24 27.29 72.71 No 20 0.0331 0.841 498.7 890.4 391.7 24.26 51.54 48.46 No 40 0.0165 0.42 517.6 823 305.4 18.91 70.45 29.55 No 60 0.0098 0.25 364.9 517.5 152.6 9.45 79.90 20.10 No 100 0.0059 0.149 359.7 476.5 116.8 7.23 87.14 12.86 No 140 0.0041 0.105 349.1 405.2 56.1 3.47 90.61 9.39 No 200 0.0029 0.074 346.6 383 36.4 2.25 92.87 7.13 Pan 392.7 507.9 115.2 7.13 100.00 0.00

1614.8

Weight Check

1.5 to 4 Pan 332.6 1712.7 1380.1 10 to 200 Calc 1371.9 Percent Loss 0.59

Initial Wt 1623.2 Total Wt 1614.8 Percent Loss 0.52

D10 0.108 D30 0.45 D60 1.4 Cu 12.96 Cc 1.34

Sample 2 Tray 8 Notes Contains rocks that look conglomerate-like (see photo in 1) where it’s a gray/tan with black, sparkly pieces. Can snap it but not crumble it.

Sieve Opening (Inches) Opening (mm) Seive Wt (g) Soil + Pan Wt (g) Soil Wt (g) % Retained Cumulative % Retained % Passing 1 1/2" 1.5 38.1 594.5 594.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 1" 1 25.4 579.3 657.2 77.9 5.51 5.51 94.49 3/4" 0.75 19 677.5 696.2 18.7 1.32 6.83 93.17 1/2" 0.5 12.7 621.8 698.8 77 5.45 12.28 87.72 3/8" 0.375 9.51 631.6 685.1 53.5 3.78 16.06 83.94 0.265" 0.265 6.73 580.1 637.2 57.1 4.04 20.10 79.90 No 4 0.187 4.76 591.4 641.4 50 3.54 23.64 76.36 No 10 0.0787 2 503.9 660 156.1 11.04 34.68 65.32 No 20 0.0331 0.841 498.5 767.7 269.2 19.04 53.72 46.28 No 40 0.0165 0.42 517.6 727.3 209.7 14.83 68.55 31.45 No 60 0.0098 0.25 365.1 473.2 108.1 7.65 76.19 23.81 No 100 0.0059 0.149 359.6 475.3 115.7 8.18 84.38 15.62 No 140 0.0041 0.105 349 431.6 82.6 5.84 90.22 9.78 No 200 0.0029 0.074 346.5 386.1 39.6 2.80 93.02 6.98 Pan 392.7 491.4 98.7 6.98 100.00 0.00

1413.9

Weight Check

1.5 to 4 Pan 332.6 1420.6 1088 10 to 200 Calc 1079.7 Percent Loss 0.76

Initial Wt 1422.4 Total Wt 1413.9 Percent Loss 0.60

D10 0.108 D30 0.4 D60 1.6 Cu 14.81 Cc 0.93

Sample 3 Tray 9 Notes Contains rocks that look conglomerate-like (see photo in 1) where it’s a gray/tan with black, sparkly pieces. Can snap it but not crumble it.

Sieve Opening (Inches) Opening (mm) Seive Wt (g) Soil + Pan Wt (g) Soil Wt (g) % Retained Cumulative % Retained % Passing 1 1/2" 1.5 38.1 594.5 594.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 1" 1 25.4 579.3 579.3 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 3/4" 0.75 19 677.5 696.6 19.1 1.44 1.44 98.56 1/2" 0.5 12.7 621.8 691.8 70 5.28 6.72 93.28 3/8" 0.375 9.51 631.6 691.5 59.9 4.52 11.24 88.76 0.265" 0.265 6.73 580.1 644 63.9 4.82 16.06 83.94 No 4 0.187 4.76 591.4 639.5 48.1 3.63 19.69 80.31 No 10 0.0787 2 503.8 626.3 122.5 9.24 28.93 71.07 No 20 0.0331 0.841 498.9 679.6 180.7 13.63 42.56 57.44 No 40 0.0165 0.42 517.5 707.7 190.2 14.35 56.91 43.09 No 60 0.0098 0.25 364.9 493.7 128.8 9.72 66.62 33.38 No 100 0.0059 0.149 359.6 491.9 132.3 9.98 76.60 23.40 No 140 0.0041 0.105 349.3 445.2 95.9 7.23 83.83 16.17 No 200 0.0029 0.074 346.7 411.5 64.8 4.89 88.72 11.28 Pan 392.7 542.2 149.5 11.28 100.00 0.00

1325.7

Weight Check

1.5 to 4 Pan 332.6 1407.1 1074.5 10 to 200 Calc 1064.7 Percent Loss 0.91

Initial Wt 1335.7 Total Wt 1325.7 Percent Loss 0.75

D10 0.07 D30 0.21 D60 0.95 Cu 13.57 Cc 0.66

Sample 4 Tray 11 Notes Contains rocks that look conglomerate-like (see photo in 1) where it’s a gray/tan with black, sparkly pieces. Can snap it but not crumble it.

Sieve Opening (Inches) Opening (mm) Seive Wt (g) Soil + Pan Wt (g) Soil Wt (g) % Retained Cumulative % Retained % Passing 1 1/2" 1.5 38.1 594.5 594.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 1" 1 25.4 579.3 617.6 38.3 2.67 2.67 97.33 3/4" 0.75 19 677.5 677.5 0 0.00 2.67 97.33 1/2" 0.5 12.7 621.8 680.5 58.7 4.09 6.76 93.24 3/8" 0.375 9.51 631.6 667.8 36.2 2.52 9.28 90.72 0.265" 0.265 6.73 580.1 622.1 42 2.93 12.21 87.79 No 4 0.187 4.76 591.4 635.2 43.8 3.05 15.26 84.74 No 10 0.0787 2 503.6 675.3 171.7 11.96 27.22 72.78 No 20 0.0331 0.841 498.5 734 235.5 16.41 43.63 56.37 No 40 0.0165 0.42 517.5 725.9 208.4 14.52 58.15 41.85 No 60 0.0098 0.25 364.7 496.9 132.2 9.21 67.36 32.64 No 100 0.0059 0.149 359.7 497 137.3 9.57 76.93 23.07 No 140 0.0041 0.105 349.4 442.8 93.4 6.51 83.44 16.56 No 200 0.0029 0.074 346.7 411.2 64.5 4.49 87.93 12.07 Pan 392.7 565.9 173.2 12.07 100.00 0.00

1435.2

Weight Check

1.5 to 4 Pan 332.6 1557.7 1225.1 10 to 200 Calc 1216.2 Percent Loss 0.73

Initial Wt 1444.5 Total Wt 1435.2 Percent Loss 0.64

D10 0.07 D30 0.24 D60 1 Cu 14.29 Cc 0.82

Sample 5 Tray 2 Notes Porous looking rocks (see photo), can snap them apart but does not crumble when I pinch them.

Sieve Opening (Inches) Opening (mm) Seive Wt (g) Soil + Pan Wt (g) Soil Wt (g) % Retained Cumulative % Retained % Passing 1 1/2" 1.5 38.1 594.5 594.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 1" 1 25.4 579.3 579.3 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 3/4" 0.75 19 677.5 729.1 51.6 3.86 3.86 96.14 1/2" 0.5 12.7 621.8 721.1 99.3 7.42 11.28 88.72 3/8" 0.375 9.51 631.6 713.4 81.8 6.12 17.40 82.60 0.265" 0.265 6.73 580.1 644.4 64.3 4.81 22.21 77.79 No 4 0.187 4.76 591.4 670.7 79.3 5.93 28.14 71.86 No 10 0.0787 2 503.5 641.2 137.7 10.30 38.43 61.57 No 20 0.0331 0.841 498.2 675 176.8 13.22 51.65 48.35 No 40 0.0165 0.42 517.5 687.9 170.4 12.74 64.39 35.61 No 60 0.0098 0.25 364.9 467.3 102.4 7.66 72.05 27.95 No 100 0.0059 0.149 359.6 470.5 110.9 8.29 80.34 19.66 No 140 0.0041 0.105 349.3 417 67.7 5.06 85.40 14.60 No 200 0.0029 0.074 346.8 404.1 57.3 4.28 89.69 10.31 Pan 392.7 530.6 137.9 10.31 100.00 0.00

1337.4

Weight Check

1.5 to 4 Pan 332.6 1298.6 966 10 to 200 Calc 961.1 Percent Loss 0.51

Initial Wt 1342.3 Total Wt 1337.4 Percent Loss 0.37

D10 0.073 D30 0.29 D60 1.8 Cu 24.66 Cc 0.64

Sample 6 Tray 13 Notes Organic roots or small twigs in sieve 20

Sieve Opening (Inches) Opening (mm) Seive Wt (g) Soil + Pan Wt (g) Soil Wt (g) % Retained Cumulative % Retained % Passing 1 1/2" 1.5 38.1 594.5 594.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 1" 1 25.4 579.4 668.8 89.4 7.48 7.48 92.52 3/4" 0.75 19 677.6 696.4 18.8 1.57 9.05 90.95 1/2" 0.5 12.7 621.8 679.4 57.6 4.82 13.87 86.13 3/8" 0.375 9.51 631.6 647.8 16.2 1.36 15.23 84.77 0.265" 0.265 6.73 580.2 614.1 33.9 2.84 18.07 81.93 No 4 0.187 4.76 591.5 618.7 27.2 2.28 20.34 79.66 No 10 0.0787 2 502.7 588 85.3 7.14 27.48 72.52 No 20 0.0331 0.841 497.8 609.7 111.9 9.36 36.85 63.15 No 40 0.0165 0.42 516.8 702.4 185.6 15.53 52.38 47.62 No 60 0.0098 0.25 364.1 501.3 137.2 11.48 63.86 36.14 No 100 0.0059 0.149 359.5 503.6 144.1 12.06 75.92 24.08 No 140 0.0041 0.105 348.4 418.6 70.2 5.87 81.79 18.21 No 200 0.0029 0.074 346.4 425 78.6 6.58 88.37 11.63 Pan 392.8 531.8 139 11.63 100.00 0.00

Weight Check

1.5 to 4 Pan 332.7 1289.6 956.9 10 to 200 Calc 951.9 Percent Loss 0.52

Initial Wt 1200.5 Total Wt 1195 Percent Loss 0.46

D10 0.07 D30 0.19 D60 0.71 Cu 10.14 Cc 0.73

Sample 7 Tray 7 Notes

Sieve Opening (Inches) Opening (mm) Seive Wt (g) Soil + Pan Wt (g) Soil Wt (g) % Retained Cumulative % Retained % Passing 1 1/2" 1.5 38.1 594.5 594.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 1" 1 25.4 579.4 579.4 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 3/4" 0.75 19 677.6 677.6 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 1/2" 0.5 12.7 621.8 639.8 18 1.42 1.42 98.58 3/8" 0.375 9.51 631.6 664.9 33.3 2.63 4.05 95.95 0.265" 0.265 6.73 580.2 615 34.8 2.75 6.79 93.21 No 4 0.187 4.76 591.5 629.6 38.1 3.01 9.80 90.20 No 10 0.0787 2 502.7 612.9 110.2 8.70 18.50 81.50 No 20 0.0331 0.841 497.8 617.6 119.8 9.45 27.95 72.05 No 40 0.0165 0.42 516.8 724.5 207.7 16.39 44.34 55.66 No 60 0.0098 0.25 364.1 643.8 279.7 22.07 66.41 33.59 No 100 0.0059 0.149 359.5 637.4 277.9 21.93 88.34 11.66 No 140 0.0041 0.105 348.4 435.4 87 6.86 95.20 4.80 No 200 0.0029 0.074 346.4 382.5 36.1 2.85 98.05 1.95 Pan 392.8 417.5 24.7 1.95 100.00 0.00

1267.3

Weight Check

1.5 to 4 Pan 332.7 1481.3 1148.6 10 to 200 Calc 1143.1 Percent Loss 0.48

Initial Wt 1273.2 Total Wt 1267.3 Percent Loss 0.46

D10 0.15 D30 0.24 D60 0.49 Cu 3.27 Cc 0.78

Sample 8 Tray 14 Notes

Sieve Opening (Inches) Opening (mm) Seive Wt (g) Soil + Pan Wt (g) Soil Wt (g) % Retained Cumulative % Retained % Passing 1 1/2" 1.5 38.1 594.5 594.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 1" 1 25.4 579.3 678.5 99.2 7.14 7.14 92.86 3/4" 0.75 19 677.5 735.8 58.3 4.20 11.34 88.66 1/2" 0.5 12.7 621.8 741.7 119.9 8.63 19.97 80.03 3/8" 0.375 9.51 631.6 674.2 42.6 3.07 23.04 76.96 0.265" 0.265 6.73 580.1 639.4 59.3 4.27 27.31 72.69 No 4 0.187 4.76 591.4 645.6 54.2 3.90 31.21 68.79 No 10 0.0787 2 503.2 613.9 110.7 7.97 39.18 60.82 No 20 0.0331 0.841 498.1 651.8 153.7 11.07 50.24 49.76 No 40 0.0165 0.42 517.9 704.2 186.3 13.41 63.66 36.34 No 60 0.0098 0.25 365.3 478.6 113.3 8.16 71.81 28.19 No 100 0.0059 0.149 359.8 486.5 126.7 9.12 80.94 19.06 No 140 0.0041 0.105 349.2 427.9 78.7 5.67 86.60 13.40 No 200 0.0029 0.074 346.5 401.4 54.9 3.95 90.55 9.45 Pan 392.7 523.9 131.2 9.45 100.00 0.00

Weight Check

1.5 to 4 Pan 332.6 1290.5 957.9 10 to 200 Calc 955.5 Percent Loss 0.25

Initial Wt 1391.2 Total Wt 1389 Percent Loss 0.16

D10 0.079 D30 0.28 D60 1.9 Cu 24.05 Cc 0.52

Sample 9 Tray 15 Notes

Sieve Opening (Inches) Opening (mm) Seive Wt (g) Soil + Pan Wt (g) Soil Wt (g) % Retained Cumulative % Retained % Passing 1 1/2" 1.5 38.1 594.5 594.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 1" 1 25.4 579.3 659.7 80.4 5.08 5.08 94.92 3/4" 0.75 19 677.5 808.1 130.6 8.25 13.32 86.68 1/2" 0.5 12.7 621.8 722.3 100.5 6.35 19.67 80.33 3/8" 0.375 9.51 631.6 723.7 92.1 5.82 25.48 74.52 0.265" 0.265 6.73 580.1 656.6 76.5 4.83 30.31 69.69 No 4 0.187 4.76 591.4 657.3 65.9 4.16 34.47 65.53 No 10 0.0787 2 503.5 636.6 133.1 8.40 42.88 57.12 No 20 0.0331 0.841 498.3 633.9 135.6 8.56 51.44 48.56 No 40 0.0165 0.42 517.8 683.3 165.5 10.45 61.89 38.11 No 60 0.0098 0.25 364.8 495.9 131.1 8.28 70.17 29.83 No 100 0.0059 0.149 359.6 578.5 218.9 13.82 83.99 16.01 No 140 0.0041 0.105 349.2 421.8 72.6 4.58 88.57 11.43 No 200 0.0029 0.074 346.6 406.1 59.5 3.76 92.33 7.67 Pan 392.7 514.2 121.5 7.67 100.00 0.00

1583.8

Weight Check

1.5 to 4 Pan 332.6 1374.4 1041.8 10 to 200 Calc 1037.8 Percent Loss 0.38

Initial Wt 1588.2 Total Wt 1583.8 Percent Loss 0.28

D10 0.095 D30 0.25 D60 2.7 Cu 28.42 Cc 0.24

Sample 10 Tray 17 Notes

Sieve Opening (Inches) Opening (mm) Seive Wt (g) Soil + Pan Wt (g) Soil Wt (g) % Retained Cumulative % Retained % Passing 1 1/2" 1.5 38.1 594.5 594.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 1" 1 25.4 579.3 647.7 68.4 3.74 3.74 96.26 3/4" 0.75 19 677.5 735.7 58.2 3.18 6.93 93.07 1/2" 0.5 12.7 621.8 882.4 260.6 14.26 21.19 78.81 3/8" 0.375 9.51 631.6 781.5 149.9 8.20 29.39 70.61 0.265" 0.265 6.73 580.1 726.6 146.5 8.02 37.41 62.59 No 4 0.187 4.76 591.4 695.6 104.2 5.70 43.11 56.89 No 10 0.0787 2 503.4 716.4 213 11.66 54.76 45.24 No 20 0.0331 0.841 498.1 697.8 199.7 10.93 65.69 34.31 No 40 0.0165 0.42 517.7 783.9 266.2 14.57 80.26 19.74 No 60 0.0098 0.25 365 505.5 140.5 7.69 87.95 12.05 No 100 0.0059 0.149 359.7 452.6 92.9 5.08 93.03 6.97 No 140 0.0041 0.105 349.2 394.7 45.5 2.49 95.52 4.48 No 200 0.0029 0.074 346.5 366.8 20.3 1.11 96.63 3.37 Pan 392.7 454.3 61.6 3.37 100.00 0.00

1827.5

Weight Check

1.5 to 4 Pan 332.6 1380.7 1048.1 10 to 200 Calc 1039.7 Percent Loss 0.80

Initial Wt 1836 Total Wt 1827.5 Percent Loss 0.46

D10 0.22 D30 0.67 D60 5.9 Cu 26.82 Cc 0.35

CDRL CEV-13

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

FINAL FY-12

Thule Air Base Images by Jack Stephens

Thule Air Base, Greenland

OPR: Greenland Contractors Chief of Environmental Engineering DSN 629-3840 ext. 2698

Contract No. FA2523-05-C-9001 Supersedes 01 July 2011 edition

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 LETTER OF INSTRUCTION

1.1 SECURITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS

2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

2.1 PURPOSE

2.2 SCOPE

2.3 REGULATORY OVERVIEW

3 INTRODUCTION

3.1 INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION

3.2 CLIMATE

3.3 INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

3.4 PARTNERSHIP WITH SCIENTISTS AND RESEARCHERS

3.5 REQUIREMENTS TO PERSONNEL

3.6 COMMUNICATION WITH HOST NATION AUTHORITIES

4 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THULE AREA

4.1 PREHISTORY OVERVIEW

4.2 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

4.2.1 Thule

4.2.2 The American Presence

4.3 ANCIENT HISTORICAL SITES OF CONCERN AROUND THULE AIR BASE

4.4 PRECAUTIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR ANCIENT AND HISTORIC AREAS AND DISCOVERIES

4.4.1 Precautions

4.4.2 Possible Archeological Indicators

4.4.3 Procedures for discoveries of ancient /historic items

4.5 MEMORIAL MARKERS

5 LAND MANAGEMENT

5.1 FACILITY SITE OVERVIEW

5.2 GEOLOGICAL AREAS

5.2.1 Geologic Setting

5.2.2 Local soil conditions and existing pavements

5.2.3 Gravel Pits

5.2.4 Quarry

5.2.5 Mineral Exploration

5.3 LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT AND USE

5.3.1 Improved Grounds

5.3.2 Traffic Areas

5.3.3 Harbor

5.3.4 Tank Farm

5.3.5 Storm Shelters

5.3.6 Landfills

5.4 OPEN UNDEVELOPED AREAS

5.4.1 Coastal Waters and Sewages

5.4.2 Water Streams and Lakes

Thule Air Base 3

5.4.3 Drinking Water

5.4.4 Wetlands and River Deltas

5.4.5 Irrigation and Drainage

5.4.6 Storm water drainage system

5.4.7 UXO areas

5.5 STANDARDS FOR MANAGING AND MAINTAINING GROUNDS

5.5.1 Pesticide Use

5.5.2 Use of Off Road Vehicles

5.5.3 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PROCEDURES

5.5.4 LAND DISPOSAL

6 MANAGEMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

6.1 LOCALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES

6.1.1 International Endangered Species

6.1.2 Notification of host nation installation commander

6.2 HUNTING AND FISHING

6.3 DISTURBANCE OF BIRD COLONIES

6.4 HUMAN/ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS

6.5 BOTANICAL AREAS

7 OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES

7.1 GENERAL RECREATIONAL OUTDOOR RESOURCES CLASSIFICATION

7.2 Recreational Activities and Facilities

7.2.1 Training of tripping

guides……………………………………………………………………………….44

7.2.2 Services Activities

7.2.3 Jogging, Bicycling, and Hiking

7.2.4 Athletic and Recreational Areas

7.2.5 Cabins

7.3 SCENIC OUTLOOKS

Thule Air Base 4

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 …………………………………………………………………………………49

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

APPENDIX 2

THULE DEFENSE AREA ACCORDING TO MOU DATED 20 FEBRUARY 2003

APPENDIX 3

THE BORDER BETWEEN THE DEFENSE AREA AND DUNDAS ACCORDING

TO MOU DATED 20 FEBRUARY 2003

APPENDIX 4

1. INVENTORY OF GREENLAND HISTORY

2. INVENTORY OF THULE HISTORY AND THE AMERICAN PRESENCE

APPENDIX 5

GEOGRAPHICAL TERMS

APPENDIX 6

NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES AREA MAP

APPENDIX 7

LIST OF FLORA & FAUNA AROUND THULE AIR BASE

APPENDIX 8

BOTANIC LIST FOR THULE AIR BASE

APPENDIX 9

HUNTING AGREEMENTS, ANANERSUUP KOMMUNIA

APPENDIX 10

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE GREENLAND GOVERNMENT LAWS

APPENDIX 11

DUNDAS PRESERVATION

APPENDIX 12

LIST OF REFERENCES & LITERATURE

APPENDIX 13

DISTRIBUTION LIST

APPENDIX 14

21 CES/CEAN COMMENTS AND GC RESPONSE TO 2011 PLAN

Thule Air Base 5

1 LETTER OF INSTRUCTION

1.1 Security and Administrative Instructions

Title

: The title of this document is Conservation Management Plan.

Classification

: The document is unclassified.

Responsibilities

: Greenland Contractors, Environmental Engineering (GC/EE) is the office of primary responsibility for developing and maintaining the plan. The instructions given in this plan are applicable to all organizations and tenant units at Thule AB. Organizations are authorized to extract and reproduce those sections of the plan that are essential in the accomplishment of necessary planning and in the preparation of supporting documents and reports.

Reviews/Changes

: The plan will be reviewed and updated annually. Furthermore, the plan will be subject to change if any of the applicable laws, regulations, or requirements are altered.

Distribution

: The plan will be distributed to the organizations listed on the distribution list, APPENDIX 13.

Thule Air Base 6

2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

2.1 Purpose

The purpose of this plan is to provide information on and guidelines for the management of the natural and cultural resources in the Arctic environment.

2.2 Scope

The Thule AB Conservation Management Plan and the Thule General Plan regulate all phases of land use and grounds development from the least to the most intensively improved areas. No new activity will be established if they violate the regulations in these plans.

2.3 Regulatory Overview

In accordance with USAF policy, Thule AB is required to comply with the following public laws and their respective regulations:

US State Laws: Not applicable

DoD: DoD 6050.7, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Department of Defense

Actions

USAF: AFI 32-7061, Environmental Impact Analysis Process AFI 32-7062, Air Force Comprehensive Planning AFI 32-7066, Environmental Baseline & Closeout for Real Estate Transac-tions Final Governing Standards for Environmental Protection by United States

Forces in Greenland (FGS), prepared by HQ AFSPACECOM

Thule AB: EPC decisions.

Host Country: Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Kingdom of

Denmark (including the Government of Greenland) and the Government of the United States of America concerning use of Sondrestrom Aviation Facili-ty Kulusuk Airfield and other matters related to United States Military activi-ties in Greenland.

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United

States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark (includ-ing the Government of Greenland) concerning the Dundas area.

Thule Air Base 7

3 INTRODUCTION

3.1 Installation Description

Thule AB is located at 76°31’N, 68°30’W, in the Arctic area on the northwest coast of Greenland, 930 miles south of the North Pole and 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle.

According to ‘Statistics Greenland’ (January 2006), the population of the northwestern part of Greenland (Qaanaaq municipality) is 840 individuals (298 children and 542 adults) excluding the population at Thule Air Base. Twenty five percent of the population lives in the 3 small settlements: Moriusaq, Savissivik, and Siorpaluk. The total population of Greenland (January 2007) is 56,648 individuals. The majority of these people live in the southern part of Greenland.

The population at Thule Air Base is 600-800 individuals.

Children Adults Total Town:

Qaanaaq 228 432 660

Villages:

Moriusaq 2 9 11 Savissivik 26 50 76 Siorpaluk 42 51 93 Total 70 110 180

Table 1: Greenland Statistics, January 2006 APPENDIX 12; Reference 20

Qaanaaq Municipality and Thule Air Base

Thule AB facilities are the property of the United States Air Force and it is the most northern installation of American military forces, and one of the most northern air bases in the world. The base is located on the aerial route halfway between Washington DC (2344 miles) and Moscow (2335 miles). The base is located in a coastal valley, bordered by mountain ridges to the north and south, the ice cap to the east, and the North Star Bay to the west. Therefore, it is only possible to reach Thule AB by ship during the 30-day port season (July and August) or by air throughout the year.

The Thule Defense Area covers close to 233,000 acres or 943 km2 (verified by DLO documents). The northern border consists of Wolstenholme Fjord and Harald Moltke Glacier;

the eastern border is the Ice Cap; the southwestern border is a straight line going from the Pittufik Glacier to an area on the coast of Wolstenholme Fjord, see APPENDIX 2. The area is uninhabited, and the closest community is a small settlement, Moriusaq, approximately 22 miles northwest of the base.

Thule Air Base 8

3.2 Climate

The climate at Thule is highly Arctic with a monthly average temperature ranging from between -26oC (-15o Fahrenheit) and 5oC (41o Fahrenheit). The mean annual temperature is –12oC (10.4o

Fahrenheit) with low temperatures recorded at -44oC (-48o Fahrenheit) and high temperature occasionally reaching 20oC (68o Fahrenheit). The Chill factor (see APPENDIX 1) is calculated on the measured temperature data on base.

Climate data

Table 2: Climate data observed at Main Thule Air Base Weather Station.

Mean annual precipitation (rain and snowfall) is normally 40.0 inches (1 meter), of which 75 percent is snow. On August 2, 2001, the weather conditions were very unusual. During a period of 4 days about 5 inches of rainfall were measured. Some of the water drainage installations were broken and the whole drinking water system was out of order for several days.

The bridge over the North River was irreparably damaged during this strange weather phenomenon.

The normal summer is very short occurring only three months of the year with average daily temperatures above freezing. The annual thaw of the frozen ground starts in May and ends in September.

The average wind speed is 6 knots. The highest wind speed recorded at Thule is registered at 189 knots.

This is an area where high Arctic storms occur. The Arctic storm conditions are characterized by: very low temperatures (Chill factor minus 40 degrees or colder), high wind speeds (30-50 knots or more) and very low visibility. The official storm season is from 15 September to 15 May. Arctic storms can also occur during the summertime. From April to August daylight prevails 24 hours a day, while darkness reigns from November through January.

3.3 Installation Management Structure

Thule AB is open to installation personnel and invited guests only. This includes the personnel stationed or employed at the base, that are on either permanent change of station (PCS) or official temporary duty (TDY) status, and also their family members and guests. This does not include retirees or DoD employees from other installations or military members not on PCS or official TDY status, who are not guests. Family members and guests must receive specific clearances prior to entering the base.

The installation is operated by 821 ABG, 21 SW, AFSPC, with contractor support from BAE Systems, Harris Technology Services Corp., GE Americom, and Greenland Contractors with

Thule Air Base Average Climatology Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Year

Average Temperature -24 -25 -26 -18 -6 2 5 4 -2 -11 -18 -23 -12 Maximum Temperature 5 6 2 6 10 20 18 17 9 5 6 4 20 Minimum Temperature -39 -44 -42 -38 -27 -8 -4 -6 -21 -31 -35 -39 -44

Precipitation in Water (inches) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.4 0.3 4.5 Snowfall Average (inches) 4 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 4 6 5 3 34

Snowfall Maximum 36 17 7 8 15 5 6 5 11 15 26 24 36 Average Relative Humidity (%) 73 71 66 63 62 66 67 67 66 71 73 74 68

Prevailing Winds Direction EAST EAST EAST EAST WEST WEST WEST WEST EAST EAST EAST EAST EAST Average Wind Speed 7 6 6 5 4 5 4 5 5 7 8 7 6

Maximum Wind Speed 81 110 102 156 76 68 70 74 76 77 82 89 156** Average number of strong storms per year = 10 *Strongest wind offbase = 207 mph / 180kt, 8 March 1972 Temperatures are degrees Celsius / Wind speeds are in knots **156 knot speed was recorded on weather station rooftop.

Thule Air Base 9 civilian US, Canadian, Danish, and Greenlandic employees. The 12 SWS provides warning of ballistic missile launches against the United States and Canada to the North American Aerospace Defense Command and JCS Command Centers. The base also detects and tracks polar orbiting satellites in support of operational space control missions. Additionally, the base supports the United States and international military aviation operations, including Arctic exploration and scientific research.

The Greenlandic Government owns the site and in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding, approx. 490,000 acres (1983 km2) were laid out as a defense area at the time of establishment. In 2003, this area was reduced to its present size of approximately 233,000 acres (943 km2).

The main base provides housing for all military personnel, as well as civilian and contractor employees. As of October 2010, the total number of on-site personnel consisted of approximately 500-700 individuals (Authorized, all included: 697; Assigned, all included: 677 + guests), including US military personnel. The base was initially built to handle more than 10 times as many people. Therefore, many buildings were demolished and others have been vacated, as the base population decreased.

BMEWS (Ballistic Missile Early Warning System) is one of three stations; the other two are located in Clear Alaska and Fylingdales in United Kingdom. BMEWS became operational in 1961 and was updated with a LPAR (Large Phased Array Radar) in 1987. The LPAR is located about 15 km east of the base.

DET-1 is a control and command station for satellites.

3.4 Partnership with Scientists and Researchers

821 ABG supports scientists and researchers on topics from permafrost, wildlife, botanical, atmospheric, and global warming. Over time various scientific projects with different areas of interests has been hosted at Thule AB and future projects will follow.

Project with fieldwork, staging, and monitoring in the Thule AB area examples are:

• Greenland Inland Traverse (GRIT) to perform a feasibility study for an overland traverse between Thule AB and Summit Station. It will be economically and environmentally advantageous for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the international arctic science community to have the ability to operate a heavy traverse. Much of the GRIT project will

12 SWS BMEWS

22 SOPS DET-1

Thule Air Base 10 replicate work performed in the United States Antarctic program in relation to the South Pole Inland Traverse.

• Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET): To establish a sun photometer at the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) at Thule AB site to measure column-integrated aerosol properties. The researchers will return to Thule once per year to recalibrate the instrument and make repairs/conduct maintenance as needed.

• North Pole Environmental Observatory (NPEO): Collaborative research; North Pole Station, to continue studies of environmental change in the North Pole region. The project will conduct research on ocean pressure in the Arctic derived from satellite gravity observations and in situ pressure measurements, aerial hydrographic surveys, and tracking change and understanding seasonal variability.

• POLENET: Collaborative research, The Polar Earth Observing Network (POLENET), using bedrock geodesy to constrain past and present day changes in Greenland’s ice mass.

Construction of a network (GNET) of over 35 continuous GPS stations ringing the perimeter of Greenland as part of the U.S. contribution to the International Polar Year and the international POLENET consortium.

3.5 Requirements to personnel

GC employees and Government personnel directing conservation management must have re-ceived training in natural, historic or cultural resources management prior to working with this kind of management. As it is important for personnel to be familiar with the nature surrounding Thule AB and understand the management methods to be used at Thule AB in order select the best ways to work with the restoration and protection of the delicate and sensitive arctic nature observed at Thule AB.

When living and working at Thule AB it is the responsibility of each person to be familiar with and follow these requirements presented in the environmental plans including the CDRL CEV-13 as these requirements are compulsory for all. When new personnel and guests arrive at TAB they are invited to a newcomer briefing presenting all environmental plans.

As a reminder GC/EE each year presents a pamphlet presenting the guidelines on how each individual must act in order to maintain and protect habitats favorable to the reproduction and survival of indigenous plants, fish, and wildlife when exploring the defense area and enjoying trips. Again as a consequence GC has not posted any signs in the area and no inspections are performed to ensure people are complying.

The training for government personnel must be documented at the GC/EE office at TAB. Docu-mentation could be scanned copy of training certificates. No training plan is specific for Thule AB because of the special nature observed in the area. The cultural resources observed in the im-minence of the defense area is maintained by the Greenlandic Government by contract through the DLO office therefore no training is needed for government personnel. But qualified training could be from Naval Civil Engineer Cops Officers School, courses like CIN: A-4A-0087 Natural Resources Compliance course. GC/EE due not provide training for government personnel.

Documentation regarding GC/EE personnel qualifications that performs the natural historic or cultural resource functions must be kept at GC HR department. At the present the GC personnel managing the CDRL CEV-13 have relevant educational backgrounds and have the expertise required for the management elements (i.e., endangered or threatened species, host nation pro-tected species, wetlands, soil stabilization world, national and local history and culture). Educa-tional backgrounds and training records are kept at the GC HR department.

Thule Air Base 11

If questions raise that GC employees or Government personnel directing conservation manage-ment cannot answer the Greenlandic Self Rule may be asked through the DLO office. This way scientific and qualified assistance may be requested and obtained from wellreputed knowledge institutions as the southern university of Denmark or the university of Copenhagen.

3.6 Communication with host nation authorities

In general, US Government remains current with Greenland environmental activities and regula-tions IAW Statement of Work, Paragraph 18.11. All official environmental correspondence sent to organizations outside of the 21 SW is approved by 821 ABG/CC and 21CES/CEAN prior to release. In addition, copies of all official incoming environmental correspondence are forwarded to 821 ABG/CC and 21 CES/CEAN within five days of receipt.

The host nation installation commander at Thule Air Base is the Danish Liaison Officer (DLO), located at Bldg. 461. The DLO is coordinating all kinds of communication to the host nation au-thorities. The communication may be accomplished in letters, mails or telephone calls.

Thule Air Base 12

4 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THULE AREA

Long before Europeans reached the Arctic, most of the region had a scattered population. Over time, the indigenous peoples were referred to as Eskimos (Inuit), and Polar Eskimos (Inughuit).

Today, they usually are called Greenlanders.

The antiquity of man in the Old Arctic World is unknown, although the oldest archaeological discoveries in the region around the Altai Mountains and Lake Baikal (Russia) appear to be 35,000 years old. From this area people moved up north/east and slowly populated the land up to the Arctic shores. The roots to the Eskimo-Aleut culture most likely derive from Kamtjatka (Russia) where they, approximately 6-7,000 years ago, separated from the other groups.

From that time the maritime culture developed. The Eskimos and Aleuts separated approximately 5,000 years ago. However, there are different opinions regarding some of these assumptions and conclusions. The below overview should not be taken as an explicit conclusion on the Inuit culture in the Thule Area – it is a summary of available literature on the subject and input from the Arctic Information, Copenhagen, see APPENDIX 12, Reference 27.

Greenland and Thule history together with an overview of the American presence is inventoried in APPENDIX 4.

4.1 Prehistory overview

From the northwestern part of Alaska, archaeological excavations have estimated the early Eskimo habitations to be approximately 6-7,000 years old. It is from here that the migrations continued eastward along the arctic coasts of Canada towards Ellesmere Island and onward to the surrounding area of Thule, where the first people arrived approximately 5,000 years ago. It might have included several in-migrations. The first people settled in the northeastern part of Greenland and lived there until the tracks once again disappeared approximately 4,000 years ago. This period of time is called Independence. Perhaps simultaneously more migrations took place. It is unknown, how these made it to the West Coast. Maybe they travelled north of the country, south along the East Coast, and from there, north along the West Coast. Perhaps they travelled in a straight line from the Thule area, across the Melville Bay. No one knows yet. No matter what took place, this period of time is called Saqqaq, which lasted up until approximately 3,000 years ago. About 2,500 years ago Dorset came. They used the Saqqaq people’s habitations on the West Coast and also made their way to the East Coast. According to the Greenlandic myths, these people were known as tornit or tunersuit. It remains unknown when they disappeared from the West Coast, but they survived in East Greenland. These early migrations are put in the category of Paleoeskimo Cultures.

Up until recent years, it was assumed that West Greenland was populated with a Neoeskimo Culture, when the Northerners arrived to the country in the year 982. More recent discoveries have proven this assumption wrong. The last big migration, called the Thule Culture, took place centuries after the arrival of the Northerners. Slowly the West Coast was populated from Thule and southward down to the Northerners. The first written testimonies regarding these people originate from the year 1585, when the Englishman John Davis came to West Greenland.

The new culture was superior to the earlier cultures in its suppleness to take advantage of the resources of the country and the ocean. Thus they had kayaks, qajaq, for sealing, women’s boats, umiaq, for transportation and whaling, and dog sledges for winter transportation.

Thule Air Base 13

The colonization and the introduction to Christianity gradually changed the original culture. The shaman, angakkoq, and drum song and dance were eliminated harshly. The shaman was the person who initiated the contact between people and the spirits and gods of the supernatural world. Both men and women could undertake the task. The shaman’s role in the community was important because he or she was to get the spirits to cure the sick, ensure a good catch or fishing, etc. A shaman had a number of helping spirits and various equipments, including the drum, which was used during séances.

The last migration to the Thule district took place from Baffin Island in the middle of the 1860s.

Because of this migration the population of Thule was reunited with a number of fishing tackles, including the kayak, which had been lost in the previous century. Simultaneously new blood was brought to the small group. The migration took place, as earlier migrations, crossing the narrow Smith Sound.

Ethnically, the Greenlanders are members of the Eskimos, or inuit, which for some is the preferred name. The term Eskimo most likely finds its origin in the Canadian Cree Indian language, according to which, ayashkimew is roughly translated into something like those who eat raw meat. Ever since the political mobilization among the Canadian Eskimos in the 1970s, inuit (singular: inuk), which means human, has been the preferred name in Canada, which was adopted in Greenland. However, in Alaska and the far east of Russia, no one hesitated to continue using the term Eskimo, e.g. in the name of the organization, Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission.

Kalaallit (singular: kalaaleq) is a collective name for the aboriginal population of Greenland, which consists of three sub-groups, kitaamiut (West Greenlanders), tunumiut (East Greenlanders), and inughuit (Polar Eskimos). Official sources don’t make an estimate as to the number of members in each sub-group, but on a rough estimate it is believed that for each Polar Eskimo there are four East Greenlanders and 50 West Greenlanders.

In Greenland, the language is called kalaallisut. West Greenlandic is the official language of the country, but both the East Greenlanders and the Polar Eskimos speak Eskimo dialects, which differ quite a bit from West Greenlandic, which also has several local dialects. Greenlandic is a polysynthetic language along with languages from Canada and North Alaska to the East Eskimo language tribe, Inupik. The language in South Alaska and on Tjukotka belongs to the West Eskimo language tribe (Yupik).

4.2 Historical overview

The first Northerner, who discovered Greenland, was Gunnbjørn. The highest mountain on the East Coast of Greenland is named after him. This apparently took place in the year 875.

The arrival of the outlaw, Erik the Red, at the place later named Østerbygden, is dated the year

982. Erik and his wife Tjodhilde built the farm Brattahlid by the present Qassiarsuk across from Narsarsuaq in Southern Greenland. The first Northerners were not Christian, but no later than in the year 999 did the son of Erik the Red, Leif the Fortunate let himself get christianized in Norway. One year later, in the year 1000, on the way back to Greenland from Norway, the ship was put out of her course and Leif discovered the actual North America, as the first European.

Since, numerous expeditions were made there.

The Northerners in Greenland began to pay taxes regularly to the Norwegian king from the year 1261. However, the communication between Greenland and Northern Europe gradually ceased.

The last written source mentions that a wedding was held in Hvalsø Church on the 15th of September 1408, and when the last ship returned to Norway in 1410, the communication to Europe stopped. From this point and onward, the Northerners’ destiny remains unknown.

Thule Air Base 14

Due to the marriage between the Danish Queen Margrethe I and the Norwegian King Håkon VI, their son Oluf became the heir to the Throne of both Denmark and Norway, and thereby also the Norwegian tributary countries, including the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Iceland in 1363.

For several years no contact was made between Europe and Greenland. However, numerous Danish kings sent out people on expeditions to the waters surrounding Greenland. An actual colonization did not take place until the Norwegian minister and missionary Hans Egede came to the vicinity of Godthaab (Nuuk) in 1721. Thus the colonization of Greenland continued gradually north and southward in the following centuries.

Denmark built the wrong alliances during the Napoleon Wars and had to give up Norway to Sweden during the peace negotiations in Kiel in 1814. However, the tributary countries remained Danish.

Because Greenland had remained a part of Denmark in 1814, the Danish colonization could continue. The Danish state had not previously shown any interest in the Thule area, which is why Knud Rasmussen colonized the area in 1910 after having collected private means. The purpose was:

1) To save the Northern Greenland for Denmark

2) To establish a financial and practical foundation for scientific expeditions to explore the origin and migrations of the Eskimo culture

3) To ensure the Polar Eskimos’ access to those goods to which they had already grown accustomed through barter with the whalers and the polar expeditions, and to purchase the products of the country for resale in Denmark

In 1916, Denmark sold the Danish West Indies to the United States of America. In this connection the United States of America acknowledged the Danish sovereignty of the entire Greenland in a separate declaration.

In 1931, Norwegian whalers occupied three areas in eastern Greenland and declared them Norwegian. Denmark appealed the case to the International Court of Justice in Haag. The Haag verdict of April 5, 1933 determined that the entire Greenland was Danish.

On April 9, 1940, Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany. The Danish ambassador to the United States chose not to follow the Danish government’s policy of collaboration with Germany;

on the contrary, he chose to represent ”the Denmark, which existed, and which would continue to exist despite the temporary suppression of its government”. The ambassador thereby took sides in favor of the allies. The Greenland management took the same side.

With the Monroe Doctrine in reserve, the United States stood firm and would not accept a possible German occupation of Greenland.