| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 9/28/1942 |
Update or Other Action |
Areas Used by the Chemical Warfare Service During the 1900s (historical division U.S. Army Chemical & Biological Defense Command compiled by Kathy Ciolfi).
Fort Morrow Alaska
Ltr. (Letter) 470.6 (CWS), 1st Lt. J.A. Romanczuk, Asst. AG., to C CWS., 28 Sep 42., Subj: Toxic Agents for Alaska Defense Command.
1. The Commanding General, Alaska Defense Command has requested the shipment of vesicant agent and airplane spray tanks to stations of his command. He is fully cogniizant of the War Department instruction, April 25, 1942, prescribing approval of War Department prior to use of toxic chemicals.
2. Recommend early shipment to stations in Alaska as Follows:
Station HS Tons Airplane Spray Tanks M-10 & filling lines, complete Pump
Fort Glenn 50 100 6
Fort Randall 50 100 6
Longview 50 100 6
(Adak-Longview Army Airfield: Although this operational area was initially named "Longview Army Airfield," by early 1943, it was renamed Davis Army Airfield.")
Fort Greely 30 75 4
Fort Richardson 30 200 16
3. Recommend for future planning but not immediate delivery, for stations as follows:
Station HS Tons Airplane Spray Tanks M-10 & filling lines, complete Pump
Fort Morrow 15 50 4
Naknek 15 50 4
Bethel 15 50 4
Cordova 15 50 4
Annette 15 50 4
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/21/1965 |
Update or Other Action |
Corps of Engineers memorandum dated May 21, 1965 to Commanding General US Army, Alaska. Subject: Range Training Facilities, Moving Target Tank Range at Davis Range, Fort Richardson.
The location of the Moving Target Tank Range at the McLaughlin Range was investigated and found to be incompatible with the existing topography. The outer limites of the "danger area" extends off the Military Reservation and near populated areas. The firing range would be completely unsuitable if artillery with greater range were used.
Location of the Moving Target Range at Davis Range, Fort Richardson is proposed. The proposed location of the Moving Target Range at Davis Range proposes no terrain problems. Part of the Chugach Mountain Range would act as a backstop for the tank shells and would keep the shells from reaching and going beyond the "danger area" limit.
Attached for your consideration is a revised PCE dated 13 May 1965 with new site plans, drawing number 18-04-374, shoots 1 - 3 for the new construction site, Davis Range, Fort Richardson. This estimate indicated a total project cost of $265,700 for the Moving Target Tank Range, or $17,600 more than the programmed amount.
Before more accurate computations can be determined, a survey is required. Until such survey is obtained, the 20% contingency reserve contained in the estimate should be retained. It is possible that the project can be designed within the programmed amount.
We request authorization to proceed with the design of the Moving Target Tank Range at the Davis Range location. R.E. Melbo, Executive Assistant. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/14/1966 |
Update or Other Action |
Application Rejected in Part - Suspended in Part Permit Authorized Subject to Special Stipulations for Remainder On September 7, 1965, the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer
District, Alaska, filed application for a special land use permit encompassing approximately 12,482.04 acres of unsurveyed lands within T. 12 N., R. 1 W., T. 13 N., R. 1 W., and T 12 N., R. 2 W., S.M. The lands are requested for a safety zone, as impact and ricochet area for artillery firing at Fort Richardson.
The records reflect the NE1/4SW1/4NE1/4 and the E1/2NW1/4SW1/4NE1/4, Sec. 22, T. 13 N., R. 1 W., containing 15 acres, are encompassed within homestead claim Anchorage 058156, filed October 9, 1962. As the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2236.07 concerning the availability of lands for special land use permit reqUire that the land must be vacant public land, these lands
are not, therefore, available for this purpose. Accordingly, the special land use permit application must be, and hereby is, rejected as to the above-described lands.
In addition, four homestead entry applications have been filed affecting the NE1/4SE1/4;, Sec. 23, the N1/2 and SW1/4, Sec. 24, T. 12 N., R. 2 VI. The applications have been rejected. Appeals were taken, however, and further action cannot be taken concerning these lands until action on the appeals has been finalized.
A large portion of the lands included in this application are under selection by the State of Alaska and will eventually be conveyed to the City of Anchorage by the State. Letters of concurrence from both the City and State accompanied the application and gave certain conditions
which they wished included in the permit. It is also found that the protection of the public interests requires the insertion of additional special stipulations in the permit. These have been combined and the permit when issued will be subject to the following special
stipulations:
1. The general public shall be advised at least 48 hours or two business days in advance of any firing via all the available public news media of:
a. The dates, periods of the day, and type (artillery) of the proposed firing.
b. A general description or map of the area which would be affected or dangerous to enter during the firing.
2. Special notice in writing containing the same information and period of advance notice shall be furnished the City of Anchorage, Water Utility Division Manager, before all firing periods.
3. That upon termination of the permit, the applicant shall furnish a statement certifying the area to be safe from contamination by unexploded ammunition or if it cannot, to take suitable measures to render it safe from this hazard.
4. Firing will not be conducted during periods of high fire danger. The U.S. Army is solely responsible for determining the potential fire hazard on lands covered by this permit. The estimate of wildland fire potential shall be based upon known fire danger and forecasted weather. Said information is made available through the Chief of the Fort Richardson Fire Department.
5. In the event a grass, brush, or forest fire occurs on lands covered by this permit, the U.S. Army shall take suppression action immediately with all resources necessary to achieve control at the earliest possible time.
6. When a fire does occur, the U.S. Army shall notify the Bureau of Land Management Fire Control Dispatcher and appraise him of;
a. The situation in general
b. Suppression action in progress
c. Planned suppression action
d. Estimated time of control
Such notification does not in any manner relieve the US Army from the primary responsibility for suppression of said fire.
7. This permit will be cancelled five years from the date of issuance or at the time the lands involved are tentatively approved for patent to the State of Alaska; whichever occurs first.
Thirty days from the receipt of this decision are authorized within which to submit objections to these special stipulations. If no objections are received, the special land use permit will be issued accordingly.
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska is allowed the right of appeal to the Director, Bureau of Land Management in accordance with the regulations in 43 CFR Part 1842, Circular 2137, as amended.
See enclosed Form 1842-1. If an appeal is taken, it must be filed in the Anchorage District and Land Office, 555 Cordova Street, Anchorage, Alaska, within 30 days from receipt hereof. In taking an appeal, there must be strict compliance with the regulations. If an appeal is filed the appellant will have the burden of proving by presenting positive and substantial evidence wherein the decision appealed from is in error.
If an appeal is taken by the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska, the adverse party to be served is:
Don L. Hart, Box 474B, Star Route A, Spenard, Alaska.
Signed James W. Scott, Manager, Anchorage District and Land Office. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/15/1966 |
Update or Other Action |
This permit is issued for the period from May 15, 1966 to May 14, 1971, and is revocable for any breach of the conditions hereof. It is slso revocable at the discretion of the authorized officer of the Bureau of Land Management, at any time, upon notice, if in his judgment the lands should be devoted to another use. The permit Is subject to valid adverse claims heretofore Or hereafter acquired.
2. The permittee shall pay annually, in advance, to the authorized officer as rental the sum of
dollars, or such other >;um liS may be required if sn adjustment of rental is made.
3. The permittee shall observe all Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations applicable to the premises, and to the erection or maintenance of signs or advertising displays, including the regulations for the protection of game birds and game animals, and shall keep the premises in a neat, orderly, and sanitary condition.
4. The use or occupancy of the land under this permit shall commence within - months from the date hereof and shall be exercised at least _ days each year.
5. The permittee shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent and suppress forest, brush, and grass fires, and to prevent the pollution of waters on or In the vicinity of the lands.
6. Authorized representatives of the Department of the Interior and other Federal Agencies, and game wardens shall at all times have the right to enter the premises on official business.
7. The permitee shall not enclose roads or trails commonly in public use.
8. The permittee shall pay the United States for any damage to its property resulting from this use.
9. The permitee shall immediately notify the authorized officer of a change of address.
10. This pennlt Is subject to all of the applicable provisions of all regulations (43 CFR, Part 258) which are made a part hereof.
11. The permittee agrees to have the seria1 number of this permit marked or painted on each advertising displsy erected or maintained under the authority of such permit.
12. The permittee shall not cut any timber on the lands without prior permission of the authorized officer.
13. This permit is subject to the provisions of Executive Order No. 10925 of March 6, 1961, which sets forth the non discrimination clauses. A copy of which may be obtained from the signing officer.
DESCRIPTION
1. The general public shall be advised at least 48 hours or two business days in advance of any firing via all the available public news media of:
a. The dates, periods of the day, and type (artillery) of the proposed firing.
b. A general description or map of the area which would be affected or dangerous to enter during the firing.
2. Special notice in writing containing the same information and period of advance notice shall be furnished the City of Anchorage, Water Utility Division Manager, before all firing periods.
3. That upon termination of the permit, the applicant shall furnish a statement certifying the area to be safe from contamination by unexploded ammunition or if it cannot, to take suitable measures to render it safe from this hazard.
4. Firing will not be conducted during periods of high fire danger. The U. S. Army is solely responsible for determining the potential fire hazard on lands covered by this permit. The estimate of wildland fire potential shall be based upon known fire danger and forecasted weather. Said information is made available through the Chief of the Fort Richardson Fire Department.
5. In the event a grass, brush, or forest fire occurs on lands covered by this permit, the U.S. Army shall take suppression action immediately with all resources necessary to achieve control at the earliest possible time.
6. When a fire does occur, the U. S. Army shall notify the Bureau of Land Management Fire Control Dispatcher and appraise him of:
a. The situation in general
b. Suppression action in progress
c. Planned suppression action
d. Estimated time of control
Such notification does not in any manner relieve the U. S. Army from the primary responsibility for suppression of said fire.
7. This permit will be cancelled five years from the date of issuance or at the time the lands involved are tentatively approved for patent to the State of Alaska; whichever occurs first. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/20/1966 |
Update or Other Action |
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Anchorage District and Land Office, 555 Cordova Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 to Corps of Engineers, US Army Engineer District. Anchorage 063442 SLUP 20.1 Amendment Issued
On May 16, 1966, a special land use permit issued to the Corps of Engineers, U. SQ Army Engineer District, Alaska for approximately 11,947.04 acres of land within T. 12 N., R. 1 W.; T. 13 N., R. 1 W., and T. 12 N., R. 2 W., S.M., pursuant to an application filed
September 7, 1965. The lands are to be used for a safety zone, as an impact and ricochet area for firing at Fort Richardsono A portion of the lands described in the application were suspended from the permit because they were encompassed within homestead entry applicatio~which
though rejected by this office, were on appeal. The homestead cases have since been closed of record.
Accordingly, the special land use permit under Anchorage 063442 is hereby amended to include the following described lands: T. 12 N., R. 2 W., S.M. Section 23: NE 1/4 SE 1/4, Section 24: N1/2, SW 3/4 containing approximately 520 acres. This amendment is issued solely to include additional lands and in no other way changes the permit as issued. Signed Pearl C. Peters, Chief, Lands Adjudication. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/31/1967 |
Update or Other Action |
BRIEF REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORT FORT RICHARDSON, DAVIS FIRING RANGE ACQUISITION BY PERMIT
AUTHORITY: First Indorsement dated 10 June 1965, from Headquarters, U. S. Army, Alaska, to District Engineer, U. S. Engineer District, Alaska, Subject: "Range Training Facilities, Moving Target Tank Range at Davis Range, Fort Richardson." Copy attached as Exhibit "A".
The project area is within the Ship and Campbell Creek Watersheds southeast of the existing Fort Richardson Military Reservation. The City of Anchorage lies approximately 7 miles to the northwest.
The subject area is located adjacent to the existing Military Reservation and consists of three parcels of raw undeveloped land containing a total of 10,181.65 acres, more or less. A legal description is attached as Exhibit "B" and a drawing as Exhibit "D". The land is to be used in conjunction with the adjacent Miiitary Reservation, as a tank firing range facility with impact and ricochet areas as shown on Exhibit "D".
The entire area has been selected by the State of Alaska but has not yet been granted tentative approval, therefore, jurisdiction is still held by the Bureau of Land Management.
The Bureau of Land Management, with the concurrence of the State of Alaska, is willing to issue a five-year Special Land Use Permit at no cost and subject only to the conditions as set forth in attached Exhibit "C". Fire danger is considered minimal as non-explosive training
ammunition will be used. Since portions of the subject area are within the Ship and Campbell Creek Watersheds, the City of Anchorage was made aware of the Army's interest. They have no objection to the proposed use as long as notification is given at least 48 hours in sdvance
of any firing.
It has generally been found in this area that undeveloped wilderness land will sell for around $40 to $60 per acre in parcels of 160 to 320 acres. The State of Alaska places a minimum value of $5.00 per acre on such land. Considering the size of the subject acreage together
with its limited potential utility, it is assigned an estimated over-all market value of $10.00 per acre or a rounded total-value of $101,800. Based on a fair rate of return of 6 per cent, the estimated annual rental value of this land is $6,100.
Since only limited use is to be made of the subject land acquisition by means of a Special Land Use Permit is considered sufficient.
Possession is desired by September of this year as it is not proposed that the firing range will be ready for use prior to that time.
Upon receipt of a Real Estate Directive, the Bureau of Land Management and the State of Alaska, Division of Lands, will be contacted with regard to the issuance, by the BLM, of a five-year Special Land Use Permit.
The tank firing range facility is required to provide for the training and combat readiness of troops supported by the Fort Richardson installation. The availability of useable land within the Military Reservation is limited, therefore, it has become necessary to extend
the boundaries of the facility to include the subject land which is public domain.' In planning the development of this firing range, due consideration has been given to safety criteria. Since the use is to be of a limited nature. and concurrence has been received from the interested agencies and parties, it is recommended that approval be granted for acquisition by permit.
This is to certify that the foregoing planning report information has been developed by the undersigned from personal knowledge of facts stated and from information furnished by the Fort Richardson Post Engineers office. Signed by William K. Henry Chief, Appraisal Branch, Morgan Wheeler Chief, Real Estate Division, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers May 31, 1967. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/1/1967 |
Update or Other Action |
Department of Army letter to Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. Subject: Land Acquisition, Fort Richardson, Alaska dated September 1, 1967.
1. Based upon the recommendation of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, I have determined that a military necessity, exists for the acquisition of that land described below:
a. BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Those three tracts or parcels of land, currently Public Domain lands, situated in the State of Alaska, at Fort Richardson and as outlined in red and green on a map, Exhibit "D", incorporated in the Real Estate Planning Report, dated 31 May 1967.
b. ESTIMATED ACREAGE: 10,181.65 acres.
c. PROPOSED USE: Impact and ricochet areas in connection with the Moving Target Tank Range at Davis Range, Fort Richardson.
d. ESTIMATED COST: None.
e. METHOD OF ACQUISITION: Special Land Use Permit from the State of Alaska and/or the Department of the Interior.
2. This Real Estate Directive is issued subject to:
Approval being obtained from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (I&L) for acquiring the aforementioned permit, and, thereafter notifying the interested Members of Congress of the approved action.
A. Tyler Port, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installation and Logistics). |
Louis Howard |
| 9/14/1967 |
Update or Other Action |
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (INSTALIATIONS AND LCGISTICS)
SUBJECT: land Acquisition, Fort Richardson, Alaska
The aquisition of 10,181.65 acres of public domain land adjacent to Fort Richardson Military Reservation by special use permit from the Bureau of land Management and/or the state of Alaska, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "C" of your memorandum of 1 September 1967, is approved in accordance with the provisions of Department of Defense Instruction 4165.12. Signed Edward J. Sheridan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, (Properties and Installations). |
Louis Howard |
| 11/15/1967 |
Update or Other Action |
APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF PLO 6244, WITHDRAWING LAND FOR
DAVIS RANGE, TRACT M, FORT RICHARDSON MILITARY RESERVATION
1. The U.S, Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District in its legal capacity, under delegation of authority by 10 U.S.C.. § 2663, et. seq., unless otherwise specified, as agent for the Department of Defense, USARPAC, hereby fonnally requests from the Secretary of the Interior, a twenty (20) year renewal on the currently withdrawal of land known as Davis Range, Tract M, Fort Richardson Military Reservation.
2. This withdrawal renewal application approval comes under the general authority of the Secretary of the Interior as specified in 43 U.S.C. § 1714.
3. The lands that are the subject ofthis application are to continue to be reserved for use
by the Department of the Army for the Fort Richardson-Davis Range. The legal description is as follows:
Seward Meridian
T. 12 N., R. 1 W.,
Sec. 6, W 1/2
Sec. 7, W 1/2
Sec. 18, N 1/2 NWY 1/4, N 1/2 S 1/2 NW 1/4.
T.12 N., R. 2W.,
Secs. 1 and 2;
Sec. 3, N 1/2 NE 1/4, SE 1/4 NE 1/4
Sec. 11, NE 1/4, NE 1/4 NW 1/4, N 1/2 SE 1/4,
SE 1/4 SE 1/4;
Sec. 12;
Sec. 13, N 1/2 N 1/2, N 1/4 S 1/2 NE 1/4, N 1/2 SE 1/4
NW 1/4
The area described aggregates approximately 3,340 acres near Anchorage, Alaska.
4. This application for renewal of withdrawal doesnot overlap, or add lands to any other existing withdrawal.
5. The lands identified above for continued withdrawal will continue to be used for the same purposes as were identified in the initial withdrawal. These purposes continue to be for the Department of the Army to use the land at Fort Richardson, Alaska for cold weather survival and infantry tactical training purposes for a period of twenty years.
6. Since the identified withdrawn lands have been in use for approximately twenty (20) years, there are no suitable alternative sites available as the costs of obtaining alternative sites would be prohibitive.
7. The Department ofthe Army shall control and manage off road vehicle use to
minimize and prevent disturbance to fragile slopes and soils.
8. The Department of the Army shall not allow further unexploded ordinance contamination. Prior to returning the lands to public land status, the lands shall be made safe for nonmilitary use.
9. Any water use, which mayor may not be needed for the identified training will not vary from the original withdrawal use.
10. Records relating to this application for renewal may be examined by interested persons at the U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska Headquarters, Real Estate Division, 2204 Third Street, Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506.
|
Louis Howard |
| 9/26/1974 |
Update or Other Action |
CERTIFICATE OF CLEARANCE UNRESTRICTED FOR SURFACE USE
All lands within the area known as Artillery Impact and Ricochet Area JJ located east of Anchorage and Southeast of Fort Richardson totalling 10,181.65 acres more or less, as requested in Special Land Use Application 063442 and authorized in Special Land Use Permit 20.1
as ammended (see map attachment 1), have been given careful visual search and have been cleared of all dangerous and/or explosive hazards reasonably possible to detect. Subject clearance permits the use of these lands for any purpose not requiring development beneath
the surface of the ground. Said lands are described as follows:
Three parcels of land located near Anchorage, Alaska, in the Third State Judicial District, and being more specifically described in aliquot parts as follows:
PARCEL 1 - IMPACT AREA
T.13N.,R. 1W., S.M.
Sec. 29 Sl/2S1/2
NWl/4SWl/4
Sec. 30 S 1/2
Sec. 31 All that portion that lies north of the North boundary of P.L.O. 280, being the divide between Ship and Campbell Creeks
Sec. 32 W 1/2
W 1/2El/2
NEl/4NEl/4
T. 12 N., R. lW., S.M.
Sec. 5 NWl/4
WI/2SWI/4
Sec. 6 All that portion that lies east of the West boundary of P.L.O. 280, being the
divide between Ship and Campbell Creeks
Sec. 7 All that portion of the Nl/2 that lies
east of the West boundary of P.L.O. 280,
being the divide between Ship and Campbell
Creeks
Containing 2276.69 acres, more or less
PARCEL 2 RICOCHET AREA
T. 13 N., R. lW., S.M.
Sec. 19 S1/2
SW 1/4 NW 1/4
Sec. 20 Sl/2
Sec. 21 Sl/2
Sec. 22 Sl/2SWl/4
SWl/4SEl/4
Sec. 27 W1/2
W1/2El/2
Sec. 28 - All
Sec. 29 - Nl/2
- Nl/2SEl/4
- NEl/4SWl/4
Sec. 30 - Nl/2
Sec. 32 - SEl/4NEl/4
- El/2SEl/4
Sec. 33 - All
Sec. 34 - Wl/2
T. 12 N., R. lW., S.M.
Sec. 3 - Wl/2NWl/4
- NWl/4SWl/4
Sec. 4 - All
Sec. 5 - El/2
- El/2SWl/4
Sec. 7 All that portion of the sl/2 that lies east of the West boundary of P.L.O. 280, being
the divide between Ship and Campbell Creeks
Sec. 8 - All
Sec. 9 - Nl/2
- SWl/4
- NEl/4SEl/4
Sec. 16 - Nl/2NWl/4
- SWl/4NWl/4
- NWl/4SWl/4
Sec. 17 - All that portion that lies northeast of the & West boundary of P.L.O. 280, being the
18 divide between Ship and Campbell Creeks
Sec. 20 - NWl/4NEl/4
All that portion of the NWl/4 that lies east of the West boundary of P.L.O. 280, being
the divide between Ship and Campbell Creeks
Containing 7664.96 acres, more or less.
PARCEL 3 - RICOCHET AREA
T. 12 N., R. 2W., S.M.
Sec. 3 - Nl/2NW1/4
- SEl/4NWl/4
SWl/4NEl/4
- Nl/2SEl/4
Containing 240.00 acres, more or less
TOTAL 10,181.65 acres, more or less.
It is possible that subsurface ordnance remains undetected in this area because of the marsh lands, muskeg, and the nature of land lise prior to this clearance operation.
Attached maps (USGS Map Sheet Anchorage A7 1:63,360 Series, attachment 1; overlay of Special Land Use Permit 20.1, attachment 2; and overlay method of clearance, overlay, attachment 3) reflect the areas decontaminated and the methods used. The center portion of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 were cleared by personnel on the ground due to the brush and thick vegetation in the creek valley. The other areas in this operation Were cleared by aerial observation from helicopters due to the absence of thick vegetation and the steep terrain in the remaining areas.
All present and/or future owners, users, and/or inhabitants of these lands are hereby advised that, if at any time an item identified or suspected of being an explosive hazard is located, the nearest government or civil authorities should be immediately notified.
Clearance was conducted during the period 1 May 1974 to 15 July 1974.
Signed Thomas A. Henry, 1LT, CE, Officer in Charge. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/12/1974 |
Update or Other Action |
BLM Anchorage District Office letter dated December 12, 1974 to Colonel Harold R. Dunn Chief of Staff HQ US Army Alaska.
We are In receipt of your certificate of clearance dated September 26. 1974 for Special Land Use Permit No. A-063442.
It would appear from your letter that although you made visual reconnaissance of the area, you cannot completely assure us the area has been adequately decontaminated to protect the public.
Item three In the stipulations for the Special land Use Permit states as follows:
3. That upon termination of the permit, the applicant shall furnish a statement certifying the area to be safe from contamination by unexploded ammunition or if it cannot, to take suitable measures to render It so.
This would appear to us that your responsibility to protect the public from possible Injury has not been adequately met.
As you may well know, this area is increasingly used by the publlc for recreational pursuits and will become more important in the near future.
All measures necessary to protect their safety must be pursued.
In light of present circumstances, we cannot as yet close this casefile until the public's safety can be assured. Please contact us with proposals for additional measures to assure adequate protection of future users so that your responsibility to the publlc's safety can be alleviated.
We have discussed some ideas that might remedy. the situation, possibly working it into a military exercise of some type that could embrace mine detection, ordinance recovery/disposal or something similar that would reasonably clear the area of unexploded ordnance. The minimum might be establishment of a perpetual signing program to adequately warn of all individuals of possible encounters with unexploded ordnance. The sign should include the officer to contact for proper disposal in cases of ordnance discovery.
Please contact us so we might discuss possible appropriate alternatives. Signed Gerald W. Zamber, Acting District Manager. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/27/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
BLM letter to Colonel John W. Pierce Chief Engineer, (NPARE-PC) Alaska District Corps of Engineers dated January 27, 1994.
This letter concerns the disposition of approximately 12,000 of the estimated 15,000 acres of land located on the Fort Richardson Military Reservation known as the Davis Range.
In February 1966, a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) was issued to the Corps of Engineers for use as an impact and ricochet (safety) area for artillery firing at Fort Richardson. The permit
encompassed 11,947.04 acres, and was later amended to encompass a slightly larger area. This SLUP expired on May 14, 1971.
In the stipulations for the SLUP, item three states that " ... upon termination of the permit, the applicant shall furnish a statement certifying the area to be safe from contamination by unexploded ammunition or if it cannot, to take suitable measures
to render it so."
In your last correspondence, dated June, 1984, it was stated that the U.S. Army was conducting decontamination feasibility studies on several military sites throughout the state. In light of the considerable amount of time that has passed since the termination of the SLUP, and the last correspondence on file, we would appreciate your office informing us on the current disposition of this issue. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Eric schweska, Realty Specialist, at (907) 267-1252. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/31/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
405-90a REAL ESTATE DISPOSAL FILE FORT RICHARDSON (DAVIS RANGE) Disposal of Tract JJ - la, 181.65 Acres ELM Special Use Permit A-063442 Dated 3 Sep 1965, As Amended
CENPA-RE-MD (405-90a) 31 January 1995 MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, U.S. Anny Alaska, ATTN: APVR-PW-BMR, 600 Richardson Drive #6500, Fort Richardson, AK 99505-5500
SUBJECT: Disposal ofTract n, Davis Range, Fort Richardson
1. Special Land Use Permit No. A-063442 dated 3 September 1965, as amended, authorized the
Army use of 10,181.65 acres of land, known as the Davis Range on Fort Richardson, for an
impact and ricochet area. The permit was issued by the Bureau ofLand Management (ELM) and
expired in 1971.
2. Special stipulation three directed the Army, upon termination of the permit, provide
certification that the land was safe from contamination of unexploded ordinance, or take suitable steps to make it so. Forwarded is a copy of letter dated 23 January 1995 from BLM pertaining to the Anny's responsibility to ensure public safety at the contaminated site pending a full cleanup of the area. Also forwarded are copies of related correspondence between BLM and our office regarding this issue.
3. Please provide a response directly to BLM, with a copy furnished us, on the possibility of
meeting and discussing the matter to develop a cooperative agreement between the Army and
BLM. I can be contacted at 753-2892 if you have comments or questions.
Signed Patricia A. Moore, Realty Specialist Management & Disposal Branch. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/1/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Part I of III
Hart Crowser Research Results History of Chemical Warfare Materiel at PACAF Bases Installations in Alaska (AK) March 1, 2000 A-8534 Contract No. DACA85-95-D-0010 Delivery Order No. 30. Available documents indicate that the Air Force & its predecessor, the Army Air Force (AAF), have handled CWM & toxic chemical agents in AK from 1941 through at least 1954. The agents involved were exclusively mustard (H or HS) & lewisite (L). It appears that chemical training & the concurrent use of Chemical Agent Identification Sets (CAIS) began in 1941 & continued through at least the mid-1950s. Of the total reported quantities of CWM shipped to Air Force installations in AK, located records can account for the disposal of approximately 66 percent of bulk toxic chemical agent supplies & 39 percent of munitions filled with toxic chemical agents.
Based on our understanding of common practices for the period, it is likely that most of the unaccounted for CWM were either disposed of by ocean dumping, or transferred to another command. However, procedures indicate that for small amounts, such as what is contained in CAIS or single rounds of artillery, local burial was allowed. CAIS have been exhumed in two areas in AK, including Fort Wainwright & Fort Richardson. In addition, CAIS have washed ashore at Dutch Harbor likely representing material dumped at sea forty years earlier.
Probably as part of the preparation to retake Attu & Kiska, in September 1942, the Commanding General, AK Defense Command requested the shipment of vesicant agent & airplane spray tanks to stations of his command to permit prompt retaliation in event of enemy use of toxic materials (JCH-3). Chemical warfare supplies of various types were stocked at Fort Richardson. As the enemy was pushed westward, these supplies were shipped to forward supply points.
These stocks included everything from gas masks to toxic chemical agents (JCH-5). Basically, the bombs & bulk agents followed the bomber groups west, so that offensive chemicals were immediately ready for retaliatory strikes.
By March 26, 1943, the command reported that "Chemical munitions now on hand or authorized are sufficient to carry on offensive chemical operations in the present situation." Bulk vesicants for use by the AAF as well as 100-pound M47A2 bombs appear to have begun to arrive in AK in late March or early April 1943. On April 1, 1943, a shipment of 1,500 M47A2, eleven toncontainers of L, & fifteen ton-containers of H arrived in Anchorage by way of Seward, AK, & the Seattle Port of Embarkation (JCH-2).
Other shipments must also have arrived because by May 7, 1943, CWS had shipped 140 tons of bulk H & L to the Alaskan Defense Command, & by August 1943,10,000 M47A2 H-filled bombs had been shipped (JCH-4). The Army's goal for toxic chemical agent stocks for the AAF was to provide the Alaska Defense Command with "bulk chemicals in the proportion of 70 percent HS & 30 percent L, based on 60 M33 spray tanks & 1,200 M-10 spray tanks, at 3.75 missions per tank" (JGK-18). It was thought that L might be more effective in Alaska because of its low freezing point relative to the freezing point of H or HS, & was therefore more likely to be a liquid when dispersed (JGK-26).
To safely store these toxic chemicals & munitions, the AK Defense Command had to build storage facilities at bases throughout AK. Initially, the protection of chemical supplies was difficult because, "Warehouses were at a premium, & it was almost impossible to obtain them, making it necessary to store materials under canvas." Sometime before June 1943, the military built a magazine at an unspecified location at Fort Richardson to house toxic chemical munitions. In addition, toxic gas yards were established at the six Alaskan posts that stored bulk toxic gases (JGK-73). Although no maps were found identifying these yards, they were described as follows: "The theater stocks of chemical agents are located in various toxic gas yards which in most instances are far removed from the other station & post activities" (JGK-75).
The most recent mention of toxic chemical agents in bulk or in munitions was a 1959 incident report from Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) at Eielson mentioning the disposal of a toxic chemical mortar at that base (JGK-118). Other mentions of toxic chemical agents found in the research pertain to the Army, primarily at Fort Greely (near Delta Junction). EAFB was used in 1978 as a transshipment point for CAIS found at Forts Richardson & Wainwright (KJN-1 9).
EAFB was the major supply center from which toxic chemical materiel were sent as the materiel "followed the enemy west." |
Louis Howard |
| 3/1/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
PART II OF III
According to Ammunition Supply Reports for Oversea Commands filled out by the Alaskan Department, from June 1944 to November 1944 (the dates for which we have found copies of the report), the Alaskan Department had 91.5 tons of H & 1353.5 tons of L for the entire period (JGK-51, JGK-58, JGK-61, JGK-62, & JGK-70). These ammunition supply reports also show that some H was used in training, as well as some of the land mines. The reports show 6,300 pounds of H & 443 land mines expended in training. Handwritten notes updating 'The Use of Gas in the Pacific Theaters" on April 30, 1945 (originally drafted in May 1944 for the Army Chief of Staff), indicate that 92 tons of H & 1,353 tons of L were in AK, as well as 5,602 100-pound H-filled bombs (KJN-11).
EAFB certainly had a toxic gas yard during WWII. Record was found of a location of this yard in a memorandum of understanding between the Army & the Air Force, where it was agreed in May 1950 that the area known as the “AC inert storage area”, near the junction of Light Road & Hill Road, & approximately 9,000 feet north of Whitney Station, would continue to be used jointly by the Army & Air Force for storage of toxic chemicals & chemical munitions (CSS-99 Joint Agreement on Division of Responsibilities in the Operation of Separate Army & Air Force Installations at Fort Richardson & Elmendorf Air Force Base).
In addition, the chemical supply section of the U.S. Army, AK, had the use of igloo No. B-8 in ammunition storage area "B" of EAFB for storage of toxic chemical ammunition, although because of lack of space some items had to be stored outside, (EMB-81). It is not clear whether this arrangement continued after the completion of Fort Richardson in 1951 (JCH-28).
Chemical training performed at EAFB during WWII included spraying of equipment with dilute mustard to practice decontamination. There is also record that the detonation sets were used in the winter, with the troops returning to the detonation sites throughout the winter to observe that the H had not yet dissipated (JGK-4).
Mention was made of bulk toxic chemical at EAFB in 1954, specifically 28 tons of H gas. Although a study was conducted evaluating the most cost effective means for dealing with the agent, no conclusion was shown (GAH-1). The recommendation was to dispose of it at the point of storage. At this time, sea dumping was still the preferred method of disposal (JGK-182). No record was found confirming that this chemical agent was actually dumped at sea.
The Poleline Road chemical disposal area, located on Fort Richardson, was active in approximately this time frame. To date, no large containers of toxic chemical agent have been found there, although CAIS have been found & removed (CSS-98). This site is presently under investigation by the Army at Fort Richardson.
Other than acting as a transshipment point for CAIS removed from Forts Richardson & Wainwright in the late 1970s, there is no further mention of toxic chemical agent use or storage at Elmendorf.
Initially, the Alaska Defense Command had to store most of its chemical warfare supplies outside under canvas at Fort Richardson. Sometime before June 1943, a warehouse & depot were built at Fort Richardson where the depot section of the 97th Chemical Composite Company received various types of chemical warfare supplies from the Seattle Port of Embarkation & Prince Rupert, Canada. The depot section issued supplies as needed to each post, all of which had warehouses by June 1943 (JCH-5). Our research did not reveal the location of these warehouses.
Beyond the regular training of troops in defense against gas attack, on June 2-4, 1943, CWS personnel conducted a large-scale demonstration of chemical warfare activities for the men stationed at Fort Richardson. The demonstration included the decontamination of areas & vehicles (JGK-55).
Supply requests were located for the months of January to June, & August 1944. The Alaska Depot ordered 36 detonation sets in January & February of that year. It also ordered three or four toxic gas sets per month for a total of 24 sets, as well as 320 gallons of H (80 gallons per month during January to April 1944) (JGK-69). Similar to other chemical warfare supplies, these items should have arrived at Fort Richardson from Seattle & then have been distributed to various bases. The detonation sets were authorized for distribution at the level of one per 200 personnel assigned, & the toxic gas sets were authorized at 5 per Chemical Company. It was the local Depot's job to keep track of whether units had the proper number on hand. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/1/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Part III of III
As part of the Army's program to destroy CAIS, in 1978, the Army removed fifteen sets from Fort Richardson & four sets from Fort Wainwright for disposal
(JGK-1 14).
It is possible that CAIS were present at & possibly disposed of at all Air Force bases throughout AK. From the orders & field manuals collected, it appears likely that chemical defense training took place at every or nearly every base in Alaska during WWII & that such training could have involved the three types of CAIS available to the Army at that time: set, gas, toxic, M1; set, gas, identification, instructional, Ml; & set, gas, identification, detonation, M1 (JGK-48). Furthermore, chemical defense training by Alaska Air Command personnel continued into the 1950s.
A potential disposal site for excess chemical agents from EAFB is the Poleline Road chemical disposal area, presently under investigation by the Army.
Because the Army and Air Force were a common service until after WWII, and many AFBs were formerly Army posts, Army- and Air Force-specific items are discussed in this section. Munitions items known to have contained vesicants or nerve agents include:
- Bombs- H, HD, L;
- 1-ton tanks - H, HD, L;
- CAIS kits - H, CC;
- 105mm projectile - H, HD;
- 4.2-inch mortar round - HD, HT;
- 155mm projectile - H, HD; and
- Bulk containers.
Other artillery projectiles can potentially contain toxic chemical agents, as can bomblets from cluster bomb units; however, there is no record that either of these were stored in Alaska.
Although ocean dumping was the preferred method of disposal for any chemical agent, small amounts of agent, such as what was found in a CAIS kit or a single artillery round, were authorized to be land disposed. If one leaked and posed an immediate hazard, there were two courses of action that ammunition handlers were trained to undertake:
- Overpack it in a container with absorbent and ship it to a disposal facility, such as Johnston Atoll.
- Dig a hole, line it with decontaminating agent (a strong oxidizer), place the munition in the hole, cover it with more decontaminating agent, and close the hole (this method was taught in standard Army nuclear, chemical, and biological training as recently as 1983). If a site is found that matches this description, one should suspect that it contained a leaking chemical munition. The associated danger would be that the munition did not empty adequately for the chemical agent to fully react. Any agent that contacted the decontaminating material would have long since been rendered innocuous. Common decontamination materials were chlorine-based bleaches, such as sodium hypochlorite, caustic soda (sodium hydroxide), and decontaminating solution 2 (DS-2), which was diethylene triamine. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/17/2000 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Meeting on November 17, 2000 with BLM, US ARMY-Alaska and DEC staff regarding the Fort Richardson Davis Range. The discussion was started by BLM informing us that the State Park had expressed an interest in obtaining rights or ownership to the land the Davis Range occupies from BLM.
We were concerned with such issues as: UXO (unexploded ordnance) and proper UXO screening for closed ranges such as the Davis Range and site access control to areas which UXO may still exist should the land in fact be transferred and the range consider closed out.
The discussions covered a variety of topics:
1) The status of the land ownership (US ARMY or BLM) and whether or not the range is considered an active range.
2) If the land was still considered an active range, then it is available for the Army to utilize as any other training area. The Army will be researching on whether or not it has to complete some other necessary steps to have the range back under their control since the original 1970s proposal for transfer to BLM.
3) BLM did not accept the Army's letter of transfer back to BLM in the 1970s since BLM did not believe that the land had been properly cleared for unexploded ordnance (UXO). By not accepting the letter of transfer, it remains in federal hands and not been transferred over.
4) By March 1, 2001, the Army will have a position paper or decision in writing, after conferring with BLM, on what the status of the land is with regards to being active range for Fort Richardson to use.
|
Louis Howard |
| 3/15/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
[Federal Register: March 15, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 51)] [Notices][Page 15138]
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Army proposes to extend Public Land Order No. 6244 for a 20 year period. This order withdrew public land from operation of the surface land and mining laws, for military purposes at the Fort Richardson Military Reservation known as the Davis
Range Tract M. This notice also gives an opportunity to comment on the proposed action and to request a public meeting.
DATES: Comments and requests for a public meeting must be received by June 13, 2001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 13, 2001, the U.S. Department of the Army requested that Public Land Order No. 6244 be extended for an additional 20 year period. This withdrawal was made for cold weather survival and infantry tactical training purposes at the Fort Richardson
Military Reservation known as the Davis Range Tract M. Public Land Order No. 6244 will expire on May 13, 2002.
This withdrawal comprises approximately 3,340 acres of public land located in Sections 6, 7, and 18, T. 12 N., R. 1 W., and Sections 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13, T. 12 N., R. 2 W., Seward Meridian and is described in Public Land Order No. 6244. A complete description can be provided
by the Alaska State Office at the address shown above. For a period of 90 days from the date of publication of this notice, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or
objections in connection with the proposed extension may present their views in writing to the Alaska State Director of the Bureau of Land Management at the address indicated above. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/3/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
The DoD is currently establishing policy and guidance for munitions response actions under the MMRP. However, key program drivers developed to date conclude that munitions response actions will be conducted under the process outlined in the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 300) as authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 9605, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), Pub. L. 99-499, (hereinafter CERCLA).
|
Louis Howard |
| 9/30/2002 |
CERCLA PA |
Final U.S. Army Closed, Transferring and Transferred Range/Site Inventory for Ft. Richardson (September 2002) received. The Phase 3 CTT Range Inventory Report for Fort Richardson (Range Inventory), completed in September 2002, marks the completion of the Preliminary Assessment (PA) phase of work under CERCLA.
To meet immediate, short-term, and long-term needs, the United States (U.S.) Army is conducting its Range Inventory in three phases. The first phase (Phase 1) involved a data call issued to each U.S. Army Major Command (MACOM) requesting general information about ranges on their installations. This phase was also referred to as the Advance Range Survey (ARS). The ARS allowed the Army to meet its immediate needs; however, a more detailed inventory was necessary. The Army decided to divide the detailed follow-on inventory into two parts, an active and inactive (All) inventory (Phase 2) and a closed, transferring, and transferred (CTT) inventory (Phase 3).
The results of the Phase 2 Inventory for the installation were documented in an All range inventory binder submitted to the Army Environmental Center (AEC), the respective MACOM, and the installation. The Phase 2 binder contains maps that delineate the All range bourdaries. The remainder of the property inside the installation's boundary is designated as non-All property by default. If the Phase 2 Inventory was conducted at an installation, the data was provided to the Phase 3 CTT Team prior to the start of the data collection effort.
This Phase 3 inventory began as an inventory of just Army CTT ranges. However, as a result of the congressional requirements outlined in the Defense Authorization Act of 2002 (Public law 107-107) and resultant changes to the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), the Phase 3 Inventory is a comprehensive history of both CTT ranges and other CTT sites with Unexploded Ordnance (UXO), Discarded Military Munitions (DMM) and Munitions Constituents (MC). All locations previously or currently owned, leased or possessed by the DoD (except those currently classified as All ranges, or permitted military munition treatment and/or disposal facilities) are included in this inventory. The U.s. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are the predominant executors of the Phase 3 inventory. The inventory specifically focused on the non-All areas as defined in Phase 2 and areas around the installation that may have been used in the past for munition-related testing or training.
Specific requirements of the Phase 3 inventory included: 1) mapping out the CTT ranges and sites with UXO, DMM or MC, 2) collecting and preparing data to be uploaded into the Army Range Inventory Database (ARID), 3) conducting an assessment of explosives safety risk using the Risk Assessment Code (RAC) methodology for each cn range or site with UXO or DMM identified in the inventory, and 4) determining which sites on the inventory qualify for the Military Munition
Response Program (MMRP).
The data collection portion of the Fort Richardson CTT I nventory was conducted beginning March 4, 2002 and involved a week long site visit to the installation. While on site, the data collection team reviewed historical records and interviewed installation personnel concerning potential cn ranges, disposal areas and other UXO or MC sites.
The purpose of this report is to present the results of the Phase 3 GTT Inventory. The report includes two individual GTT maps for the installation, a copy of the data tables that will be submitted electronically to AEG for uploading into the ARID, completed RAG worksheets for all GTT ranges and sites with UXO or DMM, DERP eligibility determination, and identification of which ranges/sites qualify for the MMRP.
Although the inventory did not require exhaustive archive searches to be performed, it did require historical research to identify sites subject to this inventory, locations, periods of use, the types of munitions used, and other specific information regarding the site. The majority of this data was obtained by reviewing installation records and interviewing personnel at, or involved with, the installation. Although the data presented in this report is believed to be accurate, it has not been verified by field sampling.
The following is a summary of the range/site area at Fort Richardson:
All Range Area - 61,567 acres (from Phase 2)
CTT Range/Site Area - 56,018.01 acres
Total Range/Site area - 117,585.01 acres
The majority of the transferred ranges located on land are on property owned by the BLM. The remainder is a combination of State and private property. The portions of these ranges located on the water are owned by the State of Alaska.
Fort Richardson includes three National Guard enclaves, Bryant Airfield, Camp Denali and MTA Camp Carroll, as well as Eklutna Glacier Training Area. There are no CTT ranges, UXO, DMM, or MC sites within the four areas.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/30/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
The Draft DoD Directive 4715.MRP (September 2003 version) states that munitions response will be conducted “in accordance with CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).” |
Louis Howard |
| 1/18/2006 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
MMRP Kickoff meeting held. Representatives from the organizations listed above met at Fort Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. Mr. Gene Barber of TechLaw, Inc. (TechLaw) presented an overview of the three phases of the MMRP & explained that the program only addresses closed, transferred, or transferring ranges with releases that occurred prior to 30 September 2002. Releases include explosive safety hazards, as well as media contamination resulting from unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, & munitions constituents. The MMRP excludes operational ranges, operating storage/manufacturing facilities, & permitted treatment or disposal facilities.
Mr. Barber explained that the MMRP protocol generally follows the phased Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act (CERCLA) process. The Phase 3 Range Inventory constitutes the completion of the CERCLA Preliminary Assessment (PA) Phase.
Mr. Barber introduced the Final Phase 3 Inventory Report completed for Fort Richardson, the Site Inspection (SI) Project Team, & the MMRP SI goals. The goals of the MMRP SI include collecting the appropriate amount of data necessary to make a decision on whether sites warrant further action, such as a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Interim Removal Action, or No Further Action. The secondary goal involves collecting information that helps develop more effective costs to complete & to complete the Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocols.
Ms. Cheryl Mahoney of TechLaw outlined the twelve Munitions Response Sites at Fort Richardson. She explained the historical use & site conditions for each of the following sites: Davis Range A, Davis Range B, Grezelka Machine Gun Range, Mahon Machine Gun Range, McGee Machine Gun Range, Mortar Range 1A, Mortar Range 1B, Mortar Range 1C, Mortar Range 2A, Mortar Range 2B, the Pistol Range, & the Rifle Range.
Discussion regarding the ranges identified at Fort Richardson began with Ms. Cristal Fosbrook informing the meeting attendees that the Army is in the process of trying to reacquire both Davis Ranges A & B. Further discussion indicated that work would not need to be conducted at these two ranges since it is the Army’s intention to reacquire the areas for use as a training area. During the discussion, it was noted that the Army would also like to reacquire all of the range fans located outside of Fort Richardson’s eastern boundary, which would include Grezelka Machine Gun Range, Mahon Machine Gun Range, & McGee Machine Gun Range. Discussion continued regarding these ranges & the importance of whether or not they would be reacquired by the Army. It was noted that an SI will not need to be conducted at these ranges if they will be utilized by the Army for training. Mr. Mark Prieksat stated that the issue with the range fans located outside Fort Richardson’s boundary is that they currently comprise Chugach State Park, & that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) may not issue another permit to the Army for its use.
Mr. Barber then described the SI process. He explained that the Technical Project Planning (TPP) process will involve the stakeholder group in the development of: 1) project objectives, 2) data quality objectives & the conceptual site model, 3) sampling & analysis approaches, & 4) additional data collection options that meet the facilities short & long term goals.
Field work activities were then discussed within the stakeholder group. TechLaw asked when the best time to conduct the field work is in Anchorage. The group indicated that generally May through October is the best time period. Snow can arrive as early as mid-October & remain as late as May. It was noted that the vegetation in the area generally dies off in the spring & fall, & might be the best time to conduct field activities. During the summer, Fort Richardson is extremely overgrown with vegetation, & it was noted that visual surveys would probably be more successful during the spring & fall. It was also noted that in Alaska a combination of geophysics & ground penetrating radar is best for field investigations.
Mr. Kevin Gardner suggested that Public Affairs be notified, specifically for sampling work being conducted this summer. Ms. Young Chong informed the meeting attendees that their will be two informational sessions regarding field work activities; an established RAB & informational meetings. Further discussion indicated that Fort Richardson does have an RAB & their next meeting will be in April. Mr. Barber stated that the Public Affairs office would be notified about field work activities depending upon the installation’s desire.
Mr. Prieksat stated that sampling has been conducted around Mortar Range 2B by the railroad during the railroad realignment. He suggested that TechLaw try & obtain the sampling results &/or report. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/3/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from ADEC to DOD re: State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's Expectations of the Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol Program.
The AK Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) wishes to thank you for the opportunity to participate in the application of the Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP) to Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites throughout AK. We feel that active participation & cooperation between DOD, ADEC, EPA & other stakeholders is critical to ensuring the success of the program. The MRSPP is a congressionally mandated rule developed by the DOD to prioritize munitions response sites for cleanup under the DERP & BRAC acts. As such, we understand DOD is the lead agency responsible for cleanup & that ADEC involvement in application of the protocol is primarily a support role. However, the closure of sites under CERCLA & state environmental regulations will require ADEC &/or the US EPA concurrence.
To this end, ADEC is requesting that you & your contractors submit for review & comment the various work plans & documents used in the MRSPP process that correspond to applicable CERCLA documentation requirements (i.e. PA, SI, RI, FS, EECA, etc.). This request applies to all documents already generated in implementing the initial stages of the protocol as well as those that are yet to be generated under the MRSPP process.
We are making this request to provide for credible, legally defensible site characterization & evaluation in the MRSPP process while at the same time providing for efficient & timely ADEC review. Review of historical records, work plans & reports & other supporting documents will allow the project team to ensure that the information gathered is consistent throughout the installations & ADEC & that the appropriate information is gathered to make informed decisions. As sites are investigated, it is likely that several will require additional sampling due to unexpected circumstances. Review & approval of documents as the process moves forward will help minimize information or data gaps that may otherwise develop.
In the long run, concurrent review & approval of various documents will help reduce costs to DOD through a collaborative decision making process which ensures that site characterization, remedial assessment, & remedial actions are consistent with state & federal regulations. As these documents would need to be reviewed prior to “NFA” decisions, review during the MRSPP process will allow remedial action &/or final status decisions to be made in an expedited manner. Likewise, up-front regulatory acceptance should lead to faster agreement on site prioritization & appropriate, timely implementation of remedial actions.
Signed
John Halverson, Environmental Program Manager |
John Halverson |
| 4/27/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Historical Records Review for Fort Richardson, AK March 31, 2006 Contract# W91238-05-F-0153 received and commented on.
General Comments
ADEC requests the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) be provided copies of all reports, documents (draft and final) which are being provided to other stakeholders. In addition ADEC strongly suggests that a letter be sent and phone contacts be made to both of ADNR’s Division of Parks and Division of Mining, Land & Water requesting staff participation and comment on future documents.
Suggested contacts to send a request for ADNR staff participants:
Director's Office
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
550 W 7th Ave, Suite 1380
Anchorage, AK 99501-3561
(907) 269-8700 Fax: (907) 269-8907
Director’s Office
Division of Mining, Land & Water
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Robert A. Atwood Building
550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1070
Anchorage, AK 99501-3579
Phone: (907)269-8600 Fax: (907)269-8904
Without ADNR participation, it is uncertain whether the MMRP site inspections, which will be conducted (or not conducted based on current stakeholder involvement) at the various sites, will be satisfactory to ADNR to accept transfer of federal land from BLM to ADNR (Chugach State Park). In addition, there are some sites which educational or informational signage is being proposed in lieu of conducting a MMRP site inspection. This may or may not be acceptable to ADNR as sufficient to accept transfer of land associated with a particular MMRP site.
The MMRP sites which have potential for being affected are: Davis Ranges A & B, Grezelka Machine Gun Range, Mahon Machine Gun Range, McGee Machine Gun Range, and the Anti-Aircraft Range – TD MR Site.
|
Louis Howard |
| 7/31/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Historical Records Review received. The purpose of the HRR is to perform a records search to document historical & other known information for the MMRP sites at Fort Richardson to supplement the inventory information, & to support the Technical Project Planning (TPP) process, which will facilitate decisions to focus on those areas where more information is needed to determine the next steps in the CERCLA process.
The transferred ranges include Davis Ranges A & B, Grezelka Machine Gun Range, Mahon Machine Gun Range, McGee Machine Gun Range, & Mortar Ranges 1A & 2A. Davis Range B (FTRS-012-R-01) consists of 163 acres. Davis Ranges A & B These transferred ranges are part of the same range fan that was split by the operational area. This range was used as a rifle range in the 1960s. Maps from the 1980s depict a small range, contained completely within the operational area.
Davis Ranges A & B are two pieces of the same range fan that are divided by an operational range area. Davis Range A, comprises 9,197 acres & extends east from the southeastern border of Fort Richardson into the Chugach Mountains, & Ship Creek & Campbell Creek watersheds (FTRS00067). Davis Range B encompasses approximately 240 acres located south & west of the northwest corner of the installation, & to the north & east of Campbell Creek Canyon (Figure 4-2). A smaller portion of the Davis Range, located within the operational area, was used in the 1950s for live fire exercises involving, small arms, 60mm & 81mm mortars, & 3.5-inch rockets (including practice) (FTRS00599, FTRS00742, FTRS00750). It was later used for cold weather survival & infantry tactical training (FTRS00080).
Installation personnel have indicated that both 2.36 & 3.5 inch rockets have been recovered from this smaller area. The Army decided to acquire Davis Ranges A & B after a study of the McLaughlin Tank Range indicated that it lacked sufficient length for effective tank training (FTRS00073). According to a May 21, 1965 letter from the U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska to the Commanding General, U.S. Army Alaska, it was noted that the Moving Target Tank Range at the McLaughlin Range was investigated & found to be incompatible with the existing topography. The letter states that the outer limits of the “Danger Area” extended off the Military Reservation & near populated areas. The firing range would be completely unsuitable if artillery with any greater range were used.
Based on this, it was proposed that the tank range be moved to Davis Range (FTRS00073). As detailed in a June 20, 1966 document titled “Decision”, the property acquired under permit was to be used for a safety zone, as an impact & ricochet area (FTRS00013, FTRS00078, FTRS00102). The Real Estate Division, Alaska Division, USACE, prepared a brief on the use of the Davis Range as a Moving Target Tank Range & noted that the BLM, with the concurrence of the State of Alaska, was willing to issue a five-year Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) (FTRS00067). To accomplish this, the Army acquired Tract JJ from the BLM through SLUP No. A-063442 on September 3, 1965. This five year permit covered the period from May 15, 1966 to May 15, 1971 (FTRS00013, FTRS00078, FTRS00102). Boundaries of the impact & ricochet areas are delineated in the BLM decision granting the SLUP & covered the majority of Tract JJ (FTRS00100). The site was also referred to as the Davis Moving Target Tank Range (FTRS00067).
The SLUP was amended in 1967, at which time the impact area comprised 2,276.69 acres & the ricochet area comprised 7,664.96 acres (at Range A) & 240 acres (Range B) (FTRS00075-77). It was intended that the Chugach Mountain Range would act as a backstop for the tank shells & would keep the shells from reaching beyond the “Danger Area” limit (FTRS00073). Fire damage was considered minimal as non-explosive training ammunition was to be used (FTRS00067). Since the Davis Range replaced the McLaughlin Range, described below in Section 4.8, & no records of training exercises were available for the Davis Range, it is assumed that the munitions used for the tank training at the McLaughlin Range would also be anticipated here.
In 1953, training at the McLaughlin Range involved the use of 105mm Howitzer, HE & HEAT (FTRS00954, FTRS00964). In 1962, the tanks were firing 76mm HE Shell M352 at moving targets. According to an undated list of firing ranges, the McGlaughlin (McLaughlin) tank range was a field firing range for small arms (7.62mm to .50 Caliber) & artillery weapons (75mm to 106mm RR)(FTRS00018).
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/10/2007 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff received the Draft Site Inspection Work Plan for Fort Richardson, Alaska dated March 2007 General Services Schedule Number GS-10F-0168J, Delivery Order No. W91238-05-F-0153.
2.1.1 Site History of Davis Ranges A & B
The text in the last paragraph of this section indicates that the features (numerous craters) identified in the aerial photographic analysis are depicted on Figure 3. Please identify these features on Figure 3. The Acronym “RR” appears in the second paragraph of this section for the first time. Please spell out & include in acronym list.
4.0 Data Gaps
Text states “It is unclear if munitions may have impacted the Grezelka, Mahon, or Mcgee Machine gun Ranges.” However these ranges have been removed from consideration due to the topographic evaluation presented in figure 4. If this is indeed a data gap then why have these ranges been removed from consideration as MR sites? Please clarify this statement.
Table 3-1
This table indicates that if MC sampling does not indicate the presence of MC then No Further Action (NFA) for MC will be required. Regardless of the findings of the initial MC sampling additional sampling may be required as the project progresses & additional source areas are identified. The table includes two entries for the “Anti-Aircraft Range” & is missing an entry for “Anti-Aircraft Range No.1”.
5.0 Data Quality Objectives
ADEC has developed cleanup regulations for oil & other hazardous substances under the site cleanup rules, 18 AAC 75 Article 3. 18 AAC 78 contains regulations specific to Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) & associated site cleanup. The Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Procedures Manual, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 78.007, contains specific requirements for laboratory quality assurance (QA). However, QA requirements are not as explicit in 18 AAC 75. The Contaminated Sites (CS) program oversees characterization & cleanup of sites under both 18 AAC 75 & 78.
In order to ensure consistency in data quality across the CS program, a technical memorandum (06-002 dated October 9, 2006) was issued which summarizes the minimum requirements for both laboratory data packages & QA Summaries (data reduction, verification, evaluation, etc.) that must be included in all reports containing analytical data submitted to the CS program under the 18 AAC 75 & 18 AAC 78 regulations. ADEC has determined that the QA submittals described below are necessary to meet requirements of 18 AAC 75.335 (b) (2) (B) & (G), 75.335 (c) (3) & (4), 75.355 (a), 75.360 (2) & 18 AAC 78.007. This technical memorandum & additional information can be found at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/guidance.htm#csp under the Analytical Methods & Quality Assurance section.
Laboratory Data Verification & Quality Assurance Summary
All reports submitted to ADEC containing analytical laboratory sample results (i.e. soil sample results generated to determine the presence or absence of contamination from previous military munition activities) need to contain a completed Laboratory Data Review Checklist & a Quality Assurance (QA) Summary. The Laboratory Data Review Checklist is located online at
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/guidance.htm#methods & must be completed, signed & dated
by the firm submitting the report to ADEC. It is not to be completed by the analytical laboratory that performed the sample analysis.
The QA Summary must be included as a specific text section of the report. All laboratory results, including laboratory quality control (QC) sample results, must be reviewed & evaluated for quality, validity & usability. The text must include any affects on data validity &/or usability due to field sampling & laboratory quality control discrepancies.
Appendix A Field Sampling Plan
3.1.2 Project Schedule, Page A-11
Text states that the project schedule is presented in section 9 of the work plan. Section 11 of the work plan is the project schedule. Please ensure that text references are updated within the report.
3.1.3 Data Quality Objectives Page A-12
The text states DQOs are presented in Section 9.0 of the Work Plan. This is incorrect, Section 9.0 of the Site Inspection Work Plan is Installation Security & should instead reference Section 5.0 Data Quality Objectives found on page 34. The Final Generic Work Plan lists Data Quality Objectives in Section 6.0 starting on page 8.
3.1.6 Decision Inputs Page A-13
The text states ADEC soil cleanup levels (SCLs) are designed to be used as a guide in an investigation & do not necessarily mean that a particular contaminant or suite of contaminants do or do not present a risk to the environment. ADEC disagrees. Soil & groundwater screening levels are used to identify compounds detected at a site that need further investigation. Initial screening is used to identify COPCs. Those compounds that exceed screening levels are carried through additional investigation.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/14/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter sent to 3 CES which was not applicable at the time. However, due to 2005 BRAC Program and the merger of Ft. Richardson into Elmendorf AFB = JBER, the letter is applicable now for the 673 CES/CEANR which Richardson is now a part of as of October 2010 (fully functional).
ADEC John Halverson sent letter to Lt. Col. Hodges - 3 CES RE: Reporting discovery of Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) and EOD response activities to DEC
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) requests that DOD components establish and implement reporting procedures for discovery of Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) response activities that occur outside active military ranges within Alaska. In the past, numerous ordnance items have been found and EOD response actions implemented without proper reporting to and coordination with DEC. Most recently, an article appeared in the Fairbanks News Miner regarding an unexploded munitions item discovered along the Swede Lake Trail near Paxton. The article indicates clearance activities are ongoing to determine if additional munitions items remain in the area. DEC should not have to rely on local media reports to bring these incidents to our attention.
DEC is responsible for ensuring releases of hazardous substances are adequately contained, characterized and cleaned up in a manner and to a degree that are protective of human health, safety, welfare and the environment. To accomplish this mission, laws have been created requiring hazardous substance releases be reported to, and that response actions be approved by, DEC.
Alaska laws (AS 46.09.010 / 18 AAC 75) require discharges or releases of hazardous substances be reported to DEC as soon as the person in charge of an operation or facility has knowledge of a release. Improper disposal is considered a release (46.09.900(6)).
MEC, including unexploded ordnance (UXO) and discarded military munitions, are considered hazardous substances under Alaska laws. Per Alaska statute (AS 46.09.900), "hazardous substance" means (A) an element or compound that, when it enters into or on the surface or subsurface land or water of the state, presents an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare, or to fish, animals, vegetation, or any part of the natural habitat in which fish, animals, or wildlife may be found; or (B) a substance defined as a hazardous substance under 42 U.S.C. 9601 - 9657 (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)”.
Additionally, Alaska laws require containment and cleanup of released hazardous substances through initial response actions (18 AAC 75.310-.320). Based on the results of initial response, DEC may require additional site characterization and cleanup under the site cleanup rules (18 AAC 75.325 - .380).
DEC recommends holding a meeting/teleconference with the appropriate DOD representatives to help establish adequate reporting procedures and coordination on response to MEC discoveries outside the boundaries of active military ranges.
Specific topics for discussion and agreement include:
1. Timely reporting of Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) discovery.
2. Roles and responsibilities of entities that should be involved.
3. Submittal of Explosive Ordnance Incident Reports including information on the location of discovery, property ownership, environmental restoration program status (FUDS, active installation) if applicable, type(s) and number of items discovered, photographs of the items, proximity to populated areas, and response actions taken.
4. Consultation with DEC regarding additional response activities including land use controls, historical records reviews, site characterization and cleanup workplans.
I propose holding a meeting / teleconference it at 10:00 AM, Wednesday August 22nd in our office at 555 Cordova Street and setting up a dial in number for those that can not participate in person. Please contact me at (907) 269-7545 or john.halverson@alaska.gov or Guy Warren at (907) 269-7528 or guy.warren1@alaska.gov regarding your interest and availability at the proposed time and whether you think other people should be involved. |
John Halverson |
| 2/4/2008 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from DOD Regional Environmental Coordinator Region 10 to ADEC Jennifer Roberts RE: Reporting on DOD Support of Explosives or Munitions Emergencies.
As the Department of Defense (DoD) Regional Environmental Coordinator (REC) for Region
10, my staff and I, along with the other Military Services, work with envITonmental and natural
resource agencies to exchange information on envITonmental topics, coordinate related projects
and initiatives, avoid cor.i!icts when possible, and help resolve issues efficiently. Our REC team appreciated the opportunity to discuss your request for notification of DoD explosives or
munitions emergency responses in support of civil authorities.
The DoD is firmly committed to assisting civil authorities, primarily those in law enforcement,
in responding in a timely and effective manner to explosives and munitions emergencies. DoD
provides this support to ensure the public safety of Alaskans and the envITonment. To continue to provide this support, we would like clarification on a couple of important issues.
First, although the DoD Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team's mission is generally limited to responding to military munitions, these teams often provide support to civil authorities when non-military explosives or munitions are encountered. When supporting requests by civil authorities, we do not believe DoD personnel are the "person in charge" pursuant to Alaska regulations for the purposes of notifying DEC. (See, e.g., 18 AAC 75.300 & 75.990(86).)
Nevertheless, as a matter of comity, but without relinquishing any legal arguments, rights or
defenses, DoD is voluntarily providing DEC the attached summary of DoD explosives or
munitions emergency responses from January through December 2007. The DoD is also willing
to discuss, if necessary, any additional reporting requests that you may have regarding DoD
explosives or munitions emergency responses in support of civil authorities. As part ofthis
discussion, DoD would like to know whether the notifications requested of DoD are the same as
those requested of other federal, state, or local emergency response personnel. (See, 42 USC
6961.)
Second, the DoD is also concerned about a provision in 18 AAC 75.315(b) that appears
to require a person who is not a responsible person, but who voluntarily undertakes an initial
response action, to perform a comprehensive cleanup. This provision is of concern to us because
DoD EOD teams voluntarily respond to all requests from civil authorities for support of an
explosives or munitions emergency regardless ofwhether a military munitions is involved,
although they are not legally required to do so.
This regulation may impose cleanup liability on DoD for its voluntary response. We would like to discuss this concern with your office and perhaps pursue a written agreement between the DEC and DoD that delineates the roles and responsibilities of each party.
I would appreciate the opportunity to further discllss our concerns with you and your
staff, and so I have asked my points of contact for this issue, Ms. Aubrey Baure and Maj Judith
Walker, to contact you in the near future.
Signed
Clare Mendelsohn DoD Regional Environmental Coordinator Region 10. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 3/5/2008 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
March 5, 2008 a Technical Project Planning Meeting was held for the Military Munitions Response Program.
Mr. Barber provided a brief overview of the MMRP & explained the TPP process that was followed during the development of the SI.
Mr. Barber then presented a brief overview of the history of the Fort Richardson Munitions Response (MR) sites.
Mr. Ahlborn presented an overview of the SI process at the MR sites, including a summary of the procedures used during the SI field activities in June 2007. This included a detailed description of the visual survey, soil sampling, geophysical survey, & results.
The group reviewed the activities conducted, as well as the findings, conclusions, & recommendations presented for each MR site in the Draft SI Report. Specifically, the stakeholders discussed the following issues:
Mr. Dick Nenahlo asked about the depth limitations on GIS equipment. Mr. Ahlborn stated the depth limitation varies based on factors such as the soil & orientation & size of the item.
It was noted that an attempt was made to bias the sample locations near signs of military activity, such as munitions items/debris & fighting positions. In addition, samples were collected down slope from the military activity.
It was determined that the analytical data tables will be updated to include reporting limits.
There was some discussion about the small amounts of RDX that were found in areas where RDX would not be expected based on historic use of the ranges. Mr. King stated that it is an Army-wide problem & they are finding traces of RDX at sites where RDX was never used. There has been some discussion that the results are based on something present when the samples were collected.
Davis Ranges A & B – BLM raised concerns about the difference between the total acreage documented in the original Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) for use as the Davis Ranges A & B MR sites & the MR site acreage presented in the Draft SI report. It was noted that the MR site acreage is limited to the acreage covered by the range fan, as opposed to the entire acreage withdrawn under the SLUP. It was agreed that the boundary of the property as described in the SLUP will be added to the report figures for the Final SI report. It will be noted that the MR site does not encompass the entire SLUP acreage.
There was additional discussion regarding the status of the Davis Range A & B MR sites. The State of AK has requested the property from BLM, but it has not been officially released as an agreement has not been reached between BLM & the Army regarding the level of clearance of the property. Ms. Fosbrook stated that this issue is being addressed by the Army’s attorneys & BLM & is a separate issue from the MMRP; however, data from the MMRP will be used to determine how best to reach an agreement as to an acceptable level of clearance. It was further noted that neither area is impacted by current activities at the operational Davis Range. The operational Davis Range is used for small arms training only & is completely contained within the installation.
The group discussed the MRSPP notification process, including the steps that need to be taken by the installation to solicit input from the stakeholders & general public. The installation will send a notification letter to the lead regulatory agency ADEC requesting their input on the MRSPP scores that are included in the Draft SI Report. The stakeholders can request an additional meeting at which time the MRSPP scores can be reviewed. The installation is also required to publish a public notice in the local newspaper soliciting additional information regarding the MR sites from the community.
There was a question regarding the blank Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) tables in the MMRP. Mr. Barber explained that the tables in the HHE module of the MRSPP incorporate all media; however, only the forms that include the media actually sampled are marked. In addition, the term “Evaluation Pending” is used for those MR sites where field work was not completed (i.e., water sites).
Ms. Chong asked that the stakeholders notify her if they would like additional time to review the Draft SI Report. She also noted that the SI report can not be finalized until 30 days from the date the MRSPP notifications are posted. It was also noted that a conference call or web based meeting could be arranged if any stakeholders would like to discuss the report further after they have had time to draft their comments
For those sites recommended for further evaluation, it is anticipated that funding will be available in approximately 2012. For the water sites, further evaluation will be dependent on the development of new technology. Mr. Rodeffer stated that after 2010 the USAEC plans decentralize the program & it is probable that the funding will be sent to the installations to run the program. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/4/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the General Services Administrative Schedule No. GS-10F-0168J, Delivery Order No. W91238-05-F-1053; Draft Site Inspection Report for Fort Richardson, Alaska dated February 2008.
Table 1: Fort Richardson Site Inspection Recommendations
Davis Range B
The site is recommended for further investigation for munitions and explosives of concern (MEC), with no further evaluation of munitions constituents (MC) unless further investigation of MEC identifies areas of concern, additional sampling may be required. Based on the information presented in the document, ADEC concurs with these recommendations.
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/30/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has received the final Site Inspection (SI) Report for review and comment. After conducting a review of the document, ADEC no additional comments and will grant its approval of the report. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/15/2008 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from Jennifer Roberts ADEC to Ms. Clare Mendelsohn, DoD Regional Environmental Coordinator. RE: Reporting on DoD Support for Explosives or Munitions Emergencies
I received your February 4,2008 letter and apologize for not responding sooner. The Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has a long and positive working
relationship with the Department of Defense (DoD). We understand DoD's primary mission is
national defense and appreciate the emergency response support DoD voluntarily provides to
civil authorities and the public. One such area of support is responding to discoveries of
munitions or explosives.
ADEC agrees that when Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) teams respond to non-military
munitions or explosives, off military lands, DOD's response personnel are not considered the
"person in charge" with respect to Alaska hazardous substance reporting and response
requirements. When conducting voluntary responses under these circumstances, ADEC does
not consider DoD to be incurring liability for complete cleanup under 18 AAC 75 .315(b). We
hope this addresses your concerns with respect to this matter. If not, we are open to pursuing a
written agreement between ADEC and DOD delineating roles and responsibilities in these
cases.
With respect to your question of whether the notifications requested of DoD are the same as
those requested of other federal, state, or local emergency response personnel, the answer is
yes. In the event of a discovery of a release on a property, the property owner, for example, the federal agency, state agency, or other owner of that property, is required to notify ADEC. In addition, ADEC's Prevention and Emergency Response Program guidance has been amended
to include cross program coordination with the Contaminated Sites Program staff whenever
such reports are received.
The 2007 EOD emergency response summary for Alaska was helpful in better understating the
scope of these actions. ADEC's concern on being notified of the discovery of military
munitions or explosives is in ensuring former ranges, training areas, and munitions storage and
disposal areas where these items may remain are identified and addressed, as necessary, to help ensure protection of human health and safety. We would like additional information on a few
ofthe responses to help determine whether further investigation is warranted and will followup
on those via email. We also are interested in receiving similar periodic (semi-annual)
summaries of EOD responses. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/15/2008 |
CERCLA SI |
FINAL Site Inspection Report received.
DAVIS RANGE B
Davis Ranges A & B are two pieces of the same range fan that are divided by an operational range area & located outside the installation boundary. Davis Range B encompasses approximately 163 acres located south & west of the northwest corner of the installation, & to the north & east of Campbell Creek Canyon. A smaller portion of the Davis Range, located within the operational range area, was used in the 1950s for live fire exercises involving small arms, 60mm & 81mm mortars, & 3.5-inch rockets (including practice). It was later used for cold weather survival & infantry tactical training.
MD was identified in the form of fragments from artillery rounds. This determination was made based on the thickness & type of metal. Because the pieces were so small, it was not possible to determine the specific type of artillery. Two fragments were found in the center of the MR site, while one was found along the trail through the operational range area, northeast of the site.
Surface sediment & soil samples were collected from various locations at the Davis Range B Site. A total of seven samples were collected for laboratory analysis; four sediment samples & three soil samples (Figure 5-1). No quality control (QC) or quality assurance (QA) samples were collected for this site. The majority of the sediment samples were collected from streams that drained off the steep ridgelines located throughout the site.
Analytical results indicate that no explosives were detected in any of the samples collected at the Davis Range B MR site with the following exceptions:
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) was detected in two of the sediment samples (Samples FR-DRB-SED003 ( 0.39 mg/kg) valid (v) & FRDRB-SED004 (0.22 mg/kg*)). This amount is well below the screening criteria of 4.4 mg/kg.
No problems with compound quantitation were identified with the exception of RDX in sample FR-DRB-SED004. As part of the Level III review, quantitative results as well as laboratory qualifiers were evaluated. No problems with compound quantitation were identified with the exception of RDX in sample FR-DRB-SED004. Field sample FRDRB-SED004 had RDX reported at 0.22 mg/Kg. This result was qualified by the lab with a PZ (the percent difference between original & confirmation analyses is greater than 25% & co-elution occurred).
Aluminum, antimony, barium, calcium, copper, lead, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, & zinc were all detected in one or more of the four sediment samples & one or more of the three soil samples. None of the detected concentrations exceeded the screening criteria. It should be noted that screening criteria were not available for comparison to calcium, magnesium, potassium, or sodium.
SI field activities conducted at the Davis Range B MR site included a visual survey of approximately 7.75 total line miles & the collection of four sediment & three surface soil samples. The results are summarized below:
No MEC was discovered during the visual survey; however, MD was identified in the form of fragments from artillery rounds. Two fragments were found in the center of the MR site & one was found along the trail through the operational area, northeast of the site. No other evidence of military activity was observed.
Analytical results for metals indicate that all concentrations were below the applicable screening criteria.
Analytical results indicate that no explosives were detected in any of the samples
collected at the Davis Range B MR site with the following exceptions:
-A trace amount of Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) was detected in two of the sediment samples. This amount is well below the screening criteria of 4.4 mg/kg.
Recommendations:
No Munitions & Explosives of Concern (MEC) was discovered during the visual survey; however, MD was identified in the form of fragments from artillery rounds. Two fragments were found in the center of the MR site & one was found along the trail through the operational area, northeast of the site. No other evidence of military activity was observed. Because of the presence of MD, the Davis Range B MR site is recommended for further investigation for MEC.
-Analytical results for metals & explosive compounds indicate that all sample concentrations are below applicable screening criteria with the following exception, a trace amount of Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) was detected in two of the sediment samples. This amount is well below the screening criteria of 4.4 mg/kg. Further evaluation of MC is not warranted at this time for this MR site; however, if further investigation of MEC identifies areas of concern, additional sampling may be required. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/30/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has received the final Site Inspection (SI) Report for review and comment. After conducting a review of the document, ADEC no additional comments and will grant its approval of the report. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/16/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff received the Draft Military Munitions Response Program, Remedial Investigation and Expanded Site Inspection Work Plan for Various Sites on JBER-Richardson, Alaska dated January 2011 (Env. Rem. Services Contract No. W911KB-06-D-0006 Task Order No. 39).
Locations of geophysical survey points of interests and analytical sample locations will be captured using a global positioning system (GPS). A Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS survey will be attempted using a correction signal from a continuously operating reference station; however, due to the topography and vegetation throughout the area, only mapping grade accuracy may be attainable. Information from both field actions will be summarized in a report following the field efforts.
The goals for the fieldwork are to characterize contamination at Mortar Range 2B and Davis Range B and collect enough information to determine whether further action is required at the site.
Davis Range Site B: The Davis Range was historically used for live fire exercises involving small arms, mortars, rockets, and tanks. It was also used for cold weather survival and infantry tactical training. In 1974, a visual inspection of the Davis Range was performed by the U.S. Army. According to documentation, the site was cleared of all dangerous and/or explosive hazards reasonably possible to detect. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) later rejected the clearance certificate on the grounds that the decontamination attempt was inadequate. Further investigation is required to clear Range A for No Further Action (NFA) to be issued. Munitions debris (MD) in the form of fragments of artillery rounds were discovered at Davis Range B. Due to a trace amount of RDX detected in a soil sample at Range B, further investigation of MEC is warranted.
The goal of the Davis Range B ESI is to perform an archival search and to survey the area for geophysical anomalies to better understand the levels and distribution of possible contamination at the ranges. Davis Range B (FTRS-012-R-01): RI activities will include the use of geophysical survey instruments (e.g., EM61) to investigate the area surrounding the fragmentation found during the 2008 SI, as well as a site-wide transect reconnaissance. Ten samples will be collected where source contamination is identified or suspected, or at random across the Davis Range B site. Additional ESI activities will be performed, includin a review of records and historical maps.
Explosives and total metals will be analyzed for at Davis Range B. Test methods for each analyte soil may be analyzed for are as follows: Explosives by SW8330B and Metals by SW6020.
Rationale for sampling location: Craters and areas of staining are likely to contain contamination.
MEC Activities at Davis Range B
Investigation Activities: A geophysical investigation will be conducted at Davis Range B. The survey area will initially be limited to the areas where MD was discovered during the 2007 Site Inspection. A 200-square-foot area around each piece of MD will be surveyed by an environmental scientist using a geophysical sensor array. In the event that other MD is discovered, additional surveys will be performed. Locations containing craters from exploding ordnance will also be surveyed in the same manner. A UXO Technician will be present during all surveying tasks.
Munitions Encountered: If MEC items are encountered, survey activities will be stopped immediately. A detailed assessment of the type and condition of the item (or items) will be performed to determine whether a disposal action is required. If a disposal action is required, the site will be secured and DPW Environmental Office and the COR will be notified.
Hazardous Material Encountered: Any hazardous materials that are encountered, including drums that contain liquid/solid materials, will be containerized (overpacked) and segregated from ordinary metal debris. The DPW Environmental Office and the COR will be immediately notified if these materials are encountered. The DPW Environmental Office will determine disposition of the material(s), and the Jacobs environmental technicians will be contacted and escorted to the site of the hazardous material. The procedures described in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this Appendix will be followed.
Scrap: All MD, RRD, and MPPEH will be disposed of in accordance with Section 2.0 of this Appendix.
Soil Samples: Soil sampling is not anticipated for this site. In the event that soil sampling is deemed necessary, soil samples will be taken by Jacobs field samplers, and UXO technicians will remain onsite to support the samplers. Soil sampling is discussed in detail in UFP-QAPP worksheets #10, 14, and 17. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/8/2011 |
Site Added to Database |
A new site has been added to the database |
Mitzi Read |
| 4/8/2011 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 79072 name: JBER-Ft. Rich Davis Range B MMRP |
Mitzi Read |
| 4/13/2011 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Military Munitions Response Program, Remedial Investigation and Expanded Site Inspection Work Plan for Various Sites on JBER-Richardson, Alaska dated January 2011 (Env. Rem. Services Contract No. W911KB-06-D-0006 Task Order No. 39). Since the sites have gone through the Site Inspection (SI) phase and are now being investigated under a Remedial Investigation (RI), ADEC requests the sites be added under the Fort Richardson Federal Facility Agreement as new source areas.
ADEC requests the Army to describe the CERCLA regulatory context of the “Expanded Site Inspection Activities”. This is a new concept to ADEC. Since ADEC accepted the Final Site Inspection Report we feel that this completed the SI process for Fort Richardson. Please review the Final SI and you will see there are no recommendations for an “Expanded Site Inspection”. As such ADEC requests that this new concept (ESI) be removed from the document and all sites recommended for further action in the Final SI should be included in this RI work plan. As such, significant revisions are required to this work plan.
Overview 3 through 5
In general this section does not accurately present the results of the Final SI report. ADEC strongly recommends that the author review the final SI report and provide an accurate and clear accounting of the various sites and the recommendations that were included in the SI. A summary table would help.
Under the section “Previous Investigation” it states that the SI results were evaluated to determine one of three possible outcomes. “Expanded Site Inspection” activities is not one of those outcomes.
The text states the following sites were cleared for NFA: Grezelka Machine Gun Range, Mahon Machine Gun Range, McGee Machine Gun Range, Mortar Range 1B, Mortar Range 1C, Pistol Range, Rifle Range, Anti-Aircraft Range. However, it appears that some of these sites are not eligible for NFA based on the data gathered from the SI.
The 18 AAC 75.341(c) Table B1 Method Two Migration to Groundwater (MTGW) cleanup level for RDX is 0.04 mg/kg. This concentration is lower than the detected level of RDX used to NFA the site in the 2008 Final SI Report.
Rifle Range
The 18 AAC 75.341(c) Table B1 Method Two Migration to Groundwater (MTGW) cleanup level for RDX is 0.04 mg/kg. This concentration is lower than the estimated concentration of RDX used to NFA the site in the 2008 Final SI Report.
Anti-Aircraft Range MR
The 18 AAC 75.341(c) Table B1 Method Two Migration to Groundwater (MTGW) cleanup level for 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) is 0.49 mg/kg. This concentration is lower than the valid concentration of TNT that was used to NFA the site.
ADEC requests the Army reevaluate the data from the Final Site Inspection (September 2008), for above NFA sites in light of the revised cleanup levels reflected in 18 AAC 75 and this draft work plan.
6.0 Worksheet #6
Communication Pathways Page 6-1
Sample results are shown in this worksheet to be sent to Brock, Prieksat and Heikkila with the minimum information being a summary of preliminary results and sample locations. ADEC wishes to inform the Army of its obligations to make data available (to the other Parties) as required under the 1994 Federal Facility Agreement and 1994 Environmental Restoration Agreement. Fort Richardson is listed as a Site “fence to fence”.
The 1994 Fort Richardson Federal Facility Agreement does state that data shall be made available for review within certain specified time frames.
7.0 Worksheet #7
Personnel Responsibilities and Qualifications Table Page 7-1
The worksheet does not appear to be complete. ADEC requests the Army provide further information on the: UXO technicians, environmental samplers, GPS operator, mechanical equipment operator and Driver (these personnel are included in MEC Plan).
Qualifications are not included as indicated by worksheet title. All project personnel should be included here with their appropriate qualifications. Some qualifications are presented on Worksheet #8 that would be more appropriate here. The MEC plan identifies the CQC as having dual responsibilities for UXOQC and UXOSO
8.0 Worksheet #8 Special Personnel Training Page 8-1
MEC Plan references (Site Specific Training). This should be included here. ADEC requests the Army review and consider if additional “Site Specific” personnel training is required. For example, training in the APP and EPP.
9.0 Worksheet #9 Project Scoping Session Participants Sheet Page 9-1
Neither EPA nor ADEC were included in this project scoping meeting. This is a significant oversight on the part of the Army and their contractor. The Fort Richardson FFA requires project scoping meetings prior to developing work plans. A project scoping meeting is required to ensure that the proposed work meets the requirements of the regulatory agencies.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 1/11/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
MMRP RI report received.
Jacobs performed a geophysical investigation over 13.7 linear miles to investigate and locate possible munitions debris or munitions and explosives of concern. Eleven soil samples were collected from the Range and three locations identified explosive materials exceeding the ADEC Method Two migration to groundwater cleanup levels. In 2012, these three locations were sampled again using MULTI INCREMENT sampling techniques, confirming explosive compound concentrations in excess of the ADEC Method Two migration to groundwater cleanup limits.
However, compounds are not present above ingestion or direct contact limits, so no immediate threat is currently posed to human health or the environment. Based on the difficulty of terrain and distance between the site and the popular recreational trail from the “Dome” along Knoya Ridge as well as the likely great distance between the ground surface and groundwater, it is appropriate to pursue NFA for the site.
Risk-based assessment of the Davis Range B site does not warrant further hazard evaluation. No MEC or geophysical anomalies representing MEC were encountered, and only ten MD items were discovered during investigation activities at Davis Range B. Based on EHE ranking scores, a recommendation of no additional MEC investigation activities is warranted.
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/8/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
Scoped for field work this field season: 2016. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/16/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft UFP-QAPP received for review and comment. The Supplemental Comprehensive Site Evaluation Phase II Davis Range A (FR006), Anti-Aircraft Range - TD (FR014), and Anti-Aircraft Range No. 1 (FR015) Munitions Response Areas.
Davis Range A was historically used for tank training and is a portion of the impact and ricochet
area of the Davis Range. A 1974 surface clearance was conducted at the historic Davis Range to
remove surface munitions. However, no information regarding the types of items removed exists
other than the general areas where the clearance activities were conducted. SI field activities
were not conducted at Davis Range A; however, the HRR determined that MEC items
potentially present at the site are likely those used at the McLaughlin Tank Range, and include
the following:
- 105mm Howitzer, HE and HEAT;
- 76mm HE Shell M352; and
- Artillery (75mm to 106mm RR).
The objective of the Supplemental CSE Phase II fieldwork is to determine the presence or
absence of MEC and MC at the three MRAs. The data collection activities include:
? Collecting LiDAR and Ortho data at the Davis Range A (FR006) MRA;
? Performing a WAA to determine AOIs within the MRAs;
? Conducting visual surveys to identify surface features related to previous munitions
activities within the AOIs; and
? Collecting environmental (i.e., soil, sediment, and/or surface water) samples for MC
analysis.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/7/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft Supplemental CSE Phase II.
The title states Risk Assessment, however at the Site Inspection or CSE Phase II stage, a baseline human health and ecological risk assessments are typically associated with a remedial investigation/feasibility study and not the CSE Phase II. Change text to state: “Risk Evaluation”.
The text states: “The goal of the Supplemental CSE Phase II is to determine if the Davis Range A (FR006), Anti-Aircraft Range – TD (FR014), and Anti-Aircraft Range No. 1 (FR015) MRAs warrant additional munitions response actions and if so, provide recommendations for those actions; or provide documentation for no further action (NFA).”
Actually the text should mention the purpose of the Supplemental CSE Phase II (equivalent to a CERCLA SI) is to provide documentation for no further action (NFA), removal action (TCRA or NTCRA) or additional investigation under a RI/FS.
The text states: “The results will be evaluated to determine if there are unacceptable risks to human and ecological receptors.”
ADEC defines acceptable cumulative risk as: “the risk from hazardous substances does not exceed a cumulative carcinogenic risk standard of 1 in 100,000 across all exposure pathways and does not exceed a cumulative noncarcinogenic risk standard at a hazard index of one, reported to one significant figure, across all exposure pathways.”
The text states: “If the analytes are not detected or MC do not exceed project screening levels, all exposure pathways will be considered incomplete.”
While the risk evaluation should compare MC concentrations to project levels based on 1/10th the values for direct contact, outdoor inhalation or 1/10th of Table C Groundwater cleanup levels, or if more conservative, the EPA RSLs based on a Total Hazard Quotient of 0.1, ADEC also requires that soil contamination not exceed the migration to groundwater cleanup levels listed in 18 AAC 75 which are not based on risk. In several cases the migration to groundwater concentrations will be lower than the risk based screening levels.
Finally, in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(f)(E), ADEC also requires a responsible person shall (1) to the maximum extent practicable, evaluate and perform a cleanup of surface soil staining attributable to a hazardous substance
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/16/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Submit approval letter for US Army for the Final MMRP, UFP-QAPP Supplemental CSE Phase II for the Davis Range A, Anti-Aircraft Range-TD, and Anti-Aircraft Range No.1. Work plan includes WAA evaluation of the various ranges and identifies sub-areas that have the potential to contain MEC. The work plan identifies procedures to perform field reconnaissance at these areas to determine presence/absence. Work is scheduled to begin August 2016. |
Guy Warren |
| 1/9/2018 |
Update or Other Action |
Supplemental Comprehensive Site Evaluation Phase II Report Davis Range A (FR006), Anti-Aircraft Range – TD (FR014), and Anti-Aircraft Range No. 1 (FR015) Munitions Response Area received for review and comment. Davis Range A (FR006)-No evidence of MEC, MD, MC, or other indications of historical military activity was discovered during the investigation. The MRS is recommended for no further action.
Anti-Aircraft Range - TD (FR014)- No evidence of MEC, MD, MC, or other indications of historical military activity was discovered during the investigation. The MRS is recommended for no further action.
Anti-Aircraft Range No. 1 (FR015) - No evidence of MEC, MD, MC, or other indications of historical military activity was discovered during the investigation. The MRS is recommended for no further action.
No further munitions response action is recommended for the MRSs based on the results of the
investigation. No evidence of historical military use was documented in the MRSs.
For additional information see site file.
|
Louis Howard |
| 1/17/2018 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Draft Final Supplemental Comprehensive Site Evaluation (CSE) Phase II Report Davis Range A (FR006), Anti-Aircraft Range – TD (FR014), and Anti-Aircraft Range No. 1 (FR015) Munitions Response Areas received for review and comment. ADEC approved the document as submitted.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/4/2019 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
Cleanup complete determination made. See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/4/2019 |
Update or Other Action |
email from EPA Sandy Halstead 10.04.2019: RCRA Military Munitions Rule - JBER UXO in Oct 2019 - possibly related to FR015 Anti-Aircraft Training range-Last Th I was in the office when a call came in from our On-Scene Coordinator who had call duty (he is located in Boise).
He had a call from JBER EOD that a munition was found by hikers in Chugach State Park.
Our local OSC’s were unavailable so I asked a RCRA person (Jan Palumbo) in our Seattle office assist.
We are getting some follow up information now on the location and what was found
Rumors are it was a 105 mm. It had some blue color on it that would indicate that it was a “practice round”.
Sure looks coincidental that this is just east of the AntiAircraft range fan (FR015 map from the [2018] CSE report) that are in MMRP and extend east into the Chugach. You can see Rabbit lake snuggled into the southern portion of the range and this is just over the ridge. I marked the possible location on the CSE map as ?105mm. The final CSE report concluded no further action for this area as no evidence of historical use was found.
We might need to revisit that conclusion. |
Louis Howard |
