U.S. Army Engineer School By Order of the Secretary of the Army: 

573-563-8080 I DSN 676-8080 PETER J. SCHOOMAKER 

COMMANDANT 

MG Randa l R. Castro 

563-6116 

<randal caslro@us.army.rml> 

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT 

BG Will iam H. McCoy, Jr. 

563-6192 

<WIlliam h mccoy @us.army mil> 

REGIMENTAL COMMAN D SERGEANT MAJO R 

CSM Clinton J. Pearso n 

563·8060 

«cunton pearson @us.army.mli> 

DEPUTYASSISTANTCOMMANDANT 

COL John (Pat) Leak e 

563·8080 

<pat.leake @us.army.mll> 

DEPUTYASSISTANT COMMANDANT-USAR 

COL Gerald Lago 

563·8045 

<gerald Jago@us.army.mJl> 

DEPUTY ASSISTANTCOMMANDANT-ARNG 

LTC Denn is V. Smith 

563-8046 

<denms.lI smJth @us army.mll> 

CHIEF OF STAFF 

LTC Paul Grossk ruger 

563-7116 

<paul.grosskruger@us army.mil> 

TRADOC SYSTEMS MANAGER for ENGINEER COMBAT SYSTEMS 

COL Robert Nicho ls on 

563-4081 

<robert TIIcholson@us.armymli> 

TRADOC PROGRAM INTEGRATION OFFICE-TERRAI N DATA 

COL David A. Kingston 

563-4086 

<david.kmgs /on@us.army mil> 

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BR IGADE 

COL Paul W. Kelly 

596-0224, DSN 581-0224 

<paul.w.kel/y @us.armymll> 

DIRECTOR OFTRAINING AND LEAD ER DEVELOPMENT 

COL Thomas E. O'Donovan 

563-4093 

<:thomas odonovan@us.army.mll> 

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION 

Dr. Rebe cca N. Johnson 

563-4119 

<rebecca-/ohnson @usarmy.mll> 

CHIEF OF DOCTRINE 

LTC Edward Lefler 

563-8161 

<edward lefler@us.army mll> 

HUMANI TARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER 

Mr. Pau l Arcangeli 

596-3869, DSN 581-3 869 

<palJ/.arcangelt@us.army m/1> 

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER 

Mr. Dorian D'Ar ia 

596-0131, ext. 38195 

«oorisn dana @us.army.mll> 

General, United States Army 

Chief of Staff 

Official: 

fi!.AU

Sandra R. Riley 

Administrative Assistant to the 

Secretary of the Army 

0434104 

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is prepared quarterly 

by the USArmy Engineer School, 320 MANSCEN Loop, 

Suite 348, Fort Leonard Wood. Missouri 65473-8929. 

Periodicals postage is paid at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and additional mailing offices. 

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to US Army 

Engineer School, ATTN: ATSE-DP (Engineer). 320 

MANSCEN Loop, Suite 348, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8929 . 

CORRESPONDENCE, letters to the editor, manuscripts, photographs. official unit requests to receive 

copies, and unit address changes should be sent to 

Engineer at the preceding address. Telephone: (573) 

563-4104 , DSN 676-4104. Engineer's e-mail address 

IS <engineer@ wood,army mil>. Our Internet home 

page is locat ed at «h ttp .r/ www.wood. ermy. mit/ 

engrmag/default.htm>. 

DISCLAIMER: Engineer presents professional information designed to keep US military and civilian 

engineers informed of current and emerging developments within their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their professional deve lopment. 

Views expressed are those of the authors and not 

those of the Department of Defense or its elements . 

The contents do not necessarily reflect official USArmy 

positions and do not change or supersede information in other US Army publications. Use of news items 

constitutes neither affirmation of their accuracy nor 

product endorsement. Engine er reserves the right to 

edit material submitted for publication. 

CONTENT is not copyrighted. Material may be reprinted if credit is given to Engineer and the author. 

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is targeted to all engineer and engineer-related units. 

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for 

$19.0 0 ($26.60 foreign) per year by contacting the 

Superintend ent of Docume nts, P.O. Box 371954, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15250-7954 . 

ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subsc riptions 

should be sent to the Superintendent of Docu ­

ments. ATTN: Mail List Branch, Mail Stop SSO M, 

Washington D.C. 20402 . 
ENGI

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

NEER

 Engineer 1

COMMANDANT

Major General

Randal R. Castro

October-December 2004

FEATURES

04 Soldiers Help Preserve Archeological Sites

 By Sergeant Sean Kimmons

05 “One-Stop” Waste Disposal – Enhancing Force Protection in Afghanistan

 By Lieutenant Colonel Garth Anderson and Lieutenant Colonel Whitney Wolf

08 Increased Battery Usage Raises Disposal Issues

 By Mr. Mike Walker

09 Army Engineers Help Restore Iraqi Wetlands

By Ms. Nani Gould

10 Army Engineers Develop Model to Support Iraqi Water Management

By Ms. Nani Gould and Mr. Fauwaz Hanbali

12 Compatible Use Buffers – A New Weapon to Battle Encroachment

By Lieutenant Colonel Joseph L. Knott and Ms. Nancy Natoli

16 USACE Sets the Rappahannock River Free

By Ms. Nancy Allen and Mr. Christopher Augsburger

18 Clean Marinas Promoted in Cumberland River Basin

By Mr. David S.Treadway

19 Military Munitions Response Program

By Mr. Mark Albe and Ms. Margaret Schnebly

22 Balancing Military Training With Environmental Stewardship

By Ms. Sara Leach

24 Conducting an Environmental Baseline Survey in Contingency Operations

By Lieutenant Colonel David M. Wilkins

27 Getting to the Root of Contamination

By Ms. Marie C. Darling

28 Being an Environmental Officer in a Facilities Engineer Detachment

By Major Glen L. Jackson

30 Bat Men: Scientists Help Protect Bats on Military Installations

By Ms. Stefanie A. Gardin

32 A Remedy for a Chronic Dredging Problem

By Mr. David C. Gordon

36 West Bay Sediment Diversion Project

By Mr. Eric Lincoln

38 US Army Installation Restoration Program Performance-Based Contracts

By Mr. Randy Cerar

40 Protecting the Environment

By Mr. Thomas O’Hara III

42 Pollution Prevention Improves Air Quality at Fort Campbell

By Ms. Crystal Longdon

43 Engineering, Planning, and Ecosystem Management:

The Upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona and Sonora

By Mr. Robert L. Anderson

46 Phytoremediation System Cleans Up Groundwater Plume

By Mr. John Wrobel

October-December 2004 Headquarters, Department of the Army Volume 34 PB 5-04-4

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

Front and Back Cover:

Photographs courtesy

US Army Engineer School

Directorate of Environmental Integration

Jennifer Morgan

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Nancy Baker

Cheryl Green

Penny Moats

Diana Travis

Kathy Webber

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Major General

Randal R. Castro

03 Lead the Way

By Command

Sergeant Major

Clinton J. Pearson

47 Dedication

48 Environmental

Lessons Learned for

the Engineer Regiment

49 The Engineer Writer’s

Guide
2 Engineer October-December 2004

Clear The Way

By Major General Randal R. Castro

Commandant, US Army Engineer School

I

am excited to serve our Regiment and

our Soldiers as your new Commandant.

I couldn’t be more impressed with the

work done by my predecessor and good

friend Lieutenant General Van Antwerp. He

and his lovely wife Paula have left a positive mark on our Regiment, our Soldiers, Fort

Leonard Wood, and the community. Judy

and I express our thanks for this inspirational command team, and we wish them

continued success.

I would like to thank Brigadier General

William (Bill) McCoy as the Assistant Commandant for the US Army Engineer School

(USAES) and Command Sergeant Major

Clinton (Clint) Pearson for their actions as

well. Brigadier General McCoy has led a team in the challenging task of laying the groundwork for the Future Engineer

Force that will support the needs of America’s current and

future military forces. Command Sergeant Major Pearson continues to be the long arm of the Regiment. He wraps up all we

do, takes our message to the units, and brings their great ideas

and enthusiasm back here to the home of the Regiment. And

they are only a part of our Team of Teams here at Fort Leonard

Wood, which includes our TRADOC teammates here at

MANSCEN—the Military Police and Chemical Schools; our

Joint teammates—Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard;

and our Foreign Liaisons. Our Regimental Team includes the

US Army Reserve and Army National Guard, US Army Corps

of Engineers (USACE), the Office of the Chief of Engineers at

the Pentagon, and most importantly, our Regimental units and

you—the Engineer Soldier. We are all connected in our Team

of Teams.

The excellent reputation our Regiment maintains is due to

the heroic acts our Engineer Soldiers execute on a daily basis,

supporting our Nation at War. Our Regiment is making a positive difference—our Nation salutes you. We continue our diligent work here to address emerging threats such as improvised explosive devices (IEDs), but much lies ahead. The work

of our IED Defeat Task Force and others will be in our next

issue of Engineer, as well as the other topics we will take on at

ENFORCE 2005.

The Future Engineer Force will be a part of that discussion.

For now, all I will say is that the future is bright. Our Regiment

is totally revamped from bottom to top, based on capabilities

needed to support our Army and Nation. We need to be prepared to embrace the significant changes in the landscape of

the Army and the Engineer Regiment of the future. We are

confident in the knowledge that there remains a need for Engineers, and as a Regiment...“We’re coming back.”

Engineers will have key roles in how

the Future Force operates, fights, and wins

our Nation’s battles. While the engineers’ expertise and experience will be utilized across a broad spectrum of tasks and

missions, this issue of Engineer will focus on one mission not widely recognized

outside of the Engineer Regiment—our environmental mission.

The Engineers are the Army’s environmental integrator, with the USAES as

TRADOC branch proponent. It is through

the efforts of organizations like the USAES

and USACE that doctrine, organization,

training, materiel, leader development, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) solutions to both environmental threats and issues are being addressed. Positions such as the Staff Engineer, Army Reservists on Facility Engineer Teams, and the USACE—as well as

its Forward Engineer Support Teams/Environmental Support

Teams and USACE laboratories—provide the on-site and

reachback expertise to address environmental issues/considerations as required. The Army Environmental Center also

acts as a significant resource to address environmental issues and concerns.

Direct environmental threats that the USAES and USACE

are addressing include dust suppression, solid waste management, and initial environmental screening for force protection. The USAES Directorate of Environmental Integration

assisted ARCENT CFLCC environmental staff in writing and

sponsoring an operational needs statement to address waste

oil generation as part of operational activities. By eliminating

waste oil, the need for backhauling of this waste is removed,

and the solution—fuel oil blending—also reduces the fuel

needs of the operation.

Recognizing environmental considerations, impacts, and

threats is not something new, but it is something that will

have to be taken more seriously as the Current and Future

Force continue to perform their mission of safeguarding this

Nation. It falls on the Engineers to lead the way forward

through our actions and continued execution of our proponency. As we safeguard the security of the environment,

we in turn safeguard our Nation’s security.

In closing, I say again how thankful I am to be back with

the Regiment, serving alongside such great Soldiers and leaders. I know you are all busy, and I just ask that with such a fast

tempo, you continue to balance your work requirements with

your commitment to your family and community. Let’s make it

a Great New Year. Essayons!
Lead The Way

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

US Army Engineer School

Happy New Year to all of our engineer soldiers and families! As wereflect on the accomplishments and

happenings of the past year, let’s all stop

for a minute to think about the tremendous

contributions and sacrifices made by our

Active, Guard, and Reserve soldiers and

their families during this time of war.

Whether it’s doing the job overseas, preparing to deploy, training soldiers, designing the Future Force, developing equipment,

or ensuring that the home front is being

taken care of, sacrifices are being made

around the clock. As a result, Iraq today is

much better than the Iraq of yesterday; and

the principle of freedom is being upheld

throughout the world. We’re seeing on a daily basis that freedom is definitely not free. So I want to say thank you to those

who are fighting for it—our soldiers—and to our families for

supporting us.

A great deal has occurred since the last issue of Engineer.

One of the most significant events was the change of command between General Van Antwerp and General Castro. I’d

like to express my appreciation to the Van Antwerps for the

positive impact they made on the Engineer Regiment and the

Fort Leonard Wood community. It was great to have served

with such a fine team, and I know the Regiment and I speak

with one voice when I say, “We wish you the very, very best.”

I speak for the Regiment again when I say, “Welcome home,

General and Mrs. Castro! It’s great to have you back. We

sincerely look forward to serving with you and are blessed to

have another extraordinary team in our midst.”

Fort Leonard Wood and the Engineer School received a

welcome visit from the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Command Sergeant Major Anthony Williams in October 2004. He toured the Noncommissioned Officers Academy (NCOA) and Drill Sergeant School and visited

the Sapper Leader Course (SLC), where he gave a briefing on

the significance of authorizing the Sapper Tab, TRADOC issues and concerns, and general leadership.

Soldiers from the NCOA, Officer Basic Course, and 1st

Engineer Brigade at Fort Leonard Wood also had the opportunity to attend a presentation by the 1st Armored Division

Engineer Brigade Command Sergeant Major Ioakimo Falaniko.

He shared lessons learned in Iraq and stories of personal courage and leadership on the battlefield. He was also the guest

speaker for the SLC Class 01-05 graduation,

and helped pin the first set of Sapper Tabs

on the graduates.

During my recent trip to Fort Bragg,

North Carolina, I visited the 307th and 20th

Engineer Brigades—commanders, command sergeants major, and soldiers at all

levels—and pinned Sapper Tabs on eligible

soldiers from the 27th Engineer Battalion

and 307th Engineer Brigade.

TRADOC Commander General Byrnes

has approved the concept to close the gap

between explosive ordnance disposal (EOD)

personnel and engineers. Part of the concept is a new additional skill identifier (ASI)

for engineers to enable us to identify and destroy (on a limited

basis) explosive hazards. This will involve training selected

21Bs as explosive ordnance clearance agents (EOCA). Explosive ordnance clearance is defined as the investigation, detection, location, marking, reporting, and preparation of protective works for unexploded ordnance (UXO). It also includes

the disposal in place—when authorized by the EOD staff cell—

of UXO identified in draft Technical Manual 093-89D-02, Explosive Ordnance Clearance Manual, and theater-specified

UXO, after risk analysis and positive identification. There will

be 192 seats available per year for the EOCA course, with

priority going to deploying units. The pilot course begins on

1 March 2005 at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, with 16 Army

Training Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS) seats

available for reservation starting 1 December 2004. Students

must be command-selected based on prerequisite criteria, and

their unit must fund the TDY cost. If you would like some of

these seats, contact Sergeant Major Benton, USAES Directorate of Training and Leader Development, as soon as possible. We will be conducting a Regiment-wide search to identify E7-level personnel (two each) to serve as instructors at

this course, starting summer 2005.

I’d like to remind you that we’re nearing our annual ENFORCE Conference, which will be held in late April 2005. Come

prepared to share lessons learned and recommend suggestions for the way ahead so our Regiment can continue to

progress as it did during 2004.

Finally, continue to focus efforts on the Global War on

Terrorism, maintaining high standards and leading the way as

engineers do. May God bless the fallen comrades and keep

watch over our sons and daughters as we continue to fight

the fight. Essayons!

October-December 2004 Engineer 3
4 Engineer October-December 2004

Some 4,000- and 5,000-year-old

artifacts from Iraq’s multicultured

past were discovered on Kirkuk

Air Base, in Iraq, when soldiers of a

Reserve engineer battalion dug into a hill

while gathering dirt for defense barriers.

Once the engineers found the artifacts,

they stopped, backed off, and notified

the brigade tactical operations center.

The next day, an officer—who was an

anthropology major from St. John Fisher

University—went to the site to verify

whether or not it was an archeological

find. The hill was validated as an

archeological site, as were the nearby

hills in the vicinity of the base. It’s

amazing that soldiers can step outside

their living quarters and be at the

doorstep to ancient civilization. US

soldiers are operating in and protecting

this birthplace of civilization.

Throughout the month of May, local

archeologists from the Museum of

Antiquities were invited on base to

identify artifacts and other potential

archeological sites. As Americans, our

policy is to respect the cultures of the

countries we are in. That’s one of our

main missions in civil affairs. The

Director of the Ministry of Antiquities,

who appreciated the efforts of the

Army and Air Force in safeguarding Iraq’s ancient history,

stated through an interpreter, “I

realize how sincere [the Army and

Air Force] are to the Iraqi culture.

Before I knew about this, I was

concerned about the sites beneath

the earth in the area. Now I know

they are here trying to protect and

preserve these sites for the Iraqi

people.”

At first, the site was believed to

be a grave site. Closer examination

revealed that its animal bones and

pottery were related to an ancient

settlement and not a contemporary

mass grave. Some of the pottery

found on the base is about 5,000 years

old and linked to the Yorghun Tepe or

Nuzi people of the Hurrian civilization.

Nuzi was a provincial agricultural town

in the small Hurrian kingdom of Arrapha,

whose capital is today buried under

Kirkuk. Arrapha was situated along the

southeastern edge of the area under

Mittanian domination. Babylonia laid to

the south and to the west was Assyria,

whose revolt against the Hurrian

kingdom of Mittani probably led to

Soldiers Help Preserve Archeological Sites

By Sergeant Sean Kimmons

Nuzi’s destruction in the 14th century

and ultimately contributed to Mittani’s

collapse.

In 1927, Harvard University excavated

the town of Nuzi, which is about 10 miles

south of Kirkuk. One remarkable item

recovered from this site was the world’s

oldest map, which was etched on rock

dated at 5,500 years. The Iraqi territory

was known as Mesopotamia, which is

credited as being the cradle of civilization

and its inhabitants as the initiators in the

development of the agricultural system,

a writing system, and metal alloys.

Iraq is a country sitting on top of the

world’s oldest and most significant

history of mankind. This is why it is

important to safeguard these particular

sites on base until the Ministry of

Agriculture in Baghdad decides what to

do with them. For now, it will be our

responsibility to make sure no damage

is done to the sites.

Sergeant Kimmons is a photojournalist for the 2d Brigade Combat

Team, 25th Infantry Division (Light), at

Kirkuk Air Base, Iraq. He is a graduate

of the Defense Information School at

Fort Meade, Maryland. Examining ancient artifacts discovered on Kirkuk Air Base, Iraq

Photo by Sean Kimmons

Photo by Sean Kimmons

Pottery pieces found on Kirkuk Air Base,

Iraq
October-December 2004 Engineer 5

Sound environmental practices in the theater of operations, principally hazardous and solid wastemanagement, are truly an area of force protection. How

much waste can a contingency base camp generate? Seemingly

more than it can handle. By Spring 2002, units at Kandahar

Airfield, Afghanistan, were faced with a growing human health

and environmental threat caused by huge amounts of waste

that required collection, management, and disposal. This waste,

not just from US forces, included vast amounts of destroyed

equipment, trash, and hazardous waste left behind by Taliban

forces that were routed away from the airfield.

Uncontrolled Waste Disposal

During the initial stages of base camp development,

there were no easy disposal solutions. Most of the

land in and around the airfield was potentially laden

with mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO), which meant

waste collection, consolidation, and disposal activities were

limited to cleared locations close to soldier living and work

areas within the camp. Off-site disposal was not an option

since the local population was still unfriendly, and local

disposal facilities did not exist. The first disposal area at the

airfield consisted of a shallow trash burn pit surrounded by a

large junkyard of old Soviet equipment, barrels of hazardous

waste, discarded US materiel, trash, and small-caliber

ammunition. This disposal site was uncontrolled, and many

items—regardless of their potential hazard or reuse value—

were thrown into or around the burn pit. The uncontrolled

nature of the disposal area created a number of unacceptable

conditions:

 Soldiers entering the area to dispose of waste were at risk

for potential exposure to smoke from burning debris,

exploding aerosol cans and food containers, and unknown

hazardous waste.

 The burn pit’s proximity to the center of the camp allowed

smoke to drift over living and work areas, creating a

potential risk to soldier health.

 Hazardous waste (primarily petroleum, oil, and lubricant

[POL] products) was uncontained, allowing the possible

leaching of contaminants into the groundwater. Since the

airfield depended on a single well to supply all of its

nonpotable and most of its potable water, this threat was

unacceptable.

 Soldiers threw nonburnable debris into the burn pit, causing

it to fill up quickly and resulting in the need to dig a new

emergency pit.

 Units discarded and destroyed large amounts of reusable

or recyclable material (such as lumber, vehicle parts,

equipment, metals, and concertina wire).

 The area was used for improper disposal of medical

waste.

“One-Stop” Waste Disposal –

Enhancing Force Protection in Afghanistan

By Lieutenant Colonel Garth Anderson and Lieutenant Colonel Whitney Wolf

Abandoned Soviet military equipment near the old burn pit

Hazardous waste disposal at the old burn pit
6 Engineer October-December 2004

In April 2002, Facility Engineer Team (FET) 18 of the US

Army Facility Engineer Group (USAFEG) arrived at Kandahar

Airfield and joined the staff of the Brigade Combat Team. The

FET was manned by seven engineering, environmental, and

construction professionals and was augmented by a US Army

Corps of Engineers liaison officer. After setting up public works

operations at the camp, the FET and the brigade staff began

preparing the base master plan. A key component of this plan

was environmental management, especially the collection and

disposal of hazardous and solid waste. Given the conditions

of the waste disposal area, commanders agreed that environmental management was a force protection issue and

gave it the appropriate priority.

Several challenges faced the FET as it gained control over

the waste management issues:

 Land for a new disposal area had to be cleared of mines

and UXO.

 An upcoming transfer of authority between Brigade

Combat Teams meant that departing units would be

generating enormous amounts of waste as they cleaned

and loaded equipment.

 Large amounts of improperly disposed of hazardous waste

still needed to be collected and contained.

Controlled Waste Disposal

The environmental officers on the FET developed a

plan that effectively balanced simplicity with effectiveness. First, the new disposal area needed to be

as far away from the main part of the camp as possible to

minimize exposure to smoke. Second, sound waste disposal

needed to be easy. If it is too difficult and complex to comply

with the requirements, then midnight dumping occurs, making

the problem even worse. The basic concept became “onestop shopping” for all disposal requirements—all forms of

waste disposal located in one spot. This allowed a logical and

controlled process that made it easy for units to comply. This

facility, with easy access from the road, consisted of a recycling

area, hazardous waste storage cells, a medical waste incinerator, and a large burn pit with controlled access.

Usable Materials

The first stop at the facility was the recycling area where

units dropped off potentially usable materials, especially

lumber and scrap metal. This provided numerous benefits to

the camp—units could reuse these materials for building

furniture, packing for shipping, fabricating parts, and repairing

equipment. Lumber was scarce and expensive, and this was a

great cost saving and a relief on resupply channels. And

keeping the nonburnable material out of the burn pit greatly

extended the life of the pit.

Hazardous Waste

The next stop was the hazardous waste holding area. This

facility consisted of six bermed and lined cells, each 40 by 40

feet. Liners for the cells were unserviceable fuel bladders that

were drained, cut open, dried, laid flat, and covered with gravel.

Soldiers then placed each type of waste (such as POL, batteries,

and solvents) into separate designated cells, to comply with

segregation requirements. Labeling standards were minimal

to maintain simplicity and facilitate compliance with proper

storage. Waste characterization, labeling, and preparation for

shipment would be a task for the future base support contractor.

Final disposal of hazardous waste would come later when a

theaterwide disposal contract was in place. But until that time,

the waste was effectively segregated, contained, and away

from troop living and work areas.

Hazardous waste holding cell design

Soldiers dumping at the old burn pit were exposed to

hazards of burning trash.

Standard Berm Construction to Receive Liner 59’ x 59’
October-December 2004 Engineer 7

Burn Pit

Once all reusable materials and hazardous waste were

dropped off, the unit vehicle could then proceed to the burn

pit. The FET incorporated several features into the design and

construction of the pit. Most importantly, it was controlled.

The pit was surrounded by a berm and barbed wire, and the

single point of entry was gated and manned by a guard, who

inspected loads to ensure that only appropriate waste was

placed in the pit. The entry also featured an ammunition

amnesty box, which kept hundreds of dangerous rounds from

being placed in the fire. The burn pit (250 by 250 feet in area

and 12 feet deep) was large enough to have a reasonable life

span of 2 to 3 years. The large size allowed safe standoff

between areas of the pit that were actively burning or

smoldering and designated spots where units would dump

their loads, minimizing the likelihood of an injury from

exploding debris. An entrance ramp allowed access by dozers

and compactors to perform routine maintenance, also extending

the life of the pit.

Medical Waste

Requirements for disposal of medical waste are more

stringent than those for solid waste due to the potential biohazard of medical waste. Therefore, a small incinerator for

medical waste was placed adjacent to the disposal area. The

base support contractor was responsible for the operation

and maintenance of the incinerator.

Conclusion

Tying the entire waste management program together

required the vigilance of the unit chain of command

and the base operations staff. As a result of the experience gained in its peacetime mission of environmental

assessments at US Army Reserve Centers nationwide, the FET

was able to provide expert environmental staff work. The FET

also acted as the commander’s eyes and ears to ensure that

soldiers were complying with unit and Army environmental

standards.

Sound environmental management in contingency operations is an important facet of force protection. It is necessary

to minimize soldier exposure to potentially harmful contaminants and hazardous conditions at uncontrolled waste

disposal areas and burn pits. To facilitate good waste disposal

practices, the process needs to incorporate simplicity for the

soldier and the unit, design and construction of facilities that

provide access control and waste containment, and continuous enforcement by the chain of command. A properly

designed and built one-stop waste disposal facility is a key

component of a good environmental program that helps

soldiers remain healthy and able to accomplish their critical

mission outside the wire.

Lieutenant Colonel Anderson is the Commander, 733d

Facility Engineer Detachment, Kansas City, Missouri. He

was the team leader of FET 18, USAFEG, Kandahar,

Afghanistan, and has served as S3 of 2d Brigade, 383d

Training Support Battalion, as well as civil and mechanical

engineer positions in the USAFEG. Lieutenant Colonel

Anderson holds a bachelor’s in civil engineering from the US

Military Academy and a master’s in environmental engineering from the University of Illinois.

Lieutenant Colonel Wolf is the team leader of FET 16,

Omaha, Nebraska. He was the operations and environmental

officer, FET 18, USAFEG, Kandahar, Afghanistan. He has held

civil and mechanical engineer positions in USAFEG and was

an operations research/systems analyst at Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri. Lieutenant Colonel Wolf holds a degree in

civil engineering from Missouri Western State College.

New burn pit design

Layout of the one-stop waste disposal area
Increased Battery Usage I

Raises Disposal Issues

8 Engineer October-December 2004

Batteries are a critical component in many weapon

systems and support equipment. Without power, the

system is useless. The Army’s current equipment

power requirements have pushed battery usage to its highest

level. Our forces have come within “days” of running out of

batteries, and major combat operations could have ceased or

been significantly changed without battery support.1 By April

2003, production of the BA-5590 battery increased from 60,000

to nearly 125,000 per month. The companies went from two

shifts a day for 5 days a week to operating 24 hours a day, 7

days a week just to keep up with the military’s demand. It was

estimated that of the combined four services, the actual battery

usage was 180,000 batteries per month in Iraq. To fill the

demand, the next generation of rechargeable, also referred to

as “secondary” batteries, was introduced to the battlefield to

supplement traditional nonrechargeable “primary” batteries.

Rechargeable batteries were previously reserved for training

use only because of charging constraints.

One battery type will not fit every component, nor are the

procedures for disposal all the same. Because the responsibility

of properly disposing of or recycling batteries can be confusing,

the US Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM)

created Technical Bulletin 43-0134, Battery Disposition and

Disposal. Additional information, battery updates, and several

battery Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) are provided on

the CECOM Web site at <http://www.monmouth.army.mil/

cecom/safety/sservice/bs.htm>.

Some batteries are considered nonhazardous waste when

fully discharged; others, due to their composition, are

considered hazardous waste even if fully discharged. When

batteries are improperly disposed of, they can contaminate

water supplies, create fires, and explode—if mixed with solid

wastes and burned. Protecting the soldier is the primary reason

to understand battery disposal guidelines, because the adverse

effects of improper disposal become force health protection

and safety issues later.

Command emphasis, planning, providing awareness

training, and following a few easy rules will ensure that all

batteries are properly maintained, handled, and disposed of:

 Refer to the batteries’ MSDSs for safe handling procedures,

storage, and disposal information. All batteries should not

be treated the same.

 Train personnel on which batteries can be recharged and

which cannot.

 Train personnel on which batteries can be disposed of as

nonhazardous waste and which have to be turned in for

disposal as hazardous waste.

 Include information in the unit standing operating

procedures (SOP) concerning the handling, storage, and

disposal procedures for all batteries used by the unit.

 Always replace batteries in pairs; don’t mix old with new

or rechargeable with nonrechargeable batteries.

 Never dispose of any battery in a fire or into waste that is

scheduled to be burned. (This would include most solid

waste at a forward operating base.)

 Require trained personnel to handle batteries that have a

complete discharge device (CDD). After the CDD is

depressed, the batteries must sit for 5 days.

 Completely discharge batteries before disposal.

 Rotate battery stock: first-in, first-out (FIFO).

 Establish battery charging procedures in the unit SOP, if

rechargeable batteries are used. Some batteries retain

memory; if not completely discharged before recharging,

they will lose charging life.

Properly maintaining batteries will ensure weapon

systems and support equipment readiness. The increased

use of rechargeable batteries will reduce the overall amount

of used batteries generated. Providing awareness training

and leadership emphasis on battery disposal procedures

will ensure that batteries do not become a force health

protection issue.

Mr. Walker is an environmental training specialist with

the Directorate of Environmental Integration, US Army

Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Endnote

1 Geoff S. Fein, “Battery Supplies Ran Dangerously Low in

Iraq,” National Defense, September 2003, pp. 16-19.

By Mr. Mike Walker
October-December 2004 Engineer 9

Army Engineers

Help Restore

Iraqi Wetlands

By Ms. Nani Gould

The Mesopotamian Marshlands, considered by many

to be the cradle of civilization, were largely drained by

Saddam Hussein’s regime. Now, the US Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) is helping restore the historic wetlands.

Located between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, the marshes

were once among the world’s largest wetlands. Within this

8,000-square-mile area, the 5,000-year-old culture of the Madan,

or Marsh Arabs, developed the first alphabet.

Before their destruction, the Mesopotamian Marshlands

spanned an area roughly twice the size of the Florida

Everglades. Known for their biodiversity and cultural richness,

the marshes were home to millions of birds, fish spawning and

nursery areas, and various agricultural crops. The devastation

seen under the hand of the former regime has been compared

to the deforestation of the Amazon.

After putting down a rebellion by the Marsh Arabs at the

end of the Gulf War, the Iraqi government set its full wrath

upon the group—burning towns, killing livestock, and making

the drainage of the marshlands a top priority. An estimated

150,000 people were displaced during this time; some were

forced to relocate as many as 18 times.

By 1999, the marshlands had been reduced to 7 percent of

their original state. Many endemic species were lost, a natural

filter system for protecting rivers and the Persian Gulf from

waste and pollutants was devastated, and an entire culture

rich in history was destroyed. The area was in dire need of

structure and rebuilding efforts.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID),

an independent federal government agency that funds

development projects in many countries, is leading the effort

to restore these marshlands. USAID, the Iraqi Ministry of Water

Resources (MoWR), and USACE are developing a water

management model that will aid efforts to reconstruct Iraq’s

historic water flow system and restore Iraq’s marshes.

To help the remaining marshland population and support

other US efforts to secure Iraq’s infrastructure, USAID turned

to the Corps’s Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) for its

expertise in modeling water management in large watershed

systems. The HEC is responding by developing a reservoirsimulation model (See article on page 10.) This model will

provide real-time simulation to help US officials and the new

Iraqi leadership make smart operational decisions to maintain

and update the country’s complex system of dams and canals.

After the invasion, Iraq’s dam and infrastructure system

was intact, but the institution was in disarray. The MoWR

headquarters building had been burned, and its ability to

manage the complex system of dams and barrages was

significantly compromised. The HEC Reservoir System

Simulation (HEC-ResSim) model will provide modern

technology for use in both day-to-day operational decisions

and long-term water resource management studies.

The HEC-ResSim model is being developed in two phases.

Phase 1, which established a relationship between the HEC

and other Iraqi groups working with the marshlands, also

successfully developed the concept of the water control

system. Phase 1 was completed in November 2003. Phase 2

develops the model in more detail and extends the lower

boundary to marsh areas. It also adds structure and develops

data sets useful in long-range planning and studies of

alternative operations.

The HEC-ResSim model will provide the MoWR with the

capability to make detailed assessments of the consequence

of alternative reservoir releases prior to issuing operation

instructions to dam operators. Also, other Iraqi agencies, such

as the Ministry of Environment, and nongovernmental

agencies interested in marsh restoration, such as the US-based

Iraq Foundation, will be able to use the model in support of

their studies and activities. The partnership between USAID,

MoWR, and USACE is designed to eventually restore the

Mesopotamian Marshland ecosystem through improved

management of the nation’s water infrastructures and natural

resources.

Ms. Gould works in the Public Affairs Office at the Army

Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

Note: A variation of this article was printed in the Army

News Service, Washington, on 4 August 2004.

Photo courtesy USAID
10 Engineer October-December 2004

Acountry torn apart by decades of cultural and political

violence, postwar Iraq is working to rebuild its towns

and restore its economy. Thousands of displaced

Iraqis are now seizing the opportunity to return to their homes

and their indigenous way of life. This is the case for the Madan,

or Marsh Arabs, who have resided in the delta region of Iraq

for 5,000 years and were targeted by the former regime after

the first Gulf War for giving sanctuary to rebels. The Madan

relied heavily on the marshes to sustain their way of life until

1991, when the Ba’athist regime began to drain the marshes,

destroy towns, and force the Madan to flee their homes. The

Tigris and Euphrates River system was diverted from its normal

path through 8,000 square miles of marshes to a direct route

into the sea, ultimately turning the thriving marshlands into a

desert. Today, there is much interest in evaluating the existing

water management system in Iraq and the possibilities it can

provide for restoration of these marshes.

For a nation that relies on other countries for most of its

water supply, Iraq is urgently working to restore its own water

system infrastructure. Under the old regime, technology used

to manage dams and canals fell short of systems used in much

of the industrialized world. The Ministry of Water Resources

(MoWR), formerly the Ministry of Irrigation, is beginning to

modernize the water system with the latest technology and

state-of-the art software for support of its water management

mission. It is undergoing substantial rehabilitation after

suffering considerable postwar losses, especially technical

references and computer resources, due to fire damage and

looting.

Reservoir Simulation Model

To assist in this effort, the US Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) and the US Agency for International

Development (USAID), an independent federal

government agency that funds development projects in many

countries, have partnered to help restore the Iraq marshland

ecosystem through improved management of the nation’s water

infrastructure and natural resources. Heading up this effort to

revive Iraq’s water system infrastructure is the USACE

Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), in collaboration with

Development Alternatives, Incorporated, the USAID agent.

HEC is developing a reservoir simulation model for the Tigris

and Euphrates River system in Iraq. This model will provide a

means for performing water resources planning studies, as

well as decision support for Iraqi officials

managing the real-time operation of the

country’s intricate system of dams and

canals.

From the outset, it was recognized that

Iraq’s geographical setting and environmental factors posed challenging situations

for hydrologists to consider for this project,

including uneven distribution of precipitation and a natural topography that is

not conducive to drainage. The water

management model would need to account

for all of the water coming into Iraq,

including its storage, release, and movement. It would also be used to simulate

historical events—in particular, extreme

flood and drought periods. The end result

is the HEC’s Reservoir System Simulation

(HEC-ResSim), a decision support tool that

uses state-of-the-art software to aid the

MoWR in its operation of the complex water

management system in Iraq.

Army Engineers Develop Model

to Support Iraqi Water Management

By Ms. Nani Gould and Mr. Fauwaz Hanbali

A traditional Marsh Arab hut in southern Iraq, where the Ministry of Water

Resources—with help from American agencies—is restoring the

Mesopotamian marshes.

Photo courtesy US Army Corps of Engineers
October-December 2004 Engineer 11

Iraq’s marshlands have complex flow patterns and require

specialized models to analyze the flow circulation through the

marshes. At the same time, there is a great interest by those

devoted to marsh restoration to be able to use the output from

the HEC-ResSim water management model to

determine critical matters such as whether

there is enough water available to restore the

marshes to their historic levels. In developing

the model, HEC employed a two-phased

approach that initially produced a preliminary

water balance model that covers the Tigris

and Euphrates Rivers, as well as their

tributaries in Iraq.

Phase I

Completed in November 2003, Phase I

successfully developed the concept of the

water control system, established a relationship between HEC and Iraqi engineers, and

implemented operational rules and criteria.

Specifically, HEC researched public sources

and accumulated essential publications,

reports, and data relating to the hydrology of

the Tigris and Euphrates watersheds. HEC

also hosted two Iraqi engineers from the

MoWR to complete the preliminary reservoir

model. The partnership between HEC and the

Iraqi engineers proved to be a vital component

in developing an accurate water simulation model. Their handson experience and familiarity with Iraq’s topography, as well

as years of data carefully recorded in notebooks, provided the

criteria for the HEC-ResSim model. Additionally, a comprehensive review of the watershed layout was conducted,

the reservoir network connectivity was verified, and historical

stream flow records dating back to 1930 were digitally archived

into the HEC data storage system.

The HEC-ResSim software was used to construct a geographically referenced model of the reservoir system in Iraq.

The model consists of six major reservoirs, three massive offstream storage reservoirs, seven chief barrages, and many

diversions to reflect water withdrawals along different reaches

of the Tigris, its tributaries, and the Euphrates. The primary

reservoirs include the Mosul Reservoir downstream of the

Turkish-Syrian border on the Tigris and the Haditha Reservoir

on the Euphrates. Basic model input incorporates reservoir

storage capacity curves, individual outlet capacities, power

plant characteristics, river reach flow routing parameters, water

demand diversion requirements, reservoir seasonal target

levels, and rules of operation. The primary objectives of the

reservoirs in the model are to generate hydropower, mitigate

flooding, and supply water for irrigation, because approximately

85 percent of Iraq’s water supply is used for irrigation purposes.

Reservoirs are key to the capture and storage of floodwaters

to meet the country’s irrigation requirements and ensure that

Iraq’s primary crops—including wheat, barley, and rice—are

farmed successfully. In addition, the recent return of date palm

orchards has brought back an important part of the economy

in southern Iraq. Vegetative covers such as reeds are

harvested commercially for building materials, and water

A preliminary HEC-ResSim schematic shows a network

of dams and reservoirs throughout the system.

Photo courtesy US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center

Photo courtesy US Army Corps of Engineers

Upcoming USACE projects include rehabilitation of water control

structures such as these gates at Mosul Dam.
12 Engineer October-December 2004

The foundation of Army operational readiness is highly

trained soldiers. To conduct tough, realistic training,

commanders require continued access to critical ranges

and training lands. Encroachment from population growth,

urban development, and environmental requirements limits the

Army’s ability to fully utilize our installations for realistic

combat training. Congress recently acknowledged the threat

of encroachment to military readiness and provided a legislative

tool that allows the Army to work with other government or

private partners to establish buffer areas around active ranges

and training lands.

Training Realism

Our nation is in the midst of a global war on terrorism.

Every soldier and commander knows the importance

of training—particularly realistic training—to our

ultimate success. In a recent ambush in Iraq, a unit came under

attack from grenades, improvised explosive devices, mortars,

and small arms in downtown Baghdad when crossing under

an overpass. “It’s a surreal feeling; everything is [slow-motion].

You really don’t think; you just react like you’ve been trained

to during a contact,” a Stryker vehicle gunner said.

As the soldier in Iraq alluded, we must train as we fight.

The advent of future combat systems with more lethality and

increased range will require even larger physical maneuver

areas to ensure realism. For example, as shown in the table on

page xx, a World War II brigade doctrinal footprint required

fewer than 100 square kilometers. The current Heavy Brigade

Combat Team and Stryker Brigade Combat Team requirements

are an order of magnitude larger, while the Future Force

requirement will be as much as two orders of magnitude larger—

an area greater than the states of Rhode Island and Delaware

combined.1

Simulations can and do play a key role in training, but when

it comes to achieving the level of proficiency that is so critical

to ensuring combat readiness, we know there is no substitute

for live-fire and maneuver training.

As an Army at war, it is more important than ever that we

provide tactical commanders unfettered access to ranges and

training areas to maintain combat readiness. However, there

are several trends that are challenging the Army’s ability to

train and maintain weapons proficiency. These trends are

collectively termed encroachment.

Encroachment

Generally, encroachment is an infringement on another’s

rights or property. For the Department of Defense,

encroachment is the cumulative result of any and all

outside influences that inhibit normal military training and

testing. We see encroachment at military installations in

previously isolated and rural areas that are now surrounded

by urban development and above-average population growth,

such as Fort Bragg, North Carolina, shown in Figure 1. These

land uses are not compatible with military live-fire training and

testing exercises, and they begin to inhibit and intrude on the

Army’s ability to train and test our warfighting capabilities.

Increased environmental regulation also restricts training.

Regulations designed to protect air and water quality, manage

noise, and protect cultural resources also restrict the timing

and frequency of training, reduce the space available for

maneuvers and tactical use, and limit the number of live-fire

exercises.

Habitat management responsibilities for endangered species

represent another component of encroachment that threatens

Compatible Use Buffers:

 A New Weapon to Battle Encroachment

“Providing ranges and training lands that enable the Army to train and develop its full capabilities is crucial to ensure

that America’s forces are relevant and ready now.”

—Major General Larry J. Lust

Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management

By Lieutenant Colonel Joseph L. Knott and Ms. Nancy Natoli

Figure 1. Fort Bragg, North Carolina
October-December 2004 Engineer 13

the Army’s ability to fully use our land assets. This trend is

related to suburban sprawl, which has reduced the size of

wildlife habitats on private lands. When Major General R.L.

Van Antwerp was Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation

Management (ACSIM), he asserted that many of the Army’s

training ranges are actually “islands of biodiversity,” on which

wildlife take refuge from the expanding human presence and

corresponding habitat destruction. Federal regulations require

the Army to protect an increasing list of endangered plants

and animals living among those islands, which limits the use

of many training and testing ranges. Nearly 100 Army

installations are home to more than 150 federally listed and

protected species, creating a disproportionate burden for

critical habitat management to support species recovery.

While nearly half of Army installations suffer training

restrictions because of encroachment, readiness has not

suffered, due to the creativity and flexibility of our commanders

and noncommissioned officers. When obstacles threaten

training, units find a workaround to accomplish the mission.

Unfortunately, these workarounds reduce realism, increase

costs, and shorten usable equipment life. James Gunlicks,

Deputy Director of Training, Deputy Chief of Staff G3, at

Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), describes

the cumulative effect of workarounds as “death by a thousand

paper cuts.”

To address these issues, HQDA is pursuing sustainable

approaches to buffering ranges and installations from

surrounding growth and balancing environmental mandates

with readiness imperatives. The Army has established a

Sustainable Range Program to maximize the capability,

availability, and accessibility of ranges and training land by

minimizing restrictions from external factors. An important

component of this program is working with local communities

and nongovernmental organizations to improve land-use

planning. Congress has also supported this effort with recent

legislative authority, allowing the Army to formalize this

process through establishing compatible use buffers around

military installations.

Army Compatible Use Buffer Program

The compatible use buffer concept began in the 1990s at

Fort Bragg, in the Sandhills region of North Carolina.

This area is dominated by a pine ecosystem that is

home to the red-cockaded woodpecker, an endangered species.

After significant training restrictions were imposed in the early

1990s, Fort Bragg, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the state,

and other regional partners began to look for solutions to halt

red-cockaded woodpecker habitat decline. In 1995, the Army

entered into a cooperative agreement with The Nature

Conservancy to identify and acquire private land or

development rights from willing sellers for the purpose of

conservation. In 2003, Congress provided explicit legislative

authority to expand the Private Land Initiative to other

installations.

Legal Authority

Title 10, United States Code, Section 2684a, “Agreements

to Limit Encroachments and Other Constraints on Military

Training, Testing, and Operations,” was enacted by Congress

as Section 2811of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2003. This authority represents a powerful tool

and unique opportunity for the Department of Defense to work

in partnership with states, other governments, and public or

private environmental and conservation groups to achieve a

common goal of sustainability. By addressing incompatible

land use and unconstrained development, it contributes to

managing suburban sprawl and wise growth management. It

also provides authority for the Army Compatible Use Buffer

(ACUB) Program.

Program Description

The ACUB Program, which was implemented by means of a

19 May 2003 guidance memorandum from the HQDA Deputy

Chief of Staff G3 Director of Training, and ACSIM, entitled

“Army Range and Training Land Acquisitions and Army

Compatible Use Buffers,” represents a new and innovative

tool to address encroachment at Army installations. ACUBs

allow the Army to work with partners to encumber land to

protect habitat and training without using the lengthy and

complicated land acquisition process administered under

Army Regulation 405-10, Acquisition of Real Property and

Interests Therein.

ACUB Process

All installations can evaluate ACUBs as a possible tool

to mitigate encroachment effects on the training

mission. ACSIM is the proponent for ACUBs and has

final approval authority; however, Active Army installations

Brigade Doctrinal Footprint Requirements

Brigade Type Doctrinal Battlefield Footprint

World War II Brigade 8 x 12 kilometers (96 km2)

Heavy Brigade Combat Team 20 x 30 kilometers (600 km2)

Stryker Brigade Combat Team (2003) 40 x 40 kilometers (1600 km2)

Future Force 75-kilometer radius (17,671 km2)
14 Engineer October-December 2004

submit ACUB proposals to the Installation Management

Agency (IMA) or major command (MACOM) to be validated,

while National Guard installations submit proposals to the

National Guard Bureau for validation. Once validated,

proposals are forwarded to the Office of the Director of

Environmental Programs (ODEP), Training Support Division.

ODEP reviews the proposal and coordinates with work groups

and the Army Range Sustainment Integration Council for

review before final recommendation to ACSIM. ACSIM

approval is in the form of a memorandum, which is returned to

the installation via the appropriate the IMA/MACOM or

National Guard Bureau chain of command. Approval does not

guarantee funding.

Cooperating partners and willing sellers are essential to

successful execution of ACUBs. During the process, the

installation (assisted by ODEP, the US Army Environmental

Center (USAEC), and the IMA/MACOM) negotiates with the

cooperating partner to formalize the details of a Scope of Work

(SOW) contingent on ACSIM approval of the ACUB. The SOW

outlines the Army and partner’s areas of mutual interests,

responsibilities, timeframes, financial contributions, and other

dependencies. It can be conceptually discussed early in the

process, but formalized only after HQDA approval of the ACUB

proposal. After the partnership details are authorized in the

SOW, a cooperative agreement is the formal procurement

document for executing the SOW and must be executed by an

authorized grants officer.

With legal arrangements in place, the cooperating partner

works with willing landowners to acquire land and provide a

natural buffer between military training lands and residential

or commercial activities. The partner—not the Army—receives

the deeded interest in the property and provides for long-term

habitat management. Pursuant to the terms of the cooperative

agreement, the installation may retain access rights to conduct

compatible military training.

ACUB Priorities

The Army’s Range and Training Land Strategy (RTLS)

provides HQDA a prioritized list of installations with

critical training land shortfalls and installations with

potential for significant expansion and a list of strategic

training land reserves. Part of the RTLS includes identifying

and quantifying encroachment and its effects. Using this

approach, the RTLS identifies 12 ACUB priorities:

 Fort Carson, Colorado

 Fort Benning, Georgia

 US Army Garrison, Hawaii

 Fort Hood, Texas

 Fort Stewart, Georgia

 Fort Richardson, Alaska

 Fort Bragg, North Carolina

 Fort Sill, Oklahoma

 Fort AP Hill, Virginia

 Fort Campbell, Kentucky

 Camp Ripley, Minnesota

 Camp Shelby, Mississippi

ACUB Successes

Camp Blanding, Florida, established the first ACUB in

September 2003. With $500,000 from Camp Blanding

and $19.5 million from the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, the State of Florida established an

8,000-acre ACUB. In May 2004, Camp Ripley, Minnesota,

established the second ACUB with the Prairie to Pines

Partnership to establish a 3-mile conservation buffer area

around the post.

ACUB partnerships are also underway at major power

projection installations such as Fort Carson, Colorado, and

“Encroachment issues can impact the ability

to exercise soldiers, leaders, units, and equipment

in a real-world environment, prior to deployment

to a war zone.”

—General John Abrams

Former Commanding General

US Army Training and Doctrine Command

Figure 2. Fort Carson Military Reservation
the US Army Garrison, Hawaii. Fort Carson has an approved 

(Co ntinued fro m page 11) ACUB prop osal to pur ch ase a l4,000-acre parcel to buffer 14 

miles of its southern border (see Figure 2). Activities at three buffalo , a traditional live stock of the Iraqi people, have also Fort Carso n firin g ranges could be sub stantially curtailed if returned to the marshes. The water sup ply will be critical to this property were dev eloped. The installation and partner ensuring that all these components of the restored ecosystem 

have been working with a pri vate owner with large land thrive and gro w. holdings to prevent further threats to inst allati on activ ities 

from encroachment. Phase II 

This phase began in January 2004 and should be completed 

projec tion platform with minimal deployment time for the Pacific 

The US Army Garrison, Hawaii, is an essen tial power 

by the end of the year. HEC will continue to ree stablish and 

theat er. The Garrison ha s nego tiated a draft agreement to modernize water management in Iraq and coordinate with the 

cooperate in purchasing a 1,1DO-acre parcel that may soo n be MoWR and interested pa rties. Primary objec tives include an 

developed. Purchasing this property, with the Hawaii state on-s ite assess ment of ex isti ng strea m gage net wo rk and 

parks holding title and lan d management resp onsibil ity, will upgrade needs, as well as refinement of the reservoir model to 

allow land to be dedicated to increasing the endangered plant analyze existin g and projected water shortages in the system. 

pop ulation outside the fence and meet the requirements of a A training course is planned for the HEC-ResSim model in 

US Fish and Wildlife Se rvice "no j eopardy" opinion. The Baghd ad, upon completion of Pha se II. The goa l is for two 

Army's $3 million contri bution to the total $12 million purchase HEC staff members to travel to Baghdad and pre sent one week 

will also reli eve some resi dential land development pressure of tr aining for up to 30 MoWR engineers. Training will focus 

in the area. on use of the softwar e and model for real-time decision support 

and plannin g studies. Currently. however, techn ology transfer 

Summary between the HEC-located in Davis, California, and the 

MoWR headqu artered in Baghdad-has pr ov en to be ACDBS represent an innovativ e and effective too l for challenging. miti gating the effec ts of en cr oachmen t on Army
 

rai ning and testing .They provide a mechanism for an
 Far-Reaching Impacts 

ins ta llation to share natural res ource co nservatio n responsibilities with our neighb ors, positively influen ce land The HEC-ResSim model has drawn attention from around 

use outs ide of th e inst all ati on , and ens ure th at the in­ the world . USACE personnel stationed in Afghanistan 

stallation's land resources are used most effec tivcly to prov ide have show n interest in the model for similar work they 

the realistic training and testing that American soldiers require are doin g in that country. This model is expected to have farto remain victorious in battle and persuasive in peace . reaching imp acts, and hopefull y it will be used in oth er 

countries that need help studying and solving reservoir system The HQD AACU B program man ager is Lieutenant Colonel management problems. HEC and the Afghanistan Engineer Joseph L. Kn ott, (703) 60 1- 1596; e-ma il <joseph. kno ll 

Distr ict recently teamed up to develop a reservoir simulation @hqda.army.mil> .The US Army Environmental CenterACUB model of Kajakai Reserv oir and other projects in nearhy valleys. point of contact is Scott Belfit, (4 10) 436-15 56; e-rnaiI 

The mod el will simulate system operations for hydropower, <scott. he ljit@us.army.mil> . III 

flood control, and irrigati on, reflecting substantial planne d 

upgrades to the reservoir 's genera ting capaci ty, live storage , Lieuten an t Co lonel Knott is the HQDA Trai ning Lands and disch arge facilities. USACE is continuing to eva luate the Support Offi cer in the Office ofthe Director of Environmental software for additional projects and future partners. III 

Program s under the Assistant Chi ef of Stafffo r Installation 

Management. His p revious assignments include commander 

Ms. Gou ld worksfor Booz Allen Hamilton and is the exhibit of the 2 I 6th En gineer Battalion (Co mbat Heavy), project manage r for the Public Affairs Office of the US Army coordinat or fo r th e Massachusetts M ilitary Reservation 

Env ironmental Center. She.holds a bachelor'sin biology fro m G ro undwater Cle an up Program, and ope rationa l and 

Virginia Tech and is purs uing a master 's in environmental command position s in Southwest Asia and Cen tral America . science and policy from J ohns Hopkin s Un ive rsity in 

Ms. Natoli is a Resea rch Fello w at LMI with prior Baltimo re, Maryland.
 

experience at the Armv Env ironmental Polic y Institu te and
 Mr. Hanbali is a hydrauli c eng ineerfo r the USACE HEC the US Anny Construction Engineeri ng Research Laboratory. Water Managem ent Systems Di vision. He is involved in the She holds two deg rees [rom the Massachusetts Institu te of 

Technol ogy. m

develop

ent Syst

ment 

ems 

a

and 

nd appli

HEC-R

cation 

esSirn 

of

s

the 

oftw

USA

are

CE 

. Mr. 

Wat

Han

er 

bali 

Man ageholds 

a bac helor 's in civil engineering from th e Un iversity of Endnote Maryland and a master's in river engineering from IR E Delft, 

'As Future Force platforms are developed, fielded , and the Netherlands. 

exercised, the doctrinal footprints will be refined. 

Octobe r-Decembe r 2004 Engineer 15 
16 Engineer October-December 2004

The US Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE), usually known for

designing and constructing

water control structures, has taken on a

very different engineering challenge—

bringing down a 150-year-old dam.

On 23 February 2004, the Norfolk

District of USACE began this historic

mission. Six hundred pounds of explosives set by the Army and Air Force

Reserves blasted a 130-foot section in

the middle of Embrey Dam in

Fredericksburg, Virginia, allowing the

Rappahannock River to flow freely for

the first time in more than 150 years. The

detonation opened approximately ten

10-foot holes in the structure, allowing

fish to pass through as part of their

natural migration cycle.

The Rappahannock River flows 184

miles from a spring in the Blue Ridge

Mountains to the waters of the

Chesapeake Bay. Fredericksburg, a

historic Virginia town founded in 1728,

sits at the fall line of the Rappahannock.

A wooden crib dam was the first dam

built on the falls in 1853. In 1910, the

Fredericksburg Water Power Company

finished construction on a 770-foot-long,

22-foot-high concrete dam that spanned

the Rappahannock River. The Embrey

Dam was an Ambursen-type dam,

consisting of a series of reinforced

concrete buttresses (14 feet on center)

with sloped (38 degree) concrete slabs

on the upriver side. It was used to

generate hydroelectric power until the

1960s. The city of Fredericksburg also

used water diverted by the dam into the

Rappahannock Canal as a raw water

source for the city’s supply until early

2000.

In 1985, a group of Fredericksburg

business owners, politicians, and

community members formed Friends of

the Rappahannock (FOR), which

focused on keeping the river healthy—

among other missions. One of their

primary concerns regarding the health

of the river was the decline of migratory

fish stocks, such as American shad,

hickory shad, blueback herring, and

striped bass that were once so plentiful

in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These

anadromous species spend most of their

lives at sea and only enter freshwater

rivers, such as the Rappahannock, to

spawn.

Together with the Virginia Department

of Game and Inland Fisheries, FOR began

to raise awareness of the migratory fish

passage problem. Fish elevators and

other solutions were not feasible at

Embrey, and the groups advocated

complete removal of the dam.

 There were other factors supporting

the removal of the dam, the greatest of

which was that it had fallen into disrepair

and would cost the city millions to

rehabilitate. Another factor was safety,

since the citizens of Fredericksburg

frequently played in and around the dam.

In addition, canoeists and kayakers

traveling on the river were forced to

portage around the dam.

By the mid-1990s, the city of

Fredericksburg began working with

neighboring Spotsylvania County to

develop new regional water supply

solutions. These discussions made it

clear that the water plant connected to

the Embrey Dam could be closed, thus

eliminating the last major “need” for the

dam.

One of the major obstacles to

removing the dam was the cost and

By Ms. Nancy Allen and Mr. Christopher Augsburger

USACE Sets the

Rappahannock River Free

Photo courtesy Robert A. Martin, The Free Lance-Star
October-December 2004 Engineer 17

funding sources. As early as 1992, city

officials met with USACE to discuss the

feasibility of removing the dam using

federal funds. Then the push to remove

Embrey Dam received a major boost in

May 1996 when FOR invited Virginia

Senator John Warner for a roundtable

discussion about the project. The

Senator pledged that if the group could

demonstrate that there was community

consensus to take down the dam, he

would take it on as a personal project.

The senator arranged for $100,000 for

the Corps to conduct a reconnaissance

study. Engineers, biologists, oceanographers, planners, economists,

archaeologists, social scientists, and

other subject matter experts from the

Corps’s Norfolk District collected and

analyzed a vast amount of data. In the

end, the study had to weigh the project

benefits against any potential adverse

project impacts and ultimately determine

if any aspect of the Embrey Dam removal

would result in significant, long-term

adverse impacts on environmental

resources.

In 1998, the Corps concluded that fish

passage and the restoration of the

Rappahannock River was in the public

interest, making the project eligible for

federal funding. The preferred alternative

called for building a sediment containment area, dredging behind the

structure, and completely removing

Embrey Dam. It would restore more than

100 miles of main stem fish spawning and

rearing habitat, open up the longest

flowing river in the Chesapeake Bay

drainage, enhance the Rappahannock for

anglers and recreational users, and save

the city of Fredericksburg millions. A

year later, the Water Resources

Development Act authorized $10 million

for the project.

In March 2003, after the necessary

permits had been obtained, the Norfolk

District hired a contractor to oversee the

removal of 250,000 cubic yards of

sediment. This was to minimize any

possible impact from increased sediment

levels downstream during the breaching.

The project plan called for a section of

the dam to be breached using explosives

in February 2004. Timing was critical

because the dam had to be breached in

time for fish to take advantage of the

newly reopened fish passage during the

spring migration season.

The Corps began working with the

US Army Dive Company and the US Air

Force 555th RED HORSE Reserve

Squadron on the demolition under the

Department of Defense’s Innovative

Readiness Training (IRT) program. The

IRT program was developed to find ways

to use the military’s unique resources

and capabilities to serve American

communities in need while providing

realistic military training benefits. The

team developed a plan to blast about 10

of the buttresses, or about 130 feet of

the dam. Divers worked in 35-degree

water, drilling hundreds of holes into

which some 650 pounds of explosives

would be placed. The operation was

named “Noah Shiva” after the biblical

account of Noah and the great flood and

the Hindu god for destruction and

rebirth.

Although only ten percent of the

charges ignited the first time, a second

blast occurred shortly afterwards, and

the Rappahannock was flowing freely for

the first time since 1853. The river rose

quickly, but no downstream flooding

occurred—as predicted by the Corps’s

hydrological models—and then the river

dropped back to its normal levels.

The remaining sections of the dam

will be removed by mechanical means.

The project is scheduled for completion

in 2006. Embrey Dam will be the largest

dam removed in the United States since

1999, when the Edwards Dam was

removed from the Kennebec River in

Maine.

This project was unique because of

all the different partners it brought

together, including not only city, state,

and federal agencies but also military

and environmental representatives at

every level. By reopening more than

1,300 river miles to migratory fish in the

Chesapeake Bay watershed, we are

allowing American shad and blueback

herring to reclaim their native waters as

part of our concerted effort to restore

the life of the Bay.

Ms. Allen is a public affairs

specialist with the USACE Norfolk

District. Before joining the Corps,

she worked for the Hampton Roads

Chamber of Commerce and the

Hampton Roads Maritime Association.

She holds a bachelor’s in mass communications from Virginia Wesleyan

College.

Mr. Augsburger spent five years as a

member of print and broadcast

media before joining the USACE

Baltimore District as a public affairs

specialist. He holds a bachelor’s in

mass communications from Towson

University.

The removal of Embrey Dam was dubbed Operation Noah Shiva.

Photo courtesy Davis Turner, The Free Lance-Star
18 Engineer October-December 2004

The Nashville District, US Army

Corps of Engineers (USACE), is

implementing a Clean Marina

Program (CMP) for the Cumberland River

Basin and becomes one of the first

USACE districts in the nation to sponsor

such a program. The program allows

marina operators to certify that they are

environmentally conscious and are

attempting to go above and beyond what

is required by law and regulations and

within their lease requirements.

Then Major General (P) Carl A. Strock,

now Chief of Engineers, endorsed the

program in a May letter to division and

district commanders while he was

Director of Civil Works: “Building on the

solid foundation of our Environmental

Operating Principles and in implementation of our Civil Works Strategic Plan,

the Corps of Engineers strongly

endorses the Clean Marina Program and

encourages all districts to share information on the program with their

lessees and recreation partners.”

Originally developed in coastal states

to address nonpoint source pollution

under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990,

CMPs have been adopted or are being

developed by 18 states, the District of

Columbia, and several federal agencies.

With 456 lakes around the United States,

USACE (with agency partners) is the

largest provider of marinas east of the

Mississippi River.

The program is designed to help

marina operators protect the very

resource that provides them with their

livelihood. It also encourages boater

education, increased coordination

among state agencies, and better communication of existing laws.

Two Cumberland River Basin

Marinas—Willow Grove Marina at Dale

Hollow and Green Turtle Bay Marina at

Lake Barkley—will serve as models for

the certification process. Other marinas

at Old Hickory Lake and J. Percy Priest

Lake have expressed interest in the

Clean Marinas Promoted

in Cumberland River Basin

By Mr. David S. Treadway

program. Officials opened the program

to all interested marina operators during

the Kentucky and Tennessee Marinas

Association meeting in November.

The Nashville District’s program is a

model of cooperation. Many partnering

agencies worked closely to draft the

guidebook and certification checklist.

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of

Water Pollution Control, and the

Cumberland River Compact reviewed the

guidebook and checklist, providing

valuable suggestions for improvement.

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources

Agency reviewed the program and gave

permission to use the agency’s logo in

the package.

Marina operators must take a number

of steps to attain certification. They first

sign a pledge and commit to controlling

pollution and erosion at their facility and

to promoting water protective behavior

with the boating public. Next, they

familiarize themselves with the program

guidebook and accompanying checklist.

With that checklist, they conduct a selfassessment and invite the lake resource

manager to visit and endorse the marina

for the program. The checklist covers a

wide variety of related questions in

seven critical areas: sewage management; oil and gas control; solid waste

and petroleum recycling/disposal;

vessel maintenance and repair; marina

siting, design, and maintenance; storm

water management and erosion control;

and public education and water safety.

CMPs are entirely voluntary. Certification means that marinas can display a

certificate and Cumberland River Basin

Clean Marina flag, indicating their new

status. Recognition in press releases and

promotions can then follow. If desired,

recertification is completed every five

years. If a marina changes hands, the

new owners can go through the process

to be certified as a clean marina.

Mr. Treadway is a public affairs

specialist with the Nashville District,

USACE. He is retired from the US

Marine Corps. He was General H. Norman Schwartzkopf’s Public Affairs Chief

during the Gulf War in 1990.

High School

students work at

Conley Bottom

Marina on Lake

Cumberland to

help rid the lake

of garbage. Photo by David S. Treadway
October-December 2004 Engineer 19

The Installation Restoration Program (IRP) has been the

Army’s primary cleanup program within the Defense

Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) since the

1980s. Historically, IRP focused on cleaning up sites

contaminated with hazardous substances that posed toxicological risks. This changed in 2001 with the establishment

of a new Army cleanup program that targeted military

munitions.

The Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) was

formalized in September 2001 when the Department of Defense

(DOD) published new management guidance for DERP. A new

program category under DERP, MMRP addresses environmental health and safety hazards associated with unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military munitions

(DMM), and munitions constituents on current and former

military sites as a complement to the highly successful IRP.

In December 2003, the Army fulfilled its first MMRP

requirement—an inventory of its former training ranges and

munitions sites to identify sites eligible for MMRP. In fulfilling

its obligations under MMRP, the Army’s first priority is the

protection of human health, safety, and the environment. The

Army went beyond the letter of the requirement and expanded

its data gathering efforts to account for additional pertinent

information. As a result, the Army not only expedited the

program’s decision-making process—with human health and

safety the top priority—but also put itself ahead of schedule

and established a precedent for MMRP success.

Legislative Background

This MMRP inventory effort, part of a larger mission to

ensure public health and environmental safety, has been

underway since fiscal year (FY) 2002, when Congress

passed the National Defense Authorization Act. This piece of

legislation set MMRP in motion by requiring the military

services to complete the following:

 Develop an initial inventory of all current and former military

sites within the United States, its territories, and its

possessions containing or suspected of containing UXO,

DMM, or munitions constituents. This helped determine

the size and scope of the program. Criteria are outlined in

the DERP management guide.

 Ensure that specific inventory site information is entered

into the appropriate DOD environmental database. For the

Army, this is the Army Environmental Database–

Restoration. This site information would also be used to

determine initial cost-to-complete estimates and total

environmental liabilitiesassociated with MMRP.

 Develop a response prioritization protocol for each MMRP

site.

The military services were directed to include not only

former ranges but also all sites possibly containing UXO,

DMM, or munitions constituents in the MMRP site inventory.

With this clarification, the Army began moving forward with

Military Munitions

Response Program

By Mr. Mark Albe and Ms. Margaret Schnebly

Photo courtesy Fort Bliss, Texas
20 Engineer October-December 2004

plans to expand its current environmental cleanup program to

address MMRP requirements.

Roles and Responsibilities

The Army assigned the US Army Environmental Center

(USAEC) the primary responsibility for completing the

inventory for all active, base realignment and closure

(BRAC), excess property, Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS),

and state-owned and -operated National Guard Bureau

installations, as required by the 2002 National Defense Act.

Given the vastness of the task, USAEC took a team approach,

bringing together organizations with the necessary technical

and project management experience. USAEC enlisted the US

Army Corps of Engineers as the executing manager for the

inventory project.

The Corps’s experience in managing UXO projects—

through the FUDS program and its Ordnance and Explosives

Center of Expertise in Huntsville, Alabama—would be crucial

for success. USAEC and the Corps agreed that the MMRP

team should include contractor support teams, if the 2003 due

date was to be met. The two organizations divided the country

into three regions and selected a contractor to do the inventory

in each. The work was delegated to three Corps geographic

districts: the Eastern-Baltimore District, Midwest-Omaha

District, and West-Sacramento District.

These teams would visit all active installations in their

respective regions and perform the research required to collect

the inventory data, supporting geographical information

system data, and maps. A separate contractor did the work on

all Army BRAC installations.

Inventory Execution and Results

I

n October 2001, the inventory began. This included

hundreds of installation visits; intensive historical

research; numerous document, installation, and site

mapping reviews; and periodic team coordination and problem

solving meetings. Additionally, each site was assessed for

explosives safety risk using the Risk Assessment Code

Methodology developed by the Huntsville Center. In total,

the teams investigated more than 620 Active Army, BRAC,

and state-owned and -operated National Guard installations

and facilities. At these three types of installations, 1,318 sites

known or suspected to contain UXO, DMM, and munitions

constituents were found. In the FUDS category, 1,172

properties and 2,446 sites were identified. USAEC evaluated

all active and BRAC sites for MMRP eligibility. USAEC

determined that 818 sites representing 2.91 million acres were

eligible for the active MMRP, and 98 sites representing more

than 200,000 acres were eligible for the BRAC MMRP.

The data was uploaded in the Army Environmental

Database–Restoration and preliminary restoration cost

estimates were developed using the DOD-approved Remedial

Action Cost Engineering and Requirements System. Each site’s

risk assessment code score will be used to prioritize site

response. (A new Munitions Response Site Prioritization

Protocol will replace the risk assessment code methodology.

Approval is expected in January 2005.) The complete list of

MMRP sites will be included in the FY 2004 DERP Annual

Report to Congress.

Next Steps

The IRP and MMRP have become the cornerstones of

the Army environmental cleanup strategy, the Army’s

basic roadmap to addressing the DOD cleanup

objectives. The strategy is designed to accomplish two things:

 Empower Army environmental managers to proactively

address environmental contamination caused by formerly

accepted Army practices.

 Ensure that timely, cost-effective, and successful business

and scientific solutions—such as performance-based

contracting—are implemented to protect human health and

environmental safety.

Moving forward, the majority of the MMRP remediation

work will be completed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act process.

However, the Army is expecting that some installation work

may be required to follow the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act process. With this in mind, DOD developed the

following performance goals for MMRP at active installations:

 Complete a preliminary assessment for each MMRP-eligible

site by the end of FY 2007.

 Complete a site inspection for each MMRP-eligible site by

the end of FY 2010.

Unexploded ordnance from the formerly used defense

site of Raritan Arsenal, New Jersey, 1997

Photo courtesy USAEC
October-December 2004 Engineer 21

The final inventory report completed for each active

installation was comprehensive enough to meet the requirements of a preliminary assessment. And during the range

inventory, enough data was collected to meet the requirements,

so the first MMRP goal of completing preliminary assessments

by the end of FY 2007 has been met. In the long run, going

above and beyond from the get-go is helping the Army quickly

identify and address any public safety risks.

As a result, USAEC initiated the site inventory effort in FY

2003. It reassembled its inventory teams to tackle the site

inventories, ensuring that the synergy, technical expertise,

and intimate knowledge generated by these organizations

during the inventory phase carried over into the process.

USAEC kicked off the site inventory process at 10 active

installations in FY 2003 and at 18 additional active installations

in FY 2004.

The MMRP site inventory at an active installation will take

approximately 18 months from the kickoff meeting to the

delivery of the final MMRP site inventory report. The primary

objective of the MMRP site inventory is to determine whether

or not a remedial investigation or feasibility study is required

at a site, whether or not an immediate response is needed at a

site, or if the site qualifies for no further action.

The Army’s MMRP site inventory process emphasizes

continuous improvement, information sharing, communication,

problem solving, and lessons learned. The team has built

flexibility into the site inventory process and schedule. It is

committed to developing the appropriate tools to ensure that

the process runs smoothly and to completing each project in

the best interests of all stakeholders involved. As the

responsible party, the Army wants the public to be confident

of its intent and commitment to work with local communities

and current landowners to design, implement, and complete

appropriate munitions responses at all munitions response

sites. The Army is committed to ensuring the safety of the

public, to keeping the public well-informed of program

activities, and to addressing community concerns.

The MMRP site inventory process and methodology

involves the following principles and activities:

 Stakeholder Involvement. Early stakeholder involvement

is key to developing the trust necessary for ensuring that

the work performed during the MMRP site inventory

process meets expectations and requirements.

 Historical Records Review. This records search documents known information for the sites involved in the

MMRP site inventory effort. It also involves development

of a conceptual site model.

 Technical Project Planning. This proven method

identifies project objectives and design data collection

programs for hazardous, toxic, and radioactive sites. The

four-phase process ensures that the type and quality of

data obtained during the project satisfies project objectives

and leads to informed decisions and site closeout.

 Site Inspection. Developing the MMRP field work plan

includes soil sampling for explosives and metals to address

potential munitions constituents and appropriate

geophysical work for the detection of UXO and DMM.

 Final Site Inventory Report. This report formally documents

the results of the site inventory and includes recommended

steps for the site.

These activities will help the MMRP site inventory team

collect the necessary information to complete the Munitions

Response Site Prioritization Protocol and to develop better

and more accurate cost-to-complete estimates for each site.

The team developed a program management plan and a scope

of work for each MMRP site inventory installation and chose

the Corps’s technical project planning process as its guideline.

In FY 2005, the MMRP site inventory team also plans to

incorporate performance-based contracting into its process.

USAEC is now securing funding for and scheduling MMRP

site inventories for the remaining 130 active installations. The

process should be completed by the end of FY 2010.

As of the end of FY 2004, DOD had not set dates for the

completion of remediation at all MMRP sites. Looking ahead,

the Army will continue to ensure that the best and most

appropriate technologies are used during munitions response

actions at the munitions response sites. Regardless, USAEC

is planning to fund MMRP remedial investigation and

feasibility studies projects based on stakeholder input and

draft site prioritization protocol data. This step could begin as

early as FY 2007 or 2008 on selected active installations with

completed MMRP site inventories.

For more information on MMRP or the Army’s environmental

programs, contact the USAEC Public Affairs Office at (410) 436-

2556 or visit <http://aec.army.mil/usaec/>.

Mr. Albe serves as program manager for MMRP. He holds

a bachelor’s in general engineering from the United States

Military Academy and a master’s in business administration

from Rockford College in Illinois.

Ms. Schnebly works for Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., and

serves as an outreach specialist for the USAEC Public Affairs

Office. She holds a bachelor’s in English from Lynchburg

College in Virginia and is working on a master’s in communications from Johns Hopkins University.

References

The Army Environmental Cleanup Strategy, April 2003.

Fiscal Year 2003 DERP Annual Report to Congress.

MMRP Site Inventory Program Management Plan, 2003.

Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act.
22 Engineer October-December 2004

Testing and training ranges are key elements in

maintaining the capability and readiness of US military

forces. Currently, the level of knowledge on the nature

and extent of contamination and residues from live-fire training

exercises on military ranges is not adequate to ensure sound

management of these ranges. However, knowledge is being

greatly expanded as the US Army Engineer Research and

Development Center (ERDC) explores an array of topics such

as groundwater contamination, low-order detonation, soil

remediation, range management tools, and other ecological

effects on training ranges.

Even though small research studies on training ranges have

been performed at ERDC since 1998, research began in earnest

in 2001 when the Massachusetts Military Reservation closed

due to groundwater contamination. The research—

 Examined chemical processes from the micro- to macroscale.

 Determined transformation products following the alkaline

destruction of explosives and propellant residue.

 Evaluated the transformation of products following alkaline

destruction.

 Integrated a research program that utilized site characterization methodologies.

 Developed the best management practice to ensure

continued operation of the nation’s training and testing

ranges.

 Included international collaboration.

The research developed technologies or advanced

knowledge on various topics from molecular-level interactions

to large-scale field evaluation methods. This approach

emphasized the delivery of a useful product for the Army and

the Department of Defense (DOD).

Live weapons and ammunition are necessary to create a

realistic environment for soldiers during small arms training.

The goal for research on small arms firing range soil remediation

was to balance the need for this essential training with

environmental stewardship. The team is developing ways to

By Ms. Sara Leach

Lead concentration in runoff water is above state limits at

this M60 machine gun range.

Photo courtesy Dr. Steve Larson, ERDC Environmental Laboratory Photo courtesy Dr. Steve Larson, ERDC Environmental Laboratory
October-December 2004 Engineer 23

reduce the cost of range soil remediation, eliminate migration

of heavy metals from small arms ranges, and prevent toxic

metals from traveling through the soil below ranges to the

underlying groundwater. ERDC is developing low-cost, lowmaintenance techniques to keep small arms ranges open and

limit the life-cycle costs associated with the operation.

As part of the Strategic Environmental Research and

Development Program, firing range research began to provide

DOD with techniques to assess the potential for groundwater

contamination from constituent residues of high explosives.

Detecting where the contamination was coming from and what

could be done about it were the primary concerns.

One aspect of this research includes determining how much

chemical residue remains after the explosion of ordnance—to

include trinitrotoluene (TNT), cyclotrimethylene trinitramine

(RDX), and high-melting explosive (HMX). Sampling snow

after a detonation has been effective in determining residue.

Residue on a soil surface can’t be seen, but residue on a snow

surface looks like a darkened soot footprint. Snow is collected,

melted, and analyzed for residue.

A “blow-in-place” method for demolition of unexploded

ordnance (UXO) on training ranges has allowed

characterization of the associated residues. Secondary

charges, to limit the amount of residue, are being explored.

The amount of high-explosives residue associated with

munitions that fail to detonate completely is also being

explored. These residues can become a source of groundwater

contamination.

Since 2000, more than 20 ranges across the United States

and Canada have been studied. With these studies, data gaps

have been filled and characterization guidance and protocols

are expected to be provided to installations by the end of

2005. ERDC’s firing range research is providing a direct benefit

to the Army by keeping training ranges open and sustaining

military readiness, while also offering proactive solutions that

reduce environmental harm. The research is also providing

technologies that US Army Corps of Engineers districts and

divisions can use to satisfy the needs of their installation

clients. Since arms training is not unique to the Army, other

services can also benefit from the research completed and

ongoing at ERDC.

Ms. Leach is a Public Affairs Specialist at the US Army

ERDC in Vicksburg, Mississippi. She holds a bachelor’s in

journalism and public relations from the University of

Mississippi.

In situ soil stabilization is

being studied as a possible

remedy for the lead concentration in the runoff water at

Photo courtesy Dr. Steve Larson, ERDC Environmental Laboratory

this M16 rifle range.
24 Engineer October-December 2004

I

f you have ever had the opportunity to conduct an

environmental baseline survey (EBS) using strict

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, then

you know it is a costly, time-consuming, and lengthy process

to meet this federal requirement. A typical EBS at a base

realignment and closure (BRAC) facility may take 12 to 18

months and cost $500,000 or more. In the private sector, when

conducting real estate transactions, this activity is called a

Phase 1 environmental assessment (EA), performed by a

registered environmental assessor (REA). In either case,

whether an EBS or EA, it is often a complex and contentious

issue since thousands—or more likely millions—of dollars

are at stake. In addition, the urgency to gain control of the

property under survey further complicates the issue.

The focus of this article is to provide a streamlined approach

and a sample checklist for conducting an EBS during

contingency operations.

Definition

An EBS is a technical assessment of several environmental compliance programs, combined with asurvey of air, soil, surface water, and groundwater

conditions. It includes a records search, personnel interviews,

a photographic record, and if time and money permit, laboratory

sampling and analysis of suspicious findings. The EBS often

is the determining factor as to whether a full-blown remedial

investigation process is required and where to focus that

investigation.

Purpose

I

n short, an EBS is conducted because the law says we

have to. The baseline survey, required before the

change of tenants at federal facilities, establishes the environmental condition of the property and the nature and extent

of contamination, if any, on or before the date of vacancy or

occupancy. The survey must answer questions about potential

environmental liability associated with the previous use of

the property, potential significant adverse impacts on the

community or the environment, and hazards or contamination

associated with the property. Once the environmental

condition is established, then accountability and liability can

be clearly applied to the offending party. Even if the law did

not require it, it makes sense to conduct an EBS to protect

oneself from environmental liability, which can be costly

and punitive.

Application

During a contingency operation, you will face unique

obstacles in trying to complete the EBS for your

facility. For example, it is hard to conduct interviews if

you do not speak the host nation language. It is difficult to do

a records search when records do not exist, were destroyed

by war, or are in some language you cannot read. You may not

have access to satellite imagery or the ability to obtain aerial

photographs. You likely do not have the resources to conduct

laboratory sampling, and you certainly do not have the time

to complete an EBS at the detail that is required by EPA

guidelines. These are the challenges we face as engineers in

performing our mission. So if you are an engineer working in a

contingency operation such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Djibouti,

Jordan, or Kuwait, this streamlined, four-step approach for

conducting an EBS will be helpful.

Conducting an Environmental

Baseline Survey in Contingency

Operations

By Lieutenant Colonel David M. Wilkins

This illegal dump was cited, but no enforcement action

was taken against the violator.
October-December 2004 Engineer 25

Summary

There is no exemption from conducting an EBS just

because your facility is on some distant battlefield.

Remember that this survey, once completed, offers the

commander a comprehensive and thorough examination of the

environmental condition of the property under his control.

This is critically important to assess risks to human health and

the environment, environmental risks to military and civilian

personnel, and the ability to effectively negotiate with the

host nation on costs and requirements for using its land. The

goal is to avoid liability, while at the same time to set the

benchmark for our own accountability. Our government and

its military commanders need bargaining power when it comes

to land use. A comprehensive, scientific evaluation of the

property condition will give them that power. This streamlined

approach and checklist will help the base engineer and

empower leaders in a contingency operation.

Lieutenant Colonel Wilkins is a team leader for the San

Francisco Facility Engineer Team 20, Facility Engineer

Center Southwest, US Army Facility Engineer Group. He

holds a bachelor’s in general engineering and a master’s in

environmental management. As a civilian, he is the senior

construction manager for Luster National, Inc., Hunters Point

Subdivision Redevelopment Project, San Francisco,

California.

Step 1. Perform a Site Inspection

During the first step, the following should be performed:

 A grounds inspection to determine the incidence of

distressed vegetation, staining of soil, or other indications

of potential contamination.

 A visual inspection of signs of dumping on the site and a

determination of what may have been dumped there.

 A visual inspection for drums, vats, tanks, or other

containers, that may contain illegally disposed hazardous

materials and wastes.

 A visual inspection for transformers, substations, and

power lines.

 A visual inspection for vent pipes, fill pipes, or other

indicators of underground storage tanks.

 A visual inspection for the presence of species of

threatened or endangered plants or animals.

 A visual inspection to determine if the area is a wetland or

wildlife habitat.

 A visual inspection for indications of cultural or historical

sites.

Step 2. Conduct Interviews

During this step, conduct interviews (with or without an

interpreter), as appropriate, with personnel who may have

firsthand knowledge of former or current on-site activities that

may have had an environmental impact.

Step 3. Conduct Agency or Records Checks

During this step, conduct agency or records checks (with or

without an interpreter), as appropriate, with personnel who may

have firsthand knowledge of former or current on-site activities

that may have had an environmental impact. Some good places to

check include—

 State, province, territory, or municipal historical records offices

or other agencies for records of land use, previous incidence

of contamination, or other environmental events on adjacent

properties that may have had an environmental impact.

 State, province, territory, or municipal EPA (or similar organization’s) records for incidence of previous or current

contamination of the site or properties immediately adjacent.

Step 4. Document the Survey

While the conduct of the survey will primarily entail a records

search and an actual on-site inspection of the grounds, it may be

necessary to document the discovery of any significant findings

with photographs. Any photographs submitted in the report can

be in black and white; however, clear, full-color photographs of

good quality are most appropriate. In addition to the photographic

record, provide a written report of the findings. The checklist of

key areas (see page 26) is a simple and effective way to

catalogue any findings made during the EBS process. It is less

time-consuming than the full requirements of the EPA guidelines,

yet gives the commander the power of the information he needs

to protect his resources and assets. Most of the survey areas

are self-explanatory, but explanations are provided when needed

for clarity on selected topics.

Four-Step Approach to Conducting an EBS

References

Army Regulation 200-2, Environmental Effects of Army

Actions, 23 December 1988.

Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of Sections 4321 to 4370, Title 42, United States Code.

This hazardous materials storage unit should be disposed

of. It is unserviceable due to excessive corrosion and

weathering.
26 Engineer October-December 2004

Checklist of Key Areas

Sample checklist for cataloging findings during the EBS process

SAMPLE
October-December 2004 Engineer 27

Researchers with the Engineer

Research and Development

Center (ERDC), Cold Regions

Research and Engineer Laboratory

(CRREL), have been treating petroleumcontaminated soils in remote, cold areas

by using root-microbial processes.

According to a fact sheet released by

the Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation, Spill Prevention, and

Response Division, petroleum is the

most common contaminant in Alaska.

The Department of Defense (DOD)

has used a wide variety of petroleum

products—including gasoline, diesel

fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, lubricating oil,

bunker oil, and tar—all of which are

refined from crude oil. Many petroleum

products contain benzene and polynuclear aromatics, known carcinogens to

people and animals.

Most petroleum contamination in

Alaska comes from leaking storage tanks,

containers, and pipes (with undetected

leaks underground); leaking equipment;

transportation accidents; and improper

handling and disposal practices. Many

DOD sites are so remote that transport

and operation of traditional cleanup

systems are impractical or too costly.

Some sites are underlain by permafrost

and are vulnerable to environmental

damage.

Getting to the Root

of Contamination

By Ms. Marie C. Darling

Natural attenuation, the most costeffective treatment for remote contaminated sites, is often inhibited by a

lack of nutrients, a lack of mixing, highly

dynamic moisture and temperature

conditions, and a short treatment season.

One recommendation is to identify a means

to enhance natural attenuation processes

and effectively monitor the enhancement

to cost effectively treat hundreds of

petroleum-contaminated sites in remote,

cold regions.

Modifying soil conditions by

introducing plants with diffuse root

systems exploits the rhizosphere effect.

The rhizosphere is a zone of enhanced

microbial activity in soil near plant roots.

Using the rhizosphere effect takes

advantage of a host of natural cycles and

processes. For example, plant roots

exude excess carbon, which stimulates

microbial activity and biodegradation

near the roots. As roots explore the soil,

microbial activity is enhanced for increasing percentages of soil and results

in “pseudo-mixing” without the need to

physically till the soil.

In early laboratory experiments at

CRREL and field studies in Fairbanks,

Alaska, successful plant germination,

plant growth, and root intrusion in both

crude oil- and diesel-contaminated soil

were successful. Cold-tolerant grasses,

especially annual ryegrass and Alpine

bluegrass, appeared to germinate and

grow in petroleum-contaminated soils.

There were greater numbers of bacteria

in the rhizosphere soil compared to

unvegetated bulk soil and an increase in

the percentage of soil microorganisms

that can degrade model organic contaminants. And most significantly, the

vegetated soil treated with nutrients

increased remediation rates and reached

a lower endpoint concentration than

unvegetated or untreated soils.

For the past five years, researchers

have further investigated earlier findings

by conducting field studies of

rhizosphere-enhanced treatment at three

geographically diverse sites in Alaska—

Barrow (north slope), Galena (interior),

and Annette Island (southern)—and two

sites in Korea. Results show a significant

beneficial plant effect, and the effect is

more pronounced for recalcitrant

compounds. Surprisingly, the data show

that nutrient additions alone can slow

or inhibit biodegradation of recalcitrant

compounds relative to either the

vegetated or control treatments.

The Army Environmental Quality

Technology Program, the Strategic

Environmental Research and Development Program, and the Environmental

Security Technology Certification

Program supported this research. The

findings have implications for live-fire

range sustainability and understanding

the persistence and fate of chemicalbiological agents, both involving microbially driven surface-soil phenomena. By

providing a science basis for low-cost

treatment at remote sites, results of this

research will benefit DOD and residents

of Alaska.

Ms. Darling is a public affairs

specialist with the ERDC Cold Regions

Research and Engineering Laboratory

located in Hanover, New Hampshire.

These plants in

a contaminated

soil landfarm in

Fairbanks,

Alaska, provide

a field study to

evaluate the

rhizosphere

effect.

Photo courtesy C.M. Reynolds, ERDC CRREL
28 Engineer October-December 2004

Many US Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers

join up for the opportunity to do something

different during their monthly drills and annual

training. That was certainly true when I first joined a National

Guard armored cavalry troop. Leading a platoon of Bradley

fighting vehicles was very different from my civilian job at

that time as a district conservationist for the US Department

of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service. However,

changes in both my civilian job and Reserve unit led me to

perform almost identical tasks when I was deployed to Iraq as

part of Operation Iraqi Freedom in February 2003.

I deployed as part of Detachment C, US Army Facility

Engineer Group (USAFEG). USAFEG units are facility engineer

detachments (FEDs) or facility engineer teams (FETs) that

assume the functions of a Directorate of Public Works (DPW)

at contingency bases of operations. FEDs and FETs have been

deployed to Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East

since the beginning of combat operations in the US Army

Central Command (CENTCOM) area.

My position with the FED during peacetime was as an

environmental officer. In my civilian job, I am an engineer for

Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC), which

operates the Savannah River Site for the US Department of

Energy. At WSRC, my responsibilities have included

engineering support for storage and off-site shipment of

hazardous waste, writing contracts for hazardous waste

disposal vendors, and performing certification audits on

prospective vendors. I am involved in the chemical and

radiological characterization of radioactive waste destined for

disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New

Mexico. While in Iraq, I used much of the formal training and

field experience I gained at WSRC.

While in Arifjan, Kuwait, my detachment received its first

tasked mission as a FED—to conduct an environmental

baseline survey (EBS) for the base where we were stationed.

An EBS establishes the baseline environmental “health” of

any building, facility, or area scheduled for occupation by US

Army and coalition forces for more than 30 days. The survey

identifies environmental and health risks associated with the

site and provides unit commanders with the information needed

to avoid or reduce exposure risks. An EBS determines any

obvious threats to human health and safety (such as unsafe

structures, polychlorinated biphenyl [PCB] leaks, and loose

asbestos) and documents preexisting environmental

contamination on a site before its use by US or coalition forces.

The base, known as Logistical Support Area (LSA) Adder,

in southern Iraq on the outskirts of An Nasiriyah, is located

on Tallil Airfield, a former Iraqi Air Force Base. At that time, the

171st Area Support Group (ASG) operated LSA Adder.

By Major Glen L. Jackson

Being an Environmental Officer

in a Facilities Engineer Detachment

PCB fluid had leaked from this destroyed electrical

transformer on Al Kut Airfield in western Iraq. All highvoltage electrical tranformers were considered to have

PCB contamination due to the age of the transformers.

This is one of the many UXO caches that was documented

as part of completing the EBS for the MND.
October-December 2004 Engineer 29

As with projects in the civilian world, the EBS took more

resources than my attachment could provide. Fortunately, the

520th Theater Army Medical Laboratory (TAML) was also

stationed on LSA Adder. This unit had an extensive amount of

laboratory equipment for analyzing soil and water samples. In

addition, the base had an Air Force bioenvironmental section.

Personnel from both of these units assisted with the EBS.

As part of the EBS, it was necessary to document locations

of exploded and unexploded ordnance (UXO). The UXO—

both Iraqi and US—left over from the first Gulf War littered the

ground, often only a few feet apart. Either the Army or Air

Force explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams took us to

these areas. That is one situation that my civilian job had not

prepared me for—walking through areas where there was UXO

lying on the ground.

Part of the EBS process is to conduct a site closure survey

for units that are departing a base. One of the first units to

depart Tallil Airfield was a Patriot missile battery. Before the

battery returned to the continental United States, they changed

the fluids in their vehicles and segregated the waste into drums

of used oil, antifreeze, and oily rags. They used a large building

with a damaged roof to store the waste and to help protect it

from the elements. This building was the first hazardous waste

storage facility in the Iraqi area of operations. My detachment

gained ownership of the building from the 170th ASG land

manager. We tasked the 170th direct-support maintenance

battalion to operate the facility. Drawing on previous experience

with hazardous storage facilities, I wrote the standing operating

procedure (SOP) for its operation and the waste acceptance

criteria that units had to follow to transfer waste to the building.

While most of the waste was common to maintenance

operations, some of it was unusual, such as the spent

photographic fixative from the X-rays processed at the South

Korean hospital on the base.

At this time, there was no general CENTCOM directive on

managing hazardous waste, which meant there was no high

command guidance. Most of the maintenance personnel were

using the same environmental practices that they followed in

the United States. However, they ran into a problem because

they had no destination for the waste.

An outgrowth of the Patriot missile battery maintenance

program was the establishment of the petroleum, oils, and

lubricants (POL) reutilization program. During the site

environmental closure survey, the battery left behind its

unused drums of POL products and other chemicals and fluids

used in maintenance operations, and these materials became

the starting point for our POL reutilization center. The departing

units transported their unused POL products to this location

so that remaining units could use the supplies.

People generally assume that Army engineers are familiar

with all types of Army engineering. So it was with environmental

work. I was called in a number of times as the resident subject

matter expert for safety and industrial hygiene concerns. The

first was when Tallil Airfield was still using burnout latrines

(old 55-gallon drums). I was looking at the labels of two drums

that were about to be cut in half with a cutting torch and

noticed that one of the labels stated that the material previously

contained in the drum was toluene diisocyanate. From my

civilian training, I knew that any cyanate material was a health

hazard. I stopped the cutting of the drum, looked up the

material safety data sheet (MSDS) information on the drum,

and discovered that the material produces toxic fumes when

exposed to high heat, such as being cut with a cutting torch.

My experience with completing EBSs led to an assignment

to a multinational division (MND) in Babylon for a month.

The mission was to complete an EBS for each of the 12 sites

where the MND forces were to be stationed. Along with

completing the EBS, I was to write the environmental SOP for

the MND. This was the hazardous materials/hazardous waste

This building had been slated for use as a laundry facility

by Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. (KBR) in support of the MND

forces. The asbestos tile roof had fallen in and covered

the floor. KBR was advised to use another building until

proper asbestos cleanup could be done.

Heavy industrial sites like this Iraqi tank and armored

vehicle depot-level maintenance facility posed a great

environmental risk, due to the lack of controls for disposing

of hazardous chemicals.
30 Engineer October-December 2004

I

n a joint project between the Engineer Research and

Development Center (ERDC) Environmental Laboratory

(EL) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, and its sister laboratory—

the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) in

Champaign, Illinois—a team of scientists are combining

technologies to study activities that may threaten bats on

military installations. Increasingly, military installations are

becoming hot spots for endangered species such as the

Indiana and gray bats. For the past 30 years, many of these

installations, which were once in remote locations, have

become surrounded by suburban developments, causing

wildlife to seek refuge on the less inhabited training lands. As

a result, protection and conservation of plants and wildlife—

particularly threatened and endangered species—on military

installations and Department of Defense land is becoming an

increasingly important mission for the Army and the US Army

Corps of Engineers.

Most major installations have conducted at least a

preliminary survey of their fauna, which has included a survey

of bats. The surveys identified a couple of endangered species

on approximately 20 installations. Of the 45 species of bats in

the United States, about half are considered species of concern,

and six species are endangered. From a biological diversity

aspect, bat populations are in need of help.

At Fort Knox, Kentucky, the team is in its last year of a

three-year study on the effects of military noise, which has

been identified as an environmental concern on bat activities—

specifically bat navigation and feeding. The Army is

sponsoring the study as part of the Army Environmental

Quality Research Program.

Fort Knox is home to the US Army Armor Center. With six

active tank ranges, there was a high probability of getting the

high-caliber weapons fire at night that the team needed for

their project. Fort Knox was also selected because the Indiana

and gray bats are located there. In addition, personnel at Fort

Knox, both in the environmental office and in the range control

office, were willing to cooperate on the project.

The concern is that military noise, primarily high-caliber

weapons fire, might have some impact on the bats’ ability to

feed and use their resources for survival. The team is focusing

on the fire from 120-millimeter tank rounds, but it is also

recording, translating, and interpreting noise

from 25-millimeter rounds from Bradley

M2A3 fighting vehicles, .50-caliber machine

guns, and helicopter overflights.

Several other technologies are being

used to carry out the research. One such

technology is the Anabat II, an ultrasonic

bat detector. The Anabat II picks up the high

frequency of bats calling to a distance of 30

to 40 meters. These signals are then relayed

to another device and on to a computer.

Several software programs are used to

interpret the signals so that the scientists

can locate the bats and, to a large degree,

determine what species they are hearing.

The problem with ultrasonic bat

detection is that sometimes it is difficult to

hear the different species of bats that inhabit

an area. That is where thermal infrared

imagery comes in. Basically, a thermal

infrared camera is used to observe bat

Bat Men:

Scientists Help Protect Bats

on Military Installations

By Ms. Stefanie A. Gardin

Gray bat
Anabat ll ultrasonic bat detector 

acti vity usin g heat se nsors. It pick s up bat ac tivity to about 

100 meters. The bats app ear as warm shapes against a cooi 

back ground. Therm al in frared imagery indi cates to scientists 

the number of bats in an area and, to some extent, what the y 

are doing- wheth er the bat is flying in a feed ing pattern or 

jus t !lying by. 

The te am of sc ie ntists is taking a new approach usin g 

several di ffereru technologies. It is believed to be the first time 

th at all this is being combine d. and that is the inn ovation of 

the project-tryin g to pull these techn ologi es together to get 

more and better information than we have in the pa st. The 

team ha s set up 3 1 sam ple sites at Fort Knox- some right 

behind firing lin es. oth ers farther away. Using the An ab at II. 

thermal infrared imagery, and sound data from military gun s, 

the team ca n look at bat activities before. during. and after 

firin g at the various sit es and determine what effect the noise 

has on th e bats. 

Still in the analyzing data stage. outside factors such as the 

weather ca n also heavily impact bat activ ities and must be 

tak en int o account. Th e team completed its last field event 

during the summe r of 2004. When it finishes the study. the 

team will offer appropriate managem ent recomm end ati on s to 

Army installati on s. based on the results and interpretations. 

Th e team expe rienced long and trying days in the field , but 

becau se of the research conducted, a diffe rence is being made 

in the Army and the environment-increa sin g awarene ss and 

prot ect ion of th reaten ed and endangered spe cies. W 

Ms. Gardin is a Department ofthe Army intern ill public 

affairs. She is currently assigned to the Eng ineer Research 

and Developm ent Center in Vicksburg, Mississipp i. 

(Contin ued from page 29) 

man agement poli cy that all the units under the MN D would 

follow. 

While there. I used the safety trainin g that had been instill ed 

in me at WSRC. Th e Savann ah River Site origi na lly had been 

buill and run by DuPont, lnc. ?" , which is a world leader in 

industri al safe ty, and WSRC adopted this tradition w hen it 

assumed the contract to operate the Savannah River Site. 

One morn ing , I walke d past a Marine mainten ance shop 

where two young Marines were filling le ad acid batteri es with 

sulfuric acid . They did not have on safety glasse s. gloves, or 

plastic aprons- standard personal protective equipment for 

this type of task. Although they we re not in my chain of 

comm and, I remembered the old slogan, "Safety is Everyone's 

Responsibility." I went back and reminded them ofthe needed 

equipment, that they only had two eyes, and that I was sure 

they wa nted to go home with both of them fun ctioning. From 

the look on their faces, I co uld tell th ey kne w what they were 

supposed to be doin g and had been taking a shortc ut. 

As an en vironmental officer, you have to be prep ared to be 

the on -scene expert on indu stri al hy giene and safe ty issues. 

Th e one item I wo uld be more prepared for next lime is to take 

a good set of technical references. If Int ernet services are not 

established , a hard copy is the onl y way to find the information 

to det ermine if a particul ar chemical is a safety hazard . 

Though I was able to see a very different part of the world 

durin g my deployment. many of my duties were very similar to 

what 1 had been doin g in my civilian job. This is one of the 

gre at streng ths of the Reserve and National Guard system. Its 

members can bring to be ar a great deal o f previou s expertise 

and ex perie nce during military operations. W 

Major Jackson is the environmental offi cer fo r the Fort 

Jackson FET. Facility Engineer Center-Southeast, US Anny 

Facility Engineer Group. His military experien ce includes 

active dut y in Fort Knox, Kentucky; Fort Stewart, Georgia ; 

and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He has served ill nonactive 

duty statusfo r the Army Nation al Guard in New nan, Georgia; 

Edgefi eld, South Carolina ; and Fort Mill, Sou th Carolina. 

In additi on, he has served in the US Army Reserve at Fort 

Jackson, South Carolina, and in his present po sition. As a 

civilian, he is th e Senior Engin eer A fo r Westingh ou se 

Savannah River Compa ny- He holds two bachelor 's degrees, 

one in range resource s and another in chemical enginee ring. 

October-December 2004 Engin eer 31 
32 Engineer October-December 2004

The US Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) recently constructed a

set of innovative river training

structures in the Upper Mississippi River

to remedy a repetitive maintenancedredging problem. Due to the complexity

of this reach of river, the problem

required the development of a unique

solution to meet the objectives of

numerous user groups and agencies

involved.

The reach of river, called Bolters Bar,

is located about 45 river miles upstream

of St. Louis, Missouri (just upstream of

the confluence with the Illinois River).

It is used heavily by commercial navigation tows and is part of a crucial

link between the Upper and Lower

Mississippi Rivers. At this location, the

river is divided into as many as four

separate channels, with one of the

densest concentrations of marinas and

recreational boats along the entire

Mississippi River. In the summer months,

thousands of recreational boaters

regularly use these channels.

USACE is responsible for maintaining

a navigable channel at least 9 feet deep

by 300 feet wide on the Upper Mississippi River, through the use of river

training structures, dredging operations,

and water-level management at the locks

and dams. This reach of river had

required dredging—usually once or

twice a year—due to depths that did not

meet the minimum requirements. In most

years, dredging was needed during the

fall harvest—the busiest period for

shipping agricultural products down the

Mississippi River for export. During

crucial shipping periods, groundings

could close the river down for days for

cleanup.

In terms of dredging frequency, this

reach has been one of the most troublesome on the Upper Mississippi River.

Within this 1-mile reach, more than 5.5

million cubic yards of river sediment

have been dredged at a cost of over $6.1

million. The most recent dredging

operation to reopen this channel in 2001

took 12 days to remove more than 300,000

cubic yards of sediment at a cost of

almost $500,000. Locating viable dredge

A Remedy for a

Chronic Dredging Problem

By Mr. David C. Gordon

Innovative river training structures remedied a chronic dredging problem and created unique aquatic habitat.
October-December 2004 Engineer 33

disposal areas that would not negatively

impact recreation, homeowners, or

the environment has also proved

problematic.

One cause of repetitive dredging

through the reach was the loss of flow

in the main channel to the side channels.

Measurements of flow distribution show

that, at times, the main channel carries

less than 50 percent of the total flow in

the river while the majority of water flows

through the side channels.

A conventional solution to the

problems would have been to construct

rock closure structures across the

mouths of each of the side channels.

This measure would have distributed

additional flow in the main channel at

the expense of the side channels.

However, closing off the side channels

would have adversely affected the

environment of the river and recreational

boaters. Therefore, USACE needed a

way to evaluate unconventional designs

that would reduce the repetitive-channel,

maintenance-dredging situation without

damaging the environment or creating

problems for recreational boaters.

Assessments of needed alternatives

included examination of the ultimate

effects to sedimentation patterns within

the main channel, at the entrances to the

side channels, and within each side

channel.

To accomplish assessments of

multiple designs, a small-scale, physical,

hydraulic, movable riverbed model was

used. This micro model not only allowed

engineers to test numerous design

alternatives in a detailed manner but also

allowed for the involvement of the

USACE partners during the design

conception phase. One of the advantages

of a physical model is the interaction

it provides for customers and partners.

Complex river concepts can be visually observed and understood by

Bolters Bar project location map

Area requiring repetitive dredging
34 Engineer October-December 2004

nonengineers, which creates a teambuilding experience with all interested

parties. This process ensures that all

those involved in the project agree on

the final design.

USACE uses micro modeling technology for both plan formulation and

final design parameters. These physical,

hydraulic models of a river or stream use

small-scale and movable riverbeds. The

modelers use empirical techniques to

replicate the trends of the riverbed to

study sediment distribution and riverbed

pattern development within a river

channel. This includes the general

location of sandbars, the depositional

areas, the scour holes, and the channel

thalweg (the line of the deepest water in

the river channel). The modeling then

allows for the estimated prediction of

riverbed patterns when applying a

structure in the river channel.

The model used to study the

Bolters Bar reach was developed at the

USACE Applied River Engineering

Center, St. Louis, Missouri. The

model—which incorporated almost 11

miles of the main river channel, as well

as each side channel and every river

training structure—was only 6 feet

long and 3 feet wide. The bed material

used to simulate the riverbed of the

Mississippi was a granular plastic.

Surveys of the river bottom were used

to calibrate this model. The plan formulation team then used the model to

idealize numerous design possibilities for

consideration by the design team. These

concepts were later scientifically tested

in the model to determine their probable

effect on the riverbed. Results of these

tests were then presented to the plan

formulation team for evaluation.

The micro model showed that

numerous designs using traditional river

engineering concepts would greatly

reduce dredging. Standard dike fields

placed along both banks would direct

the river flow into the center of the

channel, thereby increasing depths.

However, the means of solving traditional dredging issues with standard

engineering practices were not acceptable to the environmental agencies

and recreational interests. Therefore,

combinations of dikes and chevron

structures that would also address

environmental concerns were evaluated

in the model. Chevrons are large

U-shaped rock structures with blunt

noses and open ends that face

downstream.

Most of the designs tested in the

model showed that probable improvements to dredging could be gained

from each combination of structure.

However, the designs were also

evaluated on their effects within each

side channel, the alignment for navigation, and the capacity to create

additional aquatic habitat. These parameters were then weighed with the costs

associated with each design to determine

the most economical solution.

The team agreed on an unconventional design that addressed the

needs and concerns of everyone

involved. The design consists of a

unique longitudinal dike and four

chevron structures. The 1,200-foot-long

longitudinal dike extends off of Bolter

Island and is angled downstream in a

nearly parallel alignment to the flow of

the river. Downstream of this structure

are four chevrons about 850 feet apart

and built of graded 5,000-pound,

maximum-size stone. The chevrons are

Bolters Bar Micro Model
October-December 2004 Engineer 35

about 250 feet long, 200 feet wide

between the downstream ends of the

legs, and 600 feet in total length along

the perimeter of the structure. The

project was completed in 2002 at a cost

of nearly $1.5 million for about 160,000

tons of stone.

Although the structures have only

been in the river for two years, the results

have been outstanding because the

reach has not required dredging. After

the project was completed, surveys

showed that the minimum depth and

width required for navigation had been

created by the structure’s interaction

with the river and its sediment. Areas that

used to be less than 10 feet deep are now

at least 15 feet. In addition, the navigation

channel is now wide enough that, on

occasion, tows have been able to

overtake one another without incident.

Monitoring of the side channel immediately downstream of the structures

shows that shoaling has not occurred,

and depths have been maintained, just

as the micro model suggested. The

surveys of the river suggest that the

micro model accurately predicted the

effect that the design has on the trends

of the riverbed. As an engineering tool

for the prediction of bathymetry trends

in a continually changing river environment, the predictive accuracy

displayed by this model was at an

exceptional level.

Although biological monitoring can

take years to assess, the results from

similar chevrons give a valid representation of what could be expected to

occur in and around these structures. Six

other chevrons built in the 1990s have

been extensively monitored for their

biological effects. More than 50 species

of fish and a highly diverse group of

macroinvertebrates have been collected

in and around the structures. Physical

data has shown that these structures

have created several different types of

river habitat with variable depths, flow

velocities, and substrates and multiple

wetted edges where plant life can

flourish. It has been documented that

this environment is very conducive to

the needs of overwintering fish and

provides ideal conditions for a nursery

for juvenile and larval fish. Plant life that

establishes itself along the wetted edges

provides good cover and habitat for

young fish. The chevrons built in the

Bolters Bar reach are expected to result

in the same diverse group of habitat

types and species benefits.

This unconventional solution to a

troublesome problem has the potential

to save millions of dollars in dredging

costs. It is estimated that this project will

pay for itself after just three years.

Although the total cost of the project

was $1.5 million, $500,000 was spent in

one year of dredging in 2001. Additionally, there are monetary values that

result from increased safety and the

reduced risk of accidents or groundings.

The navigation industry as a whole

incurs significant costs from events

such as those that close the river to traffic

for any amount of time. The environmental

benefits have also been immense, but they

are difficult to quantify. The project

provides a mosaic of aquatic habitat not

readily found along the river, such as

deep slack water, off-channel nursery

areas, and aquatic vegetation.

Since construction, tow pilots have

not encountered any navigation

problems and have been pleased with

USACE biologists collect fisheries data around a chevron at Bolters Bar
36 Engineer October-December 2004

The West Bay Sediment Diversion

Project, in southern Louisiana,

opened in November 2003,

introducing fresh water and sediment

from the Mississippi River into West Bay

to help rebuild about 10,000 acres of

vegetated wetlands over the next 20

years. The project is located in Plaquemines Parish, 5 miles above Head of

Passes, and is the largest of its kind in

the world. It is a major sediment diversion

without control gates that will also be a

model for future diversions.

Dating back to the 1950s, a

number of storm events, natural

subsidence, and a lack of sediment

and freshwater introduction into the

bay led to the disappearance of the

wetlands, creating an area of mostly

open, shallow water. The project will

result in a 20,000-cubic-feet-persecond diversion for a few years.

And if it works well, the channel will

be dug to increase the flow to 50,000

cubic feet per second.

The project’s primary purpose is to

rebuild marsh. The project performance

is of great interest, not only as it pertains

to this project but also to the application

of future projects in the Coastal

Wetlands Planning, Protection, and

Restoration Act and Louisiana Coastal

Area (LCA) programs. The LCA study

team may use the data collected to

support approval and funding for

possible future diversions in Plaquemines Parish above Lake Maurepas at

West Bay Sediment

Diversion Project

By Mr. Eric Lincoln
West Bay sediment diversion 

Myrtle Grov e (about 50 miles upriver 

from West Bay) and near Fort Jackson 

(about 20 miles upriver from West Bay) 

along the Missis sippi. 

Th e project consists of three phases: 

removal of a fore shore dike, construction 

of the initial channel, and remov al of 

advance maintenance-dredgin g material 

from the Pilottown anch orage-which is 

adjacent to the river-to protect navigation 

during the sediment diversion. 

Vessel s use the anch orage to tran sfer 

crew s and await further transit up the 

riv er. An alysi s ind icat ed that the 

navigation channe l and the anchora ge 

area would both be subject to additional 

shoaling from the water removed through 

the diversion. As part of the project, the 

US Army Corps of Engineers agreed to 

maintenance dredge to a depth of 45 feet, 

allowing deep -draft ships to continue to 

use it asthey have in the past. It is critical 

to the shipping indu stry to be able to 

use that area. 

Th e dredge Califo rnia began digging 

the West Bay channel in late September 

2003 . Most of the channel wa s so lid 

riverbank , so rather than wait for the area 

to be clear ed before dredgin g , the 

contr actor laid pipeline to begin pump ing 

materi al, while at the same time working 

to clear away trees and shrubs. 

All of the material from the riverbank 

wher e the channel is created and from 

the anchorage area is ultimately bein g 

pumped into West Bay for the creation 

of wetlands. Because the area is mostly 

fresh water alre ady, there should be no 

major redu ction in salinity or negative 

impact on existing fisheries once the 

diversioo is opened. The district has 

been working on this for more than 10 

year s, with a great team effort all across 

the agency and with the local sponsor, 

the Loui siana Department of Natural 

Resourc es. Th e federal government is 

funding 85 percent of the $22.3 million 

cost, and the state is funding 15percent. 

As of September 2004. the project had 

successfully passed its first high-water 

season and created 189 acres of new land. 

Approximately 70 percent of the newly 

cr eated we tland has been coloni zed 

naturally with native wetland plants. 

W 

M r. Lin co ln is a publ ic affa irs 

specialist with the US Army Corps of 

Engineers, New Orlean s District. and 

the edi to r of th e distri ct 's magarine 

Riverside. He is a gradu ate of th e 

University ofNew Orleans. 

(Continued from page 35 ) 

the results of channel improvements. 

And onc e recreati onal boat ers became 

familiar with the location of the new 

struc tures in the rive r, they did not 

express any concern over the project. 

This project demonstr ated that it is 

possible to remedy a difficult navigation 

problem in an area where multipl e user 

groups had a strong de sire to protect 

their own interests. The use of the mic ro 

model allowed engineers, biolo gists, tow 

pilots, and en vironrnentali sts the uniqu e 

op portunity to work together to ex ­

periment with and design nontraditional 

river engine ering solutions that may not 

have been con sider ed with other design 

techniques. Th e results of this nov el 

project have shown that it is possible to 

achieve a "win-win" scenario between 

navigatio n interest s and th e 

environment. W 

M}~ Gordon is a senior river eng ineer 

fo r th e St. Louis District Co rps of 

E ng inee rs at th e Applied Ri ver 

Engin eering Cente r (AREC). He assists 

in leculin g a staf] of eng ineers and 

tech nicians who perform. micro model 

studies of the Mississippi, Missouri, 

Ka skaskia, Illinois, and Atchafalaya 

Ri vers. H e has been th e primary 

designer of many river eng ineering 

design measures that have solved a 

number of p roblems. includin g 

rep etitive-maintenance dr edging. He 

has auth ored se veral technical papers 

and has made p re s ent ations at 

sedimentation conf eren ces. In 2004, M/: 

Gordon rec ei ved the International 

Navigation A ss oci ation 's De-Pa epe 

Willems award for the US Section. He 

recently visited Uzbekistan to desi gn 

p ort fa cilities for th e Uz be k Border 

Patrol unit. 

October-Decemb er 2004 En gineer 37 
38 Engineer October-December 2004

Before the introduction of environmental laws in the

1970s, Army employees and contractors disposed of

contaminants in accordance with the best and safest

known engineering practices of the time. Previously acceptable

disposal practices, coupled with decades of training and

operations on Army property, have resulted in environmental

concerns at many Army installations.

Status of the Installation Restoration Program

About three decades ago, the Army began formal studies

into the impact of past disposal, training, and

operations practices on the environment. Based on

the results of those studies, the Army made a commitment to

clean up environmental contamination. The Installation

Restoration Program (IRP) was initiated for both active and

excess installations; the goal was to complete cleanup of 1,080

installations by the end of fiscal year 2014. Cleanup under the

IRP, which is now about 90 percent complete, has cost $4.9

billion. Closeout of the remaining 10 percent of the sites is

expected to be challenging, as schedules have slipped, costto-complete estimates have increased, and installations have

been achieving only 60 to 70 percent of their planned

milestones. Many of the remaining sites are the most

technically challenging cleanup projects. In many cases,

multiple technology demonstrations have been conducted in

an effort to clean up the residual contamination.

A Change in Army Strategy

Army leaders realized that in order to complete their

restoration mission, business practices would need

to be changed. Consequently, in 2002, the Army

implemented the use of performance-based contracts (PBCs)

for environmental cleanup. Performance-based contracting

originated from reforms mandated to all federal agencies by

“The President’s Management Agenda.” These reforms

emphasize results rather than process. Using PBCs, the

government does not dictate how contractors who have been

hired to conduct environmental cleanup will achieve project

By Mr. Randy Cerar

US Army Installation Restoration Program

Performance-Based Contracts

Groundwater samples are collected in vials at Fort

Leavenworth, Kansas, for laboratory analysis. Volatile

organic compounds are analyzed on a regular basis, and

the results help determine the effectiveness of the

remediation.

An environmental scientist monitors the injection pressure of the in situ remediation at

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901

12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901

12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901

12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901 Photo by Jean Skillman, USAEC

Photo by Jean Skillman, USAEC
October-December 2004 Engineer 39

objectives—only that they will achieve those

objectives. This approach allows military services

to purchase safe and effective environmental

cleanup for a fixed price and under a set schedule.

Because the Army no longer dictates how private

firms will conduct the cleanup, the firms have more

flexibility to solve cleanup challenges in a costeffective way. PBCs can also be used to implement

innovative solutions to challenging technical

problems and allow for incentives for private

industry to take on these more difficult projects.

Performance-based contracting requires the

contractor of an environmental cleanup project to

achieve specific objectives outlined in a

performance work statement—normally for a fixed price. The

contractor may be required to buy insurance to offset the risk

of additional costs if cleanup expenses exceed the contract

price. A PBC for environmental cleanup does not relieve the

Army of the ultimate environmental liability for the project.

However, it does shift more responsibility and accountability

for the cost, schedule, and results of the project covered by

the contract from the Army to the contractor.

To date, the Army has awarded 21 PBCs, totaling

approximately $304 million. When the award costs of the PBCs

are compared to cost estimates for traditional “cost plus fixed

fee” types of environmental contracts, the Army savings are

estimated to range between 17 and 30 percent.

Lessons Learned

While reviewing the efforts of other services and

agencies in applying this contracting strategy, the

Army learned several valuable lessons. Three of

the most important were that—

 Specific and clear performance work statements minimize

communication problems.

 Early communication with the regulatory agencies ensures

that accurate objectives are set forth.

 Consolidation of common documents reduces the workload

for reviewing agencies.

For specific examples of how various installations have

used performance-based contracting, see the US Army

Environmental Center (USAEC) Web site at <http://aec.army.

mil/usaec/cleanup/pbc00.html>.

Mr. Cerar serves as the Technical Director of USAEC at

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, where he manages

conservation, restoration, compliance, and pollution

prevention activities and related program operations in

support of the Army’s environmental programs. He holds a

bachelor’s in chemical engineering from the University of

Pittsburgh.

Performance-Based Contract Savings

Phases in Implementing PBC for Active Army

Installations

Planned Costs for Cleanup - $435 million

$304 million

70%

Actual Contract

Costs Using PBC

Savings to the

Army

$131 million

30%
40 Engineer October-December 2004

Protecting the environment is one

of the principles of the US Army

Corps of Engineers (USACE)

operations throughout the world. Some

might argue that in a hostile environment, such as that in Iraq, attention to

environmental concerns would take a

back seat to engineering operations.

Those people would be surprised to

learn that a focus on preserving natural

resources and safe disposal of harmful

products has fallen in step with the fasttracked effort to restore Iraq.

One USACE job is to make sure we

leave the environment in no worse

condition than it was found. Environmental specialists are assigned to all

military sites throughout the country to

ensure that military operations do not

adversely affect the areas. Realistically,

Iraq is still a war zone, but we still have a

responsibility to do the right thing.

Environmental assessments are also

done to protect the troops in the field.

Environmental specialists at forward

operating bases attempt to determine if

air, soil, and water are free of pesticides,

chemicals, smoke, and bacteria that

would harm those serving in the area.

When inspecting a temporary landfill

in the Green Zone, where Iraqi

government offices and US forces are

based in Baghdad, environmental

specialists ensure that only approved

construction debris is being dumped

(see photo above). The site, located

adjacent to the Tigris River, is not ideal,

but it serves immediate needs for the

rebuilding effort. Once hostilities settle

down to a point that an external site can

facilitate disposal of construction debris

from the Green Zone construction, then

this area will be cleaned back to the open

field it once was.

Environmental specialists also

manage and develop procedures to

properly dispose of hazardous materials.

Drums of chlorine wash are stockpiled

until they can be properly disposed of.

In other areas, reuse of hazardous

materials has helped minimize the impacts of multinational force operations.

For example, oil waste from operations

is being used as a burn product for some

of the electrical generation projects in

country.

Simply because a combat environment is not conducive to typical environmentally conscious activities

doesn’t mean the military or coalition can

turn a blind eye to it. Not only is the

multinational force not turning a blind

eye, it is investing substantially so the

efforts here to liberate the country don’t

leave its environment unnecessarily

scarred. 

When not in the field performing

project oversight, environmental

specialists are combing through baseline

assessments of operations throughout

Iraq, identifying potential environmental

concerns and impacts—impacts the

multinational force will one day return

to assess and, in some cases, remediate

or clean up.

In addition to monitoring the efforts

of the multinational force, USACE

environmental specialists also work with

Protecting the

Environment

By Mr. Thomas O’Hara III

Photo by Thomas O’Hara III
October-December 2004 Engineer 41

the newly established Ministry of the

Environment to develop new policies in

Iraq to minimize the damages that

occurred prior to Iraq’s liberation. There

was a lot of environmental damage

during the 30 years of oppression under

Saddam Hussein, but Iraq can recover.

Containment for spillage of oil operations, protection of water resources to

minimize the spread of disease, as well

as advancements in industrial waste

monitoring will eventually help the

country’s 25 million people enjoy a

healthier society.

Iraq is a beautiful country, and its

history is significant for all cultures—

not just the Iraqis. We must make sure it

is preserved for all to enjoy.

Mr. O’Hara is serving in Iraq as

Deputy Chief of Public Affairs for the

Gulf Region Division. Stateside, he is

the Deputy Chief of Public Affairs for

the Omaha District, US Army Corps of

Engineers. He holds a bachelor’s in

electrical engineering.

This landfill on the banks of the Tigris River is a temporary solution to handle

construction debris. Local Iraqi workers manage the disposal of the debris.

Photo by Thomas O’Hara III
adverse health and environmental effects. Pollution prevention

projects, such as the switch to water-based coatings, not only

benefit the environment but often also improve worker safety.

In this case, both the workers and the environment are now

exposed to fewer air contaminants, and the material wastes

that are produced are less hazardous.

However, pollution prevention does require operational

changes. In the case of the spray paint operators, there’s been

great success with the changeover—that’s why we call them

air quality heroes. The people who are directly responsible for

the work are the key to project success and often play the

greatest role in protecting our environment. They’re our first

line of defense.

The painters are proud of the program’s accomplishments

and their contributions to its success. They are now gearing

up for the return of about 13,000 pieces of equipment (tactical

vehicles), all of which will be spray painted with the new waterbased CARC.

Ms. Longdon, of XCEL Engineering, Inc., is a senior environmental scientist working under contract to support the

Air Quality Program of the Fort Campbell Directorate of

Public Works Environmental Division. She has more than 16

years of experience in the areas of environmental compliance,

waste management, health and safety, and remediation. Her

past experience also includes work at a Naval fuels

production facility and several US Department of Energy

facilities.

42 Engineer October-December 2004

Pollution Prevention Improves

Air Quality at Fort Campbell

By Ms. Crystal Longdon

The use of water-based chemical agent resistant

coatings has greatly reduced volatile organic compound and hazardous air pollutant emissions on Fort

Campbell.

Sound environmental practices are part of what a soldier

does and part of daily operations on a military

installation. That means that every day is Earth Day for

the Army. At Fort Campbell, Kentucky, personnel from the

Directorate of Public Works Environmental Division’s Air

Quality Program work with the installation’s everyday “air

quality heroes” to continuously protect and improve air quality

and to meet the standards set by state, federal, and Army

regulations. Fort Campbell’s everyday air quality heroes

include the personnel who work on a daily basis with various

air contaminant sources, such as large boilers and fuel burning

equipment, spray paint operations, above- and underground

storage tanks, the dry cleaning facility, roads and grounds

operations, parts washers and degreasers, and refrigerant units.

Air Quality Program personnel work closely with the

management and personnel of these operations to ensure that

regulatory requirements are always met, workers are properly

trained in air quality requirements, and ideas for reducing the

sources of air pollutants are developed further and implemented when feasible. That’s where pollution prevention

comes in. The program personnel are continually looking for

ways to reduce air pollutants at their source, rather than waiting

to treat and capture pollutants once they are emitted. Pollution

prevention projects are designed to reduce air contaminants

and stratospheric ozone depleting compounds. Air Quality

Program personnel are currently pursuing nine pollution

prevention projects, with the goal of continuing to reduce

total air contaminant emissions each year.

One of Fort Campbell’s most successful ongoing pollution

prevention projects was undertaken by the spray paint

operations. This project replaces traditional solvent-based

coatings with water-based coatings, which are much less

hazardous. These specialty coatings, known as chemical agent

resistant coatings (CARC), are used for the repair coating of

military vehicles and aircraft. The use of water-based CARC

has already been approved for most military applications of

these specialty coatings, and work is underway to gain

approval for the application of compatible water-based CARC

to military aircraft.

Fort Campbell began using the water-based CARC on its

tactical vehicles in 2001 and has since increased its usage

every year. Use of the new paint results in a significant

reduction of air contaminants. In 2003, implementation of the

project reduced the volatile organic compound and hazardous

air pollutant emissions from the painting operations by 48 and

52 percent, respectively. Volatile organic compounds contribute

to the formation of unwanted ground-level ozone. Hazardous

air pollutants are substances known or suspected of causing
October-December 2004 Engineer 43

T.

he Upper San Pedro River Basin in southeastern Arizona

is home to both Fort Huachuca—the Army’s

Intelligence Center and Electronic Proving Ground—

and the growing city of Sierra Vista. The basin also contains

some of the most diverse plant and animal life in North America.

However, water use by Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista, and

agriculture in the basin threatens to lower the water table and

dry the San Pedro River. This, in turn, could alter the vegetation

in the basin and eliminate endangered species habitat in the

nation’s first federally protected riparian National Conservation

Area. A team from the Harvard Design School; the University

of Arizona; the Desert Research Institute; Headquarters, US

Army Training and Doctrine Command; and the US Army Corps

of Engineers determined the range of potential future growth

patterns for the basin (Alternative Futures) and compared them

for their relative impacts on a suite of environmental

parameters, including hydrology, biodiversity, and landscape

vegetation pattern.

Environmental Setting

Originating just south of the Mexican border, the San

Pedro River flows northward, through the high desert

of southeastern Arizona. Ecologists call the area a

transition zone; it is an area with great biodiversity, where the

species of four ecoregions overlap. From the north, the Rocky

Mountains merge their Canadian and temperate character with

the subtropical influences of the Sierra Madres. From the west,

the Sonoran Desert, with its giant saguaro cactus, blends to

the south and east with the Chihuahuan Desert, dominated by

creosote bush. A multitude of ecological niches, created by

variations in altitude and microclimates in the isolated

mountains that rise like islands from a desert sea, expands the

diversity.

Walking through the Huachuca Mountains on the fort at

sunrise, one might spot a group of coatis, which resemble a

hybrid between a raccoon and a monkey; piglike collared

peccaries; a mountain lion; dozens of butterfly species; and

scores of the nearly 400 bird species reported in the basin,

including the quetzallike elegant trogon. Even jaguars have

been reported near Fort Huachuca. The wildlife is similar to

that found in a Central American forest.

The vegetation changes from high desert grassland and

scattered mesquite near the valley floor to a Madrean montane

conifer zone at the highest elevations, where Douglas and

other species of firs, ponderosa pines, and aspens dominate.

Nearly 1,000 plant species have been identified in the Huachuca

Mountains alone.

The Problem

Environmental debate is a standard part of public

discourse in the valley, which has been a center of

controversy for well over a decade. Litigation and public

debate have ensued over whether groundwater use from Fort

Huachuca, an expanding Sierra Vista population, and valley

agriculture will dry up the last free-flowing river of the

southwestern deserts. A drive through Tucson or Phoenix

reveals dry ghosts of former rivers, now containing water only

during monsoon cloudbursts. Without concerted effort, the

San Pedro River could suffer the same fate. The Sierra Vista

newspaper, the Herald, has stated that the city looks to the

Army for leadership in environmental issues.

By Mr. Robert L. Anderson

Photo by Robert L. Anderson
44 Engineer October-December 2004

Unfortunately, our ability to alter ecosystems far outpaces

our ability to understand and manage them. The science of

ecology, established in 1859, is a relatively young science,

with no agreement on a standard approach to ecosystem

management. However, it is evident that any such approach

will need to center first on understanding and then

compensating for how humans adversely impact the biological

and chemical cycles that support the multiplicity of

organisms—including people—in an ecosystem. Humans

change the environment through land clearing, paving,

development, agriculture, etc., in ways that can alter the

ecosystem to a point where ecological sustainability is lost.

Watersheds seem to be the best method of parsing an

ecosystem into manageable units.

Engineering Solutions

Engineering efforts that have already been undertaken

to conserve water at Fort Huachuca include closure/

demolition of unused facilities, waterless urinals, lowflow fixtures, rainwater harvesting, leak detection, replacement

of evaporative coolers with air-conditioning, xeric landscaping

(use of native vegetation requiring little water), and irrigation

with effluent. These efforts have resulted in reducing water

use at the fort by nearly half since 1993—a remarkable

accomplishment.

However, it is difficult to achieve equilibrium between

groundwater pumping and recharge in arid environments.

Although importing water is one option, a better option is to

compensate for evaporative loss by supplementing effluent

recharge with captured mountain-front runoff.

Stimulated by concern for the fort and the need for a

regional, multidisciplinary approach, the Upper San Pedro

Partnership (USPP)—a consortium of 21 state, federal, and

local governments and private nonprofit and commercial

members—was created in 1999. The goal of the USPP is to

balance regional water use with recharge to sustain human

needs, the river, and the National Conservation Area. As a

member, the fort is working with the USPP to add 250 acre-feet

of storm water to approximately 1,000 acre-feet of treated

effluent recharge annually.

A New Challenge

P.

ursuant to a 2002 US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological

Opinion issued under the Endangered Species Act, Fort

Huachuca is obligated to balance its groundwater

uptake with recharge by 2011. The Biological Opinion

determined the Fort Huachuca responsibility to be 2,784 acrefeet per year, or 54 percent of the annual basin deficit (the

difference between amounts pumped from and recharged to

the aquifer) of 5,144 acre-feet. The city of Sierra Vista proposes

to eventually recharge 3,600 acre-feet of treated effluent and

storm water annually, allowing a cushion for fort mission

expansion, if needed. The question is whether the region—

not just the fort—can reach and sustain equilibrium between

pumping and recharge while continuing to grow. This is as

much an engineering challenge as an ecological one; therefore,

civil engineers and hydrologists will play a major role.

Ecological Planning

I

t is often difficult for planners to foresee long-term,

cumulative ecological impacts resulting from their

decisions. This is due, in part, to the gradual nature of

growth and the general inclination of planners to focus on

parcels rather than on the entire regional landscape. The

region’s problems are indeed greater than the sum of its parcels.

Regarding these problems, the work of Carl Steinitz (the

Alexander and Victoria Wiley Professor of Landscape

Architecture and Planning at Harvard Design School) is

impressive. He has developed a planning approach which he

calls Alternative Futures. By surveying local stakeholders,

his research team determines the range of potential growth

patterns that might occur in an area over the next 20 years.

The three initial alternatives considered include current growth

plans; a constrained alternative, projecting less growth than

anticipated; and an open alternative, projecting greater growth

than anticipated. Each alternative is then analyzed by

Geographic Information System models for its impacts on a

range of environmental factors. In addition, the following

questions are posed during the course of an Alternative

Futures analysis:

 How should the landscape be described in content, space,

and time?

 How does the landscape operate? What are the functional

and structural relationships among its elements?

 Is the current landscape working well ecologically and

culturally?

 How might the landscape change? By what policies and

actions might it change? Where and when might it change?

 What differences will the changes cause?

 How should the landscape be changed?

Notice that if the questions are asked in reverse order, they

provide a framework for evaluating whether pending planning

decisions make sense. In the course of an Alternative Futures

study, the questions are asked three times—each time reversing

the previous order. Using this approach, planners have a much

clearer vision of the potential for adverse environmental

impacts in the future. It may even become apparent that some

desirable future scenarios—such as maintaining river

habitat—may not be attainable once certain thresholds—such

as lowering the water table—are crossed.

The San Pedro Study

To represent the dynamic processes at work in the study

area, a Geographic Information System was used to

organize spatially explicit data for the region. The data

was based on conditions in the study area during the period
October-December 2004 Engineer 45

from 1997 to 2000 (baseline 2000), which defines the reference

period against which impacts of future changes were measured.

After questioning developers, a development model was

derived to evaluate the attractiveness of available land for

five kinds of development: commercial, urban, suburban,

exurban (between suburban and rural), and rural housing. This

model simulated the urbanization of the region under the three

basic Alternative Futures scenarios. In addition, the study

also examined two or three variations of each of the three

basic scenarios in order to thoroughly investigate the full range

of Alternative Futures the region might experience. To help

generate the scenarios, questionnaires were developed for

local citizens based on three issues that are central to public

debate in the region: development, water use, and land

management. The responses, interpreted into a set of

assumptions and choices about policy, served as the basis for

the range of future scenarios. All scenarios were projected to

2020 via the development model. One example of a scenario

variable included maintaining the fort at current strength,

expanding it, or closing it. However, none of the scenarios

considered the impact of treated effluent and storm water

recharge projects now proposed by the city and fort; followup evaluations will be needed once these projects have been

finalized. Once the scenarios were developed, they were linked

to a suite of process models to describe and evaluate how

certain aspects of the landscape would be affected under each

alternative.

The environmental factors analyzed in this study—each

impacting subsequent factors in a cascading series—included

hydrology, soil moisture, vegetation pattern, landscape

ecological pattern, fire ecology, several endangered species

habitats, and overall biodiversity. In addition, variations were

analyzed in the view shed (scenic value) for each scenario.

For example, a hydrological model evaluated how changes in

groundwater storage affect surface flow in the river. A

vegetation model indicated how changes in the hydrologic

regime could subsequently impact fire and grazing management

practices. Predictions of new vegetation patterns then formed

the basis for a three-part assessment of regional biodiversity:

a landscape ecological pattern model, an endangered species

habitat model, and a vertebrate species richness model. The

models were used to assess the potential impacts of each of

the scenarios relative to the 2000 baseline conditions.

The San Pedro study occurred between 1997 and 2000 and

is the first Alternative Futures study Steinitz has published as

a book: Alternative Futures for Changing Landscapes: The

Upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona and Sonora: Island

Press, 2003 (800.828.1302). This was also the first time an

Alternative Futures study was conducted for an Army

installation.

Results of the Study

The results of the study help determine how the region’s

activities can influence its natural resources and what

can be done to mitigate negative impacts. For example,

the study determined that basin agriculture was a major use of

groundwater. To compensate for this, the fort, in cooperation

with The Nature Conservancy, became the first installation to

purchase off-post conservation easements for water rights

from willing sellers near the river. This will eliminate 1,930 acrefeet per year of withdrawal near the river—a significant step

toward sustainability.

The study seems to have ended the debate about whether

the river is threatened. The baseflow of the river was lowered

in all but the most conservative growth scenarios; again,

proposed recharge was not evaluated. This stimulated the

concerted regional effort of the USPP with its goals to protect

human needs, the river, and the fort. However, Sierra Vista

remains attractive to retirees and others seeking high desert

scenery and escape from lower elevation heat. This is perhaps

one of the best test cases in the nation for balancing growth

and ecosystem sustainability.

Acknowledgments: The author is grateful to the Department

of Defense Legacy Resources Management Program for

funding the study.

Mr. Anderson is an environmental and natural resources

specialist in the Engineer Directorate at Headquarters,

Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia. He

holds a bachelor’s in biology from Old Dominion University

and a master’s in biology from the College of William and

Mary.

Did your military unit move recently, or is your Engineer

bulletin addressed incorrectly? To correct your military

unit mailing address, send us the following

information:

Old Address:

New Address:

E-mail: <engineer@wood.army.mil>

Telephone: (573) 563-4104, DSN 676-4104

Address: Commandant, US Army Engineer School,

ATTN: ATSE-DP (Engineer Bulletin), 320 MANSCEN

Loop, Suite 348, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-

8929

Moving?
46 Engineer October-December 2004

The Department of Safety, Health, and the Environment

at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland, joined

with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

almost 8 years ago to implement an innovative solution to

remediating an area of groundwater contamination. In 1996,

APG and EPA began a pilot-scale phytoremediation study at

the J-Field area of APG to evaluate the capability of hybrid

poplar trees to reduce a volatile organic compound (VOC)

groundwater plume. Eventually implemented as part of the

legal remedial alternative for the site, the phytoremediation

system has proven to be an effective, low-cost solution to

groundwater contamination.

Background

Between 1940 and the 1970s, the Army used J-Field for

testing and disposal of chemical weapons and chemical

warfare materials. Environmental studies indicated high

levels of a variety of VOCs in the groundwater. The two primary

contaminants are trichloroethylene (TCE) and 1,1,2,2-

tetrachloroethane. Several conventional remedial technologies

were studied or tested during the remedial investigation/

feasibility studies, including soil washing, soil vapor extraction,

pump and treat, and groundwater circulation wells, as well as

in situ biotic and abiotic degradation processes. However,

there are several unique aspects of the J-Field area that

significantly hinder the use of conventional technologies. For

example, because of historic testing and disposal activities,

there is a potential that unexploded ordnance (UXO) may be

present. In addition, there is a low-permeability aquifer and a

persistent VOC source consisting of dense non-aqueousphase liquids. During evaluation of remedial alternatives, APG

became aware of the work of the EPA Environmental Response

Team in the area of phytoremediation. EPA had been testing

hybrid poplar trees to see if they could be used to remediate

groundwater containing TCE. APG and EPA subsequently

began collaboration on a phytoremediation system for J-Field.

Methods

I

n 1996, a test plot of 183 hybrid poplar trees was planted

to evaluate whether the VOCs in the groundwater could

be naturally removed and/or destroyed by the trees or

their associated microorganisms. The trees were planted 5 to 8

feet deep—almost four times the normal depth—to give the

roots an opportunity to effectively filter the groundwater. The

trees were arranged in a U-shaped configuration around a

former disposal area. The success of the test plot led the Army

and EPA to sign a Record of Decision selecting phytoremediation as part of the remedy for the groundwater at

J-Field.

By 1998, several trees had died because of the stress

induced by a drought, and replacement trees were planted the

following year. The replacement trees consisted of hybrid

poplars, tulip trees, and silver maples—species native to APG.

Using a variety of native tree species reduces the grove’s

susceptibility to mass wasting—an inherent weakness of

monocultures. This approach is consistent with Executive

Order 13112, Invasive Species, which directs federal agencies

to restore disturbed sites with native species.

Also during 1998, several of the original

trees were excavated so that the impacts of

plastic sleeves, which had been placed around

the tree roots prior to planting, could be

examined. It had been theorized that use of the

sleeves might encourage downward root

growth and groundwater uptake. However, it

was found that the sleeves, coupled with the

high clay content of the soil, restricted

downward root growth. Lateral and surface

root growth was also restricted, which caused

many of the trees to blow over during a tropical

storm. Based on these results, use of the

sleeves was discontinued during the second

round of planting. Root growth patterns were

also examined, and boreholes of various

diameters and depths were used in the second

round of planting to encourage more extensive

root growth. It was discovered that, when

planting trees in tight soil formations, it is

Phytoremediation System

Cleans up Groundwater Plume

By Mr. John Wrobel

Workers prepare an area of the J-Field phytoremediation grove

for the planting of additional trees.
October-December 2004 Engineer 47

important to score, aerate, or otherwise loosen the soils

surrounding the borehole to allow for optimal root growth and

development and to maximize transpiration rates.

Results

Acomprehensive monitoring, sampling, and modeling

program has been used to evaluate the effectiveness

of the grove. Growth rates of tree roots have been

monitored, and transpiration rates have been estimated to

evaluate the potential rate of contaminant removal. In addition,

a groundwater monitoring program has been implemented to

monitor groundwater chemistry and to define the capability of

the trees to provide hydraulic containment. The roots of the

trees have been observed to grow up to an inch per day, and

the grove has been found to absorb about 30,000 gallons of

water per day during the summer growing season. The trees

are functioning as a natural pump-and-treat system.

A 2002 study conducted by APG examined contaminant

uptake by the trees. The detection of VOCs and their

degradation products in transpiration gas, condensate, and

leaf tissue indicated that the trees were removing and degrading

the contaminants of concern. It was estimated that the trees

had destroyed up to 60 pounds of solvents and had

contributed to additional contaminant destruction by

promoting biological activity in the shallow aquifer. APG

estimates that site contamination may be reduced by up to 85

percent in 30 years. This natural pump-and-treat system is

also reducing cleanup costs. Systems typically used to

remediate such sites could cost an estimated $5 million to

build and an additional $100,000 per year to operate; the

phytoremediation effort is expected to cost significantly less.

In 2004, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest

Service presented APG with the Green Award—the highest-level

award an organization can attain in the program—for the use of

phytoremediation at J-Field. The award recognizes APG’s

successful program and sustained effort in utilizing phytotechnologies for the benefit of the environment.

Various organizations and groups—such as the APG

Restoration Advisory Board, the Federal Facilities Leadership

Council, foreign dignitaries, and university personnel—

frequently tour APG’s J-Field phytoremediation area.

Mr. Wrobel works in the Environmental Restoration and

Conservation Division at APG, where he has been responsible

for installationwide implementation of Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) projects since 1987. He holds a bachelor’s from

Norwich University and a master’s in engineering from the

University of Lowell.

The following members of the Engineer Regiment have been lost in the Global War on Terrorism since the last issue of Engineer.

We dedicate this issue to them.

Sergeant First Class Joselito Villanueva 9th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Sergeant Michael Boatright 20th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Sergeant James Faulkner 20th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Specialist Jaime Moreno 20th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Captain Dennis Pintor 20th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Specialist Michael Wegar 20th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Private First Class Mark Barbet 44th Engineer Battalion Camp Howze, Korea

Staff Sergeant Omer Hawkins 44th Engineer Battalion Camp Howze, Korea

Private First Class Aaron Rusin 44th Engineer Battalion Camp Howze, Korea

Specialist Oliver Unruh 44th Engineer Battalion Camp Howze, Korea

Private First Class Andrew Ward 44th Engineer Battalion Camp Howze, Korea

Sergeant Arthur Williams 44th Engineer Battalion Camp Howze, Korea

Specialist David Mahlenbrock 65th Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

Sergeant Charles Webb 82d Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Bamberg, Germany

Specialist Clarence Adams 91st Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Staff Sergeant Lance Koenig 141st Engineer Battalion Jamestown, North Dakota

Specialist Cody Wentz 141st Engineer Battalion Williston, North Dakota

Sergeant Catalin Dima 411th Engineer Brigade New Windsor, New York

Staff Sergeant Michael Ottolini 579th Engineer Battalion Petaluma, California

Dedication
48 Engineer October-December 2004

Engineers are expected by maneuver commanders to be

ready to address and work the full gamut and all aspects

of combat and construction engineering. Engineers are

being called on to handle environmental issues and threats in

support of mission objectives. Engineer commanders must be

prepared to conduct missions associated with site assessment

for environmental baseline surveys (EBSs), environmental risk

analysis, waste management and mitigation, remediation and

cleanup, dust suppression, and support requests for assistance

from civilian authorities.

Engineer officers, regardless of their rank or background,

must be adequately prepared for construction and

environmental tasks in theater. The two disciplines compliment

one another. When the maneuver commander needs

construction expertise, he expects his engineers to provide

it—whether or not they have spent their entire career working

combined arms or combat engineering. The following is a list

of subjects that engineer officers need to know, or they need

to know where to find the information. These were identified

during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Iraq,

Operation Joint Endeavor in the Balkans, and specifically

mentioned in a Memorandum for Record from the Combined

Forces Land Component Command Staff Engineer Section

Forward (CLFCC–C7 FWD) Plans and Operations.

 Functions and capabilities of departments of the US Army

Corps of Engineers (USACE), as well as differences in

division/district offices.

 Facility Engineer Team (FET) capabilities.

 Organization of regional contracting commands and what

they provide.

 Multinational Forces–Iraq (MNFI), Multinational

Coalition–Iraq (MNCI), Coalition Forces Command–

Afghanistan (CFC–A), Combined Joint Task Force–76

(CJTF–76)—who they are and what they do.

 Knowledge of where funding is available, how to justify a

project, what level of command approves project funding

(for example, corps commanders can approve projects of

$750K or less), how legal reviews work, and what a DD

1391, Military Construction Project Data, is and how it

works.

 Standards for detainee facilities.

 The role of civil affairs in construction; how civil repair

projects work.

 Captains and lieutenants must have a knowledge of

strategic-level planning (“awareness”); for example, know

how we influence the information operations campaign with

construction capabilities.

 Capabilities of sister services.

 Master planning for base camps.

 Environmental planning for base camps.

Specifically, in the environmental arena, environmental

management in theater cannot be a neglected engineer

function. Battalions have to implement environmental

programs and plans for conducting EBSs prior to units

occupying sites, perform compliance inspections and closure

reports, and know whether these reports are being properly

completed. The importance of conducting an initial EBS to

verify conditions at the outset of operations cannot be

overstated. An EBS needs to be conducted in conjunction

with an Army unit occupying a location for any extended period

of time. This will ensure that the site is safe for soldiers to

occupy, and it will validate the conditions at the time of the

occupation. This will save the government from being “held

hostage” by these countries once the nation-building piece

(often known as Phase IV) is complete. Millions of dollars in

the future can be saved if we, as engineers, take the proper

steps now to maintain compliance. Engineers must understand

the legal ramifications of environmental issues. As units in

theater begin to consolidate into fewer, larger forward operating

bases (FOB), complete FOB closure will become a large issue

with the host nation countries. Consistent closure standards

must be clearly understood by all Army units to avoid disputes

when it comes time to close a base camp or FOB.

In addition to the above-mentioned issues, the following

lessons have also been observed as part of our contingency

operations.

Geographic Information Systems can be a significant tool

to help engineers support base camp master planning,

construction design, and environmental planning. This

capability is usually only found in the engineer topographic

companies or terrain teams and must be made readily available

for other supporting engineer functions.

Maneuver commanders need to realize that environmental

stewardship is equal to force protection. Improper storage or

disposal of hazardous and solid waste can pose as much of a

risk to soldier health and safety as regular operations.
Resources for environmental management must be prioritized

accordingly. The environment into which our soldiers have

been deployed is rife with environmental hazards. Contamination of the soil and water is common, and hazards such

as asbestos, PCBs from electrical transformers, and unidentified

drums of chemicals present challenges to the health and wellbeing of our troops. While not immediate, the health effects

from exposure may have long-term implications on soldier

health.

Hazardous waste (HAZWASTE) storage is a significant

issue. Units must prepare field storage facilities early to

accommodate huge volumes of HAZWASTE—primarily for

petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) and batteries—until proper

disposal can be arranged. In many cases, units will be required

to set up base camps where significant waste issues already

October-December 2004 Engineer 49

The US Army Engineer School (USAES) is the Army’s proponent for environmental integration across the domains of

doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leader development, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF). The Directorate of

Environmental Integration (DEI) performs this mission for USAES on a daily basis. DEI has doctrine, environmental, and

training development professionals, as well as an engineer and support staff to accomplish this mission. DEI canvassed

the Army community for the feature articles in this issue of Engineer and appreciates the input and sharing of information

for the Engineer Regiment. For further information on DEI, go to their Web site at <http://www.wood.army.mil/dei>.

exist. Prior planning and evaluation is essential to ensure the

safety of the force. Colocating solid waste and HAZWASTE

disposal facilities and recycling areas will make disposal easier,

allowing greater compliance by soldiers and units.

Poorly constructed and located solid waste burn pits create

an unacceptable hazard to soldiers. During initial base camp

development, burn pits should—

 Be large enough to ensure standoff from burning debris.

 Have controlled access to prevent unauthorized burning.

 Be located downwind of life support areas to reduce

exposure to smoke.

As camps develop, other disposal methods—such as onsite incinerators or contract hauling and disposal—should be

implemented.

The Engineer Writer’s Guide

Engineer is a professional-development bulletin designed

to provide a forum for exchanging information and ideas

within the Army engineer community. We include articles

by and about officers, enlisted soldiers, warrant officers,

Department of the Army civilian employees, and others.

Writers may discuss training, current operations and

exercises, doctrine, equipment, history, personal viewpoints, or other areas of general interest to engineers.

Articles may share good ideas and lessons learned or

explore better ways of doing things.

Articles should be concise, straightforward, and in the

active voice. If they contain attributable information or

quotations not referenced in the text, provide appropriate

endnotes. Text length should not exceed 2,000 words

(about eight double-spaced pages). Shorter after-actiontype articles and reviews of books on engineer topics are

also welcome.

Include photos (with captions) and/or line diagrams that

illustrate information in the article. Please do not include

illustrations or photos in the text; instead, send each of

them as a separate file. Do not embed photos in

PowerPoint. If illustrations are in PowerPoint, avoid excessive use of color and shading. Save digital images at a

resolution no lower than 200 dpi. Images copied from a

Web site must be accompanied by copyright permission.

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content

of the article. Also include a short biography, including

your full name, rank, current unit, and job title; a list of

your past assignments, experience, and education; your

mailing address; and a fax number and commercial daytime telephone number.

Include a statement with your article from your local

security office that the information contained in the article

is unclassified, nonsensitive, and releasable to the public.

Not only is Engineer distributed to military units worldwide,

it is also available for sale by the Government Printing

Office.

We cannot guarantee that we will publish all submitted

articles. They are accepted for publication only after

thorough review. If we plan to use your article in an

upcoming issue, we will notify you. Therefore it is important

to keep us informed of changes in your e-mail address or

telephone number. All articles accepted for publication are

subject to grammatical and structural changes as well as

editing for style.

Send submissions by e-mail to <engineer@

wood.army.mil> or send a 3 1/2-inch disk in Microsoft Word,

along with a double-spaced copy of the manuscript, to:

Editor, Engineer Professional Bulletin, 320 MANSCEN

Loop, Suite 348, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8929.

Note: Please indicate if your manuscript is being

considered for publication elsewhere. Due to the limited

space per issue, we seldom print articles that have been

accepted for publication by other Army professional

bulletins.