cause for the waterfowl mortality at the ERF. Field
machine gun and rifle rounds, grenades, rockets,
and incendiary missiles. Various calibers of artil-
and laboratory studies conducted by CRREL
lery rounds fired into the ERF include smoke
between 1990 and 1992 provided evidence that
obscurants (smokes), illumination flares, and
white phosphorus (WP), used in smoke obscur-
high-explosive rounds.
ants, was the likely cause of the mortality.
In 1980, U.S. Army biologists first noticed an
In February 1990, on the basis of the conclu-
unusually high number of waterfowl carcasses,
sions of the ESE report, the Army temporarily
including several dead swans, in the ERF marshes.
suspended the use of the ERF for live firing until
Between 1982 and 1985, random ground searches
the causative agent of waterfowl mortality was
were conducted at the ERF by the U.S. Army, the
identified. The 1990 CRREL report identified the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the
causative agent to be WP. With this conclusion,
Alaskan Department of Fish and Game (ADFG).
the Army initiated a public review process that
The discovery of abnormally high numbers of
evaluated alternatives for the resumption of live
dead waterfowl during the searches indicated
firing. The ERF was reopened for firing uses in
that a potentially serious problem existed. The
January 1992, following a series of test firing,
dead and dying waterfowl were looked for and
under the following conditions:
observed in several areas, including those
No WP munitions may be used.
referred to as Areas A, B, C, and D.
Only point contact detonators may be used.
To approach the problem in an organized and
A minimum of 6 in. of ice must cover the ERF
before it can be used for firing.
scientific manner, an interagency task force was
formed in 1987. The ERF Task Force was com-
Firing is allowed only between November 1
posed of representatives from the following Fed-
and March 31.
eral and state agencies:
U.S. Army.
CH2M Hill (1994) Eagle River Flats. Potential
USEPA.
ARARs Evaluation. Contract Report to U.S. Army
USFWS.
Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, and U.S.
ADFG.
Army, Alaska. July.
ADEC.
Fort Richardson is an active U.S. Army instal-
The primary objective of the ERF Task Force
lation near Anchorage, Alaska. Fort Richardson's
was to identify the cause of the waterfowl die-offs
55,000 acres include a central cantonment area
and recommend remedial alternatives. Since the
surrounded by ranges and impact and maneuver
formation of the ERF Task Force, several studies
areas to the north, east, and south. The Munici-
and investigations have been conducted to iden-
pality of Anchorage and Elmendorf Air Force
tify contaminants of concern, to characterize the
Base lie west of Fort Richardson.
nature and extent of contamination, and to evalu-
On 18 June 1993, Fort Richardson was pro-
posed for inclusion on the National Priorities List
ate potential remedial alternatives.
(NPL). The NPL is administered by the U.S. Envi-
In addition to the ERF Task Force member
agencies, other agencies and consultants that
ronmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and is
have been involved in the investigations at the
used by them to prioritize contaminated sites
ERF include the following:
across the nation that require action under the
COE, Alaska District.
Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engi-
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
neering Laboratory (CRREL).
The U.S. Army at Fort Richardson is currently
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
negotiating a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
(USAEHA).
with USEPA and the Alaska Department of Envi-
U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC)
ronmental Conservation (ADEC). The FFA will
(formerly U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
establish the framework for developing and
Materials Agency [USATHAMA]).
implementing appropriate response actions at
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Fort Richardson in accordance with CERCLA, the
Environmental Science and Engineering,
National Contingency Plan (NCP), and Super-
Inc. (ESE).
fund guidance and policy. Work that will be done
The results of a 1989 study by ESE under con-
at Fort Richardson, as a Department of Defense
tract to USATHAMA indicated that chemicals
(DOD) NPL site, and that is carried out under the
from explosives ordnance were the probable
6
to contents
Previous Page
